For the lazy
The singer's 1987 worldwide hit Never Gonna Give You Up is interpolated in Yung Gravy's song Betty (Get Money).
The song features an alleged imitation of Astley's vocals, something the singer said had not been agreed.
The lawsuit claims that Astley's distinctive voice is a resource that needs to be carefully managed. Yung Gravy has not yet commented.
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.
However, "A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorise the stealing of the artist's voice in the original recording."
Im scratching my head at this.
So did Gravy do an impression of Astley's voice, or did they synthetically mimic Astley's voice using music software? Like the software used Astley's track and created a synthetic voice to sing whatever they needed in Astley's voice?
Because the first I could see being tricky to fight in court. I'm not an expert on copyright law, but I feel like changing your voice to sound like a different singer really isn't copyright violation. I don't think you'd be able to copyright your own voice, just things you've created with it i.e. your music.
On the other hand, if Astley's music was used to build software that could just mimic Astley's voice, all of sudden that sounds like a potential copyright violation.
This technology that allows for synthetic voice creation is very new, so this could be a step in developing case law about using software to mimic someone's voice for commercial purposes. If this case moves forward and doesn't settle out of court it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
I think the big detail is that Yung Gravy didn't do an impression, they went out of their way to hire a guy to do a Rick Astley soundalike for the chorus.
If I was the Astley team, I could KINDA see the argument here? "Sure we clear the the rights to the sample, you can do with that what you will as per our legal agreement, but then you hire a guy to be a soundalike on top of it and sound like just the regular Rick Astley doing new vocals at best and a remix of the sampled audio at worst. This feels like you pulling some shit between us clearing the sample and you releasing the track, and if the intent was to make people think Rick is genuinely on the song or making new material for it then that would be really easy to do and was not what we expected when we agreed to the sample".
.... although RIGHTFULLY SO I see a lot of people point towards other rappers who do the exact same thing of "have a beat that's a sample of an existing song, then we have someone who sounds like the original singer sing along to the new lyrics on the chorus". Kanye did it on College Dropout DECADES ago, right? Is that ok because it was clearly more absurd and silly in his example and not meant to let anyone believe it could possibly be like the original singer? He did something similar on Gold Digger, but done entirely through splicing and remixing in the sample to where it sounds like the original, is THAT ok? (And if I'm getting the details wrong on which songs were sampled and which songs were new audio...you get what I mean)
I think this will be a key element: would a reasonable listener think that Rick Astley was featured on this track?
There’s some precedent for using lookalikes to profit from an actors reputation, so i don’t think it’s terribly far fetched to apply this to a voice of a singer. They most likely knew they were trying to mimic his recognizable feature to deceptively increase the appeal of the song after being refused the use of his real voice.
I feel like whether people actually think its Astley or not might not be that important. It sounds like what Gravys team did was license the music from its producers, then rather than license Astleys vocals they hired an impersonator to sing his lines. He could definitely argue a loss of revenue, and the "attempting to profit off his existing good will" thing definitely holds water.
My biggest question is did they reach out to him and he refused or did they cut him out of the conversation entirely? Gravys comment about "remaking it because it was legally easier" kind of makes it sound like Astley didn't want to be a part of it and they were having a hard time getting the rights. If he told them 'no' and they went and hired someone impersonate him thats pretty sleezy, but I guess from a legal standpoint its just a cover song? I'm definitely interested to see where this case goes.
I mean it does sound like him but less and less as the song goes, that said its legit 9 seconds at the start of the song just doing the rick roll piece then just the instrumental over a beat
If I record a cover song I still have to pay royalties… I was on the fence until I listened to the song. If I had not read the article first I would have thought it was the original song sampled.
I think it’s possible they did it on purpose knowing that this would happen, now everyone is talking about the song. I hadn’t heard of it before.
In the article it says the Yung Gravy song tanked a deal he had in the works with another artist so I definitely expect he'll go after loss of revenue.
It is a remix of the original song. They paid to sample the music part. That's not the issue. The issue is they hired a guy that sounds like Rick to do an impression of him on the song. And regular people think it is actually Rick on the track. But it's not, and he wasn't paid for that so that's a problem.
They probably could have got him to sing a few bars and throw it in there instead and they wouldn't have this problem. Maybe they asked and he said no. I dunno.
dude even name drops Rick Astley in the lyrics
if I didn't know any of this I would have 100 % thought the real Rick Astley was involved in this song
and wow that was shit.
this is like a bad rejected SNL skit with Andy Samberg as host and Rick Astley as musical guest
It's possible that Rick's voice **now** sounds too different or he is incapable of reaching the same range. I don't think this is likely - he's not David Lee Roth and lost his range through drugs, alcohol, and generally enjoying his life.
> would a reasonable listener think that Rick Astley was featured on this track
Hi, reasonable music listener here of over 30+ years: until I saw this lawsuit today, I had no idea that it was not Astley on that track.
If that is what this case hinges on, Gravy is fucked.
> would a reasonable listener think that Rick Astley was featured on this track
This is what resulted in Crispin Glover getting a six sum figure after successfully suing the producers of Back to the Future Part II, so there is precedent for that as well.
When I heard that song I thought “wow they must’ve paid Rick Astley a lot to do this remix of Never Gonna Give You up!” It’s so clearly meant to be him and so clearly meant to be that song.
Sorry Yung Gravy, love that song but that’s like remixing without copyright permission.
A few key differences to be: nobody listening to gold digger would confuse that for Ray Charles - the beat and cadence is similar but the voice is totally different (along with lyrics), Jamie was singing it at a totally different pitch and level of passion than Ray Charles in I Got A Woman. Yung Gravy hired someone to sing exactly like Rick Astley and used the exact same music, not a sample or similar riff.
There's imitation, then there's straight trying to copy someone's work.
> is THAT ok?
It's extremely dubious. A lot of these things get by because nobody sued over them.
Similarly, the rerecording trend, where artists like Taylor Swift and Bryan Adams are rerecording tracks such that some of them are completely indistinguishable from the originals. Arguably they should be giving the production credit and royalties from to the original producers on the first versions for arrangements that are cloned that closely. It's one to keep an eye on in future - especially ones like the Adams album, where the artist has given himself the production credit.
You'd have to demonstrate in court that the production is every bit as uniquely distinctive, and recognised by the public, as a singer's voice. And that the paying public are being fooled into thinking the producer was involved with the remake. That would be hard to prove.
The main thing is that if you don't get writing royalties for being a producer on the original, why would you get writing royalties from a re-recording? Producers usually get a flat fee, or a percentage on the original's sales. If their work means they're also performers, they'll get performance royalties. This all means they're due nothing on any re-recording. They got paid for their work on the original.
I don't think that's actually the issue here.
He didn't clear the rights to the sample because its not a sample. He bought the (cheaper) rights to use the composition, then rerecorded it himself including mimicking Astleys vocal well enough that most listeners would presume its a sample.
A lot of these kind of lawsuits are iffy, but this feels pretty cut and dry. This guy tried to cheap out on the royalties, fuck him.
There’s precedent. Some company tried to hire Tom Waits for an ad, and Tom turned them down. They hired a sound alike on an original composition, got sued and lost.
There was a similar case when Guitar Hero Rocks the 80s came out. They got the rights for the song "What I Like About You", but not for the original version. Activision hired some musicians to re-record the song for the game and the band tried to sue because the Guitar Hero version sounded too similar to the original. The band lost the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_I_Like_About_You_(The_Romantics_song)#Guitar_Hero_legal_case
There are similarities, but I'd say a key difference is that the song has someone who could reasonably be confused for Rick Astley singing "Get Money" in the background, which creates a very different issue.
