Sugar Mama (unused track) WHY?

[swandown]

you can.

Of course you can. beatbo knows. The lawsuit is filed where the offense took place. Simple as that.

i really learned the nuances of zeppelin's copyrights 15-16 years ago, when as a member of the fledgling FBO i read some heavily documented, well-written and researched e-mails on the subject written by: scott swanson. and let me tell you, if you can antagonize him enough for him to spit out the details of the willie dixon case, too....well, fuck, i ain't goin' anywhere. it will be a joy.

I used to have that entire lawsuit saved to my hard drive, but I'll be darned if I can find it anymore. I think one of the most interesting things about the case is that Zep didn't put up much of a fight, and basically agreed to Dixon's terms ("happily paid for", as Robert Plant said). But maybe that's because Dixon didn't demand 100% of the song's royalties, as Allen Klein did for The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony" (which, by the way, may feature John Paul Jones or Jimmy Page, but that's another story). I also found it interesting that Dixon never sued the Small Faces.

The story behind "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" is even more interesting. If not for one random moment 20 years ago, that song might still be credited as "Trad., arr. Page". But that's for another thread......

P.S. Was it really 15 years ago? My how time flies.......

[GetTheLedOut]

In that case, I would still consider the assertions, if they were offered as answers to questions about jurisdiction on a bar exam, as meriting a none of the above response.

Additionally, they may have obtained their own copyright if they had released the song, and once again a non-issue arguably could result. There are plenty of copyrighted Sugar Mamas.

The hypothetical here was if SBW had the copyright.

[GetTheLedOut]

I used to have that entire lawsuit saved to my hard drive, but I'll be darned if I can find it anymore. I think one of the most interesting things about the case is that Zep didn't put up much of a fight, and basically agreed to Dixon's terms ("happily paid for", as Robert Plant said).

That might have been out of respect for Dixon, who besides being one of their major influences, donated the money to charity (I can't find a source for this, but I remember reading it years ago).

But maybe that's because Dixon didn't demand 100% of the song's royalties, as Allen Klein did for The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony" (which, by the way, may feature John Paul Jones or Jimmy Page, but that's another story).

Please explain.

I also found it interesting that Dixon never sued the Small Faces.

Less to gain perhaps?

[eternal light]

The hypothetical here was if SBW had the copyright.

There are several others with copyrights of the same song title in existence today.

[GetTheLedOut]

There are several others with copyrights of the same song title in existence today.

If so that's fine, but that's irrelevant.

[eternal light]

If so that's fine, but that's irrelevant.

Irrelevant because?

[GetTheLedOut]

Irrelevant because?

We're taking the case as Zeppelin covered SBW, and SBW has the copyright to his song. Just because there are other songs by the name "Sugar Mama" doesn't mean they matter here.

[Evster2012]

Umm, hello everybody. Hate to put my head on the chopping block, so to speak, but as I understand Sugar Mama was never published by Led Zeppelin. So this is an academic excercise right? Interesting for sure, but it's not really about Sugar Mama anymore is it?

Please don't turn me into anything unnatural!

[GetTheLedOut]

Umm, hello everybody. Hate to put my head on the chopping block, so to speak, but as I understand Sugar Mama was never published by Led Zeppelin. So this is an academic excercise right? Interesting for sure, but it's not really about Sugar Mama anymore is it?

Please don't turn me into anything unnatural!

Correct.

[Evster2012]

Correct.

Thanks! I've tried to keep up, but there's so much going on I just wanted to be sure!

[swandown]

That might have been out of respect for Dixon, who besides being one of their major influences, donated the money to charity (I can't find a source for this, but I remember reading it years ago).

He didn't exactly donate it to charity -- he used part of the proceeds to fund his Blues Heaven Foundation. It's often reported that Dixon formed the foundation as a direct result of winning his lawsuit with Zep, but the truth is that it had already been formed several years earlier.

Please explain.

