102 replies to this topic

[swandown]

Sorry, but all of the points you've made are completely silly. For starters, Jansch wasn't "giving" his albums or the songs on them away for free.

Your statement shows a complete lack of understanding of how writing credits work.

When you credit a song as "Trad", you are stating that you claim no writing credit. You are also stating that anyone -- ANYONE -- can legally record the EXACT SAME SONG without giving you any royalties.

Anyone could record Jansch's version of "Blackwaterside" and claim the royalties for themselves. That's how the law works. If you disagree with that, then hate the game, not the player.

The difference between him and Page is that Jansch followed the proper process for crediting the songs on his albums accurately

First off, Jansch is no stranger to stealing writing credits. The early Pentangle albums contain several re-writes of blues songs that just happen to credit Jansch as co-writer.

Second, it makes no difference to Jansch if Page "followed the proper process" or not. If Page had credited "Black Mountain Side" as "Trad" (which is what you're so upset about, I presume)......guess what? JANSCH STILL WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED ANY ROYALTIES FOR THE SONG!!!

Did you not know that?

The only difference between crediting the song to "Page" instead of "Trad" is that it prevents anyone from using the unique title "Black Mountain Side" without crediting Page. That's all. Page was legally entitled to 100% of the royalties either way.

Oh, and ANYONE can record a cover of Zep's song and LEGALLY claim 100% of those royalties, too!! They just can't call it "Black Mountain Side" without crediting Page.

And Jansch still receives 100% of the royalties for his recording of the song. He hasn't been deprived of one thin dime.

So, to think that he somehow didn't know about Jansch's unique abilities as a player is absolutely absurd.

Bottom line: Jansch credited his guitar part as Traditional. That made it fair game for anyone. (BTW, there have been dozens of covers of "Blackwaterside" over the past 40 years. Many of them copy Jansch's guitar part virtually note-for-note. NONE of them credit Jansch as writer or arranger. Gee, I wonder why you and Jansch aren't mad at them??)

(newsflash, Page set up his publishing company Superhype as one of the first steps when he got Zeppelin started - something none of his contemporaries ever did themselves)

Absolute ignorance. Dozens of musicians had their own publishing companies. Ever heard of Northern Songs, Harrisongs, or Startling Music?

Seriously, you should do a little more research next time.

[swandown]

Uh, no. Those that did the same thing got the same result that Page and Plant got. They got sued, and lost.

For the record, Page and Plant have never lost a songwriting copyright lawsuit.

At this point I must question if you have any interest in discussing factual matters or if you just want to twist words and spread myths.

Edited by swandown, 27 April 2011 - 11:54 AM.

[hecube]

Just a point for anyone to think about: if, as a composer, you make an arrangement of a public domain song, most countries' legislations will recognize the arrangement as an original work if you declare it as such, something Bert Jansch obviously did:

http://repertoire.bm...uerytype=WorkID

The proper way (keep in mind there are no legal obligations) to credit such an arrangement would be:

Black Water Side
Trad. arrangement: Bert Jansch
Copyright 1966 (or whichever year) David Platz Music Inc.

The fact that no lawsuit has been brought to bear on Jimmy Page might be because Jansch's arrangement may not have been properly registered in the 60s, just having been credited to "Trad.". That arrangement would then have been fair game for others to use.

The fact that the song is now published indicates that, at some point, Jansch saw the light of day. All the rest hinges on dates, proper procedures and local legislation.

[swandown]

Just a point for anyone to think about: if, as a composer, you make an arrangement of a public domain song, most countries' legislations will recognize the arrangement as an original work if you declare it as such, something Bert Jansch obviously did:

http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=121852&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID

The proper way (keep in mind there are no legal obligations) to credit such an arrangement would be:

Black Water Side
Trad. arrangement: Bert Jansch
Copyright 1966 (or whichever year) David Platz Music Inc.

This copyright gives Jansch the rights to 100% of the royalties for his recording of the song -- but only for his recording.

When Anne Briggs credits her version as "Trad., arr. Briggs" then she gets 100% for her version. Sandy Denny credits it as "Trad. arr. Denny" and she gets 100% of the royalties for her version (and so on and so on). That system has been in place for 50+ years now. If you look in the BMI and ASCAP archives, there are at least a dozen other entries for "Blackwaterside", none of which credit Jansch.

Unfortunately for Jansch, the system does not care if Page's arrangement is 1% original or 100% original. Either way, he is entitled to 100% of the royalties for his version only.