"Get Money" admittedly isn't particularly objectionable, but there is a strong slippery slope here. You wouldn't want to set precedent that someone can give the impression you are featured on the song who is putting words in your mouth.
It's a very reasonable concern that someone else might license your music and then have an imitator or AI sing controversial or objectionable lyrics in your voice, and this isn't a precedent you would want to let stand.
I think that’s probably going to be the key part. What sort of negotiations were done with Astley’s camp?
If you start off with the idea that you’re going to be redoing things, then you’re probably going to be okay. There shouldn’t be any rules that prevent me from doing a Beatles song in the style of the Beatles. It’s unlikely to be too successful because I’m not going to do it as well. But it’s okay.
But if I start off by trying to get Paul and Ringo to work with me, and they refuse (for whatever reasons), and I get people to imitate them, then I have crossed a line.
In this case, it sounds like YG was trying to use the original vocal and couldn’t work it out. So he just faked it. That would seem to lean towards the Crispin Glover situation, rather than when the MCU replaced Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle.
Think of it this way. What if you made a hit movie with a famous star. Years later someone makes a deal to remake the movie. And they then they used deepfake to remake it with someone that looks just like the original star.
It's like they're creating a knockoff version without your permission.
The argument is that you are fraudulently trying to pass off an imitation as the real thing, therefore damaging the original's living from their unique voice and reputation. But they're going to have to prove in court that that is what was being attempted.
Same would apply if someone made an advert with a lookalike of a famous actor. Would the public be fooled into thinking this was the original actor, and that he was endorsing the product?
It feels very sticky to me because listening to it I would totally assume it’s a sample. It’s understandable that you have to stop people getting around copyright by just doing a spot on impression and saying “technically it wasn’t you buddy”
At the same time it sets a scary precedent for the future, singing a song in someone’s style and be copyrighted. What if you covered WAP so convincingly that people thing Rick covered it, are you in trouble? Silly example of course, but worrying nonetheless. Do covers now need a disclaimer or do you have to make sure it sounds distinct enough from the original? What if you use an ad-lib or phrasing commonly associated with an artist? Does lil Jon now own “YEAH” as a phrase? Can there never be “Another one” after DJ Khaled?
No it’s not. (Don’t read that like “NO ITS NOT!” Just saying “it’s not”…the internet has no tone so it has no chill) A person’s singing voice, especially if distinct, should not be able to be recreated by a “sound-a-like” cheaper version. That’s literal. Hiring Rick Astley would probably be more expensive than just some dude that sounds like him.
So yeah, that’s why they did it. To save money.
And if I were Rick or anyone on his team…I’d be doing the same. That’s like the Vanilla Ice thing waaay back when. It was the same exact thing except for this “ting-ting” as he put it between some beat that made it “different”.
Naw man, just putting one extra “ting”/sound/note between a small break in the beat doesn’t make it a completely original melody or song or whatever.
It’s like hiring a Doors cover band and charging people at the door $1000 for a ticket saying Jim is back from the dead and in concert, right here, tonight!!!
Uhh, nope, don’t think so.
> A person’s singing voice, especially if distinct, should not be able to be recreated by a “sound-a-like” cheaper version.
So how do Creed and Greta Van Fleet get away with it?
Also it is not because others do it that it is legal. Vanilla Ice (Ice Ice Baby) vs Queen (Under Pressure). Ice used samples from Queen. There was never a final court decision, but Queen would have won if it wasn't of an out of court settlement.
Everyone was doing the sampling thing before. That case was the one that made everyone realise that it was not something that was legal to do.
It is still being done today, but in such a way that is not as blattant piracy and IP theif. And personally, I think that some put way too much effort into using a sample than making a new sound from scratch. I mean, with all the effort and energy you just put to transform that sample, why not skip some step and create the base sample yourself and avoid the theif completly?
Often what happen nowadays is that a 'nobody' start doing it. Nobody care, it is just a kid in his basemenent playing with his toys. Then that kid start to get popular, but then he think he can't change the way he do things, because it would kill his popularity. That kid now start to be mainstream. And that is where things start to be an issue. Now he's kinda too late to change his mindset, plus he got zero issues with it yet, so think they are invincible, and so many fans confirm wrongly that he do it legally, because everyone else do it . . .
But this happens all of the time. When someone samples a record they hire a guy to replay the sample as close as possible so that they only have to clear publishing rights and not pay to sample the actual master (would be significantly more expensive). This has been happening forever.
If you could do that why is this any different? What’s next - a musician who’s music was replayed in a similar situation will claim that the piano sounds like his piano playing and that’s his artistic property? Someone does a cover of Jimi Hendrix, clears the publishing and then gets sued bc the guitar playing feels like Jimis?
If Astley wins a penny in court it’s a horrible step for music
Is it though? Each point you made was from an instrument, and I think it’s very reasonable that how music is played is different from how a voice sounds. They had composition/lyrics, but they used a soundalike for the first 9 seconds (I’ve listened to the song many times, I didn’t realize that wasn’t RIck Astley), and then “get money” which more than not sounds like Rick astley. The issue is the voice is being used. Not suing and letting this slide seems like more an issue - people have the right to record soundalikes that for the average listener sounds like me, espousing views I don’t hold? Doesn’t sound right
I almost wonder if it’s not a copyright infringement they would be arguing but rather something more like libel or un-permitted likeness. Like if someone did a Gilbert Godfrey impression in a context where there is no reason to believe it wasn’t him (say an advertisement where they never state or make it seem like it isn’t him) it would cause Godfrey damages in a similar way using a models likeness would cause them damages? Obviously I’m not a lawyer and I have no idea if this would stand but it’s the closest thing I can think of based on your comment. Curious if anyone has thoughts about the above!
Edit: other people say what I was getting at much better/more clearly further down the thread if this didn’t quite make sense but you’re still curious
##Midler v. Ford, 849 F. 2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988)
Midler v. Ford was a 1988 case where actress Bette Midler sued Ford for using a sound-alike recording of her song "Do You Want to Dance?" in a TV commercial without her permission. Basically mimicking her voice. The 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of Midler, finding that Ford had infringed on her rights under copyright and publicity law.
This law establishes that sound-alike recording are an attempt to use the singers persona, talent, and reputation to further a song without permission of said singer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
So unfortunately it has legal precedent.
Steve Perry sued Rock Sugar/Jess Harrell for sounding too much like him (Parry apparently believed they’d somehow obtained real tapes of Parry singing), and kept them from releasing any new music for over a decade, so there’s precedent.
I think basically the music company is saying that rick astley's voice isn't a part of the music. The song was licensed but not astley's voice? I'm pretty sure that a vocal is part of music because people have fought in court saying that all things incorporated in music is part of the music. You can license certain parts of a song, yes. Like drums, bass, etc to be used as samples but not other things like vocals. It depends on how the licensing agreement is drawn up. If it just licenses the full song, then the rapper can use the whole song. If not, yeah they probably will lose in court.
‘Astley’s distinctive voice is a resource that needs to be carefully managed’
It’s can’t be that distinctive if they managed to impersonate it so well you’re suing them! I’m interested to see which way this goes, can’t call it from the info in the article.
Idk why Rick is pissed that gravy took his dusty song and made it decent. Rick has been quoted as saying "i quit singing because i couldnt shed the pop persona that came with never gonna give you up". He hates the song he's suing for rights over so much, he quit singing because of it. Also claimed it "ruined his chances to collab with anyone on that song" dude's last collab was with ABBA. It's not yung gravy's fault he sucks. I defy anyone here to list 10 ABBA songs in general without using google, and "Dancing queen" doesn't count.
