From October 2016 to March 2017 the team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Tian Lu and Hayleigh Bosher.

Tuesday, 31 May 2016

Sorry not sorry – Justin Bieber and Skrillex deny copying vocal loop to produce ‘Sorry’

Justin Bieber and Skrillex have been accused of copyright infringement by artist Casey Dienel, aka White Hinterland. The suit probably does not come as a complete surprise to the duo as Dienel claimed that she contacted Bieber’s lawyers when “Sorry” was initially released, but did not receive a response.

Dienel alleged that Bieber and Skrillex, whose 2015 hit single ‘Sorry’ has received 1.4 billion hits on YouTube, copied her vocal loop from her 2014 song ‘Ring the Bell’. The allegedly copied segment can be heard in the first five seconds of each song. Skrillex and Bieber have both denied the claims on their Twitter accounts.

Unlike his song lyrics to Selena Gomez,
Bieber isn't sorry about this alleged copying
 If this claim goes to trial, it could be the 2016 edition of the infamous “Blurred Lines” dispute, which resulted in Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke being ordered to pay Marvin Gaye’s family $7.4 million USD for infringing copyright in his 1977 hit ‘Got to give it up’ (discussed on IPKat here). 

After the ‘Blurred lines’ case, this Kat would be surprised if Bieber’s lawyers took this case to trial, but let’s consider what Dienel would need to prove to win her claim for infringement:

Copyright subsists
For a claim in copyright infringement to succeed, copyright must subsist in the earlier work. Copyright subsists in the US if the work is original according to the standard set out in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991); a modicum of creativity.

Substantial similarity
The later work must be substantially similar to the earlier work for a finding of copyright infringement. Determining substantial similarity “includes a qualitative as well as a quantitative aspect.” (Abrams, §14.16). This Kat played both songs at the same time and thought there was undeniable overlap between the two sounds. Dienel’ loop has four beats whereas Bieber and Skrillex’s has five, but it is the similarities rather than the differences which have to be compared.
Even if the works are substantially similar, copyright law will not protect a work if the later work was independently created (Abrams, §14.7). Skrillex tweeted a video showing how the loop in question was produced, demonstrating his stance on this issue.

Proof of copying can be direct or indirect. Direct proof could be an admission of copying by the defendants or testimony of a direct observer of the copying.  Dienel is unlikely to have direct proof so she would have to rely on indirect proof. This would include the availability of the work to the accused copier and the similarities between the two works.

Daniel’s song is available on YouTube and Spotify so it would have been easily accessible by Bieber and Skrillex. As for the similarity, US DJ Diplo weighed in on the matter when questioned by TMZ; “I thought they sampled it…but I thought they cleared it. Yea, seems pretty easy to do.”

Significance of the claim
Musical copyright claims such as this one skate a thin line between protecting the creations of artists and chilling future creation. It is difficult to determine when a song has copied rather than been inspired as artists are inevitably influenced by earlier works. The video Skrillex posted indicates that a similar sound or technique was used in producing the song, rather than taking a direct sample from ‘Ring the Bell’. It might be the case that Bieber and Skrillex were inspired by the earlier sound and decided to create their own version to incorporate into ‘Sorry’, using different pitch, timing and placement.

Are Bieber and Skillex copycats or creative cats?
In this instance, whether Bieber was inspired or unlawfully imitated Dienel’s vocal loop, ‘Ring the Bell’ pales in comparison to the global success that ‘Sorry’ has achieved.  It’s not surprising that Dienel would feel slighted and pursue a claim to reap the rewards that her song didn’t produce. 


Anonymous said...

I am excited that we are approaching the day when a copyright trial can be conducted entirely on twitter

Emma Perot said...

@Anonymous haha, no need for even a twitter trial at this rate because the copyright expert from 'On Air with Ryan Seacrest' (you may know this site as a source for celebrity gossip) has already decided the case based on the damning twitter evidence-

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':