Ethan Trex
The Time John Fogerty Was Sued for Ripping Off John Fogerty
by Ethan Trex - April 14, 2011 - 12:03 AM

© Henry Diltz/CORBIS

In 1993, former Creedence Clearwater Revival singer John Fogerty found himself at the center of a case being argued before the United States Supreme Court. The country’s highest court wasn’t debating whether Bayou Country or Green River was the superior CCR album. Instead, Fogerty was in the middle of an important, somewhat obscure corner of copyright law.

The seeds for Fogerty’s day in court traced back 23 years to 1970. That April, CCR released the Fogerty-penned “Run Through the Jungle” as a single that would eventually be certified gold by the RIAA. “Run Through the Jungle” is a solid tune, but it didn’t really grab headlines until 1985 when Fogerty released a solo track called “The Old Man Down the Road.”

“The Old Man Down the Road” is a pretty nice song, too; it even cracked the top 10 on the singles charts. One person wasn’t a fan, though. Saul Zaentz, who owned CCR’s old label Fantasy Records, also owned the copyright to “Run Through the Jungle.” Zaentz felt that “The Old Man Down the Road” was simply “Run Through the Jungle” with different words. In other words, John Fogerty had plagiarized a John Fogerty song to which he didn’t own the copyright.

Zaentz felt he had a case, so he sued Forgerty in federal court for copyright infringement.

(It’s worth noting that Zaentz and Fogerty weren’t on the best of terms in the first place. The same 1985 album that featured “The Old Man Down the Road,” Centerfield, also included the tracks “Mr. Greed” and “Zanz Kant Danz.” Critics and fans saw these songs as pointed attacks on Zaentz, and the label head initiated a separate $144 million defamation lawsuit that claimed Fogerty portrayed him as “a thief, robber, adulterer, and murderer.” The two sides settled that suit out of court.)

Defamation aside, was there any merit to the copyright claims? Have a listen and decide for yourself:

“Run Through the Jungle”

“The Old Man Down the Road”

The case ended up before a jury in Federal District Court in San Francisco in late 1988. The two-week trial featured Fogerty taking the witness stand with guitar in hand to explain that yes, the two songs may have sounded somewhat similar, but they were both variations on his signature “swamp rock” style. Simply put, of course two John Fogerty songs sounded the same.

This logic seemed pretty sound to the jury. It only took two hours of deliberation for the jury to determine that the two songs didn’t meet the legal standard of being “substantially similar” that would have constituted copyright infringement. The Fogerty camp let out a collective “huzzah!”

Encore!

The real legal action was just warming up, though. Since Fogerty had successfully defended himself against Fantasy Records’ suit, he sought reimbursement for his attorney’s fees. No dice. If the plaintiff, Fantasy, had been successful in its suit against Fogerty, the label would have been able to seek its lawyer fees from the musician. Since Fogerty had been a prevailing defendant, though, the court ruled that he could only seek fees if he could show that Fantasy’s suit was frivolous or had been made in bad faith. Fantasy’s suit may not have panned out, but it didn’t fit those criteria.

This decision put Fogerty in a sticky spot. Sure, he had won the case, but he was on the hook for $1.09 million in fees for his attorneys and those of his current label, Warner Brothers. Fogerty and his team didn’t think this arrangement was very fair, so they appealed the decision. In 1993 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down that appeal, though, on the same grounds—the original suit had been neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith.

After that failed appeal, Fogerty v. Fantasy – which would be an awesome title for a Fogerty concept record about battling elves, by the way – ended up in front of the Supreme Court. Fogerty’s camp made the same argument: that it made no sense to have a dual standard for plaintiffs and defendants seeking reimbursement for lawyer fees under the Copyright Act of 1976.

In March 1994, the Supreme Court issued a 9-to-0 decision in favor of Fogerty. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that there was nothing in the Copyright Act of 1976 that implied that Congress wanted anything other than a level playing field when it came to awarding attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. (Rehnquist also hinted at a bit of Creedence fandom, writing that CCR “has been recognized as one of the greatest American rock and roll groups of all time.”)

