Jump to content
mself084

The Legality Of Lyrics

By mself084, in Matthew Good

Recommended Posts

mself084

mself084

Posted
Posted

With Matt writing a couple songs seemingly about Jenn, I thought I'd bring this up: can someone sue for defamation of character, etc, concerning songs? I'm not saying Matt's destroying her character or anything... but hey, he does make references to her loving pills.

 

So basically my question is this...have their been any cases of people suing artists over the use of their name in a song? How successful were they? The only one I can think of is Eminem's ex-wife.

 

Mods: feel free to move this post around...not sure where it fits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeorjazzjune

jeorjazzjune

Posted
Posted

I hate to use Rob Thomas and Matchbox 20 as an example, but it's all I got. I remember hearing a few years back that the girl he wrote 'Push' for wanted to sue him for using the song that he supposedly he wrote about her.

 

He gave her the poem/song with her name on it and a whole bunch of other stuff. If I remember correctly, it was settled out of court.

 

Matt's been singing about ex's and other people over the last 10 years, I don't think if it's mattered then, it would matter now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ToadMan

ToadMan

Posted
Posted

Not that I'm a legal expert, but I don't think it's the name that's important. I think that if any "reasonably" person could assert whom it is about, then it can be slander. That being said, I believe that Matt is likely ampally vague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wentwj68

wentwj68

Posted
Posted

Being that I'm not canadian and have only a minor grasp on my own countries legal system i'm not sure i'm qualified to post, however I would imagine that most songs would have to be exempt from this, or ex's from half the songs you hear on the radio, or anywhere would be coming out of the woodwork trying to get money.

 

I'd be willing to bet unless the person can show some kind of evidence where the song caused them real problems, that they'd have any kind of stance to even attempt a lawsuit.

 

Then again, I could be entirely off on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
haircut-rabbit

haircut-rabbit

Posted
Posted
Being that I'm not canadian and have only a minor grasp on my own countries legal system i'm not sure i'm qualified to post, however I would imagine that most songs would have to be exempt from this, or ex's from half the songs you hear on the radio, or anywhere would be coming out of the woodwork trying to get money.

 

I'd be willing to bet unless the person can show some kind of evidence where the song caused them real problems, that they'd have any kind of stance to even attempt a lawsuit.

 

Then again, I could be entirely off on this.

I'm not positive, but I think a lot of previous lawsuits over these issues have dealt more with losses the defendant believes he/she has endured because of what's been said. ie. Eminem mentioning another artist in a song = a potential drop in sales for that artist as a result.

 

Not that this is what the law states, but I think it's usually only in these instances that serious legal action is taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cringleman

cringleman

Posted
Posted

Ignoring the minor pissing contest that seems to be going on over who has more posts (ah, the tangy smell of the Internet), I think that claiming "negative" things about another person, with intent to do them harm is legal defamation. Of course, it's supposed to be untrue, but that's rarely the point, as far as I can tell. (Note: this is apparently for the British and American legal systems, but the Canadian legal apparatus is similar, in general terms.)

 

Now, knowing Mr. Good, he probably has been writing in fairly ambiguous terms, so he should be alright as far as a libel (defamation that's published is libel, not slander, in case you were wondering the difference) suit is concerned.

 

The law surrounding free speech and 'decency' is messy. I doubt she'll try suing him, though -- seems especially low and slimy.

 

(Note: Canadian law is, indeed, covered in the Wikipedia article, and it states that the truth can be libel/slander, as well, depending on context and intent.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cringleman

cringleman

Posted
Posted

I fully acknowledge the logic, Toad. My mistake.

 

We could probably debate the legal semantics of whether the words originating as spoken, or eventually being published was more important (and therefore slander vs. libel), but there's certainly no point. I meant no disrespect to your input, and I know that you aren't trying to correct me, either.

 

Unless you're a practicing lawyer, in which case you're correcting me, and I bow to your expertise.

 

In any case: no lawsuit -- yay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept