Sugar Mama (unused track) WHY?

[swandown]

Doesn't change that SBW was the root of the song, which is why it is considered a cover.

It's considered a cover by exactly 2 people on this planet. You, and Nigel Williamson.

No, I answered you directly. I have picked up over time various Plant/Page bites where they talk about SBW.

I spent quite a bit more than 5 seconds on Google looking for a source to back up your claim, in addition to scanning through more than a dozen interviews. No mention of Sonny Boy Williamson (I) at all. None.

But since you have claimed that you "picked up" clips where Plant or Page mentioned him, please feel free to cite your source.

In fact, I'll make a deal with you right now: you give me ONE quote from Page or Plant where they mention Sonny Boy Williamson and/or his song "Sugar Mama", and I will finally tell you the source of your alleged Led Zep recording of "Crossroads". Sound fair?

Now you're pretending to understand copyright law? No, just no. You're wrong. Copyright cases have repeatedly shown that you do not need lyric similarities to have copied someone else's work. Don't even try here, you're just wrong.

Please cite one source. One single source. One single example. Just one. One successful "copyright case" where none of the music or lyrics were the same -- except for the title. Seriously, just one is all I ask. But it has to meet the same conditions as "Sugar Mama" -- same title, different lyrics, different music.

I won't hold my breath.

They wouldn't have a case due to the statute of limitations, not because there was no similarity in the works.

Oh really? What's the exact statute of limitations, then? Or are you just making it up as you go along....again?

But again, you fail to understand lyrics are not needed to have covered an artist.

Please back this up with a source. Please.

Many artists quote other artists in their work and have no legal action taken against them, but when they steal the music, that's when they get in trouble.

Wait, are you now saying that Led Zeppelin "Sugar Mama" copies the music from Sonny Boy Williamson's version?? That would be a complete turnaround from the theme of your previous postings in this thread (not that I would be surprised by such a change).

You have only provided lyrics which do not make a strong case.

I've started no fights with you. Everything I've done is reactionary.

Hey wait, that's my line!

[swandown]

GetTheLedOut, May 29: "Had it been released its credit would likely read Williamson/Page/Plant"

GetTheLedOut, June 1: "[the estate of Sonny Boy Williamson] wouldn't have a case due to the statute of limitations"

Well, which one is it??

[GetTheLedOut]

It's considered a cover by exactly 2 people on this planet. You, and Nigel Williamson.

Why do you think making plainly stupid statements can suffice as wit?

I spent quite a bit more than 5 seconds on Google looking for a source to back up your claim, in addition to scanning through more than a dozen interviews. No mention of Sonny Boy Williamson (I) at all. None.

But since you have claimed that you "picked up" clips where Plant or Page mentioned him, please feel free to cite your source.

In fact, I'll make a deal with you right now: you give me ONE quote from Page or Plant where they mention Sonny Boy Williamson and/or his song "Sugar Mama", and I will finally tell you the source of your alleged Led Zep recording of "Crossroads". Sound fair?

I don't need your "help" finding out the source of that recording. You are of no use at all.

Please cite one source. One single source. One single example. Just one. One successful "copyright case" where none of the music or lyrics were the same -- except for the title. Seriously, just one is all I ask. But it has to meet the same conditions as "Sugar Mama" -- same title, different lyrics, different music.

I won't hold my breath.

Sure, the second you provide one yourself

Oh really? What's the exact statute of limitations, then? Or are you just making it up as you go along....again?

Assuming such a case would take place in the UK (as that's where Zeppelin's recordings were mostly made), their laws dictate that after 50 years from the publication date, the work in question becomes public domain (although there is a strong push to extend this period). The latest date Robert Johnson's estate could have filled a case is 1988 (based on the year of his death + the 50 years of copyright protection), thus unless a case has already been filed, the statue of limitations dictates that it is too late to file a case.

Please back this up with a source. Please.

The Verve were sued over their track Bittersweet Symphony, which sampled a symphonic version of "The Last Time" by the Stones. No lyrics in common, yet it all sales of the single were forfeited to ABKCO (owner of the publishing rights). The credit was also changed to "Jagger/Richards/Ashcroft." Nearly the same thing happened with George Harrison with "My Sweet Lord."

