Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Caronar t1_j6e4lir wrote

He knows the rules. And so do I.

314

Caseynovax t1_j6fhf08 wrote

A new commitment's what he's thinking of; you wouldn't (legally) get this from any other guy!

47

DamnBunny t1_j6fp4xp wrote

And you wonder who I'm suing.
Its this Minnesota man.

I'm Gonna Sue you, Yung
I'm Gonna shut you down.
My Attorneys are going to floor you.
They gonna make you cry.
They gonna make you wish you died.
They gonna sue the shirt right off you.

28

halfanothersdozen t1_j6e5ng0 wrote

Gotta protect your cashcow. That's his legacy right there

159

RockyMountainHigh- t1_j6e70d1 wrote

He probably gets a tenth of a cent every time someone gets Rick rolled.

74

Anchor689 t1_j6fiacj wrote

Supposedly he doesn't make that much since he didn't write the song. In 2010 it was reported he had only made $12 from the phenomenon. Then again, he said more recently that he's not sure how much it has made on YouTube, but I'm sure Sony Music has made a pretty penny since they now own both the label that the songwriter was with, and the label that the Astley recording was under.

6

Fenrir101 t1_j6fh5hy wrote

It was reported a while back that he gets nothing from it only google does. If you sat and watched the whole original upload he would get something but short clips and all the re-uploads get him nothing.

−1

blacklite911 t1_j6frmof wrote

Can someone explain why this is Oniony?

Seems like a standard copyright lawsuit

88

IAmTheClayman t1_j6gyczs wrote

Because it’s a pretty ridiculous lawsuit. Astley is arguing that Yung Gravy is copying his vocal patterns.

A) that’s not actually something protected by copyright, trademark, or any other law, and

B) you’d have to be completely tone deaf to think YG came anywhere close to sounding like him.

Now joking aside, it seems that YG did correctly get a license to interpolate the original song (meaning he has access to the original composition but needs to record everything from scratch, versus sampling where you just use a snippet of the original recording). The lawsuit argues that Astley’s distinct voice is a resource protected under “right to publicity”, which is something I’ve never heard of in the US so maybe it’s a UK-specific law

51

gertalives t1_j6ibus8 wrote

I see your point, but being ridiculous doesn’t make it oniony. The headline needs to capture some kind of absurdity to qualify for the sub, and this ain’t it.

13

supersecretaqua t1_j6h3jpn wrote

How good something is shouldn't really determine if the attempt was in bad faith lol.. Doesn't mean it is, but that shouldn't be relevant by itself.

There are many sides to shit like this, it doesn't have to be a scenario where you can literally overlap the waveforms and not tell the difference for it to be illegal imitation.

11

DutchNotSleeping t1_j6ijk6x wrote

Did you listen to the song? The entire start is just Rick Astleys song. Like, in the subtitles it even stated it was.

Also, there is def some rights on that, since this is the entire reason Taylor Swift decided to re-record her songs.

I hope Legal Eagle does a breakdown of this though, cause IANAL so I want to see his take

6

IAmTheClayman t1_j6iklwk wrote

Right, except YG got an interpolation license from the rights holder, which means he was legally allowed to recreate the song. Rick Astley is arguing that just his voice is a separate, protected asset, and that YG was not allowed to imitate it.

In the US at least I’ve never heard of that being a thing, and if it is a thing in UK law I would argue that YG doesn’t sound anything like Rick Astley on his song. He’s singing the same notes, but the tone and quality of his voice sounds nothing like the original

1

DutchNotSleeping t1_j6ilen9 wrote

The specific recording falls under a seperate copyright, this is 100% true in the US. And it's not about YG imitating his voice, it's about him using the actual recording of RA in the start of this clip.

Here is Legal Eagle explaining something similar with Taylor Swift https://youtu.be/M-A_RrOeoWw&t=4m36s

For some reason the timestamp isn't working properly but the important thing starts at 4m36s

4

RexManning1 t1_j6iqnus wrote

I’m not a UK lawyer, but in the US Astley may have an argument with regards to likeness.