More from mental_floss…

It’s a Steal! How Columbia House Made Money Giving Away Music
*
The Real Details of the Hot Coffee Lawsuit
*
Why Are Michigan’s Bottle Deposits So High?
*
He Took a Polaroid Every Day, Until the Day He Died
*
A Secret 1980s War With … Sweden?
*
Drink Up! The Stories Behind 11 Regional Soft Drinks

twitterbanner.jpg

« Previous Post   -   Next Post »
Click here to get a Risk-Free issue of mental_floss magazine
Comments (16)

  1. Love John Fogerty and CCR — it’s another sad case of the artist getting screwed!

    posted by Leslie on 4-14-2011 at 12:06 am

  2. So ridiculous. How could he not own the copyright to a song he wrote?

    posted by Joe on 4-14-2011 at 12:22 am

  3. What’s the big deal? Isn’t the opening of “Run Through the Jungle” kind of exactly the same riff as “Susie Q”? If not, it’s pretty damn close. To say John Fogerty is derivative is not a stretch. Don’t get me wrong–I’m a fan of the guy. Defintely not worth suing the guy over! The greed of record labels is phenomenal. They make their money off the sweat of artists & always have.

    posted by Pattee on 4-14-2011 at 4:09 am

  4. George Clinton was also sued (or fined, some legal action was taken) for sampling his own music.

    posted by Michael M on 4-14-2011 at 6:50 am

  5. Dinosaurs will die…

    posted by staticage002 on 4-14-2011 at 7:26 am

  6. Frankly, I hear two different songs. They have the same “Fogerty style,” but they’re not the same song.

    posted by holly on 4-14-2011 at 8:17 am

  7. saul zantz, was not a very nice guy. he was the reason fogarty would not play his own music for decades. so many musicians who created hits for these thieving scurrilous record company owners has been documented many times. in the old days leonard chess would buy a r&b artist a Cadillac instead of paying royalties. the 7 year slave contracts signed by unrepresented artists is also well documented. this continues to this day.

    posted by mediawest on 4-14-2011 at 10:40 am

  8. My feelings have always been that if you owned one CCR album, you owned ever song that produced…like a box set because they all sounded the same.

    posted by Alan on 4-14-2011 at 12:32 pm

  9. Similar styles, since both song are you know, written by John Fogerty…but I don’t think the similarities go beyond there.

    posted by (The Other ) Meg on 4-14-2011 at 1:59 pm

  10. Any time the 9th Circuit rules you know it’s going to be overturned.

    posted by PartiallyDeflected on 4-14-2011 at 7:30 pm

  11. I’ve had college professors try to claim that students can plagiarize themselves. (by turning a single paper in to multiple classes) I’ve called BS on that before, and this article highlights exactly why for me. Since when did I cede or sell copyright of my paper to anyone? Look, if it’s against school policy then fine. I have no issue with that, but just SAY so. Don’t claim plagiarism. That’s just stupid.

    But I’m off topic, and pretty sure I’m now coming across as a ranting nut now. However, I did synch the videos up and listen to them at the same time. They’re not exactly the same, but they actually sound pretty good when played together. Nice complementary sound.

    posted by kittycaller on 4-14-2011 at 7:45 pm

  12. @Alan:

    I totally disagree – go back and listen again.

    posted by Leslie on 4-14-2011 at 9:32 pm

  13. Re the question about how someone could not own the rights to his/her own composition:

    Under certain circumstances, such as being under contract to a record company, any writing you do when published belongs to the label. In other words, if I work for XYZ Records and I write a song, that song belongs to XYZ records, not me. (It should be noted that contracts can be negotiated so that the writer retains the copyright, but usually only established writers get this perk.)

    This is also how Michael Jackson ended up with the rights to the Beatles’ library: he bought them. So, basically, Paul McCartney would have had to have MJ’s permission to publish a Beatles song that he (McCartney) originally wrote.

    Copyrights can be bought and sold, and it is not unusual for a new/struggling artist to sell away the rights to his own work. (The value of copyrights owned figures into divorce and probate cases as well.)

    posted by Charles on 4-15-2011 at 12:06 am

  14. Well, by this token, Green River sounds just as similar to Run Through the Jungle as The Old Man Down the Road does. He has a distinctive playing style and distinctive guitar sound.

    I also find it funny how John Fogerty looks a lot like Steve Martin in the pic for the Run Through the Jungle video.

    posted by Bert on 4-15-2011 at 1:06 pm

  15. as a comparison listen to any female pop vocalist doing an acoustic song and hum “what if god was one of us”, you will discover that there are better than a dozen songs that are essentially the same. Hell “the hook” by the spin doctors was built on the pacabell’s cannon chord progression. Music is all about ripping off ideas from others, Charlie Parker put together hundreds of tunes out of the bridge or chorus parts of “i’ve got rhythem, how high the moon, and honeysuckle rose”.
    but you wouldn’t expect any of that to have made sence to an attorney now would you.

    posted by rob_J on 8-6-2011 at 7:50 pm

  16. two words charles; fair use

    posted by rob_J on 8-6-2011 at 7:51 pm

Comment

commenting policy