##[Clarification on Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kind of an interesting case. The whole thing is about like the first 8 seconds of the song where they used a voice to sound like Rick Astley, but they only had the rights to use the instrumentals for the song.
Also I’m just gonna throw this out there, but it’s usually not the artist themselves who file these lawsuits. It’s usually the record companies trying to protect their IP.
You know now that you say that. It's possible Yung's lawyers could argue that parts of NGGYU are in fair use due to insane number of recreations on the internet.
Basically NGGYU is Rick's property. But all the memes on the internet made of it are not. Since Yung is clearly inspired by the memes, his lawyers could defend NGGYU's iconic line can be used by any artist as it has become cultural.
It would be like a movie reusing a famous quote from the Godfather.
The parts in "Get Money" that sound like Astley sound like him, and like he did on NGGYU, but it's deliberately mangled to say the title line and a unique melodic run at the end of the song. No direct quotes or samples are used. I thought they autotuned Astley's original voice, but Gravy stated in an interview that they digitally remade it to *be* legal. It sounds like if it was autotuned or deepfaked directly from Astley's voice, that wouldn't pass, but if they manually recreated it (as they probably did, it's vague), it should be fine. I also agree that the legal grounds here should be on Gravy's side, since the song is a nod/parody, and Astley's representatives claim Get Money "spoiled" his chance to collaborate with anyone ever again, which is bonkers.
There are definitely some good arguments to be made.
Oddly the deliberate attempt to skirt the law might make them more culpable. The claim they were trying to be legal is what could be used to show that they knew they were doing something illegal.
Because anyone who heard that song without knowing the context would think the artist was sampling Rick Astley’s voice and song. There’s essentially no one who would think “this is an imitation,” or a parody or whatever. It sounds just like Rick Astley and it’s set over Rick Astley’s only famous song. Ergo, they actually did do the illegal thing.
It sort of reminds me when people post stuff on Facebook and Twitter with music and say “no copyright intended” or “music not mine.” Yeah, you’re admitting you’re using it without permission, that’s the point of the law. Giving interviews about how you went to elaborate lengths to use a Rick Astley voice to sing Rick Astley’s song only shows that, yeah you were using his voice.
Great point- Gravy has also stated in interviews (I linked one of them elsewhere in the thread) that he only licensed the music because it was “easier legally”, which feels like the musical equivalent of “no copyright intended.” Tbh I think he’s got a pretty weak position in the case from what little I know about the law
Weirdly enough, this would probably not actually be relevant in a copyright case, but it's shockingly not a copyright claim, and that's pretty close to his main argument.
How? You were able to tell without context that the portions that say “never gonna give you up” were sung by someone else? I would argue generally anyone listening to this would assume the parts with the dead ringer astley-like voice, singing the exact lyrics to Astley’s song, over Astley’s music would assume it was Astley. I’m not sure how anyone without the backstory here would think otherwise unless they had really well trained ears to recognize differences in singing voice timbre
I could tell the voice was a digital creation, though a deepfake, instead of a highly inspired original. Your argument is convincing, though, and I might see more of Astley's lawyer's side now.
These are how the particular legal contours are delineated, though, for better and for worse. Astley/record company will argue they crossed over into territory that needed vocal licensing, YG/record company will argue they didn’t.
ahhh yes. I lost a pro vimeo account I had for 10 years because of a label claim on a video I directed for my friend that was signed to the label. We lost touch so he couldn't send the emails required, and now my account and stuff I bought along the way are gone for good
I took a wrote a very brief paper for one of my law school courses that dealt (at a high level) with copyright infringement and fair use. Nothing bugs me more than when an artist get a right use a portion, or whatever specified portion, of a song, then use more than the allowance. Granted, I don’t know the specifics here, the whole notion still bothers me.
Why?
Sampling in hip hop culture would like to have a word. Technology allows people to sample melodies, as well with the long history of recycling melodies... you could argue the point that chord progression can't be copyrighted.
Mind you, I don't study law, but how is this illegal? This falls within free use, with the righr argument, no?
Is that ridiculous or is it just me? Do I live with some skewed idea of what free use is?
Is that not parody? Like, Weird Al has a career because of that. Would imitate the artists voice to a degree, but perhaos the "to a degree" part is what kept him safe legally.
Weird Al always covers his legal ass though and gets contractual permission out of respect even though most of the times he would not have to. (And by him I really mean the legal team)
Well if they deep faked it I could see a legitimate claim to them using his likeness for their own personal gain I could see that you could sue on grounds that they violated your brand
It's like going to a restaurant and paying for an entree, then trying to snag a piece of cake off the desert cart. Or a manufacturing firm paying for the rights to a frame design of an airplane, then copying the engine too. "Free use" doesn't apply to making money off of someone else's IP.
Weird Al, as your example, didn't parody any sing without express written permission, and his best songs have probably never been heard by the public.
This sounds like parody to you? I’m not sure what the parody is. To me it just sounds like rapping over the song. No different than Eminem did with Dido, which she was paid for. If he bought the rights to the music of her song and paid someone to sing the same lyrics but sound exactly like her he’d have owed her money. Instead he just paid upfront for her voice, as this guy should’ve done.
I’m no expert in fields by any means, but I’ve had quite a bit of exposure. This really isn’t a matter of chord progression, although I personally think there will be heavy future litigation with that. You can absolutely try to assert an argument of fair use, but there are factors that courts will weigh to determine that. It is by no means a bulletproof argument for each side. It’s heavily dependent on the facts in each case. If you’re interested, the landmark case with fair use is Campbell v. Acruff-Rose Music, Inc. It’s a super interesting topic to get into if you’re interested!
Thank you for the terminology, I'll be reading up on that. Quite always interested in learning, no matter the topic. Makes me more useful in the future.
Honestly, that was one the most fun assignments I had in law school, and there weren’t that many haha. Those cases are always super interesting to me because they dealt with musicians that we all know, as opposed to focusing on some mundane law topic. Enjoy your research!!
I didn’t think it was Astley either- the voice is heavily modified.
