The
verdict is in: Led Zeppelin did NOT rip
off Spirit! The jury in Michael Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, et al,
Case # CV15-3462, US District Court, Central District of (Randy) California,
ruled that “Taurus” (a brief instrumental) is not significantly similar to
“Stairway To Heaven”, a longer song most of us know well. Bravo.
Subjectively, that was my opinion.
As a lawyer AND a Led Zeppelin fan, I paid attention to this case, even
to the point of downloading the court’s decision denying the band’s preliminary
motion to dismiss.
Spirit. I actually do like this band, and I have
their first four albums, Spirit, The Family That Plays Together, Clear,
and The Twelve Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus.
“Taurus” is from the first, self-titled album, as is “Fresh
Garbage”. I don’t really consider both
bands the same, though they are both very eclectic in their songs. Spirit is decent quality rock music of that
era, and worth listening to in their own right.
Equals to Zeppelin? Not in
popularity, certainly, but I say not in quality either. But since Zeppelin is already such an
excellent band, that’s like saying someone is “not as rich as Bill Gates”.
The main “character” is guitarist Randy Wolfe,
better known as Randy California. He’s
an excellent guitarist in his own right, even if he looks like Ben Stiller
portraying a 70s rock guitarist. He died in 1997. During his lifetime he made conflicting
noises about whether he considered “Stairway To Heaven” a ripoff of “Taurus”;
in any case he made no legal efforts in his lifetime.
Statute of Limitations. Nominally the standard passed ages ago since Led
Zeppelin IV was released back in 1971.
But when the band remastered the albums and re-released them, that reset
the statute, notwithstanding the decades that passed AND California’s earlier
failure to bring suit. Of course,
Zeppelin had competent counsel and tried to kill the case on these procedural
grounds long ago – and failed.
Voir Dire. I would have loved to attend the trial in
person, though it was not an option – I don’t live anywhere near L.A. At the
least I would have enjoyed seeing the voir dire – picking the jury. Naturally anyone showing up for jury duty
wearing a Led Zeppelin t-shirt or a Spirit t-shirt (do they exist?) would have
been stricken for cause. I suppose a LZ
fan could have sandbagged and pretended not to know – the same with stealth
Spirit fans. I’d have been disqualified
as an attorney, but I suppose I could have persuaded both attorneys, Malofiy
(Plaintiff/Spirit) and Anderson (Defendant/Led Zeppelin), that I could be
objective and make a decision. “I have
both Spirit and Led Zeppelin IV.
Let them persuade me.”
Attitude. From what I could tell, Page and Plant acted
fairly flippant and arrogant during the trial.
I was concerned this would turn off the jury. And let’s face it: Zeppelin did in fact rip off many other
artists during their early days. I also
found their convenient memory lapses to be implausible. Since they toured with Spirit and were
familiar with their material, even covering “Fresh Garbage”, from the same
album as “Taurus”, their denials of familiarity with that song sounded highly
insincere. A band with a known track
record for blatantly expropriating other bands’ material, who toured WITH
Spirit? Sorry, that doesn’t
compute. And unlike Led Zeppelin, no one
has sued Black Sabbath or Deep Purple; those bands were far more original than
Led Zeppelin.
Taurus vs. Stairway to
Heaven. This is why reading the court documents were
important. My subjective impression was,
“sure, the intro is very similar, but ‘Stairway’ has lyrics, a much larger
middle section, a solo, and an outro. Much
as I hate Robert Plant, his lyrics are great (if somewhat pretentious) and his
vocals are stunning. Overall the song is
EPIC.” This alone should be sufficient to put the case away. Not so fast.
The Court cited the standard, which in part says that “even if a copied
portion be relatively small in proportion to the entire work, if qualitatively
important, the finder of fact may properly find substantial similarity.” Thus even the small intro to a larger song
could be “substantially similar” and meet the standard; thus a jury could go
either way. This case had to be tried on
the facts. Moreover, it was the music
itself at issue, not the recordings, so the jury was not played the actual
recordings of the songs. Be that as it
may, in my humble opinion, and apparently the jury agreed, the acoustic
descending chord progression of “Taurus” was not qualitatively important enough
to merit a finding of substantial similarity.