{"id":8425,"date":"2021-09-22T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-09-22T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=8425"},"modified":"2021-09-19T18:49:47","modified_gmt":"2021-09-19T18:49:47","slug":"olivia-rodrigos-music-copyright-controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/olivia-rodrigos-music-copyright-controversy\/","title":{"rendered":"Olivia Rodrigo\u2019s Music Copyright Controversy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Since Olivia Rodrigo\u2019s smash-hit debut album Sour<\/em> was released in May, she has repeatedly faced plagiarism accusations. In response, she retroactively granted songwriting credits to the songwriters whom she allegedly plagiarized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This has happened not once, not twice, but a shocking three times so far. First<\/a>, she granted songwriting credits to Taylor Swift and Jack Antonoff for her song \u201c1 Step Forward, 3 Steps Back,\u201d which is based on Swift\u2019s \u201cNew Year\u2019s Day\u201d from 2017. Then<\/a>, she credited Swift and Antonoff again, along with St. Vincent. This time it was for her song \u201cDeja vu,\u201d based on Swift\u2019s 2019 hit \u201cCruel Summer.\u201d Finally<\/a>, in late August she granted songwriting credits to Paramore\u2019s Hayley Williams and Joshua Farro for using part of Paramore\u2019s 2007 song \u201cMisery Business\u201d on her hit \u201cGood 4 U.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social media helped fuel the controversy regarding similarities between Rodrigo\u2019s songs and other pieces. For example, popular TikTok creator Jarred Jermaine released a video<\/a> in May comparing \u201cGood 4 U\u201d to \u201cMisery Business.\u201d His video has accumulated more than 5 million views as of mid-September. There is also a Reddit thread<\/a> titled \u201cHow is Olivia Rodrigo not being sued for plagiarism?\u201d that has prompted a host of comments, with commentors both defending and criticizing Rodrigo. Commentors also question the originality of some of Rodrigo\u2019s other songs on Sour<\/em>, suggesting that Rodrigo may have to grant more songwriting credits in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Williams v. Gaye<\/em> ushered in a new era in music copyright law. Today, sensible artists promptly grant songwriting credits when accused of plagiarism, well before the case can end up in the courtroom.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Rodrigo is not the first musician caught in a plagiarism controversy. Recent music copyright disputes<\/a> have involved Radiohead, Lana Del Ray, the Rolling Stones, David Bowie, and more. Perhaps freshest in the public\u2019s memory is the highly publicized case over 2013\u2019s best-selling single of the summer, \u201cBlurred Lines.\u201d In the case, Williams v. Gaye<\/em><\/a>, \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d writers Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and rapper T.I. were sued for copying part of Marvin Gaye\u2019s best-selling 1977 song \u201cGot To Give It Up.\u201d In this battle-of-the-hit-singles that reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Gaye\u2019s hit came out on top. In the end, Gaye\u2019s estate was awarded more than $5 million<\/a> in damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The American Bar Association<\/a> describes music copyright cases as \u201cunique, costly, difficult, and complex,\u201d partly due to the confusing nature of the cases. Music copyrighting is complicated, and juries are often unfamiliar with this niche area of law. Musical experts are called in to explain nuanced concepts at trial. Further, jurors may not understand exactly where to draw the line between using a song as inspiration and copying the song. When discussing the jurors\u2019 mindset during the Williams v. Gaye<\/em> trial, the ABA notes that \u201cto a careful juror [it may have seemed that] any copying of the Gaye composition brings liability.\u201d The outcome of the case is still debated amongst legal scholars today. Regardless, Williams v. Gaye<\/em> ushered in a new era in music copyright law. Today, sensible artists promptly grant songwriting credits when accused of plagiarism, well before the case can end up in the courtroom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Granting songwriting credit is not just a symbolic gesture\u2014it comes with a huge pay cut<\/a> for Rodrigo. As seen in Williams v. Gaye<\/em>, songwriters who are found to have plagiarized can owe millions in damages. In Rodrigo\u2019s case, this matter never reached the courts, but Rodrigo still loses millions, even without enduring a legal battle. By listing Taylor Swift and others as songwriters, she entitles them to royalties that will continue to accumulate for years to come. For example, Rodrigo\u2019s royalties for \u201cDeja Vu\u201d were originally split between only her and her co-writer Daniel Nigro. Now, Rodrigo and Nigro are entitled to only 50% of the song\u2019s royalties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Despite the significant monetary losses Rodrigo will experience from granting songwriting credits, she may have saved herself money in the long run. In a post-Williams v. Gaye<\/em> era, Rodrigo was wise to grant songwriting credits before lawsuits were filed, thus saving a great amount of time, money, and further bad publicity. More music copyright controversies are likely to arise in the future, and Olivia Rodrigo\u2019s actions should serve as an example for how to quickly rectify the situation when caught in a plagiarism controversy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sarah Cheeley<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before law school, Sarah attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for college, where she double majored in History and Sociology. In law school, Sarah is a member of Women in Law and an avid pro bono participant. Sarah is interested in pursuing a career in litigation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Since Olivia Rodrigo\u2019s smash-hit debut album Sour was released in May, she has repeatedly faced plagiarism accusations. In response, she retroactively granted songwriting credits to the songwriters whom she allegedly plagiarized. This has happened not once, not twice, but a shocking three times so far. First, she granted songwriting credits to Taylor Swift and Jack …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[182,179,184,176,177,180,183,178,181],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8425"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8425"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8425\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8427,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8425\/revisions\/8427"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}