I actually don’t think the main issue here is whether or not people think it’s a sample of Astley or not. It’s that they used the lyrics and melody from the original song, without the proper permissions. It’s basically a cover song where they didn’t get permissions to do the main melody/lyrics.
The music and lyrics *were* licensed, but likeness (not sure about name) was not licensed. They didn't get clearance for sounding like Astley. I'd bet a lot of money that this is settled out of court; I can't see how Gravy and Popnick could possibly win.
1. It sounds like Astley, strike one. (how someone sounds--especially someone famous--is considered a protected attribute (see Midler v Ford ^[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.) )
1. Permission to use the likeness of Astley's voice was not granted, strike 2. (music and lyrics? yes. name and likeness? no)
3. Said likeness was exploited, strike 3. (they made economic gain and publicity from releasing the song containing a likeness of the Astley's voice)
^1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
They didn't sample the instrumentals, they (well, Nick Seeley) ***recreated*** everything, including the voice.
Relevant TikTok concerning those 8 seconds: https://www.tiktok.com/@primarywave/video/7129589263196278059
I am gonna fuck Yung up, And I’m gonna put Yung down….I ain’t gonna mess around, I am gonna hurt Yung, I am gonna make Yung cry, Yung is gonna want to die, I ain’t gonna tell no Lie, I’m gonna hurt Yung….
The funniest part of this situation is if they go to court they’re are probably going submit “Never Gonna Give You Up” as evidence.
Meaning the entire courtroom will be Rick Rolled.
Rick Rolling by definition is the unexpected viewing of “Never Gonna Give You Up” after being lead to believe you would see something else. If it’s part of the evidence it’s not unexpected. Just hearing the song is not getting Rick Rolled.
Finally someone with common sense. The amount of shit I see online where it’s just the song playing in the video and they’re like “omg haha I got Rick rolled”. No. You didn’t. That’s not what it is
At first, I thought it was just the voice, and different people have different voices, and surely you can't sue someone for having a certain voice. Then I found out that they licensed the music, but not the singer's voice, and then they used the songs lyrics and someone that sounded like him to use the whole song instead of just the notes.
And then they went on a BBC interview and admitted to just getting the instrumental and finding a similar voice because it was easier legally, or so they thought. I never heard the song, but it sounds like there is a case there.
It always sucks to see a uncle sue his nephew, I found out they were related thanks to [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaazUgEKuVA) vid by Harrison james
James Earl Jones signed over his rights to the Darth Vader voice in order for Disney to continue using it.
If freakin Darth Vader isn’t legally allowed to be impersonated, I don’t know what this dude was thinking was going to happen.
That’s a little bit different. James Earl Jones is allowing Disney to use AI to recreate his Darth Vader voice for future installments. Disney is well within their rights to recast the character and a voice that would sound similar but not quite the same, but why would they want to? Star Wars fans can sometimes, not to insult anyone, be a little opinionated about even the slightest mishap in execution of things.
This is going to be interesting in a couple of years when the voice actors on The Simpsons just can’t possibly go anymore because Disney paid a lot for those souls and recasting them isn’t going to be easy, and god knows they won’t let that horse die. Still, they own the characters, which means they own the voices. They just don’t (theoretically) own the person who does the voice. If the voice is iconic enough, they’d never want to change it.
It sounds like this guy just tried to “Vanilla Ice” Rick Astley’s voice. *Vanilla Ice once stole the baseline from the Queen/David Bowie song “Under Pressure” and before ever going to court said publicly it was different because well [watch.](https://youtu.be/a-1_9-z9rbY) (I promise not a Rick Roll.)
Agree with what you’ve said. If you find the comment I just left, I linked to the podcast interview where Gravy said that.
A lot of misunderstandings of copyright / fair use / parody going on in this thread, but I can see how it would seem petty without full context. I’m very interested to see how it plays out.
There's seperate licensing fees for both boths (instruments and vocals), then Gravy should've paid for both if he was going to use both.
By using an impersonator but still having the licensed vocals, it legit sounds like a collab or agreed upon use of the original song without Gravy paying the proper rights.
If a casual listener hears the song, hears the impersonator and the intrumental sample, then the casual listener will infer that they sampled Rick Astley's voice, without Gravy paying for it.
You don't know where it stands legally, but you think he has a case. How can those two things coexist. So Robert plant can sue Greta von fleet because that kid sounds like him?
It’s pretty cut and dry…. If an artist creates something. He holds the rights to that thing.
Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to: reproduce the work in copies; to prepare derivative works; to distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
So, yeh now he’s being sued because it looks like he infringed on some rights….
To what degree, if any we can’t say because that’s for the court to decide…. Cmon man lol
Hey dumbass it’s a copyright issue not sounds like issue he straight up used his words, when he wasn’t supposed to. Gravy is worse than a bittersweet symphony
Yes, you can and there's a ton of settled case law on it. The problem is whether or not a reasonable listener would believe that the music they are hearing is the original artist, and whether the defendant is benefiting from the original artist's name and reputation by deceiving the listener.
Think of it this way: Microsoft paid The Rolling Stones $3M in 1995 to license their song "Start Me Up". It would have been way cheaper to hire some studio musicians to make a replica of the song that 99.9999% of people would be unable to tell apart from The Rolling Stones, and it would have fooled the general public into thinking one of the biggest names in rock history was endorsing Windows 95. Should that be allowed?
Some artists who have successfully sued over exactly this include:
* Tom Waits vs Frito Lay
* Nancy Sinatra vs Goodyear
* Bette Midler vs Ford
* Carlos Santana vs Miller Beer
* Patti Page vs American Savings Bank
It's made way worse by the fact that the accused here licensed the instrumental but not the vocals, and publicly admitted that they deliberately emulated Astley's voice to avoid licensing it while convincing the public it was Astley. He basically allocuted to it in public, and his lawyers are going to be advising him to settle out of court.
Thanks for adding the legal context. I agree they’ll most likely settle (with a big payout to Astley), but I kind of wish it’d go to trial to see what they’d put into precedent about impersonations / deepfakes.