I could make you do a Google search, but I'm in a generous mood today: "Bittersweet Symphony" is based on a 1966 recording by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra, which may have featured John Paul Jones or Jimmy Page. (They definitely played on the ALO's sessions from 1964, but I haven't confirmed that they played on the later sessions.)

[GetTheLedOut]

Thanks! I've tried to keep up, but there's so much going on I just wanted to be sure!

I understand. It's hard enough for those of us actually in the discussion

[eternal light]

We're taking the case as Zeppelin covered SBW, and SBW has the copyright to his song. Just because there are other songs by the name "Sugar Mama" doesn't mean they matter here.

But of course in a real court of law they arguably could matter, as equal protection of law generally applies. If the other songs are not violations of copyright, and actually copyrighted themselves, then what would make Led Zeppelin's Sugar Mama any different? They would only need to obtain their own copyright, as long as the lyrics and music were sufficiently unique. Then, of course the argument is, they are sufficiently unique.

[GetTheLedOut]

But of course in a real court of law they arguably could matter, as equal protection of law generally applies. If the other songs are not violations of copyright, and actually copyrighted themselves, then what would make Led Zeppelin's Sugar Mama any different? They would only need to obtain their own copyright, as long as the lyrics and music were sufficiently unique. Then, of course the argument is, they are sufficiently unique.

Just because those songs are called Sugar Mama doesn't mean they have a connection to the Zep recording. The only one that's been linked is the SBW one.

[GetTheLedOut]

I could make you do a Google search, but I'm in a generous mood today: "Bittersweet Symphony" is based on a 1966 recording by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra, which may have featured John Paul Jones or Jimmy Page. (They definitely played on the ALO's sessions from 1964, but I haven't confirmed that they played on the later sessions.)

Without digging deeply into Google, I found this:

Source

"The opening song "Bittersweet Symphony" from the album "Urban Hymns" by The Verve was one of the most haunting sounds of 1997. It dominated the charts and airwaves that year and has continued to be used as background music in television programmes and advertisements, including those for Nike and Vauxhall. It is one of those tunes that you will surely have heard even if you cannot place its origin. The song became a bittersweet experience for its author Richard Ashcroft. The refrain he used was taken from, at that time, a little known arrangement of a Rolling Stones song (NOT the original) which had appeared on an album long since deleted from the catalogue.

When it was first released in June 1966, "The Songbook" was the fourth in a series of albums recorded by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra. It was subtitled "Instrumental versions of their greatest hits". Perhaps because of the notoriety which the affair generated, perhaps because of the persistence of this one tune, DECCA records reissued "The Rolling Stones Songbook" in CD format in 2004. It should come as no surprise why I bought this album. I already owned The Verve CD and I was intensely curious to hear the original and to see what all the fuss was about. This is your opportunity to 'sample' it too.

THE MAN

Andrew Loog Oldham was born in 1944 and raised in London. He left school at the age of 16 with every intention of going into show business. His early experience was with Brian Epstein and The Beatles. In April 1963 he was introduced to the Rolling Stones and became their manager until the end of 1967. He was flamboyant in style and was instrumental in promoting their aggressive appearance and sound.

Although he had no musical background he 'discovered' and produced the early efforts of Marianne Faithful, co-writing "As Tears Go By". He set up his own record label (Immediate) in 1967 which produced, amongst others, Rod Stewart, Fleetwood Mac and Eric Clapton. He 'retired' to Bogota in Colombia in 1983 but still has links with the music industry.

THE ORCHESTRA

Early in his career Oldham was influenced by the US producer Phil Spectre and he put together his own orchestra which bore his name. In 1964, DECCA records allowed Oldham to produce a series of singles which featured his orchestra on the 'B' side. As the Rolling Stones developed their repertoire, so Oldham used rearrangements of their songs as a different medium to help 'grow' the band. Although he could not read or write music he worked very closely with arranger David Whittaker to produce this series of albums.

As well as employing session musicians, the Andrew Oldham Orchestra also featured guest 'pop artists' of the day including John Paul Jones, Big Jim Sullivan, Jimmy Page and Nicky Hopkins. The Orchestra ceased functioning during 1966 at a time when the Rolling Stones horizons were rapidly expanding.

