Radiohead is denying claims made by Lana Del Rey that they are requesting 100% of the publishing of “Get Free.”

Radiohead is denying claims made by Lana Del Rey that they are requesting 100% of the publishing of “Get Free.”

Reports ran rampant this past weekend that Radiohead was taking Lana to court for copyright infringement. The Sun claimed Radiohead believed her Lust for Life track “Get Free” ripped off their ’90s hit “Creep.”

“Although I know my song wasn’t inspired by ‘Creep,’ Radiohead feel it was and want 100% of the publishing,” Lana said. In a concert the same day, the pop star said she may be forced to remove it from her catalogue altogether. Watch that here.

Radiohead denies her claims. Their reps gave a statement via Pitchfork that reads:

As Radiohead’s music publisher, it’s true that we’ve been in discussions since August of last year with Lana Del Rey’s representatives. It’s clear that the verses of “Get Free” use musical elements found in the verses of “Creep” and we’ve requested that this be acknowledged in favour of all writers of “Creep.” To set the record straight, no lawsuit has been issued and Radiohead have not said they “will only accept 100%” of the publishing of “Get Free.”

Sounds like it’s only a matter of time.

Thoughts on Radiohead’s statement? Leave a comment below.

And while you’re at it… follow us on Facebook, Twitter & Instagram.

2 Responses

  1. I simply do not understand how there can be confusion over such a matter. I mean, these are basically two completely different versions of the same thing. But facts are facts. Whatever Radiohead’s team is asking for must be specified in written form somewhere. Lana, READ. And why is this going on since freaking August? What is so difficult to solve?

  2. Artists, like scientists, build upon the foundations of everyone who came before them.

    Our current copyright laws neglect this reality and fail to protect the rights of the actual creators. Instead, the laws favor the corporate owners who can wring money out of those who may or may not have built upon the foundations they bought.

    I think we need a new type of credit that lists musical samples and stylistic influences for each song. Offering that official categorization would lead fans of a song to any source material that may have inspired it. Fans could then easily purchase and support the source material and its owner.

    It’s not accurate to add co-writers to a new song that contains samples or similarities to an old one. That splitting of the writing credits and profits invites abuse of a system designed to protect the commercial viability of a unique creation.

    Yes, a copyright owner should be able to sue and win credit/money if their work is ripped off substantially, but the entire point of releasing music is to impact and influence others. The copyright laws should foster the next generation of creation in addition to accounting for the references that paved the way.

Leave a Reply