We all thought we've known that for like forever. Melody and lyrics AND, song specific "licks" that can be considered part of a melody. My favorite example of that is the Stones Satisfaction. Everybody in the world who cares knows that intro lick and it runs throughout the song. Nobody with half a brain would dare to use that in some other song.

BUT, getting away from the obvious ones, where do you draw the line? Is some one bar phrase or lick something like Satisfaction or is it simply an open source part of a song construction kit? That's what this case is about and to me the jury sure got it wrong but the question is why did they get it wrong? What was presented to them? What were the jury instructions from the judge? Rules of evidence are very specific in any court.

The appeal should be very interesting. If she loses the appeal I would take it to the Supreme Court. The problem there is they only accept a very few cases. Another problem is this is rap and pop stuff. Pretty much anybody over the age of 50 or so can't stand to listen to it. I can see judges and juries simply shutting their ears to it and going yeah, whatever who cares about this crap. They don't want to hear about the creativity that went into it, they think it's a joke. Or at least most probably.

Bob

Biab/RB latest build, Win 11 Pro, Ryzen 5 5600 G, 512 Gig SSD, 16 Gigs Ram, Steinberg UR22 MkII, Roland Sonic Cell, Kurzweil PC3, Hammond SK1, Korg PA3XPro, Garritan JABB, Hypercanvas, Sampletank 3, more.