Wait, are you now saying that Led Zeppelin "Sugar Mama" copies the music from Sonny Boy Williamson's version?? That would be a complete turnaround from the theme of your previous postings in this thread (not that I would be surprised by such a change).

It was a general statement, stop trying to take it out of context.

So you resort to smilies when you can't defend yourself?

Hey wait, that's my line!

I don't see how you could use it truthfully here.

[GetTheLedOut]

A. GetTheLedOut, May 29: "Had it been released its credit would likely read Williamson/Page/Plant"

B. GetTheLedOut, June 1: "[the estate of Sonny Boy Williamson] wouldn't have a case due to the statute of limitations"

Well, which one is it??

A. Had it been released in 1969, Sonny Boy Williamson could have filed a case against them.

B. Don't take comments out of context. This was in reference to a case today. Williamson's estate can no longer file a case today.

I didn't think you'd need this explained, but you apparently don't have mental capacity to make this easy connection on your own.

[beatbo]

i'd like to throw a couple of "ideas" out here, if nothing else, to cut down the amount of piss flying.

really, if you think about it, this discussion is moot because the led zeppelin version of "sugar mama" does not affect any copyright laws at all because it hasn't been registered for release (or if it has, the assignments of authorship has not been made known).

so,

we have only the journalist ledout mentioned, stating his opinion as to the origin of the song. he has formed this opinion the same way any of us could right now-by listening to sources and stating lineage as he sees it. since there is no acknowledgement from the members of zeppelin, this song unreleased is just a whisper in the wind-except almost everyone here listens to wind whispers when it comes to the mighty zep.

alright, alright...

there ain't no statute of limitations. i could sue the estate of robert johnson (and be sued by it as well) right now. they (the estate) just settled with ABKCO records (sound familiar stone fans?) on a 50/50 split for a piano roll of johnsons.

that's a fact.

tampa red is a well-known source of the song: sugar mama blues, which he recorded two versions of.

that's a fact.

sonny boy williamson 2 (rice miller) is a well-known source for zeppelin-bring it on home, etc. he is not involved here.

john lee (sonny boy 1) recorded sugar mama blues on bluebird in the 30's. that's a fact. i have not been able to lay my hands on a 78 of this song yet (i have tried). it is possible that he claimed credit on his version and was uncontested by tampa red at the time, and that this wasn't pursued due to his death 10 years later. the last sentence is conjecture: had i seen the 78 of sonny boys and it listed hudson whittaker (tampa's real name) as the author, this match would have been over.

i like both of you-ledout, very cool, haven't known of you long but you seem to have a decent passion for our band and a sense of honor. scott i have been impressed with for over 15 years and he has always had the right dates, places, and people when it comes to recording.

you guys pushed some buttons and it's been fun to watch, really, but all good things must come to an end.

i found this below at a website while webcrawling. it is an example of an opinion-no more no less, and probably submitted by someone here:

Expert: Mike Caldwell

Date: 5/31/2008

Subject: Multi-Question!

Question

Hey Mike, I have to get several answers to several questions.

1) I have a recording of what I'm fairly sure is Led Zeppelin playing a cover of "Crossroads." Here is a link to the recording:

http://rapidshare.com/files/118756826/Led_...eased_And_Rar...

I'd like to know if that is really what I think it is.

2) Is the Zeppelin recording "Sugar Mama" at all a cover of the Sonny Boy Williamson song of the same name (as it is credited by Nigel Williamson in the Rough Guide to Led Zeppelin)?

Thanks for you time!

Answer

#1 - Page and Plant performed the track together, most notably in the spring of 1998. Just those two, and while some might wish it were the case, it wasn't Zeppelin. Here's a video clip, since I couldn't access your link (too many issues with getting to it).

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/jimmy-pa...roads-t/27979...

#2 - It's not a cover of the SBW song at all - just a reference to the title, is all. First of all, the lyrics to Zeppelin's abortive recording were just off-the-cuff and not really scripted, and have absolutely no similarity (apart from the title) to SBW's version. For additional reference here is SBW's original lyrics:

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/s/sonny_b...sugar_mama.html

And here are the on-the-fly lyrics that Zep had going:

http://www.metrolyrics.com/sugar-mama-lyri...d-zeppelin.html

Definitely not a cover, but certainly the idea was in Plant's mind while they ran through this attempt at a new track.

the beat goes on. here's a beer to you both...