Oldham reports: "I loved the old orchestral style and enjoyed adding that dimension to a form of music that was regarded as new, trashy, non-lasting and disposable". "

I don't think that source is terribly reliable, but for this purpose it's fine. At any rate, I don't think Page and/or Jones are entitled to song royalties because they played on the original recording that the Verve sampled. I think they were only entitled to their wage for the sessions and nothing else.

[eternal light]

Just because those songs are called Sugar Mama doesn't mean they have a connection to the Zep recording. The only one that's been linked is the SBW one.

They share the same title and the lyrics and music may or may not vary, but as long as they are sufficiently unique, in a real court of law, they might be cited as precedents for stare decisis (let the decision stand) prevailing law, applicable to Led Zeppelin, and protecting their rights, too (equal protection of the law). Unless the lyrics and music are word for word and measure for measure, there may be some wiggle room on the copyright.

[GetTheLedOut]

They share the same title and the lyrics and music may or may not vary, but as long as they are sufficiently unique, in a real court of law, they might be cited as precedents for stare decisis (let the decision stand) prevailing law, applicable to Led Zeppelin, and protecting their rights, too (equal protection of the law).

Hmm... perhaps. I didn't consider that angle. Point taken.

[Knebby]

Umm, hello everybody. Hate to put my head on the chopping block, so to speak, but as I understand Sugar Mama was never published by Led Zeppelin. So this is an academic excercise right? Interesting for sure, but it's not really about Sugar Mama anymore is it?

Please don't turn me into anything unnatural!

He turned me into a newt!

But that's natural, right?

[Evster2012]

He turned me into a newt!

I got better.

The question comes down to content. How much similarity can be established. If I wrote a song called Taxman, because the IRS is on my ass, and it was by chance in the same key, but musically different, and I used the line "Cause he's the taxman, he's a right bastard keeping me down", am I required to credit the Beatles? It comes down to degrees. Where does inspriation cross the line into ripoff?

[beatbo]

I understand. It's hard enough for those of us actually in the discussion

that's funny as hell, right there!

[beatbo]

Without digging deeply into Google, I found this:

Source

"The opening song "Bittersweet Symphony" from the album "Urban Hymns" by The Verve was one of the most haunting sounds of 1997. The refrain he used was taken from, at that time, a little known arrangement of a Rolling Stones song (NOT the original) which had appeared on an album long since deleted from the catalogue.

the instigator: allen klein (mentioned earlier in this thread). allen klein owns ABKCO which owns the entire rolling stones catalogue up to "sticky fingers". interesting to note, the one time manager of the beatles and stones who many thought was dead, caught this little violation and came away with the rights to "bittersweet" which he then liscensed to microsoft. ashcroft donated what was left of his percentage to charity (before klien's microsoft deal). big mistake. the verve never again caught the airwaves.

zep connect: andrew oldham, original manager of the stones, owned immediate records (as ledout showed) who had on staff producer jimmy page (and on label small faces, nico, john mayall, etc)

page recorded jams with buddies clapton and beck, among others, on a tape that was committed to release (here in the states: "white boy blues" among other titles)

[GetTheLedOut]

the instigator: allen klein (mentioned earlier in this thread). allen klein owns ABKCO which owns the entire rolling stones catalogue up to "sticky fingers". interesting to note, the one time manager of the beatles and stones who many thought was dead, caught this little violation and came away with the rights to "bittersweet" which he then liscensed to microsoft. ashcroft donated what was left of his percentage to charity (before klien's microsoft deal). big mistake. the verve never again caught the airwaves.

zep connect: andrew oldham, original manager of the stones, owned immediate records (as ledout showed) who had on staff producer jimmy page (and on label small faces, nico, john mayall, etc)

page recorded jams with buddies clapton and beck, among others, on a tape that was committed to release (here in the states: "white boy blues" among other titles)

Not true. The Verve only had to surrender the royalties from the single of "Bitter Sweet Symphony." Profits made from the album (considerable) and other singles were still the Verve's to keep. The Verve had another number 1 hit in the UK with "The Drugs Don't Work".