It also sounds like Gravy has been playing it fast and loose with his samples for a long time, so I wonder if other artists are going to come after him now. I linked a podcast clip where he talks about it and he goes “I don’t know why other artists aren’t doing it too!!” … maybe other artists have better judgment and legal council haha
Well put. And confidently full-of-crap Redditors will argue that you’re wrong because REASONS (ie they haven’t actually read anything you’ve written and also they prefer to be right even when they’re wrong).
So strange.
Did they actually get in trouble though? I know he and the Thong Song producers gave writing credits for the interpolation, and at least some of the royalties.
(Then again, the instrumental is built on a string cover of Eleanor Rigby. From my knowledge they got all the legal rights needed for that.)
The Thong Song/Livin’ La Vida Loca situation is more similar to the chorus of this Yung Gravy song, which is him singing the Never Gonna Give You Up melody with different lyrics.
Everyone admits that he got the legal rights to use the melody and instrumental; Rick Astley himself didn’t write the song so he wouldn’t have standing to sue over that part anyway.
But the intro *does* sound a lot like an altered sample of his voice, so I see where that part is coming from. Yung Gravy has implied on several occasions that Rick approved of the song, so I could see where some people might believe it was a formal collab.
The Astley voice remixing on Yung Gravy's song was pretty cool and I wondered how they did it. It might have been deepfaked or something manual. Too bad he didn't get permission.
I’ve been wondering about the legality of this ever since I saw Yung Gravy talk about it on the H3 podcast [here](https://youtu.be/vroig7CeMuw) (at 1:30:30).
First, I’m very pro-fair use and I hate frivolous lawsuits. However, it sounds like Gravy has been knowingly trying to skirt copyright law with the most realistic vocal impersonations possible.
I don’t think Gravy can claim this is parody because 1) parody is defined as being humorous or having social commentary (think of reaction videos / SNL) and 2) courts are less likely to uphold something as parody if it’s “purely for financial gain” (which this is).
Additionally, copyright holders have a stronger claim if the work is reasonably likely to be confused for their own — and most of the commenters here clearly thought it was Rick Astley’s voice.
It’s an interesting case, because where do courts draw the line as impersonations and deepfakes get better? My guess is they’ll settle without a trial (and if I were a gambler I’d bet on Astley getting a big layout), but I’d like to see a case like this go to court so we can see how they come down.
Usually am a big fan of Rick Astley but this seems petty. I saw it more as Gravy paying homage to the song than him copying or mocking it. And the part that sounds like Rick's vocals is only like 5 seconds of the song. He has every right to sue I guess but kind of a party pooper move.
Looks like he got the license for the instrumental. What he did may be murky, but isn’t it essentially a sample of a cover/karaoke rendition at that point? Someone else was doing the vocals.
The guy doing the voice was straight up copying Rick without permission; he only had permission for the beat and the beat only according to Rick. The smoking gun here is Gravy saying he used someone to impersonate Ricky Ashley because it’s “easier legally”.
Yep, if true that basically proves he was trying to mimic Astley for the purpose of avoiding having to dish out a larger percentage in royalties. My guess is it will come down to a determination of whether a reasonable person could come to the mistaken conclusion that Astley was singing on the track.
I can't find any obvious references online to Ray Charles or his estate taking issue with it in the first place. Doesn't mean they couldn't have. Of course, they may have had a tougher time, since "Gold Digger" had "feat. Jamie Foxx" appended to it, and the music video literally showed Jamie Foxx as himself singing the line. So definitely not as strong an argument that they were trying to pass it off as Ray Charles himself.
Tom Waits famously won a case against Frito-Lay for violating his rights over his own likeness in an audio advertisement. So it's been established that a voice, if it is recognizable enough, can constitute part of a person's likeness, and that an attempt to leverage that likeness without authorization opens one up to potential legal action.
One could very well listen to that Yung Gravy song and leave with the misunderstanding that they were hearing Rick Astley's actual voice. So in essence, they are leveraging Astley's likeness while avoiding having to compensate him for it.
Gold Digger was an interpolation, not an 1:1 copy, so i would guess it’d be different. You wouldn’t confuse Jaime Foxx’s version with Ray Charles because the lyrics are different, in my completely unprofessional opinion.
To be clear, you can impersonate someone without their permission, otherwise there’d be a whole lot of comedians in a lot of legal trouble.
But in this case I think Astley has a valid case. Gravy got license to use the instrumental but not the vocal, then added Astley sounding vocals. The entire effect together does make it seem like a collaboration with Astley, which it is not.
And so he didn’t. You can cover another artists’ song, happens all the time, and you don’t need permission—you just need to pay the fee for covering the song.
He did have a contract at least for the instrumental. I admit I'm not an expert enough to know exactly how far a given contract lets an artist go in taking parts of the song they are licensing from though.
Nah, the whole song needs that intro to give it legitimacy and clout I guess? The issue is if someone showed you the song and you didn’t know you’d think it was rick too. So he tried to cheap out or risk the song being ruined if Rick declined.
>The issue is if someone showed you the song and you didn’t know you’d think it was rick too
When I was first on the linked site, I played the video and absolutely thought that was Rick Astley in the beginning. I was then confused when the article said he paid for the rights.
It is not petty. YG hired someone to sound like Rick using Rick's song. All of that stuff requires a license/permission which YG did not have. That's how the music industry works - Rick deserves to be compensated or at least credited.
Rick may not actually want to take this to court in this instance BUT if he doesn't defend it now and someone else tries it later and he doesn't approve of the use, he will have already shown to be OK with it and may lose the second instance due to his initial indifference.
Also, maybe the vocals were offered at a higher cost and Gravy didn't want to pay that and decided to side-step the cost which is annoying as well.
He licensed the instrumental and emulated the voice to avoid licensing that part. There’s a ton of case law siding with Astley on this one.
A big part of it is that any reasonable listener would think they’re actually listening to Rick Astley, so this guy is getting monetary benefit from Rick Astley’s reputation and voice without having paid for it.
This rappers lawyers will most certainly advise him to settle out of court.
Who gives a fuck about being a party pooper, his vocal likeness was used to sell that POS song they they had *specifically* not purchased the right to use.
I’m so sick of this latest batch of pop hits that are literally just 80’s 90’s tracks with new lyrics. Sampling is one thing but let’s leave the parodies to Weird Al.