[GetTheLedOut]

i'd like to throw a couple of "ideas" out here, if nothing else, to cut down the amount of piss flying.

really, if you think about it, this discussion is moot because the led zeppelin version of "sugar mama" does not affect any copyright laws at all because it hasn't been registered for release (or if it has, the assignments of authorship has not been made known).

so,

we have only the journalist ledout mentioned, stating his opinion as to the origin of the song. he has formed this opinion the same way any of us could right now-by listening to sources and stating lineage as he sees it. since there is no acknowledgement from the members of zeppelin, this song unreleased is just a whisper in the wind-except almost everyone here listens to wind whispers when it comes to the mighty zep.

That's a good point beatbo.

alright, alright...

there ain't no statute of limitations. i could sue the estate of robert johnson (and be sued by it as well) right now.

If it were related to his recordings... no you can't. Not anymore. I checked with a lawyer on this one.

they (the estate) just settled with ABKCO records (sound familiar stone fans?) on a 50/50 split for a piano roll of johnsons.

that's a fact.

tampa red is a well-known source of the song: sugar mama blues, which he recorded two versions of.

that's a fact.

sonny boy williamson 2 (rice miller) is a well-known source for zeppelin-bring it on home, etc. he is not involved here.

john lee (sonny boy 1) recorded sugar mama blues on bluebird in the 30's. that's a fact. i have not been able to lay my hands on a 78 of this song yet (i have tried). it is possible that he claimed credit on his version and was uncontested by tampa red at the time, and that this wasn't pursued due to his death 10 years later. the last sentence is conjecture: had i seen the 78 of sonny boys and it listed hudson whittaker (tampa's real name) as the author, this match would have been over.

i like both of you-ledout, very cool, haven't known of you long but you seem to have a decent passion for our band and a sense of honor. scott i have been impressed with for over 15 years and he has always had the right dates, places, and people when it comes to recording.

you guys pushed some buttons and it's been fun to watch, really, but all good things must come to an end.

The fun has started to go out of this for me, but for now I'll let Scott decide when this ends.

i found this below at a website while webcrawling. it is an example of an opinion-no more no less, and probably submitted by someone here:

Expert: Mike Caldwell

Date: 5/31/2008

Subject: Multi-Question!

Question

Hey Mike, I have to get several answers to several questions.

1) I have a recording of what I'm fairly sure is Led Zeppelin playing a cover of "Crossroads." Here is a link to the recording:

http://rapidshare.com/files/118756826/Led_...eased_And_Rar...

I'd like to know if that is really what I think it is.

2) Is the Zeppelin recording "Sugar Mama" at all a cover of the Sonny Boy Williamson song of the same name (as it is credited by Nigel Williamson in the Rough Guide to Led Zeppelin)?

Thanks for you time!

Answer

#1 - Page and Plant performed the track together, most notably in the spring of 1998. Just those two, and while some might wish it were the case, it wasn't Zeppelin. Here's a video clip, since I couldn't access your link (too many issues with getting to it).

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/jimmy-pa...roads-t/27979...

#2 - It's not a cover of the SBW song at all - just a reference to the title, is all. First of all, the lyrics to Zeppelin's abortive recording were just off-the-cuff and not really scripted, and have absolutely no similarity (apart from the title) to SBW's version. For additional reference here is SBW's original lyrics:

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/s/sonny_b...sugar_mama.html

And here are the on-the-fly lyrics that Zep had going:

http://www.metrolyrics.com/sugar-mama-lyri...d-zeppelin.html

Definitely not a cover, but certainly the idea was in Plant's mind while they ran through this attempt at a new track.

the beat goes on. here's a beer to you both...

Well you've now done more detective work than Swandown has ever contemplated attempting. I don't know Mike Caldwell, but other Zep experts on about.com (Chris Z. primarily) are very knowledgeable. I'm less sure of Sugar Mama being a SBW cover now than I was before. I don't mind being incorrect, but I'd like to see proof of it first. So thank you Beatbo! Your the type of person we need more of on this board.

[swandown]

A. Had it been released in 1969, Sonny Boy Williamson could have filed a case against them.

No, he could not have. This is 100% verifiable with 0% chance of error. You. Are. Wrong.

Williamson's estate can no longer file a case today.

And why is that? Please cite U.S. law and/or court cases.

you apparently don't have mental capacity to make this easy connection on your own.