[cookieshoes]

For the record, Page and Plant have never lost a songwriting copyright lawsuit.

At this point I must question if you have any interest in discussing factual matters or if you just want to twist words and spread myths.

Uh, they never had to lose a case, because in every instance they settled out of court. In the cases of Jansch and Graham, neither man took Page to court. That only reflects on them for not having bothered, and doesn't make Page immune to his thefts in any way. Up until recently, Jake Holmes hadn't bothered. Now he has. Whether or not the other people Page stole from take him to court is not the issue. If a person steals a car and no one catches him, that doesn't make him any less of a thief. So, now you want to try and focus on the the fact that since they were never handed down "guilty" verdicts by a court, while ignoring that they themselves paid out millions to the likes of Dixon and others to avoid such conclusions, that somehow that makes it to mean that they didn't commit the wrong?

All you've provided are the same apologist responses, and in the same circular manner. And you haven't addressed the multiple examples I've pointed out, instead using the same downward spiral of logic.
This is typical in this matter. Because people simply hate accepting the fact that Page did what he did. So each example gets the same cycle of denial responses.

Point out that Page showed a lack of integrity in what he did, and the response is that "everyone" was doing it.
Point out that in fact few people made a career out of copying other's work without paying credit, and then the response becomes "Well, it was a traditional song anyway".
Point out that even IF it's a traditional song, then you should credit it as Traditional. Not, "James Page". What's more is that in the case of Black Mountainside, it's even more appropriate to put "Traditional, arranged in the style of.... " or "a la", which is what Classical musicans and composers have done for years when re-interpreting or covering the work or versions of others. But still to even this, the response gets reduced to "Well, Jansch was covering someone else" so, Page was just doing the same thing, and making his "own" version. This response is the most absurd, because Jansch credited his version as traditional, and there is no mistaking the fingerpicking guitar playing that Jansch created for the song, which Page copied outright, uncredited. Again, see Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner at Woodstock, and compare that to Christina Aguilera doing the same song at the Super Bowl vocally. No comparison between the two. What's more is that this is not the ONLY thing that Page took from Jansch or Davy Graham, and the examples are numerous and well-known.

And yet, finally, once all of the many examples get brought up, which prove all of Page's numerous thefts, then the response goes back to "Well, everyone was doing it".

Edited by cookieshoes, 27 April 2011 - 12:56 PM.

[cookieshoes]

Absolute ignorance. Dozens of musicians had their own publishing companies. Ever heard of Northern Songs, Harrisongs, or Startling Music?

Seriously, you should do a little more research next time.

Are you kidding? All three of those companies were set up by Epstein and James for the Beatles. Got anymore of the "dozens" you can name?

MANAGERS set up the publishing companies, because that's where the money was. From the royalties. That was the typical.
Page knew this, which is why he took the step of setting up Superhype himself, and which is why he consistently credited himself on pieces when he should've been crediting bluesmen and people like Jansch and Graham.

Stick to the facts you can support, don't just make stuff up.

[swandown]

Uh, they never had to lose a case

Oh gee, if only you'd said that in the first place......

Those that did the same thing got the same result that Page and Plant got. They got sued, and lost.

[cookieshoes]

Oh gee, if only you'd said that in the first place......

What I said made perfect sense. In every case, they were sued, and they lost by way of agreeing to settling. They had sense enough to admit to their errors, and they paid up. So, whether or not you want to believe that "settling for millions" doesn't mean "losing" is your own interpretation.

You can bet that Page didn't see it as "winning" to have to add Burnett and Dixon as co-authors to tracks on Zeppelin II.

[swandown]

Are you kidding? All three of those companies were set up by Epstein and James for the Beatles.

Northern Songs Ltd. is a company founded in 1963 by music publisher Dick James, Brian Epstein, and The Beatles

Emphasis on "and The Beatles". The Beatles owned a 31.7% share in the company.

Also, you are wrong about Harrisongs and Startling Music. Neither of those were set up by Epstein and James (Epstein had been dead for a year, in case you didn't know.)

Got anymore of the "dozens" you can name?

Sure.

The Dave Clark Five, The Buckinghams, Roy Acuff, Webb Pierce, Dolly Parton, Buddy Holly, Ray Price, Mitch Murray, the Beach Boys (technically formed by their father on their behalf, since the boys were under 18), Mick Jagger & Keith Richards, plus the 3 I mentioned earlier and I've got one to spare.

