“Whiter Shade of Pale” by Procol Harum has been the subject of a copyright lawsuit. Today, a judge in London awarded a 40 percent share of the copyright to Matthew Fisher, the organist on the record.
This is kind of a big deal if it sticks but, I don’t think it will.
The judge feels that the organ part was
” a distinctive and significant part of the overall composition and quite obviously the product of skill and labor on the part of the person that played it.”
Now what is unimportant there is the part about skill and labor. You have to dismiss that in a legal discussion. Whether a guy has worked hard and is talented has nothing to do with copyrights. There are plenty of copyrighted songs that are owned by people without talent. Talent and skill may have something to do with the popularity of a record but not the copyright of a song.
What is important, legally, is whether the organ part is part of the composition. Ask this question; does the song exist without the organ part? The answer is yes. You could make a record acapella with only a single voice singing the words and melody and it would easily be identifiable as “Whiter Shade of Pale”.
The organ part is a arrangement idea. It’s a brilliant arrangement idea. When you hear that organ, you know the song instantly. The thing is, arranging a song can take just as much skill, or more, than writing. When you are a member of a band usually, the arrangement is a team effort. If the organ part is worth forty percent, what is the drum part worth? You can’t really decide that retroactively.
I may have mentioned this but the gig at Murphy’s that was cancelled on the thrd has been rescheduled for the 30th.
prying1 wrote,
This is nuts! Crap like this makes me wonder if the judge is getting a kickback.
And what’s with the 40%? 3 people makes it 33-1/3% each.
Unless the judge needs the extra percentage for his share.
Last question. Why did it take the organist, Matthew Fisher, until May 2005 to file the suit?
Lets see. 1967 to 2005 is 38 years. Someone put a bug in his ear and he ran for the gold.
Will it be overturned? - oops! - That’s one more question.
Link | December 21st, 2006 at 9:57 am
Pribek wrote,
The way I understand it the music was written by Gary Brooker and the words by Keith Reid. I am not familiar with British copyright law but evidently there is a seperation between the two. The way the judge explains it the 40% is coming from Brooker’s side.
Link | December 21st, 2006 at 10:09 am