And yet I'm the one accused of hurling insults and starting fights?

[swandown]

beatbo -- nice job! Love the fact that someone wrote to allexperts.com to try to prove me wrong!

[beatbo]

beatbo -- nice job! Love the fact that someone wrote to allexperts.com to try to prove me wrong!

it wasn't me!!! i swear!!!

no, really, it wasn't.

[GetTheLedOut]

No, he could not have. This is 100% verifiable with 0% chance of error. You. Are. Wrong.

Excuse me, his estate.

And why is that? Please cite U.S. law and/or court cases.

US law would be irrelevant because this case would have to happen in the UK. However, if hypothetically the case was in the US, Williamson's estate could still sue. US law dictates that a copyright begins from the creation point (usually considered to be the point it was registered unless there is proof of an earlier date) and continues until 70 years after the authors death (or in case of multiple authors, 70 years after the death of the longest living author). There is a push in the UK to change the law, but as it stands copyright lasts from the publication date to 50 years later.

It is explained here.

"One key piece of the Review will focus on the copyright term for sound recordings. Artists and publishers want the term extended from its current 50 years to 95 years, but an inside source has now confirmed that the Review will not recommend the 45-year extension, according to the BBC."

And yet I'm the one accused of hurling insults and starting fights?

We're both guilty of the former, but you are the only one guilty of the latter.

[beatbo]

US law would be irrelevant because this case would have to happen in the UK. However, if hypothetically the case was in the US, Williamson's estate could still sue. US law dictates that a copyright begins from the creation point (usually considered to be the point it was registered unless there is proof of an earlier date) and continues until 70 years after the authors death (or in case of multiple authors, 70 years after the death of the longest living author). There is a push in the UK to change the law, but as it stands copyright lasts from the publication date to 50 years later.

It is explained here.

"One key piece of the Review will focus on the copyright term for sound recordings. Artists and publishers want the term extended from its current 50 years to 95 years, but an inside source has now confirmed that the Review will not recommend the 45-year extension, according to the BBC."

that;'s a very informative link-and i'm suprised the UK is dragging it's toes in the sand on this. the one thing i might note about this is relevancy: one of the principals in the "hypothetical" case we are discussing is/was american. let's play this out, shall we?

zeppelin releases "sugar mama" on led zeppelin: never-released days worldwide. the release probably would be on atlantic, although there isn't any guarantee that atlantic will get anymore zep with ahmet gone and atlantic doing a grab and run with "houses of the holy". but, lets say atlantic.

an american company. zepp registers the song for royalties with the whole band as writers. any pencil-pusher in atlantic legal is going to say "tampa red has a submission with that title and possibly sonny boy 2. okay. they have several options: there may not be a contestation: sonny boy is dead, no family, his catalogue has been absorbed by MPL (mccartney), abkco (allen klein), who knows, they settle for a flat fee, no contest. zep could change the title of the song and challenge anybody that's ever written sugar anything to sue over two words, repeated. or..

see where this is going? the robert johnson suit that was just settled was settled by a piano roll-early proof of composition, as piano rolls were how a music publisher made money (as well as sheets). his estate has taken on a saavy conservatorship and i wish he were alive to see what he is worth today.

my final opinion: if you are a songwriter in UK with huge sales base worldwide, you make worldwide deals on a case by case basis or blanket.

[sensei]

Excuse me, his estate.

US law would be irrelevant because this case would have to happen in the UK. However, if hypothetically the case was in the US, Williamson's estate could still sue. US law dictates that a copyright begins from the creation point (usually considered to be the point it was registered unless there is proof of an earlier date) and continues until 70 years after the authors death (or in case of multiple authors, 70 years after the death of the longest living author). There is a push in the UK to change the law, but as it stands copyright lasts from the publication date to 50 years later.

It is explained here.

"One key piece of the Review will focus on the copyright term for sound recordings. Artists and publishers want the term extended from its current 50 years to 95 years, but an inside source has now confirmed that the Review will not recommend the 45-year extension, according to the BBC."

We're both guilty of the former, but you are the only one guilty of the latter.

[sensei]

sort it out children crank up the hi-fi crack open a beer and enjoy the moment.

