Mariah Carey’s iconic Christmas anthem, “All I Want For Christmas Is You Song”, reigns supreme as the holiday season’s soundtrack. Its unparalleled popularity, however, has also attracted legal scrutiny. Recent headlines have ignited a fiery debate: Did Carey borrow too heavily from another song sharing the same title? Was it plagiarism? Copyright infringement?
The answer, unequivocally, is no. Let’s swiftly dismantle this notion.
Andy Stone, performing under the moniker Vince Vance, initiated a copyright infringement lawsuit against Mariah Carey. Vance also has a song titled “All I Want For Christmas Is You”, a tune that may be familiar to some. Vince Vance & The Valiants, the group behind Vance’s version, are the plaintiffs in this case. Full disclosure: Vance’s rendition is a genuinely enjoyable Christmas song, boasting a fantastic vocal performance by Lisa Layne.
Now, let’s revisit Mariah Carey’s ubiquitous hit:
Upon listening to both, the stark dissimilarity is immediately apparent. So, why the legal challenge? Simply put, it shouldn’t exist.
Ten Seconds is All It Takes
If brevity were the soul of this analysis, here’s the essence:
- Copyright law generally does not safeguard short, commonplace phrases, whether lyrical, musical, or used as titles.
- The two songs in question share no significant musical, melodic, or harmonic resemblance.
- Any superficial similarities are trivial and can be found across numerous other songs.
As a forensic musicologist, stating that these two works lack “significant” or “substantial” melodic, harmonic, lyrical, or other elemental similarities doesn’t imply a complete absence of shared traits. Instead, it signifies that any perceived overlaps are either: too generic to be copyrightable, not original to the plaintiff, inconsequentially minor, or simply misinterpretations.
Three-Minute Breakdown?
Let’s delve a bit deeper to explore the nuances.
Lyrical Landscape
The shared title, also embedded within the lyrics of both songs, is the primary point of contention. However, a title alone carries negligible weight in a copyright dispute.
Aspiring plaintiffs frequently contact musicologists, convinced that another song echoing their song’s themes or ideas constitutes theft. They often believe subtle lyrical alterations mask plagiarism. This premise is inherently weak, and especially so in the realm of holiday songs. Both “All I Want For Christmas Is You” songs, like many Christmas tunes, are replete with clichés and tropes. These are unoriginal building blocks, the very antithesis of copyrightable material. Christmas trees adorned with ornaments, presents beneath them – these are quintessential Christmas imagery. Mariah Carey didn’t need to “borrow” these concepts from anywhere; they are inherent to the Christmas theme itself. When dealing with such clichés, be they lyrical or musical, the bar for demonstrating substantial similarity escalates. While a constellation of clichés or lengthy, strikingly identical elements across two works might raise eyebrows, in the absence of significant breadth and precision in these similarities, coincidence becomes the more plausible explanation than deliberate copying. Crucially, copyright infringement necessitates copying. Coincidence, however striking, is not infringement. The often-misunderstood principle is that two individuals independently creating identical songs theoretically does not constitute infringement.
Melody and Harmony: A World Apart
To establish infringement, similarities between “Song A” and “Song B” must be “substantial.” This is a nuanced concept, hinging on the degree, specificity, and originality of the shared elements – factors inversely related to the likelihood of mere chance. A significant portion of a forensic musicologist’s work involves assessing originality in musical compositions, as it directly informs two pivotal questions: “Was there copying?” and “If so, did this copying constitute unlawful appropriation?”
Research often unearths relatable examples in pre-existing works. Let’s momentarily disregard the Christmas lyrics and focus solely on the music. The musical fabric of Vince Vance & The Valiants’ “All I Want for Christmas Is You” reveals remarkably little that cannot be traced back or closely paralleled to “You Belong To Me” by Jo Stafford.
Imagine meticulously transcribing the melodies and harmonies of both “You Belong To Me” and Vince Vance’s song, highlighting identical or near-identical melodic notes, pitch contours, and accompanying chords occurring in temporal proximity. The result would unequivocally demonstrate a far greater degree of musical similarity between these two songs than between the two Christmas songs at the heart of the lawsuit.
Need further convincing?
The melodic and harmonic echoes persist. Vance’s Christmas song bears a significantly stronger resemblance to “My Heart Belongs To Only You” than it does to Carey’s. The disparity is vast.
Interestingly, the plaintiffs have also engaged a musicologist. Yahoo News reported their expert’s claim:
“Specifically, the songs share a similar syncopated chord pattern. Using the same harmonic language for the C and G and diminished C-6 chords throughout the two songs and that dulcet harmony directly lifted from Plaintiffs’ original.“
This assertion is largely irrelevant. The harmonic language cited is not Vance’s exclusive domain. This very chord progression is present in Jo Stafford’s “You Belong To Me,” encompassing nearly every chord found in Vance’s song!
Moreover, the melodic and rhythmic patterns at the close of Vance’s phrases – the elongated notes accompanying Lisa Layne’s delivery of “Mis-tle-toe” and “San-ta Claus” – mirror remarkably closely the phrase endings in “You Belong To Me” – “along the Nile” and “all the while” – and even Vinton’s “on-ly you” and “in me burning!”
In essence, lyrics aside, the plaintiff’s musical composition shares scant common ground with the defendant’s, but, and this is no exaggeration, it shares an overwhelming amount with pre-existing, widely recognized songs.
Four to Five Minutes Well Spent
For those with more time to spare, let’s delve into a couple of pertinent legal concepts – bearing rather formal-sounding legal names – relevant to both the lyrics and the broader copyright argument.