[beatbo]

I can't find anything that states it was in a US court.

neither can i. hard to find a court document online from 1987. plenty of references to it-but all the references are written without showing their sources so i didn't post them.

here are some interesting snips on ole willie, though...

led zep FAQ

"Whole Lotta Love" -- Willie Dixon's "You Need Love" (lyrics).

Plant: "Page's riff was Page's riff. It was there before

anything else. I just thought, 'well, what am I going to

sing?' That was it, a nick. Now happily paid for. At the

time, there was a lot of conversation about what to do. It

was decided that it was so far away in time (it was in fact

7 years) and influence that...well, you only get caught when

you're successful. That's the game." Willie Dixon sued

Zeppelin (actually friends of his at the time) in 1985 when

his daughter noticed the resemblance--though by this time,

Zeppelin has sold the rights to their international catalog

and knew _in advance_ of the suit, which was filed only

_after_ the sale had been completed.

music. yahoo.bio

Around this time, Dixon began to have grave doubts about the nature of the songwriting contract that he had with Chess' publishing arm, Arc Music. He was seeing precious little money from songwriting, despite the recording of hit versions of such Dixon songs as "Spoonful" by Cream. He had never seen as much money as he was entitled to as a songwriter, but during the 1970s he began to understand just how much money he'd been deprived of, by design or just plain negligence on the part of the publisher doing its job on his behalf.

Arc Music had sued Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement over "Bring It on Home" on Led Zeppelin II, saying that it was Dixon's song, and won a settlement that Dixon never saw any part of until his manager did an audit of Arc's accounts. Dixon and Muddy Waters would later file suit against Arc Music to recover royalties and the ownership of their copyrights. Additionally, many years later Dixon brought suit against Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement over "Whole Lotta Love" and its resemblance to Dixon's "You Need Love." Both cases resulted in out-of-court settlements that were generous to the songwriter.

allaboutjazz

Gradually learning more about the music business, Dixon formed his own publishing company, Ghana Music, in 1957 and registered it with Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) to protect his copyright interest in his own songs. His “I Can't Quit You Baby” was a Top Ten rhythm and blues hit for Otis Rush, but Cobra Records soon faced financial difficulties. By 1959 Dixon was back at Chess as a full-time employee. The late 1950s were a difficult time for bluesmen in Chicago, even as blues music was gaining popularity in other parts of the United States. In 1959 Dixon teamed up with an old friend, pianist Memphis Slim, to perform at the Newport Folk Festival in Newport, Rhode Island. They continued to play together at coffee houses and folk clubs throughout the country and eventually became key players in a folk and blues revival among young white audiences that achieved its height in the 1960s

In the 1980s, Dixon established the Blues Heaven Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing scholarship awards and musical instruments to poorly funded schools. Blues Heaven also offers assistance to indigent blues musicians and helps them secure the rights to their songs. Ever active in protecting his own copyrights, Dixon himself reached an out-of-court settlement in 1987 over the similarity of Led Zeppelin's 1969 hit “Whole Lotta Love” to his own “You Need Love.”

[beatbo]

Not true. The Verve only had to surrender the royalties from the single of "Bitter Sweet Symphony." Profits made from the album (considerable) and other singles were still the Verve's to keep. The Verve had another number 1 hit in the UK with "The Drugs Don't Work".

ledout, i saw the verve in chicago at the vic on this tour. (booted it). i really like that band. i wasn't trying to insinuate that abkco got profits from the album or or royalties from other singles. only "bittersweet". well-named, it seems...

[GetTheLedOut]

ledout, i saw the verve in chicago at the vic on this tour. (booted it). i really like that band. i wasn't trying to insinuate that abkco got profits from the album or or royalties from other singles. only "bittersweet". well-named, it seems...

Now we need to have a discussion about trading boots...