A new Led Zeppelin documentary, today reopens
an old, but evidently never fully healed wound.
More than 50 years after its release, Led Zeppelin's iconic
song Dazed and Confused returns to
the centre of a legal controversy. Jake Holmes, US
singer-songwriter and author of the song in its original version of
1967, has recently filed a new copyright
infringement lawsuit against Jimmy Page,
record company Warner Chappell, and Sony Pictures.
At the centre of the dispute: the rearrangement and use of the aforementioned song, revisited by Jimmy Page, during certain live performances by the Yardbirds – a British rock band known for launching the careers of three of the greatest guitarists in rock history: Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page – included in the documentary "Becoming Led Zeppelin", released in Italy last February.
The origins of the dispute: from Holmes to Led Zeppelin
This new lawsuit, however, is but the latest instalment in a
story that started long ago.
To analyse the story in its entirety, one has to go back in time to
1967, when US folk rocker Jake Holmes released the first version of Dazed and Confused on his
album "The Above Ground
Sound".
A few months later, the Yardbirds started playing
a rearranged version of it.
Jimmy Page, the Yardbirds' guitarist at the time, had heard
Holmes' version just before one of his band's performances,
as the American folk artist had come on stage to open one of their
concerts: it was 25 August 1967.
When he heard it, Page was so impressed that he decided to
"make it his own", rearranging it with the Yardbirds, to
play it in a new version in subsequent concerts.
And it doesn't stop there. He was so fond of it that, when he
left the Yardbirds, he also took the "new" Dazed and
Confused with him, further reworking it lyrically with Led Zeppelin
to turn it into the song we all know today.
This latest version of the song was later included on Led Zeppelin's debut album ("Led Zeppelin I", 1969), where the composition was credited solely to Page.
Needless to say, the failure to mention the original author, who was the inspiration for Page's reinterpretation, was frowned upon by Jake Holmes.
For years, Holmes tried to get in touch with Page,
unsuccessfully.
Thus, in 2010 Holmes filed a first lawsuit against Jimmy Page,
which ended with an out-of-court settlement in 2011.
Since then, all reissues of the Led Zeppelin album have carried the indication "inspired by Jake Holmes".
The new legal action: documentaries and unrecognised rights
Peace made, then?
Absolutely not, because, 15 years later, the new Led
Zeppelin documentary has arrived on the scene, where the
song Dazed and Confused appears again
without any mention of Jake Holmes.
The heart of the accusation: any performance of the song, live or recorded, according to Holmes, constitutes a reproduction of his original work, and therefore any use for commercial purposes requires his authorisation and should be remunerated.
In the complaint, reference is made to specific copyright infringements, not only related to musical use, but also to the distribution of video and documentary content, which exploit the original composition without consent.
Music copyright: what this case teaches us
The case highlights a fundamental principle of copyright: the original work,
even if reinterpreted, does not lose its protection. If the new
version retains substantial elements of the original composition,
the author is entitled to recognition.
In addition, the legal action emphasises the importance of clear
agreements that regulate not only use on records, but also
audiovisual and future use.
Today, in fact, a song can be revived in films, documentaries, streaming platforms and social media even decades after its first publication: ignoring this aspect can therefore be very dangerous.
Conclusion: when the musical past becomes the legal present
The new Holmes vs. Page case highlights the longevity of copyright and the need for artists and publishers to strategically manage intellectual property in a forward-looking manner.
For creative companies, record companies and audiovisual producers, it is therefore crucial to re-evaluate their archives carefully in order to protect themselves as much as possible and prevent future litigation. For the authors, however, this case is proof that it is possible to reassert one's rights even many years later.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
