-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Lotte Kestner accusing ND of plagiarizing her cover of 'True Faith' for the TLOU2 CGI Trailer (update: ND acknowledge the inspiration, see threadmark)
- Thread starter Deleted member 1589
- Start date
I'm sure it will get sorted even if it's just a credit or something, i'm not sure how you would work out what it's worth in financial terms, if anything.
Poor Lotte Kestner (solo project of covert song artist Anna-Lynne Williams)
I'm pretty sure there was no way to settle that with ND then using the marketing twitter for a solo project.
And no, it is wrong if it is a copy of her singing, but it is a cover nontheless.
I'm pretty sure there was no way to settle that with ND then using the marketing twitter for a solo project.
And no, it is wrong if it is a copy of her singing, but it is a cover nontheless.
Sensible chuckle. But if they did cover her cover, they should at least give credit.
if all of this becomes a big thing, i can see her album "stolen" copyright stiked by new order easily.
Okay. But people seem real quick to talk about the legalities (and to dismiss the work that goes into a cover) and quite slow to acknowledge that Sony shouldn't steal stuff.
The little guy that copies other artists work and tries to claim it as their own?
Welp, let's bring a hypothetical question; there's a lot of cover songs that are more famous than their originals, like Tainted Love, I Love Rock n' Roll or even All Along the Watchtower, so that brings the question; if someone hired a third group to do a cover of Soft Cell's version of Tainted Love, instead of covering the 60's original, which party should be credited? And which one(s) should be compensated? I am not sure. (by the way, I'm not saying her version is more famous than the original)
Also, her version has some elements that I didn't found on the original, like the voice melody in the 3:30 mark on her song, which is practically the exact same melody line in the end of the trailer, in the 0:46 mark. It's really melodic, not just free style/solo, and melody, alongside lyrics most of the time, are some of the foundations of a song, and where they usually justify copyrights claims or not as far as I know.
Not only that but the arrangement of the song is similar and even the way they portrait that melody line in question is incredibly similar.
Also, her version has some elements that I didn't found on the original, like the voice melody in the 3:30 mark on her song, which is practically the exact same melody line in the end of the trailer, in the 0:46 mark. It's really melodic, not just free style/solo, and melody, alongside lyrics most of the time, are some of the foundations of a song, and where they usually justify copyrights claims or not as far as I know.
Not only that but the arrangement of the song is similar and even the way they portrait that melody line in question is incredibly similar.
Genuine question as I don't really know anything about the music industry.
She's selling her cover on Bandcamp. Does that mean she's licensed and is paying royalties to New Order for her version?
And second, If a big band wanted to do a cover of The Guns N' Roses version of Live and Let die on an album for example. Would they have to go to Axl Rose or Paul MCCartney. or Both?
She's selling her cover on Bandcamp. Does that mean she's licensed and is paying royalties to New Order for her version?
And second, If a big band wanted to do a cover of The Guns N' Roses version of Live and Let die on an album for example. Would they have to go to Axl Rose or Paul MCCartney. or Both?
Doubt it. She would have licensed the original song to cover it in the first place. I would assume Sony did the same thing for the trailer. The issue is the similarities in the differences to the original.
One would assume so
There are legal differences between a score and a recording, you can claim some rights on a recording even if you don't own the score (that's how classical music recording are protected). Also Sony already has a music royalties program for the PSN in the EU, that is unique among game digital distribution.
Can Video Game Composers Get Royalties?
Do game composers get royalties like film or TV composers do? Short answer is "probably not", the long answer is... "It's
www.gamesoundcon.com
Last edited:
A musical arrangement of an existing composition would constitute as "derivative work".
According to copyright law, § 103, on the subject matter of copyright, the copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
I suppose one could attempt to argue that the arrangement is a distinguished contribution, but it's a hell of risky path to take. This isn't exactly an extraordinary piece of music, and a musicologist could easily find a dozen other compositions that are close to it.
