Submitted by redlightist t3_10oefma in nottheonion
Comments
Caronar t1_j6e4lir wrote
He knows the rules. And so do I.
Carvelt t1_j6e5iyk wrote
Payday incoming. He's just used the whole song without permission... It's got 33m views on YouTube alone.
[deleted] t1_j6e5k36 wrote
[deleted]
halfanothersdozen t1_j6e5ng0 wrote
Gotta protect your cashcow. That's his legacy right there
Elevenst t1_j6e5vp9 wrote
Yung Gravy?
Rap names are so lazy and stupid anymore. Everyone's a "Lil" or "Young" something. Lame.
GetlostMaps t1_j6e5zyz wrote
They have to pay the monies dude
RockyMountainHigh- t1_j6e70d1 wrote
He probably gets a tenth of a cent every time someone gets Rick rolled.
[deleted] t1_j6e79wy wrote
[deleted]
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"
rimjobnemesis t1_j6e8z7t wrote
Then he got .3 of a cent from me!
Haus42 t1_j6e8zvp wrote
I assumed it was a Chinese food company.
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.
CrosseyedZebra t1_j6eblg1 wrote
That's twitch streamer logic lol
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
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.
[deleted] t1_j6edlqs wrote
[deleted]
RelentlessChicken t1_j6egehj wrote
It uses the music, with entirely different lyrics the whole time. Doesn't that fall under parody law?
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
[deleted] t1_j6engj8 wrote
blankgazez t1_j6ep6d3 wrote
He is called lil Wayne cause he is like 5’4”
RedditorsAnus t1_j6epgv0 wrote
Reading comments from all the YouTube legal experts is ... Something else.
[deleted] t1_j6epmx2 wrote
[deleted]
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
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.
[deleted] t1_j6euaw3 wrote
[deleted]
Existentialidiot83 t1_j6evcwc wrote
What a loser 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
itsBB-8m8 t1_j6ewjze wrote
If you think his name is bad listen to his “music”
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
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
JohhnyTheKid t1_j6f0gji wrote
This comment is definitely a reddit moment
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
One-Almond5858 t1_j6f0y5m wrote
Uncreative Redditor Offers Passionate Critique of Hip-Hop Naming Conventions
elixier t1_j6f1ggs wrote
Lol clearly not, since otherwise Ricks legal team wouldn't be suing them lol
lksdjsdk t1_j6f4pl3 wrote
Tey reading the article.
[deleted] t1_j6f4xng wrote
[deleted]
frealfr t1_j6f58s6 wrote
Who's Lil Gravy?
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
Cohibaluxe t1_j6f9hvt wrote
That’s literally the joke. It’s a character.
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
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
Khemith t1_j6fdrwt wrote
Imagine defending your iconic song of utter mediocrity.
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.
lateavatar t1_j6fevji wrote
He’s not going to give those up
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.
Caseynovax t1_j6fhf08 wrote
A new commitment's what he's thinking of; you wouldn't (legally) get this from any other guy!
[deleted] t1_j6fi4r4 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6fi7mf wrote
[deleted]
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.
[deleted] t1_j6fiif2 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6fk1ac wrote
[deleted]
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."
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."
AFourEyedGeek t1_j6fluzh wrote
Donald Glover used a name generator, pretty lazy... However, I got my son's name the same way.
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.
misterme987 t1_j6fo4xw wrote
Nor is he going to let them down
mypantsareonmyhead t1_j6fon66 wrote
I'm pretty sure the "journalist' who wrote that thinks that Stock Aitken Waterman is a person.
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.
CreativeCorinne t1_j6fr2yo wrote
They cleared the usage of the song but not someone imitating Astleys voice- that's what the suit is about.
OH_FUDGICLES t1_j6frgwz wrote
The narwhal bacons at midnight...
OH_FUDGICLES t1_j6frjid wrote
What have you ever created?
blacklite911 t1_j6frmof wrote
Can someone explain why this is Oniony?
Seems like a standard copyright lawsuit
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
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.
Marvos79 t1_j6g02u7 wrote
Chrono Trigger seen taking notes
Khemith t1_j6g06to wrote
You've heard one of my songs atleast on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaTQAaJWW54
[deleted] t1_j6g3gdp wrote
[deleted]
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?"
KentuckyFriedEel t1_j6gitsm wrote
How the fuck did young gravy cover his song without permission
Peri_D0t t1_j6gqy8r wrote
Wait...he ...he didn't get permission? What the fuck dumbass
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.
Mormonomicon89 t1_j6gstze wrote
It’s kind of a big dill.
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
lksdjsdk t1_j6h266v wrote
That's what I was referring to.
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.
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.
neroselene t1_j6he5wy wrote
Rick Astley: SAY GOODBYE!
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
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
rottingpigcarcass t1_j6hl0ld wrote
Which is also not a crime
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
dr_Octag0n t1_j6hsoe4 wrote
The ultimate Rick Roll.
[deleted] t1_j6hthgn wrote
[deleted]
frealfr t1_j6huvux wrote
Are you always wrong?
carndees t1_j6i3ri3 wrote
But he will turn around and sue you.
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.
[deleted] t1_j6i4l5x wrote
[deleted]
Juan-More-Taco t1_j6i4t3g wrote
Did you respond to the wrong comment?
Hangman_va t1_j6i5oke wrote
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.
SleepyMMA t1_j6i5x7u wrote
I certainly did. Note, drink coffee before redditing...
[deleted] t1_j6i67pn wrote
[deleted]
septicdank t1_j6iah0u wrote
I traded my son for a generator⚡ Hasn't disappoint me yet 👌
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.
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
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.
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
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
Jman50k t1_j6ipsth wrote
Old Gravy wants his due!
RexManning1 t1_j6iqnus wrote
I’m not a UK lawyer, but in the US Astley may have an argument with regards to likeness.
1x54f t1_j6itf6q wrote
Good gravy!!!
Dgaart t1_j6izax0 wrote
Holy shit this song is awful. I literally can't tell what is parody or not anymore.
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
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.
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.
myops_rock t1_j6e2uzi wrote
Don’t be trying to steal the rickroll bro!