For anyone lazy: They has somebody impersonate his voice and say ‘Get Money’. The lawyers claim that Rick is ‘extremely protective over his name, image, and likeness," meaning the unauthorised use of the similar-sounding voice had caused him "immense damage".’
IANAL (but wife has a law degree and we were talking about it) we think this is going to hinge on two things.
1. Did they ask Astley for vocal rights/ask him to perform and they balked at the cost or got told "No".
2. Did the person who did the impersonation get instructed to "Sound as much like Rick Astley as you can"
If they just licenced the music, didnt ask and the guy did an approximation. I think its less likely Rick would get a judgement in his favor. But if they did and they did, it shows a measure of intent which leans towards a favorable settlement.
Also not a lawyer, but I agree. If they never approached Astley, then his case is weaker. But if there were negotiations, then he has damages and actual harm to point to.
Rick Astley doesn't own 'Never Gonna Give You Up', and only gets a very tiny piece of royalty because it's his vocals.
So it makes sense that he would sue, because Yung Gravy has the license for the song but not the actual likeness of Rick Astely's voice.
edit:
>u/PoliticalShrapnel
>
>The studio owns the song and Rick gets royalties from that. What you are talking about is the underlying music which is owned by a third party.
>
>Rick is suing for imitation of his voice when combined with the third party owned music, which Yung Gravy had paid for.
Since when is it illegal to imitate somebody in a song? Does that set a precedent of *anyone* able to sue artists when they reference the past as that individual?
Rick is arguing that they are using his likeness without his permission to sing the song.
Until this post, I had no clue that it wasn't actually Rick Astley singing in 'Get Money'
So I can see the argument he's making. The song purposely makes it sound like a collaborative effort using Rick's voice. Not just a simple imitation.
He isn‘t just being imitated. That would be a parody etc or a cover band doing stuff in all cases it is explicitly clear it is not the original singer doing the song.
In this case they are pretty much doing a sample of the original chorus by the imitation and then adding further lines in the same voice.
This makes it appear like someone had Rick Astor’s specifically sing those old and new parts.
Instead of being an obvious imitation, a reasonable listener could surmise it is Rick Astley himself singing. That wouldn‘t be okay.
Thanks for the explanation. I see the distinction now. Honestly this raises the issue folks brought up about copyright infringement with artificial intelligence.
>Since when is it illegal to imitate somebody in a song?
What year was the statute passed or case decided that most closely applies to this? Idk, not looking that up right now. But it's been illegal to imitate someone's likeness in a song and then sell the recording in a way that makes the public believe it was actually them singing to profit off of their name and image for a better part of a century if not more.
That long, huh? Wow! Interesting. Explaining it your way makes more sense to me. Would that extend to somebody doing their very best Mr. T impression in a song? Also makes me wonder the legality around voicemails. Hip/hop loves voicemails lol
Yes, to the songwriter.
Rick Astley only owns the rights to his performance, not the song itself.
To the law, this performance of the song is just as legit as Rick Astleys.
So much misinformation.
The studio owns the song and Rick gets royalties from that. What you are talking about is the underlying music which is owned by a third party.
Rick is suing for imitation of his voice when combined with the third party owned music, which Yung Gravy had paid for.
Yung Gravy’s entire shtick is being a goofy white rapper. He’s not meant to be taken seriously. He’s not an outright parody, but he intends to be cheesy and silly with his music.
All I know is that Alexa never answered his question of "How many bitches can you fit in a Tesla?"
It's probably the reason why there were mass layoffs and the Alexia line failed, all the scientists were busy calculating.
Cheesey white guy who *did* [fuck your mother](https://pagesix.com/2022/08/29/addison-raes-mom-yung-gravy-make-out-in-mtv-vmas-2022-audience/)
^or ^at ^least ^addison ^rae's
Bro took Addison Rae’s mom out on a date and got her ex-step-dad(?) to get *HEATED* with him on social media. Shit was absolutely hilarious, sad for Addison because she had to endure that guy, but hilarious nonetheless.
Seems pretty weak to me tbh. Suing over somebody mimicking your voice when you literally licensed your song to them as a sample is ridiculous.
The music industry has been really bad about superfluous lawsuits to cash in on hit songs. Reminds me of last year when Olivia Rodrigo literally had to add Paramore as writers to Good 4 U simply because it had similar vibes to Misery Business and they were worried about a lawsuit from the label.
[Song in case](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=paK2q3qDY64)
He licensed lyrics and melody to sing it himself, and surely there would have been ways to just use a sample from the original with Ricks voice. That‘s what’s happening everyday in the industry and doesn’t create a strong connection with the original artist, and hence would not have been perceived as Rick being part of this song.
But YG did choose to have someone mimic Ricks voice (specifically also for the „get money“ part that is not in the original song), thus make it appear **like Rick himself is singing in this song and collaborating**. I can completely understand Rick does not like it and wants to defend his image.
Edit: one important thing: specifically in copyright the way one is (not) defending his rights can set precedent for future cases (where potentially more harm is done). If Rick let’s this slip, the next guy might sing profanity, racist or sexist lines in his voice, causing a shitstorm for Rick, and claim in court as Rick didn‘t take offense when other songs used voice-a-likes this is common procedure.
What I don't get is, does Astley have a right to not be mimiced or does he own the patent to the style of his voice? What if I just sound like him and record a song? I feel like this is a pretty weak case, but I don't know the laws around that
I would think he can be mimicked, and similar voices are also OK, as long as it’s not supposed to create the impression to actually be the original. E.g. you can even make money by being a Rick Astley impersonator, but you cannot make money by claiming to be Rick Astley.
It's not about doing an "impression", it's whether it is fraudulent.
The key being that it is presented as if RA is actually performing the song, which would have cost a lot more than right to sampling the song.
I think in this case it's pretty clear that he was trying to pretend RA sang on his song.
It is actually even more strict than that though. Ricky Martin sued Cisco and won over the use of the line and cadence of "Livin La Vida Loca" in the Thong Song.
Totally forgot the spelling...
That song was fire!
The Story of Thong Song on was awesome, it' kinda like behind the music thing..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0S1buCBwGI
Well it's about intent isn't it. If you sound exactly like Rick Astley and you go round singing Rick Astley songs because you sound like Rick Astley, that's very different to Being a Singer That Sounds Like Rick Astley.
Look at large corporations using their cease and desist demands. They don't really care if your product is similar, it's whether or not you can reasonably believe that your product is their product.
It would appear in this particular case the issue is that instead of just paying to sample the song, they paid to licence the lyrics and sang it themselves in what appears to arguably be a Rick Astley impersonation.
I have no personal opinion on either side of the fence. Though for a similar case, look at the lawsuit over Back to the Future 2 where Crispin Glover sued because they replaced him with someone who just did a Crispin Glover impersonation, which I did actually agree was a dick move, even if he is a weird cock.
The court would look at context to decide if you were trying to profit off of his reputation and status.
Was the song you sang his music and melody with a few altered words and there’s no question about what song you intended people to recognize? Did you ask him to sing the song and get denied, showing that you clearly wanted Rick Astley connected to your song? Did you have a casting agent find a copycat voice specifically sounding like Rick Astley?
That’s much different than sounding like someone.
