This is fascinating. Some of the lawsuits in copyright infringement of music can be rather preposterous, in my opinion as a musician, given the limitations of the musical spectrum, regardless of how diverse it can appear. There is also the fact that inspiration will come from so many sources. Some famous lawsuits (which went ways which sometimes suprised me) include:
- George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" v. the Chiffon's "He's So Fine"
- Robert Plant & Jimmy Page for Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" v. Spirit (which opened for the band with an instrumental)
- Robin Thicke & Pharrel Williams (Blurred Lines) v. Marvin Gaye (Got to Give It Up)
Sonically, the inclusion of bells and piano is almost as synonymous as red, green and white. It's certainly different because of the times, technology and instruments. Lyrically, the expression is not original but one will instantly notice that similarity along with the fact that it comes in the resolution portion of the chorus, where many song titles will appear.
Interesting that the plaintiff alleges he only became aware of the song almost 27 years after it was released. It's a bare complaint so details sometimes can be omitted but it's also interesting that no attempt was made to establish exactly what was so similar between the songs that led to the plaintiff concluding that it is clearly a derivative work. Plaintiff's counsel simply assumed it was derivative, sent a letter to Mariah Carey's counsel to discuss how to treat it as a derivative work. I'm guessing Carey's counsel just treated it like a trolling claim and moved on, uninterested in a settlement.
The real issue here may be that Vince Vance's song was first comer and had established some connection with that likely often used phrase. If Mariah Carey didn't have as deep pockets as she may appear to have, would there be a legal issue? Right now I haven't heard many comparisons except for this
comparison of musical composition and arrangement. It's reasonably accurate in my opinion but the conclusion really summarizes it for me , including the fact that apparently Vince Vance had known about this issue 12 years ago and seems apartmently annoyed that there are some similarities. But it's rather clear to me that, if you start protecting these common themes, words, associated sounds, then songwriters should be terrified of creating new music. And quite frankly, as Slate calls "the most Christmassy chord of all" would actually be associated with the originators and then, they too, should demand royalties from all others who use that musical variation in conjunction with the typical Christmas motifs and phrases that have become so commonly used.
