How Copyright Works: Sugarhill Gang vs. Busta Rhymes | Replay and Interpolation Has Its Day in Court

Download Your Free Music Business Handbook Now: berkonl.in/3XRrl9n
Earn Your Music Business Degree Online with Berklee: berkonl.in/3JyAdwb
In this video, Berklee Online instructor E. Michael Harrington discusses a case of replay interpolation that went to court: The Sugarhill Gang and Busta Rhymes. In his 1996 song, “Woo-hah!! Got You All in Check” Busta Rhymes says the title line, which was argued was an interpolation of the Sugarhill Gang’s 1980 song, “8th Wonder,” which features the line, “Woo-ha, got them all in check.” Scholars will also note that the original line was sampled in the Beastie Boys’ 1989 song, “Shake Your Rump,” which was released before sampling cases began entering the court house. The Sugarhill Gang sued Busta Rhymes in 2012, and Busta Rhymes sued back, stating that the phrase was unique. The parties reached an undisclosed settlement in 2015.
About E. Michael Harrington:
Dr. E. Michael Harrington is a professor in music copyright and intellectual property matters. He has lectured at many law schools, organizations, and music conferences throughout North America, including Harvard Law, George Washington University Law, Hollywood Bar Association, Texas Bar, Minnesota Bar, Houston Law Center, Brooklyn Law, BC Law, Loyola Law, NYU, McGill, Eastman, Emory, the Experience Music Project, Future of Music Coalition, Pop Montreal, and others. He has worked as a consultant and expert witness in hundreds of music copyright matters including efforts to return "We Shall Overcome" and "This Land Is Your Land" to the public domain, and has worked with director Steven Spielberg, producer Mark Burnett, the Dixie Chicks, Steve Perry, Busta Rhymes, Samsung, Keith Urban, HBO, T-Pain, T. I., Snoop Dogg, Collin Raye, Tupac Shakur, Lady Gaga, George Clinton, Mariah Carey, and others. He sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Popular Culture, advisory board of the Future of Music Coalition and the Creators Freedom Project, and is a member of Leadership Music. Michael has been interviewed by the New York Times, CNN, Bloomberg Law, Wall Street Journal, Time, Huffington Post, Billboard, USA Today, Rolling Stone, Money Magazine, Investor's Business Daily, People Magazine, Life Magazine, and Washington Post, in addition to BRAVO, PBS, ABC News, NBC's "Today Show," the Biography Channel, NPR, CBC and others. He teaches Music Business Capstone and Music Licensing courses at Berklee Online, and is the course author and instructor for Music Business Law, part of the curriculum for Berklee Online’s Master of Art in Music Business degree.
About Berklee Online:
Berklee Online is the continuing education division of Berklee College of Music, delivering online access to Berklee's acclaimed curriculum from anywhere in the world, offering online courses, certificate programs, and degree programs. Contact an Academic Advisor today:
1-866-BERKLEE (US)
1-617-747-2146 (international callers)
[e-mail]
/ berkleeonline
/ berkleeonline
/ berkleeonline
Copyright Law | E. Michael Harrington | Sampling | Copyright Infringement | Interpolation | Replay | Busta Rhymes | The Sugarhill Gang | Beastie Boys | Woo-hah | Sound | Composition | Songwriter | Songwriting | Technique | Sound Recording | Songwriters | Berklee Online | Berklee College of Music

[@kierenmoore3236]

Does this guy's voice/vocal mannerisms remind anyone else of Christopher Walken?
Good series by the way ... lol

[@earthsaylove]

We’re just here to hear you say it. WOO HAH! 🥳🙌🏾

[@candyginger6523]

He these woohas down pack to a science😁😅

[@tochiRTA]

interesting. had no idea this went to court. Shit...I had no idea it was even a Sugarhill mention until Busta brought it up in an interview recently

[@rashb3994]

But Sir Anthony Hopkins, Busta said in an interview I just watched he got the idea from Sugar Hill song when trying to come up with something for his first solo. Maybe he said that 'cause this is over now. I believe one of Sugar hill guys had been accused of taking lyrics from a street party legend. It was on a doc but I can't remember what.

[@yellabeezy96]

It was on Hip Hop Evolution when Grandmaster Caz said that Big Hank took his lyrics for rappers delight

[@insufficientfun9889]

The bottom line: Busta Rhyme's song Woo Ha would've NEVER EXISTED if it weren't for 8th Wonder having that line. L7 had a similar thing with Cosmic Psychos for Fuel My Fire ("borrowing" the chorus to Lost Cause). I'm not saying Sugarhill Gang deserves any financial compensation, but a songwriting credit for the hook/chorus should be in order, no question. Heck even modern recorded rap music might not exist if it wasn't for Rapper's Delight (which also "borrowed" lines ironically), so I think Busta Rhymes owes his gratitude regardless.
As for having to go to court for this, this is stupid. It should've just been a 1990s phone call, saying "Hey guys, can I use this line for my next single? I'll gladly give you partial writing credit and a percentage of non-album, singles sales." I assume that's what a fair verdict should've been anyway. None of this BS of pretending that one party didn't directly influence the other party.
Where something like this I think doesn't need a co-writing credit is in the case of Smells Like Teen Spirit, because Nirvana mixed More Than a Feelin' with Louie Louie, to where it was clearly neither of those songs. As for Gwen Stefani's Whatchya Waiting For?/Ween's Hashpipe, those were directly stealing from other works, so just like with Busta: someone deserves a co-credit. I'm not sure if Crimson & Clover and Sweet Jane have ever been contested, but I think the rule should be that if parts sound so similar, that they don't really even need to be analyzed to hear it, a partial credit is due.
Side note:
I won't state my profession online, but the biggest problem I'VE been encountering is the next of kin trying to sue for name usage of their parents stuff, even when said parent gave signed permissions while they were alive. When a full grown man is saying "My dad's name is my intellectual property" it's hard to not reply "Oh I didn't know you created your dad. Well show me your time machine and I'll gladly stop using his name this very second."...hahaha My bosses would rather stop using the name than have to pay some spoiled trust-fund kid one red cent, but it's a shame when people who had no process in creation/production/publication/etc try to milk their dead family members' names for some quick cash. It deprives the world of some great classic music exposure.
(P.S. If Janie Hendrix tries selling you a Jimi-owned iPod for $8000, watch out!!!....hahaha jk)

[@makemusicwithmian1668]

I wanted to say something but I realize intent is one of the hardest things to prove in court to I liked your comment instead.

[@codroyave]

Love Woo Hah!!

[@nathanielfitzgerald1307]

So who won this????

[@makemusicwithmian1668]

Plaintiff got the settlement they navigated towards, it was a confidential settlement.

[@jojosaylor8996]

I dont think the songs are similar at all.

[@bboymac84]

I’m going to sample you

[@vionegrut5926]

E

[@tochiRTA]

LOL

[@terryhogan4778]

yeehaw

[@JBIRD575]

Busta rhymes side i take he changed it.... look how many times rappers said Yes Yes Y'all then everybody would get sued