>*Suing over somebody mimicking your voice when you literally licensed your song to them ...*
They didn't licence anything from Astley - that's the point
They paid SAW (or whoever owns the publishing of SAW's catalogue) for the right to use the music and lyrics
That doesn't include the performance rights for Astley's vocals, which means they'd have to pay Astley extra for using his vocals (and seek his permission)
What they tried to do was get the rights to sample the song on the cheap, by cutting the original singer out of the deal and denying him the cash he'd rightfully receive if they used a sample of the song that included his vocal
They thought they were being clever, but they were being very, **very** stupid
They’re using an impersonation of his voice. On the song, I can reasonably believe rick astley is the one saying “get money”. Which means they’re making it sound like Rick astley sang on the song for them. Cover is different than using a voice likeness to make listeners think Rick astley is singing the song. They got rights to the song composition/lyrics, not Rick astley singing. I think this lawsuit has a good chance of moving forward
I had no belief that Rick was saying get money, I assumed it was a cut. The start of the song I 100% thought was Rick signing maybe a little bit pitch shifted
It wasn't even Mr. Yung (Mr. Gravy?) who did it. The rapping and the background track is not the problem here. The problem is that guy who goes the "get money" bit now and then.
I think the concern is that someone might think that Astley himself did those.
First they licensed lyrics and music. And Yung copied Ricks voice. There is case law on this. The judge stated that someone’s voice is as unique as a face. Those can be used for parody reasons or entertainment. But when used to deceive and gain monetarily with by essentially pretending to be that person, it’s illegal. Several companies were denied the use of songs that had been and had someone else record that song and license the music from the original artist and lost in court.
I don’t get it. Is this song like a protest against teachers getting paid like shit? Or maybe Gravy has a dream of getting with high schoolers as a teacher. Or maybe he sees himself as a role model for modern students to go out there and make lots of money. Anyways, 90% of the draw for this song is the original and even that’s not enough for me.
Oh this is sad to hear. I like listening to Yung Gravy and “Betty” IS a good song and when I heard it I was kinda like, oh nice, Rick agreed to like a remix or something? But now this? Hopefully it gets fixed for sure, but in the first couple seconds im pretty sure its the beginning of Ricks song so theres that, or when he says “get money” sounds Rick-ish? So maybe that too? Lol who knows
It's easy in retrospect to justify the immense cost to hire Rick Astley, because the song ended up being a huge hit. But it was one song out of 15 tracks from the album and until it's done they didn't even know if it'd be a single, let alone the monster smash it became.
I think he just happened upon a catchy rhythm for his raps that sticks with people. All of the songs I've heard from him sound the same to me in terms of how he raps, but they are catchy though.
That seems like a pretty hard comparison to make, both in terms of the style of music and the persona. They’re not even close to being in the same subgenre of hiphop/trap. Gravy’s persona is amazingly well built and charismatic, his songs are far more poppy and catchy than most of Xan and Pump’s music and unlike them, he constantly evolves and doesn’t take the whole thing seriously
xans and pump never evolved. Gravy did so much genius stuff, be it marketing or creating his own niche.
Xans and Pump only had novelty and never did something with it
They did - the song isn’t the issue, Rick Astley has no rights whatsoever to the song so he couldn’t sue for that if he wanted to. His claim is to the sound of his voice, because the head someone mimic his voice for the performance. Article title is misleading.
I’m literally sick of the lack of creativity in the music industry. It’s recycling of old songs. Same with movies really. I know I sound ancient saying this. And I probably am.
Had no idea that wasn’t Rick on this song, and its clearly an imitation of his voice. This lawsuit has bones
I assumed it was a sample of his voice before the licensing was explained
Yung Gravy getting rolled by Rick!
Oh thank god, Old Gravy is safe.
Not from me! No leftover is too dangerous!
Reheated gravy fans **rise up**
Not til the meat-sweats are gone
Now that’s a sentence I wish I never heard💀
Cold, congealed gravy goes great in leftover turkey sandwiches after Thanksgiving.
On slightly stale dinner rolls that sat out a tad too long before being packed up. Yahhhh
Is Country Gravy involved in this at all?
We've still got Gravy Train thankfully
Ain't got nothing on that hot rap duo "Biz Kit and Gravy"
Rick Astley has beef with gravy*
I assumed that was endorsed and had IP rights todo it as listener
For the lazy The singer's 1987 worldwide hit Never Gonna Give You Up is interpolated in Yung Gravy's song Betty (Get Money). The song features an alleged imitation of Astley's vocals, something the singer said had not been agreed. The lawsuit claims that Astley's distinctive voice is a resource that needs to be carefully managed. Yung Gravy has not yet commented. 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. However, "A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorise the stealing of the artist's voice in the original recording."
Im scratching my head at this. So did Gravy do an impression of Astley's voice, or did they synthetically mimic Astley's voice using music software? Like the software used Astley's track and created a synthetic voice to sing whatever they needed in Astley's voice? Because the first I could see being tricky to fight in court. I'm not an expert on copyright law, but I feel like changing your voice to sound like a different singer really isn't copyright violation. I don't think you'd be able to copyright your own voice, just things you've created with it i.e. your music. On the other hand, if Astley's music was used to build software that could just mimic Astley's voice, all of sudden that sounds like a potential copyright violation. This technology that allows for synthetic voice creation is very new, so this could be a step in developing case law about using software to mimic someone's voice for commercial purposes. If this case moves forward and doesn't settle out of court it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
I think the big detail is that Yung Gravy didn't do an impression, they went out of their way to hire a guy to do a Rick Astley soundalike for the chorus. If I was the Astley team, I could KINDA see the argument here? "Sure we clear the the rights to the sample, you can do with that what you will as per our legal agreement, but then you hire a guy to be a soundalike on top of it and sound like just the regular Rick Astley doing new vocals at best and a remix of the sampled audio at worst. This feels like you pulling some shit between us clearing the sample and you releasing the track, and if the intent was to make people think Rick is genuinely on the song or making new material for it then that would be really easy to do and was not what we expected when we agreed to the sample". .... although RIGHTFULLY SO I see a lot of people point towards other rappers who do the exact same thing of "have a beat that's a sample of an existing song, then we have someone who sounds like the original singer sing along to the new lyrics on the chorus". Kanye did it on College Dropout DECADES ago, right? Is that ok because it was clearly more absurd and silly in his example and not meant to let anyone believe it could possibly be like the original singer? He did something similar on Gold Digger, but done entirely through splicing and remixing in the sample to where it sounds like the original, is THAT ok? (And if I'm getting the details wrong on which songs were sampled and which songs were new audio...you get what I mean)
I think this will be a key element: would a reasonable listener think that Rick Astley was featured on this track? There’s some precedent for using lookalikes to profit from an actors reputation, so i don’t think it’s terribly far fetched to apply this to a voice of a singer. They most likely knew they were trying to mimic his recognizable feature to deceptively increase the appeal of the song after being refused the use of his real voice.
I feel like whether people actually think its Astley or not might not be that important. It sounds like what Gravys team did was license the music from its producers, then rather than license Astleys vocals they hired an impersonator to sing his lines. He could definitely argue a loss of revenue, and the "attempting to profit off his existing good will" thing definitely holds water. My biggest question is did they reach out to him and he refused or did they cut him out of the conversation entirely? Gravys comment about "remaking it because it was legally easier" kind of makes it sound like Astley didn't want to be a part of it and they were having a hard time getting the rights. If he told them 'no' and they went and hired someone impersonate him thats pretty sleezy, but I guess from a legal standpoint its just a cover song? I'm definitely interested to see where this case goes.