Seriously. Do some research once in a while.

[hecube]

This copyright gives Jansch the rights to 100% of the royalties for his recording of the song -- but only for his recording.

As I wrote, it all depends on dates and procedures.

If Jansch published his arrangement at the time the song was recorded, then he has a legitimate claim against Page. If it was done years afterwards, then he can only facepalm.

In any cases, no matter in what year he decided to have his arrangement published, the arrangement is protected as would be an original song (not the recording, which is another kind of right entirely, but the arrangement) against all claims by anyone.

My feeling is that Page's "arrangement" is in a gray area, a period within which Jansch failed to have his arrangement published.

[swandown]

What I said made perfect sense. In every case, they were sued, and they lost by way of agreeing to settling. They had sense enough to admit to their errors, and they paid up.

This is false on 3 points:

1. they weren't "sued" in every case. In some cases, a settlement was reached without a lawsuit being filed. For example, Anne Bredon never sued.

2. since the terms of these settlements were rarely made public, you cannot state with certainty that they "lost" every case, nor can you state with certainty that they "paid up" in every case.

3. reaching a settlement is NOT the same as admitting their errors. Again, you haven't seen the details of the settlements so you cannot state that they admitted anything.

[swandown]

Point out that even IF it's a traditional song, then you should credit it as Traditional. Not, "James Page". What's more is that in the case of Black Mountainside, it's even more appropriate to put "Traditional, arranged in the style of.... " or "a la", which is what Classical musicans and composers have done for years

Huh? Now you are claiming that rock musicians are supposed to credit their recordings just like classical music?!? Where on earth did you come up with that one?

Can you show me some examples of rock or pop musicians using that exact type of writing credit prior to 1969?

[cookieshoes]

Huh? Now you are claiming that rock musicians are supposed to credit their recordings just like classical music?!? Where on earth did you come up with that one?

Can you show me some examples of rock or pop musicians using that exact type of writing credit prior to 1969?

That's the point now? Because rock musicians frequently ripped off each other, then it shouldn't be handled in an honest manner? Classical musicians handled it that way, because the art form and the ethics behind it were long established. Not to mention, it was far more difficult to pass off another's work, because the very nature of classical music revolved around development of melodies and music theory, which is not easy to simply copy without someone noticing.

Rock was a new format as of the 50's, and was predicated mostly on white people ripping off the music of African-Americans, just as they had done with Jazz. Soon enough, the rock acts were mostly just teenagers and twenty-something copying each other, which is where managers came in to really make the money. So, no wonder they were able to clumsily get away with so much theft and copying. Nobody was watching, and nobody cared. It took until the 1980's for a lot of these things to come to light, and now the instance of these types of thefts isn't nearly as obvious, and whenever they occur you can be sure that artists will be taken to court over it.

Try doing a straight-copy of someone's song today. Try copying "Hey Jude" and retitling it "Hey Judy" and see how fast you get sued out of existence by the Beatles estate.
Ever hear about the case with The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony"? That song was a global hit, and the only real breakout hit the Verve ever had. The song used a small sample from Andrew Oldham's orchestrated version of the Rolling Stone's "Last Time". As a result of the uncredited use of the sample, and the resulting lawsuit, the ENTIRE songwriting credit of "Bittersweet Symphony" is now assigned to Jagger and Richards.

Had Page done what he did in the 60's today, he would've suffered the same fate on several Zeppelin tracks. As it was, his contemporaries were already getting sued. Just look at George Harrison's lawsuit over "My Sweet Lord" in 1971. Even John Lennon commented later that Harrison essentially deserved the lawsuit because he wasn't "smart" enough to have changed parts of the song. See, Page was smart enough so that it would take years to find many of his thefts. And even now, he's protected by the fact that people like Jansch or Graham are either already deceased, or wouldn't waste their time. It's amazing that Jake Holmes finally got the nerve to go after Page.

[Aquamarine]

Uh, no. Those that did the same thing got the same result that Page and Plant got. They got sued, and lost.

And guess what, at the time there were plenty of great artists out there who weren't copying other people's work and claiming it for their own. So, repeating that age-old myth that "everyone was doing it" is pointless. Case in point: Davy Graham. So, it doesn't matter how many people were copying each other, there were still a lot of great players and songwriters choosing an honest path. Lifting from another artist without crediting them is what hacks do when they can't come up with their own ideas. Theft is still theft. Call it borrowing or whatever you want.

