Interesting. The basic percussive, vocal and guitar riffs are clearly based off the original, though the modern version is more polished and better packaged. The lyrics are definitely different between the two, changing the meaning and full structure of the song.

I'm not sure this justifies a copyright infringement, particularly in the era of remixes. If we can legally use actual samples of another song to build your own, why is a re-imagining which builds upon and modifies the original illegal?

From my understanding none of those things were used in the comparison nor any samples actually used. It was that the new song "sounds like" the old song is the criticism. Which could be expanded to mean the person who created a genre of music owns it.

If a musician can be sued for being inspired by another, then dark times are ahead for all musicians.

"What was your inspiration for this song?" "No comment."

Agreed.

It's worth remembering that nobody knows the original composer of the "Superman" theme. While John Williams is credited with arranging the cinematic version, his arrangement was based on the television show theme. That theme was purchased sans-crédit from a French artist via a system intentionally architected to leverage the at-the-time gaps in international law to minimize Hollywood's cost burden for music scores.

To maintain this protection, they intentionally did not track the pedigree of the theme. This is a loss for history.

That's my concern as well. You can trace inspirations back throughout history. Paintings, music, writing - all benefit from previous works.

What happens in the print world when a the idea of a "revenge fantasy" becomes copyrightable? When the use of certain chord progressions can cost you the revenue from a particular song? When a movie containing "triumph in the face of adversity through superhuman powers" can't be done because someone else did it first?

We don't seem to have listened to the same vocals. Gaye is singing in a falsetto. So, with significantly different pitch, different melody, different lyrics, different vocal 'hooks'... I just don't see how the vocals are clearly based off the original.

My apologies - "vocals" was used in reference to the verbal percussion going on - the "hey"s littered throughout as part of the background melody.

That's because, from what I understand, the vocals weren't part of the comparison between the two songs.

Vocals were included in falcolas's analysis.

You have a link to that analysis? I'd be curious over the conclusion since I would imagine comparing vocals to be the weakest part of such a case.

Also, I've seen lots of commentary from supposed experts in the field that have concluded the opposite.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9237554 :)

not a formal analysis, just the comment before mine :)

Remixes pay copyright royalties.

Given that remixing potentially falls under the "transformative" portion of fair use copyright exemptions, this doesn't seem like it's set in stone, legally.

Of course, I imagine that most artists work out contracts with the copyright owners and simply pay the royalties simply because it's less expensive than a protracted copyright lawsuit. This doesn't make it a legal standard, however.

The US and many other countries have laws establishing the idea of a "compulsory license", which is (legally) required any time you cover someone else's song: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license

Oh shoot, someone better tell Rick James err M.C. Hammer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5IxfaDnMaU

Except in the case of M.C. Hammer it is an obvious sample. Nothing more nothing less.