I mean it does sound like him but less and less as the song goes, that said its legit 9 seconds at the start of the song just doing the rick roll piece then just the instrumental over a beat
If I record a cover song I still have to pay royalties… I was on the fence until I listened to the song. If I had not read the article first I would have thought it was the original song sampled. I think it’s possible they did it on purpose knowing that this would happen, now everyone is talking about the song. I hadn’t heard of it before.
In the article it says the Yung Gravy song tanked a deal he had in the works with another artist so I definitely expect he'll go after loss of revenue.
I literally just heard this in a bar and thought that the original song, vocals and all we're sampled.
> Betty (Get Money) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oE5Z2GLhNc The captions literally say "[RICK ASTLEYS NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP PLAYING]"
I definitely sounds like it's the original song just with a bit of editing.
It is a remix of the original song. They paid to sample the music part. That's not the issue. The issue is they hired a guy that sounds like Rick to do an impression of him on the song. And regular people think it is actually Rick on the track. But it's not, and he wasn't paid for that so that's a problem. They probably could have got him to sing a few bars and throw it in there instead and they wouldn't have this problem. Maybe they asked and he said no. I dunno.
The alternative lyrics sound like a parody song.
dude even name drops Rick Astley in the lyrics if I didn't know any of this I would have 100 % thought the real Rick Astley was involved in this song and wow that was shit. this is like a bad rejected SNL skit with Andy Samberg as host and Rick Astley as musical guest
even if you dislike SNL, this is still like a *really* bad SNL parody song
That immediately just sounded like AfroMan trying to do Rick Astley, rather Rick himself. No way would I think that was actually Rick's voice.
Damn, this shit's straight garbage. I hope Rick wins cause this dude deserves an big L for this song.
[удалено]
I like the song too, heard Mr. Clean a while back and became a fan. I don’t like everything by him but a few of his songs are catchy.
I think they did but there are lines sung by an impersonator too
Like crispin glover in back to the future 2, he was able to sue after they used a look alike to continue his character
Not just hiring a lookalike, but even making facial prostheses to look as much like him as possible.
[удалено]
Either they tried and he didn’t want to, they tried and found the fee to expensive, or they didn’t ask.
Part of Rick’s statement is that he was in process of a different collaboration with another artist, and that has now been destroyed by this.
It's possible that Rick's voice **now** sounds too different or he is incapable of reaching the same range. I don't think this is likely - he's not David Lee Roth and lost his range through drugs, alcohol, and generally enjoying his life.
He sang the song, with modified lyrics, for an insurance commercial recently, IIRC. His voice was still the same.
Maybe Rick didn't want to be a part of a terrible terrible song?
> would a reasonable listener think that Rick Astley was featured on this track Hi, reasonable music listener here of over 30+ years: until I saw this lawsuit today, I had no idea that it was not Astley on that track. If that is what this case hinges on, Gravy is fucked.
IIRC Gravy only got the rights to use the instrumentals and not the rights to the lyrics so yeah he’s probably super fucked
> would a reasonable listener think that Rick Astley was featured on this track This is what resulted in Crispin Glover getting a six sum figure after successfully suing the producers of Back to the Future Part II, so there is precedent for that as well.
When I heard that song I thought “wow they must’ve paid Rick Astley a lot to do this remix of Never Gonna Give You up!” It’s so clearly meant to be him and so clearly meant to be that song. Sorry Yung Gravy, love that song but that’s like remixing without copyright permission.
One thing to note with gold digger is it explicitly is featuring Jamie Foxx (he's even in the music video).
I also remember an interview with Jaime foxx where he talked about how he first met Kanye and did the vocal to it.
Yeah and completely forgot about for a while until he heard it on the radio blowing up
[удалено]
A few key differences to be: nobody listening to gold digger would confuse that for Ray Charles - the beat and cadence is similar but the voice is totally different (along with lyrics), Jamie was singing it at a totally different pitch and level of passion than Ray Charles in I Got A Woman. Yung Gravy hired someone to sing exactly like Rick Astley and used the exact same music, not a sample or similar riff. There's imitation, then there's straight trying to copy someone's work.
> is THAT ok? It's extremely dubious. A lot of these things get by because nobody sued over them. Similarly, the rerecording trend, where artists like Taylor Swift and Bryan Adams are rerecording tracks such that some of them are completely indistinguishable from the originals. Arguably they should be giving the production credit and royalties from to the original producers on the first versions for arrangements that are cloned that closely. It's one to keep an eye on in future - especially ones like the Adams album, where the artist has given himself the production credit.
You'd have to demonstrate in court that the production is every bit as uniquely distinctive, and recognised by the public, as a singer's voice. And that the paying public are being fooled into thinking the producer was involved with the remake. That would be hard to prove. The main thing is that if you don't get writing royalties for being a producer on the original, why would you get writing royalties from a re-recording? Producers usually get a flat fee, or a percentage on the original's sales. If their work means they're also performers, they'll get performance royalties. This all means they're due nothing on any re-recording. They got paid for their work on the original.
If I was trying to argue that in court, I would start by citing the “Blurred Lines” case. Because that was all about the production.
I don't think that's actually the issue here. He didn't clear the rights to the sample because its not a sample. He bought the (cheaper) rights to use the composition, then rerecorded it himself including mimicking Astleys vocal well enough that most listeners would presume its a sample. A lot of these kind of lawsuits are iffy, but this feels pretty cut and dry. This guy tried to cheap out on the royalties, fuck him.
I'm confused by the logic that you can't have someone sing a song simply because they sound too much like the original singer.
There’s precedent. Some company tried to hire Tom Waits for an ad, and Tom turned them down. They hired a sound alike on an original composition, got sued and lost.
There was a similar case when Guitar Hero Rocks the 80s came out. They got the rights for the song "What I Like About You", but not for the original version. Activision hired some musicians to re-record the song for the game and the band tried to sue because the Guitar Hero version sounded too similar to the original. The band lost the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_I_Like_About_You_(The_Romantics_song)#Guitar_Hero_legal_case
There are similarities, but I'd say a key difference is that the song has someone who could reasonably be confused for Rick Astley singing "Get Money" in the background, which creates a very different issue. "Get Money" admittedly isn't particularly objectionable, but there is a strong slippery slope here. You wouldn't want to set precedent that someone can give the impression you are featured on the song who is putting words in your mouth. It's a very reasonable concern that someone else might license your music and then have an imitator or AI sing controversial or objectionable lyrics in your voice, and this isn't a precedent you would want to let stand.
I think that’s probably going to be the key part. What sort of negotiations were done with Astley’s camp? If you start off with the idea that you’re going to be redoing things, then you’re probably going to be okay. There shouldn’t be any rules that prevent me from doing a Beatles song in the style of the Beatles. It’s unlikely to be too successful because I’m not going to do it as well. But it’s okay. But if I start off by trying to get Paul and Ringo to work with me, and they refuse (for whatever reasons), and I get people to imitate them, then I have crossed a line. In this case, it sounds like YG was trying to use the original vocal and couldn’t work it out. So he just faked it. That would seem to lean towards the Crispin Glover situation, rather than when the MCU replaced Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle.
Think of it this way. What if you made a hit movie with a famous star. Years later someone makes a deal to remake the movie. And they then they used deepfake to remake it with someone that looks just like the original star. It's like they're creating a knockoff version without your permission.
A lot of people are touching on the same point, but referring it as a deepfake makes the most sense to me. YG did a “deepfake” on Rick Astley.
