Yes Sued for Copyright Infringement

[Mr.Krautman]

There are indeed strong similarities but the melodic sequence is so basic and simplistic that any (uninspired) musician could have created it almost by accident and chances are high it had been already used before in other works.
But there are traces of a recent similar antecedent with F.Monkman (settled outside of courts) which (if mentioned) could be used to weaken the credibility of the sued. Unquestionable previous (artistic) collaborations between the plaintiff and the sued won't help the latter either. Repeated legal actions for artistic plagiarism is never good...

[bondegezou]

There are indeed strong similarities but the melodic sequence is so basic and simplistic that any (uninspired) musician could have created it almost by accident and chances are high it had been already used before in other works.
But there are traces of a recent similar antecedent with F.Monkman (settled outside of courts) which (if mentioned) could be used to weaken the credibility of the sued. Unquestionable previous (artistic) collaborations between the plaintiff and the sued won't help the latter either. Repeated legal actions for artistic plagiarism is never good...

And that's presumably why Story picked on The Quest. Instead of thinking there is a valid claim here, or even that Story misguidedly believes there is, one can see this as being more cynical. Picking something that sounds like a track on The Quest, because TQ already has the history of "The Ice Bridge" error, is a deliberate part of the strategy to garner attention and get people on your side.

[Mr.Krautman]

And that's presumably why Story picked on The Quest. Instead of thinking there is a valid claim here, or even that Story misguidedly believes there is, one can see this as being more cynical. Picking something that sounds like a track on The Quest, because TQ already has the history of "The Ice Bridge" error, is a deliberate part of the strategy to garner attention and get people on your side.

Looks like a deliberate strategy to me too.
There's no way Story wasn't aware of the Monkman "error".

[Sputnik]

His last album was heavily promoted as having Jon Davison guesting on it. I'm guessing Davison isn't going to guest again. Story has thus lost that opportunity to cash in, and I suspect that will cost him more in the long run.

Surely, he's lost his connections to Davidson and the Yes crowd. He probably got all out of that he was going to get. I think it's an open question what he might gain by being perceived as a "David" going up against the "Yes Goliath." This story is getting coverage beyond what his album alone received. This may be good for his public profile, win or lose. Hard to say right now.

The musicologist's assessment is overly generous (which is presumably why he was employed). See this debunking video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGyfrs7CQYU

The report claims there are 10 notes in "Reunion" that match a sequence with one additional note in "Dare to Know". The pieces are in different keys, so you have to transpose them to match. That means the first note will always match! So we're down to 9 notes out of 10 matching. But the musicologist ignores 3 notes where there is a natural/flat distinction between the two pieces. So, it's only 6 notes out of 10 actually matching, I believe. So, some similarity, but not "almost identical".

Yeah, I did my own analysis of this back on page 2 of this thread, and I reached similar conclusions as the guy in the video. I'll repeat what I said there:

"The basic idea is identical, but it has been tweaked a bit. If the whole thing hinges on this section by itself, I'd personally say this idea was "borrowed" or "adapted" to suit the Yes song. From a legal perspective, I'm not sure if the tweaks constitute enough of a change to exempt this from plagiarism or infringement. In the context of the overall song, this is a fairly trivial part, and a somewhat typical type of pattern, though not as typical as the descending cadence is Stairway to Heaven that the Spirit guy claimed was stolen.

I think it's 50/50 how this goes, depending on what evidence Howe and Davidson have of developing the part independently, or the impact of the very real differences between the two parts. Also, like the Stairway section, this is a small part of a larger song. It's not like this part is the basis of the piece. The Yes song goes to many places that Dare to Know does not. I'm not sure what legal impact that has on infringement. It's not like "My Sweet Lord" that basically stole the entire chord pattern and melody of "He's So Fine.""

