Yes Sued for Copyright Infringement

**malgeo** · 5 Days Ago

From Rolling Stone:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...it-1235165487/

The gist, copied and pasted:

A new lawsuit alleges members of the legendary progressive rock band Yes used a composition stolen from fellow prog-rock musician Riz Story as the basis for “Dare to Know,” the second single off Yes’ 2021 album The Quest.

The copyright infringement complaint, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles and obtained by Rolling Stone, alleges Jon Davison, the lead singer of Yes since 2012, conspired with guitarist Steve Howe to pilfer protected portions from a song titled “Reunion.” While “Reunion” hasn’t been released as a standalone song, it was featured in A Winter Rose, Story’s 2014 indie movie starring Paul Sorvino, Billy Zane, Taryn Manning, and Edward Furlong.

Story, whose legal name is Rudolph Zahler, alleges Davison was familiar with his music because they met in 1990 through late Foo Fighters drummer Taylor Hawkins and have worked together on-and-off for decades. According to Zahler, he, Davison, and Hawkins played together in the first version of his prog-rock band Anyone when they were in their early twenties.

Zahler alleges he helped Davison audition for his role in Yes and that Davison asked him to co-write songs for Yes in 2013. He claims Davison even agreed to pitch Zahler for a producer role on a Yes album, but that the band ultimately chose a different direction. The lawsuit alleges Davison specifically complimented Zahler on the music he wrote for A Winter Rose, including “Reunion.”

According to the lawsuit, Davison looked to Zahler again when Yes was producing The Quest, though this time he allegedly did it in secret. “Mr. Davison decided to just ‘steal’ Mr. Zahler’s song ‘Reunion’ for the album, rather than getting Mr. Zahler’s permission,” the new lawsuit filed by lawyer Larry J. Caldwell in the Central District of California reads. Zahler claims Davison brought “Reunion” to Howe, and then the men “decided to add lyrics to the music, affix the name ‘Dare to Know’ to the song, and attribute sole songwriting credit to Mr. Howe.” Zahler alleges Davison and Howe “conspired” to conceal their infringement by omitting Davison from the songwriting credits.

**smcfee** · 5 Days Ago

I suppose it's not a surprise Yes would be sued for releasing "The Quest", just didn't think it would be for stealing some of the music.

**Progatron** · 5 Days Ago

Originally Posted by smcfee

I suppose it's not a surprise Yes would be sued for releasing "The Quest", just didn't think it would be for stealing some of the music.

And it's not even the first time with that album! Well, they weren't sued over The Ice Bridge, but still...

**JJ88** · 5 Days Ago

Originally Posted by Progatron

And it's not even the first time with that album! Well, they weren't sued over The Ice Bridge, but still...

Couldn't make it up.

Originally Posted by arturs

I doubt the total profits from the Quest could possibly cover the legal bills of this case.

Well there is that. There are obviously nominal 'Yes fans' (like me) who never bought it.

**JAMOOL** · 5 Days Ago

agreed. PE should start a class action.

**arturs** · 5 Days Ago

Originally Posted by JAMOOL

agreed. PE should start a class action.

I actually like the album but this got a good laugh out of me.

The ridiculous thing about this lawsuit is, even if it has some merit, how much in "damages" could there possibly be? Neither the song or album charted in the USA, so who cares, in a financial sense? I doubt the total profits from the Quest could possibly cover the legal bills of this case.

**Mascodagama** · 4 Days Ago

Originally Posted by arturs

The ridiculous thing about this lawsuit is, even if it has some merit, how much in "damages" could there possibly be? Neither the song or album charted in the USA, so who cares, in a financial sense? I doubt the total profits from the Quest could possibly cover the legal bills of this case.

Absolutely. I mean how much money did the composers make out of this alleged infringement? Take the modest sales of the album. Divide to reflect that the composers only get a royalty on those sales, not the whole ball of wax. Divide to reflect that this is just one track on the album. Divide again to reflect that the disputed passage is just one part of the track.

Seems like there's only a few possibilities here:

1. Lawyer is short of work, agrees to a no-win no-fee arrangement hoping to scare up a quick settlement he can share in, knowing he will not take it to trial. A nuisance claim.

2. Lawyer and client are both dumb as rocks and have not thought this through.

3. Client is obsessed with his grievance over having his masterpiece stolen and has decided to pursue it without regard to any practical consequences. Claim will continue for as long as he can continue paying the lawyer and then will end.