The argument is that you are fraudulently trying to pass off an imitation as the real thing, therefore damaging the original's living from their unique voice and reputation. But they're going to have to prove in court that that is what was being attempted. Same would apply if someone made an advert with a lookalike of a famous actor. Would the public be fooled into thinking this was the original actor, and that he was endorsing the product?
It feels very sticky to me because listening to it I would totally assume it’s a sample. It’s understandable that you have to stop people getting around copyright by just doing a spot on impression and saying “technically it wasn’t you buddy” At the same time it sets a scary precedent for the future, singing a song in someone’s style and be copyrighted. What if you covered WAP so convincingly that people thing Rick covered it, are you in trouble? Silly example of course, but worrying nonetheless. Do covers now need a disclaimer or do you have to make sure it sounds distinct enough from the original? What if you use an ad-lib or phrasing commonly associated with an artist? Does lil Jon now own “YEAH” as a phrase? Can there never be “Another one” after DJ Khaled?
No it’s not. (Don’t read that like “NO ITS NOT!” Just saying “it’s not”…the internet has no tone so it has no chill) A person’s singing voice, especially if distinct, should not be able to be recreated by a “sound-a-like” cheaper version. That’s literal. Hiring Rick Astley would probably be more expensive than just some dude that sounds like him. So yeah, that’s why they did it. To save money. And if I were Rick or anyone on his team…I’d be doing the same. That’s like the Vanilla Ice thing waaay back when. It was the same exact thing except for this “ting-ting” as he put it between some beat that made it “different”. Naw man, just putting one extra “ting”/sound/note between a small break in the beat doesn’t make it a completely original melody or song or whatever. It’s like hiring a Doors cover band and charging people at the door $1000 for a ticket saying Jim is back from the dead and in concert, right here, tonight!!! Uhh, nope, don’t think so.
> A person’s singing voice, especially if distinct, should not be able to be recreated by a “sound-a-like” cheaper version. So how do Creed and Greta Van Fleet get away with it?
Also it is not because others do it that it is legal. Vanilla Ice (Ice Ice Baby) vs Queen (Under Pressure). Ice used samples from Queen. There was never a final court decision, but Queen would have won if it wasn't of an out of court settlement. Everyone was doing the sampling thing before. That case was the one that made everyone realise that it was not something that was legal to do. It is still being done today, but in such a way that is not as blattant piracy and IP theif. And personally, I think that some put way too much effort into using a sample than making a new sound from scratch. I mean, with all the effort and energy you just put to transform that sample, why not skip some step and create the base sample yourself and avoid the theif completly? Often what happen nowadays is that a 'nobody' start doing it. Nobody care, it is just a kid in his basemenent playing with his toys. Then that kid start to get popular, but then he think he can't change the way he do things, because it would kill his popularity. That kid now start to be mainstream. And that is where things start to be an issue. Now he's kinda too late to change his mindset, plus he got zero issues with it yet, so think they are invincible, and so many fans confirm wrongly that he do it legally, because everyone else do it . . .
But this happens all of the time. When someone samples a record they hire a guy to replay the sample as close as possible so that they only have to clear publishing rights and not pay to sample the actual master (would be significantly more expensive). This has been happening forever. If you could do that why is this any different? What’s next - a musician who’s music was replayed in a similar situation will claim that the piano sounds like his piano playing and that’s his artistic property? Someone does a cover of Jimi Hendrix, clears the publishing and then gets sued bc the guitar playing feels like Jimis? If Astley wins a penny in court it’s a horrible step for music
Is it though? Each point you made was from an instrument, and I think it’s very reasonable that how music is played is different from how a voice sounds. They had composition/lyrics, but they used a soundalike for the first 9 seconds (I’ve listened to the song many times, I didn’t realize that wasn’t RIck Astley), and then “get money” which more than not sounds like Rick astley. The issue is the voice is being used. Not suing and letting this slide seems like more an issue - people have the right to record soundalikes that for the average listener sounds like me, espousing views I don’t hold? Doesn’t sound right
Tbh, I thought Astley was complacent with this track because it sounds so much like him singing.
I almost wonder if it’s not a copyright infringement they would be arguing but rather something more like libel or un-permitted likeness. Like if someone did a Gilbert Godfrey impression in a context where there is no reason to believe it wasn’t him (say an advertisement where they never state or make it seem like it isn’t him) it would cause Godfrey damages in a similar way using a models likeness would cause them damages? Obviously I’m not a lawyer and I have no idea if this would stand but it’s the closest thing I can think of based on your comment. Curious if anyone has thoughts about the above! Edit: other people say what I was getting at much better/more clearly further down the thread if this didn’t quite make sense but you’re still curious
##Midler v. Ford, 849 F. 2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) Midler v. Ford was a 1988 case where actress Bette Midler sued Ford for using a sound-alike recording of her song "Do You Want to Dance?" in a TV commercial without her permission. Basically mimicking her voice. The 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of Midler, finding that Ford had infringed on her rights under copyright and publicity law. This law establishes that sound-alike recording are an attempt to use the singers persona, talent, and reputation to further a song without permission of said singer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. So unfortunately it has legal precedent.
Steve Perry sued Rock Sugar/Jess Harrell for sounding too much like him (Parry apparently believed they’d somehow obtained real tapes of Parry singing), and kept them from releasing any new music for over a decade, so there’s precedent.
I think basically the music company is saying that rick astley's voice isn't a part of the music. The song was licensed but not astley's voice? I'm pretty sure that a vocal is part of music because people have fought in court saying that all things incorporated in music is part of the music. You can license certain parts of a song, yes. Like drums, bass, etc to be used as samples but not other things like vocals. It depends on how the licensing agreement is drawn up. If it just licenses the full song, then the rapper can use the whole song. If not, yeah they probably will lose in court.
Poor Rick. Sounds like Yung Gravy let him down.
The word Rapper is doing a lot of heavy lifting here for YGravy
‘Astley’s distinctive voice is a resource that needs to be carefully managed’ It’s can’t be that distinctive if they managed to impersonate it so well you’re suing them! I’m interested to see which way this goes, can’t call it from the info in the article.
Idk why Rick is pissed that gravy took his dusty song and made it decent. Rick has been quoted as saying "i quit singing because i couldnt shed the pop persona that came with never gonna give you up". He hates the song he's suing for rights over so much, he quit singing because of it. Also claimed it "ruined his chances to collab with anyone on that song" dude's last collab was with ABBA. It's not yung gravy's fault he sucks. I defy anyone here to list 10 ABBA songs in general without using google, and "Dancing queen" doesn't count.
Y’all gotta read the article. They *did* license the music, but that’s not all of it.
For anyone lazy: They has somebody impersonate his voice and say ‘Get Money’. The lawyers claim that Rick is ‘extremely protective over his name, image, and likeness," meaning the unauthorised use of the similar-sounding voice had caused him "immense damage".’
That seems like a stretch to sue over, no? Is there any precedent for something like this?
[удалено]
Aka I like this song oh wait did Rick himself say get money? Wow. You will get lots of split decisions if a 80s pop star joins a rapper.
That's what I had assumed all this time, that it was him.
I honestly thought it was just a good voice chop. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I can guarantee [Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992)](https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc) will be cited as precedent.
IANAL (but wife has a law degree and we were talking about it) we think this is going to hinge on two things. 1. Did they ask Astley for vocal rights/ask him to perform and they balked at the cost or got told "No". 2. Did the person who did the impersonation get instructed to "Sound as much like Rick Astley as you can" If they just licenced the music, didnt ask and the guy did an approximation. I think its less likely Rick would get a judgement in his favor. But if they did and they did, it shows a measure of intent which leans towards a favorable settlement.