Sure, copying Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and putting it on the ceiling of a local Church claiming it as your own original work doesn't make the effort in painting any less impressive on a technical level. But on an integrity level, claiming someone else's ideas and technical creativity, obviously that's where the problem lies. Page and Plant were extremely high on a technical level, but in many cases displayed very little integrity with crediting the things they "borrowed".

Uh, yes. They did. We've already argued this one into the ground in previous threads, but just as one example, many old blues songs had hardly an original line in them. Nobody sued anybody, that's how the musical tradition worked as a process of mutual influence. This whole idea of copyrighting music is comparatively recent.

[cookieshoes]

Uh, yes. They did. We've already argued this one into the ground in previous threads, but just as one example, many old blues songs had hardly an original line in them. Nobody sued anybody, that's how the musical tradition worked as a process of mutual influence. This whole idea of copyrighting music is comparatively recent.

It's "recent" as in, since the 1950s. Not "recent" as in the 1980s when Page and Company started getting lawsuit threats, See, the history of copyright law may work in favor of excusing the Delta bluesmen from borrowing from each other as part of the oral tradition of the 1920s. But copyright and publishing was very much alive in the 1960's and 1970's. Which is why Page created Superhype, so that he could make royalty money just like all of the other people who were copyrighting songs were. You don't just get to lump Page into some copyright "dark ages" and claim that it existed from 1920-1980, because that simply isn't the truth.

Like I said before, you couldn't get away with the things Page did in the 60's and 70's today. But the real point is that those laws were already in place in the 60's, so Page SHOULDN'T have been able to get away with the thefts he made. Again, see Harrison's legal troubles in 1971 with "My Sweet Lord".

Too often the "but everyone was doing it" argument gets used as if the period between 1920 and 1970 was just one big free for all, where nobody knew how to publish songs, or how to collect money from royalties.

[swandown]

Like I said before, you couldn't get away with the things Page did in the 60's and 70's today. But the real point is that those laws were already in place in the 60's, so Page SHOULDN'T have been able to get away with the thefts he made.

Page didn't "get away with" anything. Anyone with a legitimate claim to a copyright could rectify the situation with one phone call. Some people chose to exercise their rights (ARC Music, Willie Dixon, Anne Bredon, etc.), other people chose not to (Jake Holmes). That's the beauty of the copyright concept. It's a fair and equitable system where judges and juries are the ultimate arbiters of originality. There is nowhere for a song thief to hide; if you steal something, then you WILL pay for it.

And then there are people like Bert Jansch and Randy California -- people who never had a legitimate claim of copyright in the first place. Instead of simply admitting that they have no case, they try to save face by making up wild, unsubstantiated claims about "running out of money" or being strong-armed by the Big Bad Zeppelin Machine.

What I find most ironic and hypocritical about the Page bashers is that they seem to think that the rules only apply to Jimmy: "Jimmy should have credited Bert Jansch!" (but Bert didn't owe Isla Cameron a dime...) "Jimmy should have known that Jansch's guitar part was original!" (but it's OK if Bert didn't know that Isla Cameron's melody was original...) "Jimmy shouldn't be allowed to say 'everyone was doing it'!" (but it's okay for Bert Jansch to steal someone's arrangement.....because, you know, everyone was doing it...)

And like I said before, the bottom line is that Jansch credited it as "Traditional". That made it perfectly appropriate, fair, and legal for Jimmy to credit the song to himself.

[hecube]

Uh, no.

Uh

Huh?

Uh, yes.

[Aquamarine]

You get a superior standard of debate on a Zeppelin forum.

[Otto Masson]

Swandown, thanks, but unfortunately the link you posted to Isla Cameron's version doesn't work for me here in this country. I will certainly go find that album. If the melody is the same as the one sung by Anne Briggs though, that's probably due to both of them basing what they did on Bert Lloyd's work - which I wouldn't find surprising at all.

As for the legal issues, my opinion is simply that Jimmy should have said it's traditional because that's where the whole thing comes from, including Jansch's new arrangement. The old prehistory of the song is irrelevant if the only thing you are interested in is Jimmy's guitar, but if you are interested in understanding, say, why Jansch didn't claim a songwriting credit, where the tune comes from that he arranged, and how music develops, then it's absolutely essential. So, yeah, a nod to Jansch would have been in order, but a songwriting credit to him would have been out of the question, as Jansch doesn't even claim it, and for a reason. It's a traditional tune, that's all, and has been changed around in all manner of ways a million times.