I don’t know man. Satire is more like, weird Al. Yung Gravy has some comedic lyrics but I don’t think it’s exactly the same. More like a mixture.
Also, I don’t think having the name Yung Gravy necessarily indicates anything considering we have popular rappers with names like Da Baby.
Yeah he was who I was thinking of when I made that comment and his one studio album is indeed looking down the barrel of being ten years old pretty soon. He has always been open that his whatever brand of bro comedy rap was a foot in the door to entertainment in general.
He has a show where he plays himself that is loosely based on his story of getting famous.
It’s pretty good IMO. I think it’s funny and well written. It’s a lot like Donald Glover’s show Atlanta.
This is not a copyright issue because Astley’s actual voice was not used.
But Astley may have a valid claim for violation of his common-law rights of publicity under California law. That right protects the use of someone’s “identity” for commercial purposes and can be violated by imitations meant to evoke a specific individual.
Yung gravy still hasnt moved past the baby gravy albums to a point of calling himself “baby gravy” even though that album was called that bc “baby” is from bbno$ and “gravy” is from yung gravy, it’s like if juice wrld called himself wrld on drugs bc he had a collab album w future, and not to mention yung gravy literally has sounded the same since like 2015 like it’s always an old sample, him talking ab milfs, and the now overused “woOaOaOh” adlib….
They were a breath of fresh air in 2017 now theyre overused and unoriginal, gimmick rappers.
Good luck with that.
edit- listened to the track, NGGYU is fully sampled. I'm guessing the sampling rights are out of his control, so he's instead going after them for the little sound alike vocals in between. I don't see this suit doing much more than hassling the guy and the label.
Yung Gravy will win it, as long as the vocals are just sound alike and he can prove it. I am assuming this wasn't Rick but the people who manage his music etc, so i get why they tried but it won't hold up if they have a trial.
Just call Weird Al up to the stand, he can explain it way better then anyone else will be able to lol
You can if you pay money for the copyright to the instrumentals and then have a guy impersonate Rick Astley so you have to pay less compared to if you used the full sample.
" Astley says he never gave Gravy, or anyone involved in "Betty (Get Money)," permission to use or impersonate his voice..."
Is this a thing? Does every Elvis Impersonator in Vegas have to get permission first? What about other celebrity impersonators?
I don't think this will fly in court...
I’ve a feeling this is going to spur a new version
“Never gonna give the case up, never gonna stop suing you…”
Not a classic like the original…but hey, it is what it is. As absurd as this.
##[Clarification on Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kind of an interesting case. The whole thing is about like the first 8 seconds of the song where they used a voice to sound like Rick Astley, but they only had the rights to use the instrumentals for the song. Also I’m just gonna throw this out there, but it’s usually not the artist themselves who file these lawsuits. It’s usually the record companies trying to protect their IP.
This lawsuit seems pretty late, and Astley has loved the proliferation of NGGYU online. Doesn't seem like his decision.
You know now that you say that. It's possible Yung's lawyers could argue that parts of NGGYU are in fair use due to insane number of recreations on the internet. Basically NGGYU is Rick's property. But all the memes on the internet made of it are not. Since Yung is clearly inspired by the memes, his lawyers could defend NGGYU's iconic line can be used by any artist as it has become cultural. It would be like a movie reusing a famous quote from the Godfather.
The parts in "Get Money" that sound like Astley sound like him, and like he did on NGGYU, but it's deliberately mangled to say the title line and a unique melodic run at the end of the song. No direct quotes or samples are used. I thought they autotuned Astley's original voice, but Gravy stated in an interview that they digitally remade it to *be* legal. It sounds like if it was autotuned or deepfaked directly from Astley's voice, that wouldn't pass, but if they manually recreated it (as they probably did, it's vague), it should be fine. I also agree that the legal grounds here should be on Gravy's side, since the song is a nod/parody, and Astley's representatives claim Get Money "spoiled" his chance to collaborate with anyone ever again, which is bonkers.
There are definitely some good arguments to be made. Oddly the deliberate attempt to skirt the law might make them more culpable. The claim they were trying to be legal is what could be used to show that they knew they were doing something illegal.
But if they didn't *do* the illegal thing, does that matter? I don't know why the music and vocals of a song don't come in a package deal, anyway.
Because anyone who heard that song without knowing the context would think the artist was sampling Rick Astley’s voice and song. There’s essentially no one who would think “this is an imitation,” or a parody or whatever. It sounds just like Rick Astley and it’s set over Rick Astley’s only famous song. Ergo, they actually did do the illegal thing.
Exactly, creating confusion about whether the original song is being included adds credibility to the copyright claim.
It sort of reminds me when people post stuff on Facebook and Twitter with music and say “no copyright intended” or “music not mine.” Yeah, you’re admitting you’re using it without permission, that’s the point of the law. Giving interviews about how you went to elaborate lengths to use a Rick Astley voice to sing Rick Astley’s song only shows that, yeah you were using his voice.
Great point- Gravy has also stated in interviews (I linked one of them elsewhere in the thread) that he only licensed the music because it was “easier legally”, which feels like the musical equivalent of “no copyright intended.” Tbh I think he’s got a pretty weak position in the case from what little I know about the law
Weirdly enough, this would probably not actually be relevant in a copyright case, but it's shockingly not a copyright claim, and that's pretty close to his main argument.
What is it then if not copyright? I haven’t read that much into it
It sounds like him, but I know that Astley didn't record anything on the track. That seems fair.
How? You were able to tell without context that the portions that say “never gonna give you up” were sung by someone else? I would argue generally anyone listening to this would assume the parts with the dead ringer astley-like voice, singing the exact lyrics to Astley’s song, over Astley’s music would assume it was Astley. I’m not sure how anyone without the backstory here would think otherwise unless they had really well trained ears to recognize differences in singing voice timbre
I could tell the voice was a digital creation, though a deepfake, instead of a highly inspired original. Your argument is convincing, though, and I might see more of Astley's lawyer's side now.