A more exhaustive search would undoubtedly unearth a plethora of other examples of prior art. A slightly less compelling, yet still relevant, example comes to mind:
While striving for impartiality, it’s challenging to find substantial merit in the plaintiff’s claims. Perhaps the crux of their argument, however tenuous, is encapsulated in this USA Today quote:
“The phrase ‘all I want for Christmas is you’ may seem like a common parlance today, in 1988 it was, in context, distinctive. Moreover, the combination of the specific chord progression in the melody paired with the verbatim hook was a greater than 50% clone of Vance’s original work, in both lyric choice and chord expressions.”
This assertion is, in my view, fundamentally flawed. Even if it held some truth, would it suffice to substantiate a copyright infringement claim?
The notion that the phrase was “distinctive in 1988, and in context” is a weak foundation for originality. Copyright law mandates only a “modicum of originality.” Furthermore, the claim that the “specific chord progression paired with the verbatim hook was greater than 50% clone” suggests an undue focus on the title lyric and its accompanying chords. If the claim is solely based on the lyric “All I Want for Christmas Is You” and its harmonic accompaniment:
First and foremost:
Titles are not copyrightable.
Copyright.gov US Copyright Office
This is underscored by the staggering number of songs – reportedly 177 – registered under the title “All I Want For Christmas Is You.” BBC News Link While titles and lyrics are distinct entities, titles are generally denied protection precisely because they tend to be short, common phrases. It’s highly probable that the title phrase appears within the lyrics of nearly every one of these 177 songs.
“Distinctiveness” is inherently subjective and open to interpretation. Consider the phrase “All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth,” penned in 1944. The first six of the seven words are identical to Carey’s title.
The chords accompanying the phrase in question are a mere three: “Dm G C” in Vance’s song, and “Dm Fm/G C” in Carey’s. While the middle chord differs, musicologically, the variation is minor. Crucially, musicians and musicologists recognize both progressions as “two-five-one” progressions – a sequence so ubiquitous it has its own Wikipedia page. Wikipedia Link Chord progressions, especially such common ones, are generally not copyrightable unless exceptionally intricate or novel. A progression with its own Wikipedia entry is the epitome of commonplace. These are just three chords, among the most common sequences, and even the middle chord isn’t identical across both songs.
Curious why it’s termed a “two-five-one”? A brief, illuminating music theory detour:
The numerical designation stems from a simple “Do Re Mi” framework within a key. In the key of C, C equates to “Do.” The scale “Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do” corresponds to “C D E F G A B C.” Numbering these eight letters 1 through 8, C becomes 1, D becomes 2, and G becomes 5. Chords built upon and named after these tones are thus referred to as “one, two, and five” chords. Music theory lesson concluded! (For a more comprehensive yet concise theory primer, explore this resource – a 10-minute read covering 80% of a first-year music theory curriculum.)
Musical analysis, while multifaceted, adheres to established conventions. Songs are typically transposed to a common key, transcribed into notation, and then melodies, harmonies, rhythms, and lyrics (if present) are compared, alongside other secondary factors. As previously explained, certain elements are discounted or “filtered” when substantiating similarities. This “filtering” or “distilling,” as some musicologists term it, is precedent-driven. Experts are often instructed to disregard, or rather discount, musical elements present in both works but not rightfully owned by the plaintiff. These are typically either fundamental components of musical language – akin to letters, words, and common phrases in spoken language – or elements predating the plaintiff’s work, constituting prior art. The “You Belong To Me” example earlier served to illustrate this broader point, whereas our current focus is narrowed to the specific segments of the songs featuring the lyric “All I Want For Christmas is you.”
Reiterating the specific claim highlighted by USA Today, the lawsuit alleges:
“The phrase ‘all I want for Christmas is you’ may seem like a common parlance today, in 1988 it was, in context, distinctive. Moreover, the combinationof the specific chord progression in the melody paired with the verbatim hook was a greater than 50% clone of Vance’s original work, in both lyric choice and chord expressions.”
“All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth,” penned in 1944, predates Vance’s song by decades. Of the seven words in Carey’s title, the initial six were already firmly established in the Christmas lexicon. The underlying sentiment – “All I Want For Christmas is…” followed by a heartfelt desire – love, peace, family, homecoming – is a ubiquitous theme. Countless songs and poems bear the title “All I Want Is You.” U2, Carly Simon, and even The Beatles have songs with that title.
Again, short phrases and titles generally fall outside the purview of copyright protection. Trademark, perhaps, but not copyright. Copyright, in its essence, is not about stifling creativity but fostering it. It is not in the business of aggressively pursuing “gotcha” moments. It champions the promotion of creative expression. It is unlikely to readily grant copyright protection to Mariah Carey’s line, especially given the existence of 177 songs sharing the same title. This proliferation is precisely what copyright law aims to encourage.
Regarding the lyrics and their thematic content, let’s revisit the concepts of “Scenes A Faire” and “Idea/Expression Dichotomy.”
Scenes a faire, French for “scenes that must be done,” essentially asks: How can one possibly avoid mentioning certain elements in a Christmas song? Christmas lyrics, stories, poems, and films invariably feature presents (possibly ribbon-adorned), trees, snow, holly, mistletoe, letters and lists for Santa, the North Pole, lights, angels, stars, peace on earth, and turkey – and that’s even before venturing into spiritual themes and narratives. These are scenes a faire, clichés that copyright law typically disregards.
To refocus the lens, one could argue that composing a Christmas song titled “All I Want Is You” inherently implies a deliberate exclusion of the aforementioned list of Christmas clichés and tropes. The focus shifts to the personal desire for a loved one, rather than traditional Christmas imagery.
If you disagree with any of this analysis, please engage in the discussion. Comments, emails, DMs – all perspectives are welcome. Open dialogue is the path to clarity.
Hopefully, Mariah Carey will channel her inner Ed Sheeran and swiftly resolve this frivolous lawsuit.