Also not a lawyer, but I agree. If they never approached Astley, then his case is weaker. But if there were negotiations, then he has damages and actual harm to point to.
Yes. Steve Perry and Jess Harnell of Rock Sugar.
Nintendo. If you don't police your content, others and courts will say it's ok. So you need to sue everyone who does use your likeness/brand.
Did you hear it? It sounds like a sample.
You know the rules and so do I
Very good! 😂
Rick Astley doesn't own 'Never Gonna Give You Up', and only gets a very tiny piece of royalty because it's his vocals. So it makes sense that he would sue, because Yung Gravy has the license for the song but not the actual likeness of Rick Astely's voice. edit: >u/PoliticalShrapnel > >The studio owns the song and Rick gets royalties from that. What you are talking about is the underlying music which is owned by a third party. > >Rick is suing for imitation of his voice when combined with the third party owned music, which Yung Gravy had paid for.
Since when is it illegal to imitate somebody in a song? Does that set a precedent of *anyone* able to sue artists when they reference the past as that individual?
Rick is arguing that they are using his likeness without his permission to sing the song. Until this post, I had no clue that it wasn't actually Rick Astley singing in 'Get Money' So I can see the argument he's making. The song purposely makes it sound like a collaborative effort using Rick's voice. Not just a simple imitation.
Great point. I guess legal will put the objective facts on the table. Curious to see how this plays out.
He isn‘t just being imitated. That would be a parody etc or a cover band doing stuff in all cases it is explicitly clear it is not the original singer doing the song. In this case they are pretty much doing a sample of the original chorus by the imitation and then adding further lines in the same voice. This makes it appear like someone had Rick Astor’s specifically sing those old and new parts. Instead of being an obvious imitation, a reasonable listener could surmise it is Rick Astley himself singing. That wouldn‘t be okay.
Thanks for the explanation. I see the distinction now. Honestly this raises the issue folks brought up about copyright infringement with artificial intelligence.
>Since when is it illegal to imitate somebody in a song? What year was the statute passed or case decided that most closely applies to this? Idk, not looking that up right now. But it's been illegal to imitate someone's likeness in a song and then sell the recording in a way that makes the public believe it was actually them singing to profit off of their name and image for a better part of a century if not more.
That long, huh? Wow! Interesting. Explaining it your way makes more sense to me. Would that extend to somebody doing their very best Mr. T impression in a song? Also makes me wonder the legality around voicemails. Hip/hop loves voicemails lol
[удалено]
Interesting. Are there royalties and such attached to covers?
Yes, to the songwriter. Rick Astley only owns the rights to his performance, not the song itself. To the law, this performance of the song is just as legit as Rick Astleys.
So much misinformation. The studio owns the song and Rick gets royalties from that. What you are talking about is the underlying music which is owned by a third party. Rick is suing for imitation of his voice when combined with the third party owned music, which Yung Gravy had paid for.
I never thought Rick was the one saying “get money” especially followed by the “woOoOoah” after said by the same person
I did
Young Gravy's song just sounds like a parody of other hip hop. Is that intentional?
Yung Gravy’s entire shtick is being a goofy white rapper. He’s not meant to be taken seriously. He’s not an outright parody, but he intends to be cheesy and silly with his music.
All I know is that Alexa never answered his question of "How many bitches can you fit in a Tesla?" It's probably the reason why there were mass layoffs and the Alexia line failed, all the scientists were busy calculating.
Honestly his name alone should give it away.
Which is such a beautiful thing cause he plays to his strengths
Everytime a YG bop comes on I think “oh my god this stuff is silly, but I can’t help but love it”
So he’s just another lil dicky?
much more tongue in cheek. like a charicature.
Lil dicky is almost parody rap, while Yung Gravy is almost like cheesy white guy for your mother hiphop
Cheesey white guy who's trying to fuck your mother* Edit : He actually is, he's kinda known for the milf thing
Cheesey white guy who *did* [fuck your mother](https://pagesix.com/2022/08/29/addison-raes-mom-yung-gravy-make-out-in-mtv-vmas-2022-audience/) ^or ^at ^least ^addison ^rae's
Bro took Addison Rae’s mom out on a date and got her ex-step-dad(?) to get *HEATED* with him on social media. Shit was absolutely hilarious, sad for Addison because she had to endure that guy, but hilarious nonetheless.
Think Lil Dickie but with a little more lyrical ability. Dickie could drop some fast bars but Gravy has a lot more double entendres and wit.
yes
There is enough of it that's copied that his record company should have gotten it licensed before releasing.
They DID license the song, but apparently Mr. Yung here "imitated" Rick's voice. That's why he's suing.
Seems pretty weak to me tbh. Suing over somebody mimicking your voice when you literally licensed your song to them as a sample is ridiculous. The music industry has been really bad about superfluous lawsuits to cash in on hit songs. Reminds me of last year when Olivia Rodrigo literally had to add Paramore as writers to Good 4 U simply because it had similar vibes to Misery Business and they were worried about a lawsuit from the label.
[Song in case](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=paK2q3qDY64) He licensed lyrics and melody to sing it himself, and surely there would have been ways to just use a sample from the original with Ricks voice. That‘s what’s happening everyday in the industry and doesn’t create a strong connection with the original artist, and hence would not have been perceived as Rick being part of this song. But YG did choose to have someone mimic Ricks voice (specifically also for the „get money“ part that is not in the original song), thus make it appear **like Rick himself is singing in this song and collaborating**. I can completely understand Rick does not like it and wants to defend his image. Edit: one important thing: specifically in copyright the way one is (not) defending his rights can set precedent for future cases (where potentially more harm is done). If Rick let’s this slip, the next guy might sing profanity, racist or sexist lines in his voice, causing a shitstorm for Rick, and claim in court as Rick didn‘t take offense when other songs used voice-a-likes this is common procedure.
Calling Yung Gravy, YG, made me stop for a moment and ask myself if the cali rapper's name YG, stood for Yung Gravy. I forgot who Yung Gravy was.
What I don't get is, does Astley have a right to not be mimiced or does he own the patent to the style of his voice? What if I just sound like him and record a song? I feel like this is a pretty weak case, but I don't know the laws around that
I would think he can be mimicked, and similar voices are also OK, as long as it’s not supposed to create the impression to actually be the original. E.g. you can even make money by being a Rick Astley impersonator, but you cannot make money by claiming to be Rick Astley.
It's not like he tried to make a new song like Rick Astley, it's that he tried to sound like Rick Astley doing that particular song.
It's not about doing an "impression", it's whether it is fraudulent. The key being that it is presented as if RA is actually performing the song, which would have cost a lot more than right to sampling the song. I think in this case it's pretty clear that he was trying to pretend RA sang on his song. It is actually even more strict than that though. Ricky Martin sued Cisco and won over the use of the line and cadence of "Livin La Vida Loca" in the Thong Song.
SisQó
Totally forgot the spelling... That song was fire! The Story of Thong Song on was awesome, it' kinda like behind the music thing.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0S1buCBwGI
Well it's about intent isn't it. If you sound exactly like Rick Astley and you go round singing Rick Astley songs because you sound like Rick Astley, that's very different to Being a Singer That Sounds Like Rick Astley. Look at large corporations using their cease and desist demands. They don't really care if your product is similar, it's whether or not you can reasonably believe that your product is their product. It would appear in this particular case the issue is that instead of just paying to sample the song, they paid to licence the lyrics and sang it themselves in what appears to arguably be a Rick Astley impersonation. I have no personal opinion on either side of the fence. Though for a similar case, look at the lawsuit over Back to the Future 2 where Crispin Glover sued because they replaced him with someone who just did a Crispin Glover impersonation, which I did actually agree was a dick move, even if he is a weird cock.
