Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Suing Led Zeppelin</b></i> Can a Copyright Infringement Plaintiff Rewrite Rock and Roll History?
In one of the many memorable scenes from the film Wayne's World , Wayne tests guitars in a music store. Laying his hands on a beautiful white Fender Stratocaster ' “Excalibur” he calls it ' Wayne begins to gently pluck a somber, minor-key melody. Suddenly, the store attendant chokes the guitar's neck and points Wayne to a sign on the wall: “NO Stairway to Heaven.” The scene is funny because of the sheer ubiquity of that brooding guitar line. Led Zeppelin's “Stairway to Heaven,” released on the 1971 album Led Zeppelin IV , has been blasted from speakers at countless parties and proms. It has been a mainstay of classic rock radio for decades. And, yes, learning those opening chords to the song has been a rite of passage for many an aspiring guitarist.
Imagine Wayne's disillusionment if he were to learn that Led Zeppelin purloined “Stairway” from another band. That allegation is at the heart of Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 2:2014cv03089, a recently filed copyright lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that asserts Led Zeppelin copied the introductory descending guitar figure in “Stairway to Heaven” from a 1968 instrumental by the American progressive rock band Spirit.
This article examines the allegations of that lawsuit, explains why the suit is not stale despite being brought 42 years after the release of “Stairway,” and discusses the challenges that the plaintiff must overcome if he is to prevail in the litigation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.