[beatbo]

i guess i should have made my point more obvious: if the a contestant (dead) was a UK citizen, and his royalties have passed into public domain, then ledout has a point. with a US writer, zeppelin would have to credit and pay, at least in the US and all applicable holdings, and they would take a credibility hit if they didn't do it across the board (UK included).

[swandown]

with a US writer, zeppelin would have to credit and pay, at least in the US and all applicable holdings, and they would take a credibility hit if they didn't do it across the board (UK included).

Correct. But the original writer must still prove that A, the new recording infringes on the copyright; and B, the writer actually owns the copyright in the first place. Williamson's estate would have a difficult time proving either one of those requirements, especially when you consider that Tampa Red's version of the exact same song (recorded 3 years prior to Williamson's song) is independently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. That would be a bit like the Small Faces suing over "Whole Lotta Love".

If you don't own the copyright, then nothing will save you. If you do own the copyright, then the statute of limitations is 95 years from publication date (or 2032 in the case of Williamson's "Sugar Mama").

[GetTheLedOut]

i guess i should have made my point more obvious: if the a contestant (dead) was a UK citizen, and his royalties have passed into public domain, then ledout has a point. with a US writer, zeppelin would have to credit and pay, at least in the US and all applicable holdings, and they would take a credibility hit if they didn't do it across the board (UK included).

I believe that since the recording was made in the UK, the US has no standing on it even if the party that has been copied is from the US. This may not be the case with Zeppelin, since even though Zeppelin's recordings were made (for the most part) in the UK, Atlantic Records is an American based company.

However, Page created Superhype so that they could retain the publish rights. Since Superhype is UK based (I'm assuming), then the copyright case would have to happen in a UK court. As already stated, UK law allows for only 50 years of copyright protection. If the recording was made in the 30s, it was unprotected by some time in the 80s. Hence, it has now become public domain, and thus no case can be brought against Led Zeppelin anymore.

[GetTheLedOut]

Correct. But the original writer must still prove that A, the new recording infringes on the copyright; and B, the writer actually owns the copyright in the first place. Williamson's estate would have a difficult time proving either one of those requirements, especially when you consider that Tampa Red's version of the exact same song (recorded 3 years prior to Williamson's song) is independently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. That would be a bit like the Small Faces suing over "Whole Lotta Love".

If you don't own the copyright, then nothing will save you. If you do own the copyright, then the statute of limitations is 95 years from publication date (or 2032 in the case of Williamson's "Sugar Mama").

That's only for corporate authorship. This does not apply to the SBW case. Also keep in mind that the copyright extension did not revive works that had become public domain.

[beatbo]

I believe that since the recording was made in the UK, the US has no standing on it even if the party that has been copied is from the US. This may not be the case with Zeppelin, since even though Zeppelin's recordings were made (for the most part) in the UK, Atlantic Records is an American based company.

However, Page created Superhype so that they could retain the publish rights. Since Superhype is UK based (I'm assuming), then the copyright case would have to happen in a UK court. As already stated, UK law allows for only 50 years of copyright protection. If the recording was made in the 30s, it was unprotected by some time in the 80s. Hence, it has now become public domain, and thus no case can be brought against Led Zeppelin anymore.

they would retain the publishing rights...in the UK. as soon as the first royalty is demanded from a purchase of recording or airplay in the US, then what? royalty payment to a claimed writer(s) based in a different country, infringing on a native-born copyright?

it wouldn't come to that.

here's an example:

in the US, chuck berry was "seperated" from a percentage of his early copyrights by roulette records chief-morris levy.

years later, john lennon wrote "come together" (in the UK) including a short line from chuck berrys' "you can't catch me" (here come ol' flat-top) as well as a couple of stylistic "leanings" from the music. in the UK, no prob-berry wasn't dead, but people don't normally sue over one line. in the US, lennon had to make a deal: record 3 songs owned by levy- and they don't have to be chuck's.

lennon's deal forestalled court action-mccartney is, after all, listed as a cowriter. also, lennon blabbed and admitted the influence.

i'm sure there are other similar examples. this is a fascinating subject...

[swandown]

That's only for corporate authorship. This does not apply to the SBW case. Also keep in mind that the copyright extension did not revive works that had become public domain.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that British copyright law would somehow supercede U.S. law. It would not. Williamson is American, his copyright is American (if it exists), 75% of the album sales are American.......and his estate's theoretical lawsuit would also be American.