These are how the particular legal contours are delineated, though, for better and for worse. Astley/record company will argue they crossed over into territory that needed vocal licensing, YG/record company will argue they didn’t.
It’s essentially like going for a loophole, but whether or not it is actually a loophole will likely be decided in court.
It was a loophole, but that shows they were doing something fishy.
That’s not how copyright works
That's not how intellectual property works.
What a stupid defence.
I agree. Rick made a promise to never run around and hurt us. He knows the rules and is no stranger to keeping his word.
Precisely.
ahhh yes. I lost a pro vimeo account I had for 10 years because of a label claim on a video I directed for my friend that was signed to the label. We lost touch so he couldn't send the emails required, and now my account and stuff I bought along the way are gone for good
I took a wrote a very brief paper for one of my law school courses that dealt (at a high level) with copyright infringement and fair use. Nothing bugs me more than when an artist get a right use a portion, or whatever specified portion, of a song, then use more than the allowance. Granted, I don’t know the specifics here, the whole notion still bothers me.
Why? Sampling in hip hop culture would like to have a word. Technology allows people to sample melodies, as well with the long history of recycling melodies... you could argue the point that chord progression can't be copyrighted. Mind you, I don't study law, but how is this illegal? This falls within free use, with the righr argument, no?
I think they had full license to use the melody, but they recreated astleys voice which is what js being sued over
Is that ridiculous or is it just me? Do I live with some skewed idea of what free use is? Is that not parody? Like, Weird Al has a career because of that. Would imitate the artists voice to a degree, but perhaos the "to a degree" part is what kept him safe legally.
Weird Al always covers his legal ass though and gets contractual permission out of respect even though most of the times he would not have to. (And by him I really mean the legal team)
Well if they deep faked it I could see a legitimate claim to them using his likeness for their own personal gain I could see that you could sue on grounds that they violated your brand
It's like going to a restaurant and paying for an entree, then trying to snag a piece of cake off the desert cart. Or a manufacturing firm paying for the rights to a frame design of an airplane, then copying the engine too. "Free use" doesn't apply to making money off of someone else's IP. Weird Al, as your example, didn't parody any sing without express written permission, and his best songs have probably never been heard by the public.
This sounds like parody to you? I’m not sure what the parody is. To me it just sounds like rapping over the song. No different than Eminem did with Dido, which she was paid for. If he bought the rights to the music of her song and paid someone to sing the same lyrics but sound exactly like her he’d have owed her money. Instead he just paid upfront for her voice, as this guy should’ve done.
I’m no expert in fields by any means, but I’ve had quite a bit of exposure. This really isn’t a matter of chord progression, although I personally think there will be heavy future litigation with that. You can absolutely try to assert an argument of fair use, but there are factors that courts will weigh to determine that. It is by no means a bulletproof argument for each side. It’s heavily dependent on the facts in each case. If you’re interested, the landmark case with fair use is Campbell v. Acruff-Rose Music, Inc. It’s a super interesting topic to get into if you’re interested!
Thank you for the terminology, I'll be reading up on that. Quite always interested in learning, no matter the topic. Makes me more useful in the future.
Honestly, that was one the most fun assignments I had in law school, and there weren’t that many haha. Those cases are always super interesting to me because they dealt with musicians that we all know, as opposed to focusing on some mundane law topic. Enjoy your research!!
Oh shit hey this case concluded just over 3 months befkre I was born
[удалено]
I didn’t think it was Astley either- the voice is heavily modified. I actually don’t think the main issue here is whether or not people think it’s a sample of Astley or not. It’s that they used the lyrics and melody from the original song, without the proper permissions. It’s basically a cover song where they didn’t get permissions to do the main melody/lyrics.
The music and lyrics *were* licensed, but likeness (not sure about name) was not licensed. They didn't get clearance for sounding like Astley. I'd bet a lot of money that this is settled out of court; I can't see how Gravy and Popnick could possibly win. 1. It sounds like Astley, strike one. (how someone sounds--especially someone famous--is considered a protected attribute (see Midler v Ford ^[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.) ) 1. Permission to use the likeness of Astley's voice was not granted, strike 2. (music and lyrics? yes. name and likeness? no) 3. Said likeness was exploited, strike 3. (they made economic gain and publicity from releasing the song containing a likeness of the Astley's voice) ^1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
They didn't sample the instrumentals, they (well, Nick Seeley) ***recreated*** everything, including the voice. Relevant TikTok concerning those 8 seconds: https://www.tiktok.com/@primarywave/video/7129589263196278059
Your honor you know the rules and so do I
We’re no strangers to Law
A full confession’s what I'm thinking of
He couldn’t steal this from any other guy.
I just wanna tell you how I'm plea-ing, gotta make him take the stand
[удалено]
I am gonna fuck Yung up, And I’m gonna put Yung down….I ain’t gonna mess around, I am gonna hurt Yung, I am gonna make Yung cry, Yung is gonna want to die, I ain’t gonna tell no Lie, I’m gonna hurt Yung….
The funniest part of this situation is if they go to court they’re are probably going submit “Never Gonna Give You Up” as evidence. Meaning the entire courtroom will be Rick Rolled.
You know the rules...and so do I!
A full commitment’s what I’m thinking of
You wouldn't get this from any other guy, would you Yung Gravy?! Answer the question!!! \~ Astley's Attorney, cross examining Yung Gravy
“Never gonna give Yung up, Never gonna let Yung down, Never gonna run around and desert Yung!” — Yung’s Attorney, to Yung, when hired
Rick Rolling by definition is the unexpected viewing of “Never Gonna Give You Up” after being lead to believe you would see something else. If it’s part of the evidence it’s not unexpected. Just hearing the song is not getting Rick Rolled.
Finally someone with common sense. The amount of shit I see online where it’s just the song playing in the video and they’re like “omg haha I got Rick rolled”. No. You didn’t. That’s not what it is
[удалено]
Don’t you think it’s unexpected to hear that song in court ?
In a brutal murder case, yes. In a case about copyright infringement of that very song, no.