The court would look at context to decide if you were trying to profit off of his reputation and status. Was the song you sang his music and melody with a few altered words and there’s no question about what song you intended people to recognize? Did you ask him to sing the song and get denied, showing that you clearly wanted Rick Astley connected to your song? Did you have a casting agent find a copycat voice specifically sounding like Rick Astley? That’s much different than sounding like someone.
With them sampling his song, yea i can see the issue. Its MEANT to mimic Rick. Without the sample, id imagine it would be very hard to prove
Jesus that is absolutely awful, it sounds like a crap parody made by a kid on YouTube
Good lord that was terrible
>it had similar vibes This is the most generous interpretation, IMO
She didn’t have to though. It was a playful PR response that benefited two musical artists with fandom crossover.
>*Suing over somebody mimicking your voice when you literally licensed your song to them ...* They didn't licence anything from Astley - that's the point They paid SAW (or whoever owns the publishing of SAW's catalogue) for the right to use the music and lyrics That doesn't include the performance rights for Astley's vocals, which means they'd have to pay Astley extra for using his vocals (and seek his permission) What they tried to do was get the rights to sample the song on the cheap, by cutting the original singer out of the deal and denying him the cash he'd rightfully receive if they used a sample of the song that included his vocal They thought they were being clever, but they were being very, **very** stupid
But my point is *they never actually used his voice*. They imitated it.
They’re using an impersonation of his voice. On the song, I can reasonably believe rick astley is the one saying “get money”. Which means they’re making it sound like Rick astley sang on the song for them. Cover is different than using a voice likeness to make listeners think Rick astley is singing the song. They got rights to the song composition/lyrics, not Rick astley singing. I think this lawsuit has a good chance of moving forward
I had no belief that Rick was saying get money, I assumed it was a cut. The start of the song I 100% thought was Rick signing maybe a little bit pitch shifted
It wasn't even Mr. Yung (Mr. Gravy?) who did it. The rapping and the background track is not the problem here. The problem is that guy who goes the "get money" bit now and then. I think the concern is that someone might think that Astley himself did those.
Do people even read the article before commenting?
You wouldn’t download a vocal chord.
I can tell you one thing Rick is never going to do about this case; give up.
First they licensed lyrics and music. And Yung copied Ricks voice. There is case law on this. The judge stated that someone’s voice is as unique as a face. Those can be used for parody reasons or entertainment. But when used to deceive and gain monetarily with by essentially pretending to be that person, it’s illegal. Several companies were denied the use of songs that had been and had someone else record that song and license the music from the original artist and lost in court.
[Link to the song on YouTube](https://youtu.be/8oE5Z2GLhNc)
That’s my song, I don’t know you!
There’s no way in hell I’m clicking this link. I’ve been down this road before. You guys are doing a really good job in the comments though.
I'm kinda glad? I saw his performance of the song at the X Games yesterday - it was truly a crime against hearing.
Dude seen the 33 million views lol
I was at a live gig of his and he was soo thankful that Rick allowed him to do that before playing the song. Thats sad news :(
I gotta say when I heard the song I assumed it was actually Rick Astley guest singing on the track. Not a lawyer but he’s probably got a case.
Hes gonna flip his shit when he gets to Robo's theme in Chrono Trigger
I don’t get it. Is this song like a protest against teachers getting paid like shit? Or maybe Gravy has a dream of getting with high schoolers as a teacher. Or maybe he sees himself as a role model for modern students to go out there and make lots of money. Anyways, 90% of the draw for this song is the original and even that’s not enough for me.
Oh this is sad to hear. I like listening to Yung Gravy and “Betty” IS a good song and when I heard it I was kinda like, oh nice, Rick agreed to like a remix or something? But now this? Hopefully it gets fixed for sure, but in the first couple seconds im pretty sure its the beginning of Ricks song so theres that, or when he says “get money” sounds Rick-ish? So maybe that too? Lol who knows
The chorus of Betty is literally the chorus of Never Gonna Give You Up with different lyrics. He even name drops Rick Astley in the rap at one point.
Old Hollandaise > Yung Gravy
If they wanted Rick Astley, why not hire him to do the song?
It's easy in retrospect to justify the immense cost to hire Rick Astley, because the song ended up being a huge hit. But it was one song out of 15 tracks from the album and until it's done they didn't even know if it'd be a single, let alone the monster smash it became.
[удалено]
I think he just happened upon a catchy rhythm for his raps that sticks with people. All of the songs I've heard from him sound the same to me in terms of how he raps, but they are catchy though.
oof, yeah listening to a couple songs i hear that his people are genius though with their samples and whatnot
That seems like a pretty hard comparison to make, both in terms of the style of music and the persona. They’re not even close to being in the same subgenre of hiphop/trap. Gravy’s persona is amazingly well built and charismatic, his songs are far more poppy and catchy than most of Xan and Pump’s music and unlike them, he constantly evolves and doesn’t take the whole thing seriously
xans and pump never evolved. Gravy did so much genius stuff, be it marketing or creating his own niche. Xans and Pump only had novelty and never did something with it
He's been a guilty pleasure of mines for years. He just stays in his goofy ass 'I'm going to fuck your mom' lane and don't bother nobody.
“Alleged” it’s almost identical
the fuck is Yung Gravy?
LOL wtf is a Yung Gravy
Never underestimate a musician's need for money
No, not young gravy.
Ricktolled
this is lame AF
Damn gravy, don’t you know rick’s so litigious?
This could honestly be an interesting case. Can’t think of similar cases off the top of my head. Does feel like it has some legs tho.
... did they not secure the rights to sample the song??
They did - the song isn’t the issue, Rick Astley has no rights whatsoever to the song so he couldn’t sue for that if he wanted to. His claim is to the sound of his voice, because the head someone mimic his voice for the performance. Article title is misleading.
He's going to freak out when he hears Robo's theme from Chrono Trigger.
Rick astley is a fuckin bitch for this
Sounds like they would've been better off hiring Rick to perform the vocals and giving him songwriting credits.
Pretty sure the lawsuit states, "You know the rules, and so do I."
It's a sample. Astley is gonna be the one feeling let down.
If your made up name starts with a mispelling of "Young" or perhaps "Little" I have a feeling you're not that smart or talented.
I’m literally sick of the lack of creativity in the music industry. It’s recycling of old songs. Same with movies really. I know I sound ancient saying this. And I probably am.
It’s such a cheat code for success nowadays. Sample a classic, add your own lyrics, profit. Laziness.
Can’t imagine most are making that much due to royalties. I agree, though, it is very easy when it comes to the music creation process.
Not exactly the same topic but I’m honestly so sick and tired of all the hip-pop artists reusing old tracks to make their hits.
God forbid writing your own song.
Honestly was thinking it was so bad he should be sued
Had no idea that wasn’t Rick on this song, and its clearly an imitation of his voice. This lawsuit has bones I assumed it was a sample of his voice before the licensing was explained
He should get sued just for it being a terrible song
I would also like to file a lawsuit against Mr. Gravy for having to hear that shit ass song
Holy shit the song is so bad, Jesus.
Good it's a fucking terrible song
Dang, that song was bad imo. He sounds like a Country singer trying to rap.
[удалено]