Sure, the estate could also file a lawsuit in England or Japan or anywhere else Led Zeppelin sold albums, but the majority of Zep-related lawsuits (Chester Burnett and Willie Dixon come to mind) were handled solely through the U.S. court system.

Furthermore, even if British copyright law did somehow supercede U.S. law (such as the unlikely scenario where Zep releases "Sugar Mama" only in the U.K.), the law still would not apply because the applicable British copyright law only applies to original recordings that were first published in the U.K.

[swandown]

However, Page created Superhype so that they could retain the publish rights. Since Superhype is UK based (I'm assuming), then the copyright case would have to happen in a UK court.

Then how do you explain all the successful lawsuits which were filed in U.S. courts?

As already stated, UK law allows for only 50 years of copyright protection. If the recording was made in the 30s, it was unprotected by some time in the 80s. Hence, it has now become public domain, and thus no case can be brought against Led Zeppelin anymore.

Actually, UK law doesn't even extend the 50 year protection to non-UK recordings made prior to 1957. So Sonny Boy Williamson wouldn't be protected (by the British court system) either way.

[SteveAJones]

Well you've now done more detective work than Swandown has ever contemplated attempting. I don't know Mike Caldwell, but other Zep experts on about.com (Chris Z. primarily) are very knowledgeable.

I know Mike Caldwell and Chris Z. I'd say Swandown is no less knowledgable than them.

[eternal light]

Then how do you explain all the successful lawsuits which were filed in U.S. courts?

Actually, UK law doesn't even extend the 50 year protection to non-UK recordings made prior to 1957. So Sonny Boy Williamson wouldn't be protected (by the British court system) either way.

Sonny Boy Williamson's estate may be able to establish jurisdiction outside of the UK.

[SteveAJones]

Have you heard anyone in the Zep camp mention Sonny Boy Williamson? I haven't.

In the mid-60s Jimmy participated in a studio session with Sonny Boy Williamson; 11 tracks were recorded in two and one half hours before Williamson returned to North America.

Sometime in 1993 Robert visited people he knew in Helena, Arkansas, the town where Sonny Boy Williamson used to record.

In November 2006 Robert drove down from Nashville to Tutwiler, Mississippi and played harmonica at the grave of Rice Miller a.k.a. Sonny Boy Williamson. He discussed this in the 12/14/06 issue of 'Rolling Stone'.

Clearly, Jimmy Page & Robert Plant are highly familiar with SBW, but I think they'd be the first to agree the track Sugar Mama has nothing to do with Williamson at all.

[eternal light]

In the mid-60s Jimmy participated in a studio session with Sonny Boy Williamson; 11 tracks were recorded in two and one half hours before Williamson returned to North America.

Sometime in 1993 Robert visited people he knew in Helena, Arkansas, the town where Sonny Boy Williamson used to record.

In November 2006 Robert drove down from Nashville to Tutwiler, Mississippi and played harmonica at the grave of Rice Miller a.k.a. Sonny Boy Williamson. He discussed this in the 12/14/06 issue of 'Rolling Stone'.

Clearly, Jimmy Page & Robert Plant are highly familiar with SBW, but I think they'd be the first to agree the track Sugar Mama has nothing to do with Williamson at all.

Sonny Boy Williamson died on May 25, 1965.

[GetTheLedOut]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that British copyright law would somehow supercede U.S. law. It would not. Williamson is American, his copyright is American (if it exists), 75% of the album sales are American.......and his estate's theoretical lawsuit would also be American.

That's true, but the infringement is not American. The publishing rights to Zeppelin's "Sugar Mama" would be British, hence the case could have to be in UK courts. Neither law supersede the other, it's a matter of jurisdiction. The hypothetical infringement would have taken place in the UK, not the US, hence the outcome I've already stated.

Sure, the estate could also file a lawsuit in England or Japan or anywhere else Led Zeppelin sold albums, but the majority of Zep-related lawsuits (Chester Burnett and Willie Dixon come to mind) were handled solely through the U.S. court system.

Furthermore, even if British copyright law did somehow supercede U.S. law (such as the unlikely scenario where Zep releases "Sugar Mama" only in the U.K.), the law still would not apply because the applicable British copyright law only applies to original recordings that were first published in the U.K.

The estate of SBW could have to sue Atlantic, however Atlantic would not have the publishing rights.