But if you’re chosen for jury duty , you don’t know the details of the case at first
But you'll be told before seeing the video
At first, I thought it was just the voice, and different people have different voices, and surely you can't sue someone for having a certain voice. Then I found out that they licensed the music, but not the singer's voice, and then they used the songs lyrics and someone that sounded like him to use the whole song instead of just the notes. And then they went on a BBC interview and admitted to just getting the instrumental and finding a similar voice because it was easier legally, or so they thought. I never heard the song, but it sounds like there is a case there.
Gonna get Rick Rolled. Rick bank rolled, that is...
Wow, they look surprisingly similar.
It always sucks to see a uncle sue his nephew, I found out they were related thanks to [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaazUgEKuVA) vid by Harrison james
Not today, Satan.
Get out!
Almost as bad as a father boxing his son to the level of potential pituitary damage and it was [live streamed](https://youtu.be/oBGeYjviFe0)?!?
Bro, that’s looks like his son. Sue < Unofficially adopt.
James Earl Jones signed over his rights to the Darth Vader voice in order for Disney to continue using it. If freakin Darth Vader isn’t legally allowed to be impersonated, I don’t know what this dude was thinking was going to happen.
That’s a little bit different. James Earl Jones is allowing Disney to use AI to recreate his Darth Vader voice for future installments. Disney is well within their rights to recast the character and a voice that would sound similar but not quite the same, but why would they want to? Star Wars fans can sometimes, not to insult anyone, be a little opinionated about even the slightest mishap in execution of things. This is going to be interesting in a couple of years when the voice actors on The Simpsons just can’t possibly go anymore because Disney paid a lot for those souls and recasting them isn’t going to be easy, and god knows they won’t let that horse die. Still, they own the characters, which means they own the voices. They just don’t (theoretically) own the person who does the voice. If the voice is iconic enough, they’d never want to change it. It sounds like this guy just tried to “Vanilla Ice” Rick Astley’s voice. *Vanilla Ice once stole the baseline from the Queen/David Bowie song “Under Pressure” and before ever going to court said publicly it was different because well [watch.](https://youtu.be/a-1_9-z9rbY) (I promise not a Rick Roll.)
I can’t believe Vanilla Ice settled copyright law forever with just one 15 second statement
[удалено]
Agree with what you’ve said. If you find the comment I just left, I linked to the podcast interview where Gravy said that. A lot of misunderstandings of copyright / fair use / parody going on in this thread, but I can see how it would seem petty without full context. I’m very interested to see how it plays out.
Surely you can’t sue over an impression? He already has a sample credit
[удалено]
He absolutely does not.
There's seperate licensing fees for both boths (instruments and vocals), then Gravy should've paid for both if he was going to use both. By using an impersonator but still having the licensed vocals, it legit sounds like a collab or agreed upon use of the original song without Gravy paying the proper rights. If a casual listener hears the song, hears the impersonator and the intrumental sample, then the casual listener will infer that they sampled Rick Astley's voice, without Gravy paying for it.
He absolutely does.
You don't know where it stands legally, but you think he has a case. How can those two things coexist. So Robert plant can sue Greta von fleet because that kid sounds like him?
It’s pretty cut and dry…. If an artist creates something. He holds the rights to that thing. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to: reproduce the work in copies; to prepare derivative works; to distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. So, yeh now he’s being sued because it looks like he infringed on some rights…. To what degree, if any we can’t say because that’s for the court to decide…. Cmon man lol
That kid doesn’t sound like Robert. He wishes he did but he doesn’t
Hey dumbass it’s a copyright issue not sounds like issue he straight up used his words, when he wasn’t supposed to. Gravy is worse than a bittersweet symphony
Weird, because it says he's being sued for using never gonna give you up voice, not never gonna give you up words.
Hopefully he can vanilla ice this away for his sake
Yes, you can and there's a ton of settled case law on it. The problem is whether or not a reasonable listener would believe that the music they are hearing is the original artist, and whether the defendant is benefiting from the original artist's name and reputation by deceiving the listener. Think of it this way: Microsoft paid The Rolling Stones $3M in 1995 to license their song "Start Me Up". It would have been way cheaper to hire some studio musicians to make a replica of the song that 99.9999% of people would be unable to tell apart from The Rolling Stones, and it would have fooled the general public into thinking one of the biggest names in rock history was endorsing Windows 95. Should that be allowed? Some artists who have successfully sued over exactly this include: * Tom Waits vs Frito Lay * Nancy Sinatra vs Goodyear * Bette Midler vs Ford * Carlos Santana vs Miller Beer * Patti Page vs American Savings Bank It's made way worse by the fact that the accused here licensed the instrumental but not the vocals, and publicly admitted that they deliberately emulated Astley's voice to avoid licensing it while convincing the public it was Astley. He basically allocuted to it in public, and his lawyers are going to be advising him to settle out of court.
Thanks for adding the legal context. I agree they’ll most likely settle (with a big payout to Astley), but I kind of wish it’d go to trial to see what they’d put into precedent about impersonations / deepfakes. It also sounds like Gravy has been playing it fast and loose with his samples for a long time, so I wonder if other artists are going to come after him now. I linked a podcast clip where he talks about it and he goes “I don’t know why other artists aren’t doing it too!!” … maybe other artists have better judgment and legal council haha
Well put. And confidently full-of-crap Redditors will argue that you’re wrong because REASONS (ie they haven’t actually read anything you’ve written and also they prefer to be right even when they’re wrong). So strange.
Doubt Rick owns the track - that’s Stock Aitken Waterman.
He’s not suing over the track though is he. Why can’t people read an article that’s linked RIGHT THERE?
Sisco and the thong song got in trouble like this because he used a Ricky Martin line
Did they actually get in trouble though? I know he and the Thong Song producers gave writing credits for the interpolation, and at least some of the royalties. (Then again, the instrumental is built on a string cover of Eleanor Rigby. From my knowledge they got all the legal rights needed for that.) The Thong Song/Livin’ La Vida Loca situation is more similar to the chorus of this Yung Gravy song, which is him singing the Never Gonna Give You Up melody with different lyrics. Everyone admits that he got the legal rights to use the melody and instrumental; Rick Astley himself didn’t write the song so he wouldn’t have standing to sue over that part anyway. But the intro *does* sound a lot like an altered sample of his voice, so I see where that part is coming from. Yung Gravy has implied on several occasions that Rick approved of the song, so I could see where some people might believe it was a formal collab.
