Jake Holmes finally does it - lawsuit over "Dazed & Confused"

All Zepfanboyapologists cease and desist. This is a thread celebrating the group's long overdue comeuppance.

And I really can't think of another blues artist of rock artist who helped themselves to such large chunks of music and lyrics as Zep did with Dazed & Confused, Whole Lotta Love, etc. They fleeced the original writers of millions. It is not analogous to 97% of blues artists throughout history or the evolution of the medium as "folk music." It's a different kind of unpunished crime... and Page, Plant & Co. know it.

It's okay to like them in spite of their callous greed. I know I do. And to their credit, they did largely grow out of the habit and find their own voices.

 

Of course you are right. It's comical to think of Jimmy Page acting like an ethical man rather than a narcissistic adolescent drug-addict.

 

"Even funnier is the cadre of online opiners who are intent on Bringing Jimmy Page To His Knees."

That was funny! The rest of your post not so much. Most die hard Led Zeppelin fans haven't got a clue who Jack Holmes is, let's not talk about casual fans. Holmes didn't wrote 50% of the song, but 100%. Just listen to his version which Led Zeppelin copied right down to the break down part in the middle of the song.

I don't know what "their intent" is, but if they "need a lot more then one nicked tune" well then... it's quite easy for them Jack Holmes got only one interesting song in his catalogue? And it's exactly the one Jimmy stole? Well, Jimmy has got good ears it seems....

Bringing Jimmy Page to his knees....

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night brother man. Love how you try to discredit others opinions by calling them 'Zepfanboyapologists'. I'll do the same to you by calling you a history revisionist. ANYBODY who knows ANYTHING about the history of the blues knows that borrowing from each other was part of the genre, and was considered a tribute.

 

I agree with everything you said. I think the Zep version was 50/50 Zep/Holmes. Holmes does indeed deserve some sort of settlement. What really ticks me off, however, is the people who try to crucify Page for something that was so common place in blues music. Why is that? Probably lawyer types smelling $.

 

Wow. Based on that link, it is kind of hard to deny the claim. The frame work of the song is there.

Brian

 

The context of Pages' fame and creativity was not as an African American bluesman in the pre or post war American South playing jukes and making a random 78

He was a sophisticated British rock musician crafting albums with serious managerial (Peter Grant) and economic (record company) support for world consumption.

The stakes and returns were very high.

 

Sleep at night? I'm having a good laugh Brother ZOSO.

The Holmes rip has nothing to do with blues tradition; we're talking about pop music here. The Yardbirds saw Holmes perform in Greenwich Village, they bought his album, they learned the tune, they added it to their repertoire and when the recording was released writing credit was taken by Page.

Why would anyone defend such girlyman behavior? If he was a man with any integrity he would have resolved the issue years ago. I assume he's matured a bit in the ensuing decades and will try to resolve it quickly and quietly in 2010.

 

When I saw the current touring yardbirds(2 originals) recently they introduced the song as being written by Holmes.

As for Willie Dixon, he was getting royalties on Shook Me, but it was not until his kids pointed out he was getting shafted on Whole Lotta Love.

Robert Plant is legally in the clear since he sold his publishing to Page in the early 80's. Though Plant never took writing credit until LZ2 to sidestep an earlier deal he signed and he waited to lapse.

 

What hogwash! It's times like these that I wish Peter Grant was still around and in charge.

 

Under copyright law, Holmes would be entitled to own 100% of both versions, regardless of the changes made by Page. Page's version would be considered a "derivative work" of the original, and the original copyright holder has complete control over the disposition of any derivatives. It is worth noting that the measure of damages for Holmes, if successful, is PROFITS from the wrongful exploitation of the work, not just what he would have earned in royalties had a license been properly obtained. Also, if he did actually file a copyright application prior to the alleged infringement, then he is entitled to attorney's fees for the infringment action, which could be in the millions if this goes to trial.

I have for years wondered how it could be possible, especially given the success other aggrieved parties have had against LZ for song lifting, that Holmes never pursued this. I always figured there must have been some earlier settlement, and perhaps that fact will be revealed as this story develops?

 

How many are known to have received a settlement from Page of Zep song lifting?

Dixon/WLL and the added name credi to Boogie With Stu are the only ones I can recall.

 

In the old days, it was quite common that noone knew who actually wrote a song, so it was convenient that the recording artist took songwriting credit and in most cases it wasn't even up to the recording artist. It was a choice made by a manager or producer to credit the recording artist to make a few dollars. At the time, it wasn't such a big deal. Most recordings didn't sell much, so the royalty payments were small.
Muddy Waters would probably have been the first to tell you that "Rollin' and Tumblin'" wasn't his song, even if it was copyrighted in his name. He heard the song on a 78 by Hambone Willie Newbern and the song is probably older than that. Noone know who originally composed it.
It's different with "Dazed & Confused" because we know who originally composed it and there's no indication Holmes just copied an old song in the public domain.
Willie Dixon is the composer of a lot of blues songs. AFAIK, he's only won lawsuits in cases where it could be established that he didn't use music or lyrics from older songs.

 

Dixon received money from Led Zeppelin from the day their first album was released due to the songwriting credits to Dixon for You Shook Me and I Can't Quit You Baby. As for WLL, I always found it funny that he chose to sue Zep when the Small Faces version always sounded much closer to the original to me (other than Way down inside, which Plant clearly nicked from the SF).

As for D&C, if we're going to talk about public statements, I think Holmes should issue a public thank you to Page and in fact all of Led Zeppelin for turning a turgid, boring and somewhat creepy song into a tour de force!

In addition, As Steve has pointed out in the past, it's at least partially the responsibility of the record company to research song ownership.

Oh, and Dazed and Confused, a POP SONG!!?!?!?! WTF!

 

People are acting like they know exactly what went down 42 years ago.
I wonder if even the principals remember what happened.

Later song credit additions--according to Wiki

Anne Bredon - Babe, I'm gonna leave you
Burnett- The Lemon Song
Dixon- Bring it on home

 

Does this mean Eddie Phillips is next?

 

While I tend to see Jake Holmes point of view in this action I'd like to thank Led Zeppelin for their blatant ripping off of many artists whose music I'd have NEVER heard if they hadn't repackaged and resold it to me over the years.

Robert Johnson, Howling Wolf, Willie Dixon, Bukka White, Albert King, Kansas Joe and Memphis Minnie, Blind Willie Johnson, Moby Grape, Spirit to name but a few.

If Holmes wanted to make an example of Jimmy Page, Jake would sick the RIAA on him. *smirks*

 

Why, so they could find someone else to beat up or steal from? I suspect that Grant was the mastermind behind the blatant songwriting theft to begin with.

 

Boogie With Stu always had the credit I believe.

Eddie

 

jake's present endeavor...

http://www.drumgirl.com/bio.html

 

It had a credit to Richie Valens mother since the band heard she never received a dime in royalties from his songs after he died and thought it would be cool to give her the credit. So she turned around and sued them anyway!

 

Did not know that. I wonder why she would do that since money was coming her way and the credit to a Valens was there.

Eddie

 

AFAIK it was Valens' publishers who sued them, not his mother.

 

Consider Page's theft of Davy Graham's arrangement of "She Moves Through the Fair" claiming writing credit for himself under the title "White Summer." Now the former title is a traditonal English folk song, but Graham's arrangement was totally unique. And Page (and the Yardbirds and Led Zeppelin) copied it closely. If they were simply playing a traditional song, it would have sounded like the versions by Anne Briggs or Fairport Convention.

 

Correct. "Personal jurisdiction."