I don't have nothing to do with US law, and I just did a quick search without regard for american legal theory, case law or anything like that. I just know this isn't the first time a musician goes after someone for infringement, but I have never seen someone do it for a cover of a cover, and I don't think she has a stronger case.
It isn't subtle though, so I don't think it's a coincedence.
According to copyright law, § 103, on the subject matter of copyright, the copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
I suppose one could attempt to argue that the arrangement is a distinguished contribution, but it's a hell of risky path to take. This isn't exactly an extraordinary piece of music, and a musicologist could easily find a dozen other compositions that are close to it.
I don't have nothing to do with US law, and I just did a quick search without regard for american legal theory, case law or anything like that. I just know this isn't the first time a musician goes after someone for infringement, but I have never seen someone do it for a cover of a cover, and I don't think she has a stronger case.
It isn't subtle though, so I don't think it's a coincedence.
They copied her cover of the song. Her cover. Specifically. I don't know if you're playing dumb or if you actually somehow don't understand this.
I hope this is sarcasm because this reeks of "you will be paid in exposure!"
Being involved in the music industry, I think she has no case.
* Her rights were lost the moment she choose to cover the song.At that moment her rights as creator were lost.
* She can only be credited/compensated if someone used her exact version of the song as she has the rights as the performer.
* Her rights were lost the moment she choose to cover the song.At that moment her rights as creator were lost.
* She can only be credited/compensated if someone used her exact version of the song as she has the rights as the performer.
Honestly, even with naughty dog out of the mix I just don't feel sorry for cover bands/artists when they throw a fit. This is a song from the 80s and the creators should always be the benefactor. If New Order got paid let her make a claim against them for accepting the money wrongfully.....lol
Either way, this kind of issue shouldn't be happening to a company like Sony considering they have Sony music and one of their artists group is Pentatonix, who are famous for making covers of famous songs.
If by exact version you mean the one that uses her voice, cause the one in the commercial uses Ashley Johnson's and is property of Naughty Dog presumably.
She absolutely has no case, the most she can hope for is a copy of the game, if that. The only one with a claim is the actual artist that did the work, she barely did anything and wants money now lol.
ah i didn't knew that she is quite popular, so she probably paid royalties for covers.
it's a reference to the Glee case where they stole an artist's cover and told him he should be happy for the exposure (when they didn't credit him)
Jonathan Coulton Explains How Glee Ripped Off His Cover Song — And Why He's Not Alone
Indie musician Jonathan Coulton talks to Wired after his arrangement of of "Baby Got Back" was used by the television show Glee without credit or permission.
I'm sure that New Order will get royalty payments because she's selling her version
yeah, are the changes in her versions enough to constitute a derivative as opposed to a cover. the lyrics and melodies are the same as the original, so I would assume no, it's a cover. If it's a cover, the only people they would need to get the rights from is the original artist/label. A cover artist has no rights to the songs they cover. it's an unfortunate aspect of the music industry.
I mentioned it earlier but Jeff Buckley's cover of Hallelujah is actually a cover of a John Cale cover. Both are different that Cohen's original, but still fall under cover's as opposed to derivative works. Would Buckley have to license the rights from both Cohen and Cale?
The game has reached GTA levels of controversies and it's not even out yet XD
To be fair, this is a message she personally sent to ND's twitter account. All the legal back and forth in this thread is bizarre since 1) Hardly anyone (if any) really know the legality of this. 2) At this point she's not suing, she just seems to be asking them to make the right moral choice.
Cross posting from the other thread.
It's a small bit of vocal harmonising / freestyling that sounds similar. Her saying she "wrote" it is a bit much. The actual lyrics are the exact same as the original New Order vesion. I can certainly see her point of view but she doesn't really have a case here.
As long as Naughty Dog have the right to use the song from New Order (which I assume they do) they are covered legally. Their cover version may have a similar arrangement and tone to someone else's cover, but that's the nature of cover songs.
How many acoustic versions of Wonderwall are knocking around on the internet? Those artists don't have a claim every time it's used in an advert.
You sure do like trying to find excuses to justify stealing.