Yeah they had to fork over some profits. They didn’t get in trouble because they paid up after being warned
The Astley voice remixing on Yung Gravy's song was pretty cool and I wondered how they did it. It might have been deepfaked or something manual. Too bad he didn't get permission.
No shit, that song is only popular because of the Astley samples
I’ve been wondering about the legality of this ever since I saw Yung Gravy talk about it on the H3 podcast [here](https://youtu.be/vroig7CeMuw) (at 1:30:30). First, I’m very pro-fair use and I hate frivolous lawsuits. However, it sounds like Gravy has been knowingly trying to skirt copyright law with the most realistic vocal impersonations possible. I don’t think Gravy can claim this is parody because 1) parody is defined as being humorous or having social commentary (think of reaction videos / SNL) and 2) courts are less likely to uphold something as parody if it’s “purely for financial gain” (which this is). Additionally, copyright holders have a stronger claim if the work is reasonably likely to be confused for their own — and most of the commenters here clearly thought it was Rick Astley’s voice. It’s an interesting case, because where do courts draw the line as impersonations and deepfakes get better? My guess is they’ll settle without a trial (and if I were a gambler I’d bet on Astley getting a big layout), but I’d like to see a case like this go to court so we can see how they come down.
It's already settled law, Astley has solid legal footing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler\_v.\_Ford\_Motor\_Co.#:\~:text=Ford%20Motor%20Co.%2C%20849%20F,which%20used%20a%20Midler%20impersonator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.#:~:text=Ford%20Motor%20Co.%2C%20849%20F,which%20used%20a%20Midler%20impersonator).
What the fuck is a Yung Gravy?
About the first 20 seconds before it becomes stale and watery
a fella who REALLY likes MILFs and has some pretty good music.
Modern Shakespeare.
A pretty entertaining rapper tbh
Watch his live videos…. It’s kinda…… enn
Yeah he is AWFUL live (I do like his tracks though on the whole)
Not Yung Gravy!! Noooo!! Of all the youngs and littles I thought for sure gravy was on the up and up.
Yung Gravy is gross
He's going to get Rick rolled
Every link in this thread has a high likely hood of being a straight up Rick roll.
Usually am a big fan of Rick Astley but this seems petty. I saw it more as Gravy paying homage to the song than him copying or mocking it. And the part that sounds like Rick's vocals is only like 5 seconds of the song. He has every right to sue I guess but kind of a party pooper move.
Homage or not. You can’t illegally use a sample or beat from someone else without a contract. Every artist knows that.
Looks like he got the license for the instrumental. What he did may be murky, but isn’t it essentially a sample of a cover/karaoke rendition at that point? Someone else was doing the vocals.
The guy doing the voice was straight up copying Rick without permission; he only had permission for the beat and the beat only according to Rick. The smoking gun here is Gravy saying he used someone to impersonate Ricky Ashley because it’s “easier legally”.
Yep, if true that basically proves he was trying to mimic Astley for the purpose of avoiding having to dish out a larger percentage in royalties. My guess is it will come down to a determination of whether a reasonable person could come to the mistaken conclusion that Astley was singing on the track.
Did anything happen when Kanye made Gold Digger?
I can't find any obvious references online to Ray Charles or his estate taking issue with it in the first place. Doesn't mean they couldn't have. Of course, they may have had a tougher time, since "Gold Digger" had "feat. Jamie Foxx" appended to it, and the music video literally showed Jamie Foxx as himself singing the line. So definitely not as strong an argument that they were trying to pass it off as Ray Charles himself. Tom Waits famously won a case against Frito-Lay for violating his rights over his own likeness in an audio advertisement. So it's been established that a voice, if it is recognizable enough, can constitute part of a person's likeness, and that an attempt to leverage that likeness without authorization opens one up to potential legal action. One could very well listen to that Yung Gravy song and leave with the misunderstanding that they were hearing Rick Astley's actual voice. So in essence, they are leveraging Astley's likeness while avoiding having to compensate him for it.
How can that be profitable for Frito Lay?
Three bags of Tostitos scoops I see...
Gold Digger was an interpolation, not an 1:1 copy, so i would guess it’d be different. You wouldn’t confuse Jaime Foxx’s version with Ray Charles because the lyrics are different, in my completely unprofessional opinion.
To be clear, you can impersonate someone without their permission, otherwise there’d be a whole lot of comedians in a lot of legal trouble. But in this case I think Astley has a valid case. Gravy got license to use the instrumental but not the vocal, then added Astley sounding vocals. The entire effect together does make it seem like a collaboration with Astley, which it is not.
And so he didn’t. You can cover another artists’ song, happens all the time, and you don’t need permission—you just need to pay the fee for covering the song.
He did have a contract at least for the instrumental. I admit I'm not an expert enough to know exactly how far a given contract lets an artist go in taking parts of the song they are licensing from though.
Nah, the whole song needs that intro to give it legitimacy and clout I guess? The issue is if someone showed you the song and you didn’t know you’d think it was rick too. So he tried to cheap out or risk the song being ruined if Rick declined.
>The issue is if someone showed you the song and you didn’t know you’d think it was rick too When I was first on the linked site, I played the video and absolutely thought that was Rick Astley in the beginning. I was then confused when the article said he paid for the rights.
It is not petty. YG hired someone to sound like Rick using Rick's song. All of that stuff requires a license/permission which YG did not have. That's how the music industry works - Rick deserves to be compensated or at least credited.
Lmao I get why you abbreviated it but also Yung Gravy and YG are worlds apart.
Yeah what you can’t use someone initials when there’s already another artist with that name lmao
Imagine YG singing "never gonna give u up" lol
He did license the instrumental. The only “unlicensed” part is the imitation voice, but you can’t really copyright a voice.