**Mascodagama** · 5 Days Ago

Originally Posted by JAMOOL

agreed. PE should start a class action.

As far as I know, "the album sucked donkey balls" isn't an actionable tort. THOUGH IT SHOULD BE.

**auxfnx** · 5 Days Ago

would need to hear it to make any sort of judgement on the validity of the claim. these types of lawsuits are so often bollocks.
Dare To Know has a chord progression the same as or similar to one in Alan Parson's 'Turn of a Friendly Card' and Blood Sweat and Tears' 'Sometimes in Winter' as well, but chord progressions are so often reused and should not be copyrightable.

**Batchman** · 4 Days Ago

Originally Posted by auxfnx

would need to hear it to make any sort of judgement on the validity of the claim. these types of lawsuits are so often bollocks.
Dare To Know has a chord progression the same as or similar to one in Alan Parson's 'Turn of a Friendly Card' and Blood Sweat and Tears' 'Sometimes in Winter' as well, but chord progressions are so often reused and should not be copyrightable.

It's more about the melody (discussed in depth elsewhere on this thread) than the chord progression.

That melodic figuration (a four-note stepwise descending phrase followed by its repetition a step below) is utilized in other places as well, including "Black Magic Woman" and "What Is Life" (the latter song owing more than a bit to Spencer Davis Group's "Keep On Runnin'", by the way).

**Mister Triscuits** · 3 Days Ago

Originally Posted by Batchman

That melodic figuration (a four-note stepwise descending phrase followed by its repetition a step below) is utilized in other places as well, including "Black Magic Woman" and "What Is Life" (the latter song owing more than a bit to Spencer Davis Group's "Keep On Runnin'", by the way).

I’ve finally gotten around to actually checking out the “melody” in question, and you’re right, it’s ridiculously generic. It’s nothing but a descending tetrachord, followed by another a step lower, and another a step lower again. It’s more like a scale exercise than a melody…and I seem to remember saying exactly that about some of Howe’s themes when The Quest first came out. Riz is fulla beanz.

**Jacob** · 5 Days Ago

In many cases it's very common to be unaware that you used someone else's hook for a song. It's not as if you're going to sit and listen to thousands of albums just to figure out if you did? That's ridiculous!

A piece of music that is considered public domain is often arranged in different ways and that can be interesting to pursue. Several signature lines/melodies from the medieval or renaissance times reused or re-arranged by Jethro Tull and others is typical.

Camel actually recorded a melody from a Beatles song on the Moonmadness album...however was an inferior amount of profit made from the Moonmadness album? No I don't believe so. This all seems to revolve around money. There are many bands that adapted melodies written over the last 50 plus years and were never sued. That truly doesn't mean that the artist intentionally copied it. In music that happens naturally and unknowingly, but unfortunately a lot of people do not understand that...

**stickman393** · 5 Days Ago

I'd be astounded if Howe doesn't have future Homebrew recordings of early versions of "Dare To Know" that would pretty much put the lid on this one.

**Steve983** · 5 Days Ago

Good luck with the $Millions of dollars that Dare To Know must have generated

I mean one obscure song sounds like an even more obscure one, seems ridiculous to me.

**Facelift** · 3 Days Ago

Originally Posted by Steve983

Good luck with the $Millions of dollars that Dare To Know must have generated

I mean one obscure song sounds like an even more obscure one, seems ridiculous to me.

That’s the aspect that, IMO, gives it a presumption of merit. Take a flier on a specious claim to get a piece of something huge? Sure, that happens. But take the time and money to sue over this? These are the lawsuits that get filed as a matter principle.

**wilcox660** · 5 Days Ago

Interesting-ish.

**Man In The Mountain** · 5 Days Ago

I only wondering now if we can return the album for a full refund?

**Plasmatopia** · 5 Days Ago

That guy's gonna be rich!

**progmatist** · 5 Days Ago

Apparently the industry has reached a point the only way to earn money as a musician is to sue a more well known band.

**r2daft2** · 5 Days Ago

So Rudolph Zahler ruined The Quest?

Yes should sue him.

**Kcrimso** · 5 Days Ago

Yes should steal better songs.

**JAMOOL** · 5 Days Ago

that's right, I won a lawsuit against Yes because they stole one of my songs. uh, no, not that one. or that one. actually none of those guys are even on it. umm...it's on their 2021 album. well uh, people said it was better than the last one at least. oh, you gotta take a call? in the other room?