Yusuf Islam accuses Coldplay of taking Viva La Vida melody

Yusuf Islam has reportedly claimed that Coldplay lifted part of their 'Viva La Vida' hit from one of his songs. According to The Sun, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens has alleged that Chris Martin, Jonny Buckland, Guy Berryman and Will Champion appeared to have sampled a melody from his 1970s track 'Foreigner Suite'.

"There’s been this argument about Coldplay stealing this melody from Joe Satriani, but, if you listen to it, it’s mine! It’s the 'Foreigner Suite', it is!" he is quoted as saying. Earlier this month, the band denied in a US Federal Court that they had copied part of their song from Satriani's 2004 instrumental 'If I Could Fly'. Satriani had suggested that Coldplay had incorporated "substantial original portions" of his track, but the band later countered this claim by saying that Satriani's track "lacks originality" and should not receive copyright protection.

New York based act Creaky Boards have also claimed that 'Viva La Vida' was influenced by one of their songs, an allegation later dismissed by Martin.

What do you think about this latest plagiarism claim? Is this just merely just attention-seeking because Cat Stevens happens to have an album release today, or does he have a point? Let us know your views at the Coldplay forum here onwards [thanks Sirhc]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you will probably know by now it has been reported that guitarist Joe Satriani has sued Coldplay, alleging that portions of Coldplay’s "Viva la Vida" incorporate material from Satriani’s "If I Could Fly", reports Madisonian today.

Read the actual court document detailing the case against Coldplay here [pdf... right click, save as]. For those who didn’t instantly know what the suit is about, Youtube has

For those wondering what the law says about this kind of suit, it’s easy to state the doctrine. Infringement exists when the defendant copied from the plaintiff’s work an amount of material that renders the two works “substantially similar.” In deciding whether copying exists, courts ask whether the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s work and whether the similarities between the two works are sufficient that, more likely than not, the similarities arise from copying.

If copying exists, courts then evaluate whether the works are “substantially similar,” i.e. sound too much alike. First appearances don’t look good for Coldplay. Nevertheless, many speculate that a band as well-known and successful as Coldplay would not copy so obviously. Coldplay is already hugely successful, would be discovered if infringing, and has the money to pay a judgment.

So what happened then? I’m thinking that this case is Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs all over again. In that case, the Chiffons sued George Harrison, alleging that “My Sweet Lord” was a copy of “He’s So Fine.”

The twist to Bright Tunes is that Harrison claimed he did not copy from the Chiffons, and the judge believed him because of testimony that Harrison and his fellow band members improvised “My Sweet Lord” during a recording session. The judge concluded that Harrison must have heard “He’s So Fine” and stored the melody in his unconscious memory. When Harrison began “searching” for a good tune for a new song, the melody from “He’s So Fine” popped into Harrison’s mind, and he did not realize that he was in fact “copying” from the Chiffons. The judge decided in favor of the Chiffons, holding that copying is actionable in copyright whether conscious or unconscious.

The Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs position on unconscious copying is well-entrenched in copyright doctrine, but it has been criticized on the ground that it makes illegal the very process by which most songs are created. Composers choose patterns of notes because they have heard similar patterns in the past and found them pleasing. If that is so, the only thing separating Harrison (and perhaps Coldplay) from being clear of infringement is the coincidence that their unconscious memory delivered them a recognizable tune, instead of one either unrecognizable (perhaps because it’s not well-known) or one cobbled together from snippets of other tunes.

People have sometimes thought that, even if Bright Tunes was wrong, it was unlikely to be reconsidered because another such case might never come along. Interestingly, perhaps the “repeat version” of Bright Tunes has now been filed, and courts may get a chance to rethink whether copyright infringement is something you can do innocently, or whether it’s something that requires some kind of culpable purpose.