This month’s blog revisits the pending lawsuit filed by Joe Satriani against Coldplay for copyright infringement.  Some background in copyright law is necessary to evaluate the merits of Satriani’s case.  Let’s start with the basics of copyright law.

Under Section 106 of the Copyright Act,  copyright owners are granted certain exclusive rights.  A copyright owner has the right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display or prepare derivative works.  A claim for copyright infringement arises under Section 501 of the Act when someone violates the owner’s exclusive rights.  In order to prove a claim of copyright infringement, the copyright owner must prove two things: ownership of the copyright and proof that defendant copied the work. 

Ownership can be proven by providing a copy of the registration on file with the Copyright Office.  Proof of actual copying is very difficult to prove unless you are a fly on the wall in the musician’s rehearsal studio.  Courts recognize that eyewitness testimony rarely exists.  Thus, in order to prove that copying occurred, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant had access to the work and that there are substantial similarities between the two works.  This legal analysis will be the crux of Satriani’s case.

Satriani’s attorney must prove Coldplay had access to his song “If I Could Fly.”  Access can be shown where defendant had reasonable opportunity to view or to copy plaintiff’s work and can be proven through circumstantial evidence.  Wide distribution or sales of the plaintiff’s song can be used to show that defendant had access to the song or a reasonable opportunity to hear it.  Satriani will show that his song pre-dated Coldplay’s song, that his album reached number 80 on the Billboard charts during 2004 and had global distribution.  Furthermore, a 2002 interview between Chris Martin and VH1 demonstrates that Martin was well aware of Satriani’s work as an artist:

“VH1: You’re always hinting that maybe this might be the last Coldplay record.

Chris: We’ll wait and see. I sometimes think we’re just a one-hit wonder and that’s it for us. Other times I know that it’s not true. Being in Coldplay is what I live for, and I’d be gutted if people didn’t want us around. This is getting depressing! This is going to be on VH1’s 100 Saddest Stories: the day we gave up because no one liked us. Get Joe Satriani to comment on that!” 

Coldplay might be able to rebut the presumption that they had access to the song by showing that Satriani’s song had little radio airplay and was virtually unknown to British audiences including the members of the band.  But the bottom line is: no matter how similar two songs are, no copyright infringement exists if the defendant can show that the songs were created independently of each other.  For purposes of the rest of this discussion, we will assume that evidence of independent creation does not exist.

In addition to access, Satriani must also prove that “Viva La Vida” is substantially similar to his song “If I Could Fly.”  The courts have employed a multitude of tests to determine whether two works are substantially similar but an explanation of these tests is well beyond the scope of this blog.  Suffice it to say, it is not necessary that the whole song be copied.  Infringement will be found even where a brief portion of a song is copied.  

Satriani will claim that the portion of his song that was copied by Coldplay is 1) the hook, 2) repeated twice during the song; and 3) the most important part of his composition.  Musicologists will be brought in to analyze the two songs side by side but it will be more than a comparison of musical notes.  If the musical composition is particularly intricate or unique, this weighs in favor of a claim of infringement. 

Typically, chord progressions, song structure, rhythm and melody by themselves are not copyrightable elements because copyright law does not protect ideas but rather the original expression of those ideas.  To determine whether the songs are substantially similar, you must consider the two works as a whole and whether a reasonable person would conclude that the defendant copied from the original.  This standard focuses both on the similarities and the differences between the songs.  As I have mentioned in past blogs, many armchair musicologists on the Internet have offered their own opinions as to the similarities between the songs.

Courts recognize that in the field of popular music, audiences tend to like melodies that are pleasing to the ear.  Thus, some melodies are likely to recur in popular music.  Perhaps, Coldplay heard Satriani’s song, found that the hook in the song was pleasing to the ear and subconsciously repeated this interlude in “Viva La Vida”.  However, cryptomnesia or unconscious copying is not a defense as evidenced in one of the seminal cases of copyright infringement. Former Beatle, George Harrison was held liable for copyright infringement even though the Court believed that he did not deliberately copy from a previous song.  

Particularly damaging is Coldplay’s own admission that they have a pattern of copying other artists.  Satriani will likely introduce Martin’s own statements into evidence:  1) admitted in an interview that their song “Shiver” was a Jeff Buckley rip-off; 2) admitted at a concert that their song “sounded a bit too much” like Radiohead’s song; 3) admitted in a televised performance that they copied Kate Bush’s song; and 4) admitted to Rolling Stone magazine that they are “incredibly good plagiarists”.

Although it seems pretty damning, the concept of “prior art” could actually work in Coldplay’s favor.  Given that Creaky Boards and Cat Stevens also claim “Viva La Vida” is a rip-off of their respective songs, it could be said that this particular arrangement of notes is one that is commonly found in popular music. In fact, the song “Frances Limon” which predates both plaintiff and defendant’s songs employs almost the same arrangement of musical notes. Coldplay’s drummer points out what courts have repeatedly recognized: that there are a finite number of musical notes and combinations in which those notes that can be arranged.

The upshot of the legal battle between Satriani and Coldplay is publicity and music sales.  In fact, Billboard reports that digital downloads of Satriani’s song have shot up exponentially since filing the lawsuit in December 2008.  Satriani is receiving mostly positive publicity from the lawsuit but Coldplay’s success does not make them a very sympathetic defendant.  Satriani is creating his own David & Goliath story and as expected everyone likes to root for the underdog.