6

blacklite911 t1_j6j4iee wrote

I think he might have a case though. It’s basically like imitating his likeness. Instead of hiring Astley to record new material, they basically either altered a voice or got a soundalike to adds extra material to the song. The argument is that song song gives you the impression that it’s Rick Astley singing the new lines. The implications could be important for the future. Because deepfake vocal technology can actually allow labels to produce new material in the sound of a singer’s voice.

It basically hinges on if the song leads the typical person to believe that Rick Astley is singing the new lines.

So I believe it’s more complicated than the initial reaction. He has a case

4

huhIguess t1_j6e7tiv wrote

I've literally never heard about Gravy before this.

The remix is literally Astley's song with bad vocals layered on top.

The comments on the remix are a gold mine though:

> "this song is only generating more views to the original so not sure why Rick even gives a shit"

71

RedditorsAnus t1_j6epgv0 wrote

Reading comments from all the YouTube legal experts is ... Something else.

12

CreativeCorinne t1_j6fr2yo wrote

They cleared the usage of the song but not someone imitating Astleys voice- that's what the suit is about.

2

blond-max t1_j6f6odl wrote

Suppose this is true, well he can get a small cut from that version, plus the normal cut from the original : winning

−1

Carvelt t1_j6e5iyk wrote

Payday incoming. He's just used the whole song without permission... It's got 33m views on YouTube alone.

70

DraxtortheLock t1_j6er1kw wrote

>The rapper and his team allegedly cleared the use of the underlying musical composition of Never Gonna Give You Up, which was written by Stock Aitken Waterman.

>This allowed them to recreate music and lyrics from the original song for their own track, a process known as interpolating.

From the article

83

Juan-More-Taco t1_j6fl4kx wrote

Unbelievably weird for you to not quote the very next line too.

>However, Astley's lawyers said: "A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorise the stealing of the artist's voice in the original recording."

61

DraxtortheLock t1_j6fxd28 wrote

I was adding context that "using the whole song" like the person I responded to is irrelevant. The entire point of the lawsuit is the vocals, not the use of the song.
Edit: Also disproving the claim he did it without permission

9

elixier t1_j6exs59 wrote

Yeah, and if you listen to the song, there have been cases won on songs that sounded way less like the original than this one does

29

One-Almond5858 t1_j6f0ta8 wrote

>The rapper and his team allegedly cleared the use of the underlying musical composition of Never Gonna Give You Up

13

elixier t1_j6f1ggs wrote

Lol clearly not, since otherwise Ricks legal team wouldn't be suing them lol

1

lksdjsdk t1_j6f4pl3 wrote

Tey reading the article.

−9

Juan-More-Taco t1_j6fl986 wrote

Why don't you?

>However, Astley's lawyers said: "A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorise the stealing of the artist's voice in the original recording."

23

lksdjsdk t1_j6h266v wrote

That's what I was referring to.

−2

DraxtortheLock t1_j6eyr63 wrote

Those songs do not interpolate. There's a difference between copying a beat or sound and getting clearance to interpolate an existing song

8

bossmt_2 t1_j6f9mqf wrote

Yeah and the Verve cleared to sample the Orchestral Version of the Last Time, they still were sued and lost songwriting credits

8

DraxtortheLock t1_j6fesgu wrote

That's because the agreement was for something like a few notes of the original song, not interpolation. Interpolating is literally rerecording the same song essentially, instead of sampling like Verve had alleged in their agreement.

Besides this lawsuit isn't even about the song itself, it's about them having someone essentially impersonating Astley. Not the lyrics themselves.

7

bossmt_2 t1_j6flvcq wrote

Bittersweet symphony was a sample. It wasn't an interpolation. Interpolation is Gangsta's Paradise interpolating Pasttime Paradise. Interpolation is what Yung Gravy is doing when he takes the melody of Never Gonna Give You Up and sings different words.

