Lizzo vs. Great Jeans | Matt Connarton Unleashed

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/matt-connarton-unleashed--3109245/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Music Business Worldwide dot Com. Just a quick story, then
we got to get to a break. Lizzo sued for
alleged copyright violation and unreleased song snippet referencing Sydney sweeney
jeans ad What did you see this? Yeah, this just happened.
Come on this This went up a couple days ago.
It says, Lizzo is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit over

(00:21):
a snippet of a song the singer shared on social
media that referenced the controversy around Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad.
The GRC Trust at Georgia based Revocable Trust filed the
lawsuit in federal court in California on Tuesday, the twenty first,
alleging that Lizzo's track, known alternately as I'm Going in

(00:42):
Till October or Good Jens that's the full title, sampled
without permission the nineteen seventy song win or Lose We
Tried by soul singer and songwriter samd's Lizzo's allegedly infringing
work Quote incorporates interpolates and samples instrumental and vocal elements
of the sam d's composition on quote States's GRC Trust complaint,

(01:02):
which can be read and full. There's a link to
it if you want to check it out. Quote representatives
for Lizzo acknowledged the same unquote. However, a representative for
Lizzo told BBC News in Bloomberg Law that they were
quote surprised that the GRC Trust filed the lawsuit given
that Lizzo's song has never been commercially released or monetized,

(01:23):
and no decision has been made at this time regarding
any future commercial will release of the song unquote. So
this is an example. We talk a lot on the
show about whether it's AI or whether it's something like this,
all this new territory that we're entering in the music industry,
because now this is something that was not has not
been released. A snippet of this was shared on social media,
and somebody's following a lawsuit over this. A snippet of

(01:44):
this was shared on social media. That's interesting. I'm not
making a judgment about whether it's right or wrong, or
who's right or wrong here. I'd have to think this
one over a little bit. But this is but this
is a new but this is new territory, but.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
It's not mentioning it's literally taking sounds.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
And you know, so when you take somebody else's vocals
and sound and put it in your music, I can
understand why they say, hey, wait, you're infringing on my
rights to control my music, my artistry.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
And if you're going to put something like that in
a way that could be shared, I think you're opening
yourself up to some liability.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Whether it was.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
Intended to be in the public or not.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
You did it well. Now that this has made there,
Now that this is happening, it seems inevitable that something
like this would come up. But this is the first
example I've seen of something like this coming up where
an actual, an actual lawsuit has come about it. It's interesting. Again,
I'm not making a judgment in this moment about whose

(02:47):
side I'm on here or what I think. I just
saw this. I didn't even see this before the show.
I happened to see it just a few minutes ago
it popped up in my newsfeed. But very very interesting.
So we will have to we will have to follow
that closely going forward.