But what I find interesting isn't so much the legal issue, but rather how musical influences work, how things are reinterpreted and worked upon by people with different background, and thus how music keeps changing - that's really how it is kept alive. What Led Zeppelin did later, when their originality became obvious and indubitable, was based on that earlier period where they are constantly quoting and borrowing things (or stealing them, if you think music is about ownership) left and right, from the British folk legacy, from the American blues legacy - and just plain rock songs, which was more of an obvious common territory.

It had to be that way. Sure, Jimmy Page had a musical vision for the band, but that encompassed a few things, and the balancing of the components and everything, the actual take on the different aspects, etc. would always have depended quite a bit on who he got to join the band. I have often said that the basic underlying formula for Led Zeppelin was the same as for Jethro Tull, in so far as both bands tried to reinterpret and rework three distinct legacies at once - Rock & Roll, the blues and British folk. And yet the bands are completely different. That's not just due to the differences between Jimmy and Ian Anderson, but also because of how the bands actually clicked together and became alive animals. I love the early Tull, but it took changes in personnel for the band to really take off. For Zeppelin it was different, in that the personnel obviously worked, but at the same time, they did have different backgrounds. Just to take one example here: Jonesy was already a very capable musician, but he wasn't much of a blues man really. It wasn't a given how they would approach the blues - they had to experiment together and see how it went.

Led Zeppelin II is practically written and recorded on the road, and you get things on there like the first bit in Bring It On Home, which is very obviously Robert "copying" Sonny Boy Williamson. In a way that's quite honest, because such quoting of snippets from here and there reflects their live shows at the time (and 1968-1970 was a quite hectic period for the band). Their take on the blues was still raw, and they are sometimes tempted to do something like that - Robert just doing a bit on his own, like Jimmy did earlier with Black Mountain Side. They kept working on old things later, but When the Levee Breaks, In My Time of Dying and Nobody's Fault But Mine are examples of a band that has developed its own strong identity. If you are so inclined, you can see them too as examples of theft; it ends up being only silly. Kashmir too doesn't come from nowhere - Jimmy had been doing those earlier things in DADGAD, but now knew the playing styles of his bandmates very closely, and his songwriting presupposes them - even as the others do their bit and surprise him here and there.

Yeah, they should have done the right thing with the credits - of course - but that's law issues, and a lot less interesting than the musical development itself, which really mirrors how music always used to develop before the modern obsession with ownership, copyright and all that. And it mirrors how music really still develops in spite of it all. Anne Briggs put it really well:

[A]ll this [borrowing and influencing], it’s been done throughout history. It’s how music develops. When people sang for pleasure and nobody got any money for it then it was great, no problem. The problems come into it when money starts flying around [...]

Edited by Otto Masson, 28 April 2011 - 08:04 PM.

[beatbo]

As I wrote, it all depends on dates and procedures.

If Jansch published his arrangement at the time the song was recorded, then he has a legitimate claim against Page. If it was done years afterwards, then he can only facepalm.

In any cases, no matter in what year he decided to have his arrangement published, the arrangement is protected as would be an original song (not the recording, which is another kind of right entirely, but the arrangement) against all claims by anyone.

My feeling is that Page's "arrangement" is in a gray area, a period within which Jansch failed to have his arrangement published.

this is a bunch of BS. and, i'm happy to state, if it weren't for jimmy page, no one in the states would even know who bert jansch is. oh, and publishing an "arrangement" will do more for making sure you get paid for your recording than it will for endowing you to any money from someone elses rendition of a traditional tune. that is a very important point.

i would like to add that i personally believe that peter grant was issued an edict from jimmy page at the beginning of zep: do what thou wilt to make sure i don't slog across the world and sell millions of albums and go home penniless (like the yardbirds). this philosophy manifested itself in the publishing as "claim everything and make 'em ask for it back". even robert copped to conversations about songs and credits and the band just let it ride...

one last thing. i love your posts and i understand your position but i've enjoyed many debates and conversations on this subject and swandown knows his skinny. if you truly want a clear picture of the situation instead of only holding on to what you believe is right, talk nice to swandown and he may share some of his substantial reseach and sources on this subject. he may sound like a jimmy page fan, too, but don't let that fool you: he is. but he's no apologist...
beat