Bittersweet Symphony doesn't take the melody from the Last Time. It samples the riff which they got permission to do. But what happened is a lawsuit from essentially a greedy manager who owned the Stones Catalogue and wanted to make a ton of money and knew they had the Verve over the barrel.

8

mypantsareonmyhead t1_j6fon66 wrote

I'm pretty sure the "journalist' who wrote that thinks that Stock Aitken Waterman is a person.

2

Elevenst t1_j6e5vp9 wrote

Yung Gravy?

Rap names are so lazy and stupid anymore. Everyone's a "Lil" or "Young" something. Lame.

6

Haus42 t1_j6e8zvp wrote

I assumed it was a Chinese food company.

20

wasdlmb t1_j6eidc6 wrote

See it made sense with lil Wayne because he was like 8 years old when he started rapping. Now everybody is trying to copy rhat

17

blankgazez t1_j6ep6d3 wrote

He is called lil Wayne cause he is like 5’4”

14

MangoSea323 t1_j6h93nk wrote

How sure are you that this is the reasoning?

Do you think he was 5'4" when he was 8? Wouldnt he have been Big Wayne then, cause I feel like that's a pretty fuckin big 8 year old.

3

Cohibaluxe t1_j6f9hvt wrote

That’s literally the joke. It’s a character.

7

itsBB-8m8 t1_j6ewjze wrote

If you think his name is bad listen to his “music”

3

SportsPhotoGirl t1_j6m1ohj wrote

The only song of his I know is the one referenced in this post, and the musical component of the song isn’t even his. So as far as I know, all he’s good at is saying random words with someone else’s track playing behind him.

1

AFourEyedGeek t1_j6fluzh wrote

Donald Glover used a name generator, pretty lazy... However, I got my son's name the same way.

3

septicdank t1_j6iah0u wrote

I traded my son for a generator⚡ Hasn't disappoint me yet 👌

0

retroracer33 t1_j6fbp21 wrote

"Rap names are so lazy and stupid anymore. Everyone's a "Lil" or "Young" something. Lame."

thanks for the 20 year old hot take lmao

−5

blahbleh112233 t1_j6ebtrn wrote

Dear god, looking at his photo, he's about a few rape accusations away from being a straight up caricature of white rappers

−18

TheSessionMan t1_j6grfb5 wrote

He was the "headline" personality at the xgames yesterday. He didn't seem like a terrible dude at all.. But then he started rapping and everything fell apart. It was out of key, out of time, mumblecore unintelligible bullshit. The kind of music you can only hear nowadays in the era of genZ Spotify/YouTube singles culture. People who can spend all their time in their bedroom fucking around on pro tools and make a good single, get a few hundred million listens, and rake in cash from it while spending the rest of their time on Twitch hanging out with fans.

He certainly doesn't seem like more conventional artists who spend their time grinding and performing and improving their skills in order to rise to the top. In a decade I doubt anyone will remember the name Yung Gravy. I could be wrong though.

2

Xbalanque_ t1_j6fxjbe wrote

Betty (Get Money) is Yung Gravy's most successful track to date, reaching gold status in the US, equating to 500,000 sales. The song and its accompanying video were released in June 2022.

Go figure.

6

Peri_D0t t1_j6gqy8r wrote

Wait...he ...he didn't get permission? What the fuck dumbass

2

KentuckyFriedEel t1_j6gitsm wrote

How the fuck did young gravy cover his song without permission

1

Piperplays t1_j6ik0sk wrote

I just listened to the Yung Gravy song. He essentially just raw samples the song while using something to muffle and minutely modulate the sound for the introduction.

There’s no differential interpretation here, just a raw recording sample with some aftereffects. Very much in the same vein as “ice ice baby” and “under pressure.”