So, in a sense, I agree with what the guy in the video is saying, but I still hear enough similarity there that I wouldn't toss the case out based solely on those differences. I do agree that the musicologist marked some tones as identical that clearly are not, which reduces the degree of exactness, but the two sections still really similar - too similar for me to feel this was solely a coincidence. I also agree with the guy in the video that this is just one part and that "Dare to Know" does lots of other things, but that doesn't mean there wasn't infringement of that particular part. This was true in the Stairway to Heaven case as well, and I assume that had his estate won, Randy California would have been given a writing credit and some portion of the royalties of Stairway based on that.

I'd just reiterate that I think it's 50/50 how this goes. It's not a slam dunk, but there are a lot of factors too look at, and too much of a familiarity to simply dismiss it off hand.

Story is suing Howe, Yes and Sony. Sony has deeper pockets than Howe, Yes or Story and might have different feelings about such cases. I don't know whether that makes a settlement more or less likely, but I do presume Sony have an experienced team to handle cases like this. Reading the legal submission, it is apparent Story does not have an experienced team!

Yeah, Sony may step up and fight it harder, and with more firepower, than Story can muster, assuming it's worth it to them. We'll see how it goes.

Bill

[bondegezou]

Surely, he's lost his connections to Davidson and the Yes crowd. He probably got all out of that he was going to get. I think it's an open question what he might gain by being perceived as a "David" going up against the "Yes Goliath." This story is getting coverage beyond what his album alone received. This may be good for his public profile, win or lose. Hard to say right now.



Yeah, I did my own analysis of this back on page 2 of this thread, and I reached similar conclusions as the guy in the video. I'll repeat what I said there:

"The basic idea is identical, but it has been tweaked a bit. If the whole thing hinges on this section by itself, I'd personally say this idea was "borrowed" or "adapted" to suit the Yes song. From a legal perspective, I'm not sure if the tweaks constitute enough of a change to exempt this from plagiarism or infringement. In the context of the overall song, this is a fairly trivial part, and a somewhat typical type of pattern, though not as typical as the descending cadence is Stairway to Heaven that the Spirit guy claimed was stolen.

I think it's 50/50 how this goes, depending on what evidence Howe and Davidson have of developing the part independently, or the impact of the very real differences between the two parts. Also, like the Stairway section, this is a small part of a larger song. It's not like this part is the basis of the piece. The Yes song goes to many places that Dare to Know does not. I'm not sure what legal impact that has on infringement. It's not like "My Sweet Lord" that basically stole the entire chord pattern and melody of "He's So Fine.""

So, in a sense, I agree with what the guy in the video is saying, but I still hear enough similarity there that I wouldn't toss the case out based solely on those differences. I do agree that the musicologist marked some tones as identical that clearly are not, which reduces the degree of exactness, but the two sections still really similar - too similar for me to feel this was solely a coincidence. I also agree with the guy in the video that this is just one part and that "Dare to Know" does lots of other things, but that doesn't mean there wasn't infringement of that particular part. This was true in the Stairway to Heaven case as well, and I assume that had his estate won, Randy California would have been given a writing credit and some portion of the royalties of Stairway based on that.

I'd just reiterate that I think it's 50/50 how this goes. It's not a slam dunk, but there are a lot of factors too look at, and too much of a familiarity to simply dismiss it off hand.


Yeah, Sony may step up and fight it harder, and with more firepower, than Story can muster, assuming it's worth it to them. We'll see how it goes.

Bill

Your analysis appears to take the claim as true to start with, when you talk of the idea being "tweaked". I don't see any strong evidence that Howe ever heard "Reunion". I think he came up with a fairly obvious 10 note phrase, that has a 60% match on scale differences by chance with something Story had written. I don't think he tweaked anything.

[happytheman]

Jon has released a statement..
https://www.yesworld.com/2024/11/jon...Lenf2PGkYWb2sQ

[Frumious B]

Your analysis appears to take the claim as true to start with, when you talk of the idea being "tweaked". I don't see any strong evidence that Howe ever heard "Reunion". I think he came up with a fairly obvious 10 note phrase, that has a 60% match on scale differences by chance with something Story had written. I don't think he tweaked anything.