How about the claim where she says they copy the part she added? Hmm?
Also where is she trying to claim it as her own? Sheflat out says it's a cover. I guess victim blaming is easier then ever admitting Naughty Dog could ever do wrong.
Credit
New Order has to get royalties from it. Same goes for when people are trying to clear samples that are used in songs. As for your last question, I think they would have to only pay Paul. She deserves the credit and i'm sure they have already paid New Order to use the song.
I'm guessing that similar to the Glee thing with Jonathan Coulton even if she had an actionable case for being ripped off she has no actual legal recourse. Unfortunate but that's show biz.
As someone who works in the local music industry in my country, I don't see this the ad agency plagiarizing her cover more so that it's done in a similar style (slow, acoustic/guitar version of an 80s pop song), making the two versions ound similar. You won't believe how much covers we get of old songs that sound the same because they use the same style, so I don't think she has any solid case here. I can't even say she was ripped off because covers done in this vain must have been done thousands of times before.
I think you may have a case with the vocal freestyling at the end, but it's the same chord progression as the original song, and that portion of the ad is so short that I can't really say if they outright stole her arrangement or not. Basically, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else also did the same vocal freestyling at the end before she did.
Also to note because everyone is piling up on ND here, normally in these kinds of cases, it is assumed that the ad agency/marketing team responsible for making the ad has taken care of the legalities of their ad--including ambiguous cases such as these. I feel for Lotte, but I have to say that I don't think she has any case here--even ethically.
I think you may have a case with the vocal freestyling at the end, but it's the same chord progression as the original song, and that portion of the ad is so short that I can't really say if they outright stole her arrangement or not. Basically, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else also did the same vocal freestyling at the end before she did.
Also to note because everyone is piling up on ND here, normally in these kinds of cases, it is assumed that the ad agency/marketing team responsible for making the ad has taken care of the legalities of their ad--including ambiguous cases such as these. I feel for Lotte, but I have to say that I don't think she has any case here--even ethically.
Anyway, there's a bunch of youtubers who got famous for just doing covers of popular songs. Daniela Andrade is one of them. She has a bunch of original stuff now. From what I remember it took her a while to get all of her covers on spotify.
It's not irrelevant, it's the one way she could argue to be compensated for this. This is a new cover which was cleared by the original artist's publisher. They did not use Lotte's performance, so unless ND was using a rendition with new musical arrangement/lyrics that Lotte created (and that doesn't appear to be the case) she isn't entitled to anything.
A lot of bad faith posting in here from folks with no music industry or legal knowledge. The creative agency responsible for this trailer and PlayStation's legal counsel definitely did their due diligence before approving this ad and running it on broadcast television.
I'd imagine this is quite legally complex. Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Unfortunatly I don't think she'll see anything unless ND/Sony credit her or pay her in a good faith gesture because they've not actually used her performance in the trailer and she isn't the credited writer.
She still looked quite a bit like Ellen Page in the first game even after the edits to her model. They only managed to fix that with the sequel. She now looks 100% like Ashley Johnson. Someone made a comparison using footage from the state of play.
What if they took inspiration from multiple covers? Should they credit the cover of a cover while doing a cover?
It's not complex, she doesn't have a case. She's not the songwriter of the song and, thus, she has no rights in terms of this composition. She only has a say if they literally use her recording of it, as that would be using her performance.
She can obviously complain on moral grounds (which is what she's doing) but Sony wouldn't have had to clear anything with her or compensate her because she's not the rights holder to the composition.
I'm sorry what? She has no case ethically? They copied her work and didn't credit her. That's ethically shitty.
"Victim blaming"?? Breathe, she isn't a victim of anything.
My comment was hasty. Hadn't even heard the original. Also, this is where my ignorance of US law is appearent: I didn't even know there would be a difference between a cover or a derivative work. My bad. Thanks for the comment, made me smarter!
I couldn't think of a better term. I don't like how so many people are willing to brush of someone's because there favorite game company couldn't possibly do wrong.
I've also not slept in 12 hours.
Case in fucking point.