I don’t think Gravy is going to win this one. He’d be better off settling and/or giving Astley or a charity of his choice the song royalties.

1

Jman50k t1_j6ipsth wrote

Old Gravy wants his due!

1

1x54f t1_j6itf6q wrote

Good gravy!!!

1

Dgaart t1_j6izax0 wrote

Holy shit this song is awful. I literally can't tell what is parody or not anymore.

1

Ok_Professional_4499 t1_j6i3ux4 wrote

However, Astley's lawyers said: "A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorise the stealing of the artist's voice in the original recording."

Is it Rick A voice on the song distorted (similar to Chaka Khan’s voice on Through the Wire by Kanye?)

Or an entirely different singer with their voice distorted?

Will it matter if it is a different singer all together since the song (lyrics -I assume, and instrumental) was licensed and approved?

I think the article says the artist used a different singer?

Rick might just be taking a chance to see if he can get some money or free publicity for a new tour 🤷🏾‍♂️ IDK?

Listened to the song and it sounds like a different singer.

0

myops_rock t1_j6e2uzi wrote

Don’t be trying to steal the rickroll bro!

−1

Rais93 t1_j6hexyt wrote

I've hear the song, that's a case of sampling.

When you are an affirmed artist, you usually pay a share for that

−1

jamcdonald120 t1_j6hn4zk wrote

Dude, give it up.

Nothing you or anyone else in your industry can change how many views your video gets, and how many copies you will sell.

Thanks to reddit, those numbers will always be [as many suckers as we can get to click the link] and 0, respectivly.

In other news here is a cool video I saw about this

−1

Hangman_va t1_j6i5ww4 wrote

The number of people who can't be assed to read the article is astounding.

"WhY He nO PaY tO SAmPlE!?!?!??!!!!?"

He did. You mouth-breathing muppets. The issue is a supposed mimicking of his vocal style.

−1

JeNiqueTaMere t1_j6jcdff wrote

>The number of people who can't be assed to read the article is astounding. > >"WhY He nO PaY tO SAmPlE!?!?!??!!!!?" > >He did. You mouth-breathing muppets

Funny since the article you supposedly read contradicts you.

He didn't pay to sample, he paid to use the original composition.

A cover and a sample are two different things. A composition and a song recording are two different things.

1

frealfr t1_j6f58s6 wrote

Who's Lil Gravy?

−3

MountNdoU t1_j6ge3y3 wrote

I know I'm "old" but I'm right there with you.

Watched the video on youtube and, goddamnit.. I'm just a little bit like my parents I guess, because I just kept thinking "is this what passes for good hip hop today?"

6

Super_Log5282 t1_j6hh2xq wrote

Who is this "4chan" What is this "pokeman" Who's "Lil Gravy" Congrats you've reached boomer status. Information for your fox news subscription should be mailed to you within the next 3-5 business days

−3

[deleted] t1_j6e5k36 wrote

[deleted]

−19

[deleted] t1_j6e79wy wrote

[deleted]

8

DroneOfDoom t1_j6esvia wrote

They did clear the sample and the interpolation with the writers of the song. Rick didn’t write his songs, at least not back then.

−2

RelentlessChicken t1_j6egehj wrote

It uses the music, with entirely different lyrics the whole time. Doesn't that fall under parody law?

−7

RPDRNick t1_j6ecvab wrote

Tom Waits v. Frito-Lay and Bette Midler v. Ford, the artists were both successful in their cases against sound-alike singers. Those cases, however, involved advertising, so there's a lower bar to cross when suing for rights of publicity.

It sounds like Yung Gravy cleared the song but didn't clear the sample. So, he instead created an interpolation that is arguably indistinguishable from the original.

6

AlienSporez t1_j6eabfn wrote

There's only a few things we hold dear on Reddit: Shrek, Keanu, bananas, and Saint Rick.

You done fucked up, Yung. You done fucked up really bad.

−23