Howe would have either have to have sat through that awful, unwatchable film independently to hear the music and nick it or he would have to have heard the idea from Davison and taken the credit for himself either thinking it was Davison’s idea or knowing that Davison nicked it from Story but thinking it was just too good an idea to pass up. None of those possibilities makes a whole lot of sense to me. So I’m going with “coincidence”.

[Frumious B]

Jon has released a statement..
https://www.yesworld.com/2024/11/jon...Lenf2PGkYWb2sQ

Wow. So let’s see if Rolling Stone etc. covers this statement with the same enthusiasm they covered the lawsuit the other day.

[bondegezou]

Jon has released a statement..
https://www.yesworld.com/2024/11/jon...Lenf2PGkYWb2sQ

Brutal, but deservedly so.

[battema]

Reading all that I gotta ask: what's Riz's PE handle

Joking aside (and making the blanket assumption that Jon's interpretation of things is ultimately shown to be accurate)...it's really uneasy to read stuff like that. In terms of familiar notes and melodies, Jon's account of this "friendship" definitely strikes some familiar beats to some incidents in my past. I doubt I'm the only one.

[unclemeat]

If this goes to court, it won't end well for Story and Lustig (one of those experts who has found a trick to game the system). Bear in mind that judges won't listen to the pieces. This kind of issues are settled via the examination of transcriptions, i.e by the looks. This is why there is much insistence on a degree of ''pitch similarity'' in the melody. The similarity here is evident, since the idea is quite banal. The sophistry consists in considering the melodic lines (the salient parts, the hooks) on their own. But, if both melodies are heard in their respective harmonic context, the resulting fully formed musical ideas can be differentiated.

[auxfnx]

This is a good video about this kind of thing:

[Sputnik]

Your analysis appears to take the claim as true to start with, when you talk of the idea being "tweaked". I don't see any strong evidence that Howe ever heard "Reunion". I think he came up with a fairly obvious 10 note phrase, that has a 60% match on scale differences by chance with something Story had written. I don't think he tweaked anything.

Let me put it a little differently. Hearing the two parts side by side, they sound extremely similar to me. I did my own analysis of the tones involved and came up with results similar to the guy in the video who challenged the findings of the musicologist in the complaint. I still think they sound very similar... possibly too similar for coincidence. If I were a juror, I'd think there was merit to the case.

As a juror, however, I'd have to keep an open mind to all the evidence, and the established degree of similarity that is required for plagiarism or infringement. Is a 60% match good enough when other factors sound so similar? I don't know. Is there other evidence showing Howe may have been exposed to the idea previously? I don't know. Those are the things that would have to play out, and that's really where I stand on it.

I just think the two parts are very similar, despite their subtle differences, and that it's wrong to dismiss the idea wholesale without hearing all of Story's evidence. I have no idea how it will wind up.

Jon has released a statement..
https://www.yesworld.com/2024/11/jon...Lenf2PGkYWb2sQ

I think he should have saved all this for the courtroom. I also don't think that Topographic snippet sounds like, or has any real musical similarity to, either of the two parts in question. It's clearly derived from the main theme in "The Ancient," and has no real bearing on this.

If this goes to court, it won't end well for Story and Lustig (one of those experts who has found a trick to game the system). Bear in mind that judges won't listen to the pieces. This kind of issues are settled via the examination of transcriptions, i.e by the looks. This is why there is much insistence on a degree of ''pitch similarity'' in the melody. The similarity here is evident, since the idea is quite banal. The sophistry consists in considering the melodic lines (the salient parts, the hooks) on their own. But, if both melodies are heard in their respective harmonic context, the resulting fully formed musical ideas can be differentiated.

I think it depends on what was submitted for copyright what is admissible in court. Taurus wasn't heard in court because only the score was submitted for copyright, not the recording. If story submitted a recording of Reunion, it may well be played side by side with Dare to Know in the courtroom. The detailed musical analysis will be a big part of the discussion, but if it goes to trial and the jurors hear the recording, that may have an influence.

Bill