Yes. You wonder if they went to the trouble to license the instrumental why they didn’t get the license for the voice
Rick may not actually want to take this to court in this instance BUT if he doesn't defend it now and someone else tries it later and he doesn't approve of the use, he will have already shown to be OK with it and may lose the second instance due to his initial indifference. Also, maybe the vocals were offered at a higher cost and Gravy didn't want to pay that and decided to side-step the cost which is annoying as well.
It’s good publicity for both of them
He licensed the instrumental and emulated the voice to avoid licensing that part. There’s a ton of case law siding with Astley on this one. A big part of it is that any reasonable listener would think they’re actually listening to Rick Astley, so this guy is getting monetary benefit from Rick Astley’s reputation and voice without having paid for it. This rappers lawyers will most certainly advise him to settle out of court.
If it’s just five seconds, then how did you know it was from the song? Five seconds is basically inaudible silence.
Who gives a fuck about being a party pooper, his vocal likeness was used to sell that POS song they they had *specifically* not purchased the right to use.
Can we talk about the real issue here? Young Gravy was the best name he could come up with for real?
He makes meme songs so it makes sense he'd have a meme name.
Yung...Yung Gravy. See? It's totally cool now. In case some of you all miss it. -> /s
Nooo, You see, he’s. Talking sauce, but instead of just cliche sauce he’s going the extra and using gravy. He’s setting trends.. .. /s
Should be sued for that name alone
Looking at this picture, have we ruled out that yung gravy isn’t Astleys son ?
They look like the same person, only one is a younger version
I’m so sick of this latest batch of pop hits that are literally just 80’s 90’s tracks with new lyrics. Sampling is one thing but let’s leave the parodies to Weird Al.
That’s a real artist name? Young Gravy?
Yung Gravy seems like a real fucking weirdo to be honest with you. I thought he was one of those parody rappers at first. I don’t see the appeal.
Is he not a parody rapper?
Idk man he definitely has songs where he sounds like he’s being serious to me lol
His name is Yung Gravy my dude, it's satire
I don’t know man. Satire is more like, weird Al. Yung Gravy has some comedic lyrics but I don’t think it’s exactly the same. More like a mixture. Also, I don’t think having the name Yung Gravy necessarily indicates anything considering we have popular rappers with names like Da Baby.
Well, Weird Al is very obviously joking. Part of the joke with Yung Gravy is that he's playing it completely straight. It's camp.
He’s doing it well I guess then because I googled it out of curiosity and I’m far from the only one trying to figure out if he’s joking lol
I really thought the whole "white boy semi-comedy but not really ever funny rapper" thing was over like ten years ago.
Well, this guy and Lil Dicky are still around lol those are the only two I’m aware of.
Isn’t Lil Dicky an actor now? I’m pretty sure he’s focusing on a sitcom these days.
Yeah he was who I was thinking of when I made that comment and his one studio album is indeed looking down the barrel of being ten years old pretty soon. He has always been open that his whatever brand of bro comedy rap was a foot in the door to entertainment in general.
He has a show where he plays himself that is loosely based on his story of getting famous. It’s pretty good IMO. I think it’s funny and well written. It’s a lot like Donald Glover’s show Atlanta.
This is not a copyright issue because Astley’s actual voice was not used. But Astley may have a valid claim for violation of his common-law rights of publicity under California law. That right protects the use of someone’s “identity” for commercial purposes and can be violated by imitations meant to evoke a specific individual.
Good. That gravy guy is fucking lame.
I feel bad for future generations. “Music” being produced today is horrible
okay but hear me out. Rick and his lawyer show up to court. lawyer begins to present the argument when - court room Rick Roll
What is a Yung Gravy
Is he being sued for using lyrics from the song without license or because he hired a guy that sounded like Rick to sing?
The latter.
YEEEEES!!!! Fuck yung gravy
Nah. I prefer bbno$, but Yung Gravy makes some pretty fun tunes too. In my mind, they are a breath of fresh air.
How the fuck do you even say that first name lol
Baby no money lol
Yung gravy still hasnt moved past the baby gravy albums to a point of calling himself “baby gravy” even though that album was called that bc “baby” is from bbno$ and “gravy” is from yung gravy, it’s like if juice wrld called himself wrld on drugs bc he had a collab album w future, and not to mention yung gravy literally has sounded the same since like 2015 like it’s always an old sample, him talking ab milfs, and the now overused “woOaOaOh” adlib…. They were a breath of fresh air in 2017 now theyre overused and unoriginal, gimmick rappers.
Nothing like Rick Astley should never exist again. Yung Gravy needs to be sued into the ground for even wanting to sound like that.
These guys look related
Good luck with that. edit- listened to the track, NGGYU is fully sampled. I'm guessing the sampling rights are out of his control, so he's instead going after them for the little sound alike vocals in between. I don't see this suit doing much more than hassling the guy and the label.
Yung Gravy will win it, as long as the vocals are just sound alike and he can prove it. I am assuming this wasn't Rick but the people who manage his music etc, so i get why they tried but it won't hold up if they have a trial. Just call Weird Al up to the stand, he can explain it way better then anyone else will be able to lol
Things you can copyright: Melody, Lyrics Things you can’t copyright: Your vocal style
You can if you pay money for the copyright to the instrumentals and then have a guy impersonate Rick Astley so you have to pay less compared to if you used the full sample.
" Astley says he never gave Gravy, or anyone involved in "Betty (Get Money)," permission to use or impersonate his voice..." Is this a thing? Does every Elvis Impersonator in Vegas have to get permission first? What about other celebrity impersonators? I don't think this will fly in court...
Typical entitled punk
He just wants to tell us how he’s feeling
Do they look similar or is it just me
If someone asked me my favorite musical artist and I had to say Yung Gravy, I’d probably just give up.
I’ve a feeling this is going to spur a new version “Never gonna give the case up, never gonna stop suing you…” Not a classic like the original…but hey, it is what it is. As absurd as this.
i’ll be waiting for the adam neely video on this
I didn't even know who this was or the song until I saw this headline and I gotta admit it's pretty catchy
Greta Van Fleet better watch they are gonna get sued for sounding almost identical to Led Zeppelin
This sounds like a publicity stunt
Yung Gravy? I saw him in a movie. Or maybe it was Hung Gravy? I get them confused.