Credit: Harper’s BAZAAR
Unexpectedly, it all started with a single tweet from Lana Del Rey in the beginning of 2018. She quickly revealed what fans had been speculating about for weeks: Radiohead was allegedly pursuing her for copyright violations. Their assertion? that their 1993 hit song “Creep” and her song “Get Free” sounded remarkably alike.
Despite the fact that no formal lawsuit was filed, the conflict between the two artists soon became a staple of online discussions, driving both podcasts and comment sections. According to Del Rey, she offered Radiohead forty percent of the publishing rights. She went on to say that the band’s attorneys were relentless in their demands for the entire 100%.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Dispute | Alleged similarity between Lana Del Rey’s “Get Free” and Radiohead’s “Creep” |
| Timeline | Public controversy surfaced in January 2018 |
| Claimed Royalties | Del Rey reportedly offered 40%, while Radiohead allegedly asked for 100% |
| Prior Precedent | “Creep” itself borrowed from The Hollies’ “The Air That I Breathe” |
| Public Statement | Dispute referenced during Del Rey’s March 2018 set in Brazil |
| Outcome | Quietly resolved without formal lawsuit filing |
| Source | BBC Music Report, March 2018 |
The two songs’ similarities were more than just a coincidence for many listeners. The slow, escalating melancholy of “Creep” is echoed by the dreamy, reverent tone of “Get Free.” The vocal descent that leads into a gentle collapse, the phrasing, and the tempo all play a part in it in addition to the chord structure. The two have a similar emotional temperature.
Ironically, though, Radiohead had already reached a settlement in a strikingly similar case involving “Creep.” The lyrics of that song were very similar to those of the 1974 ballad “The Air That I Breathe,” which was written by Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood. The outcome? As co-writers, Hammond and Hazlewood were given a portion of the profits.
Radiohead was effectively enforcing rights over a song they had previously altered for the same reason when they attempted to defend “Creep.” It gave the situation a level of complexity that was almost poetic. The circular nature of influence in music had fully materialized, and the accused were now the accusers.
Unquestionably, the number of copyright disputes in the music industry has increased over the last ten years. The legal turmoil surrounding “Blurred Lines” and Ed Sheeran’s high-profile settlements have made musicians more circumspect. It’s an environment that has become both creatively stifling and legally sensitive.
The cultural background of this case was especially intriguing. Both Radiohead and Lana Del Rey are renowned for their profoundly reflective songs. Their aesthetics are in harmony with their mood and ambience, and their fans are particularly loyal. But instead of coming together over common artistic ground, they were at odds.
In March 2018, when she performed at Lollapalooza Brazil, Del Rey addressed the matter in a way that brought closure to the situation. “Now that my lawsuit’s over, I guess I can sing that song any time I want, right?” she said to the audience after performing “Get Free” as part of her encore. She then lit a cigarette. It was an honest, unprepared, and strangely triumphant moment.
No additional legal action was disclosed to the public. The songwriting credits were not updated. The issue appeared to be settled informally, behind closed doors and outside of courtrooms, as is frequently the case with music disputes.
Radiohead’s team probably obtained an informal agreement by using their legal leverage. It’s unclear if future royalties or monetary compensation were involved. It’s telling, though, that it never made it to the courtroom.
Beneath these tales lies an unsettling reality: a large portion of popular music is based on common language. There is a limit to chord progressions. Melodic phrasing frequently repeats previous words. Some resemblances are deliberate homages. Others, inherited without conscious thought.
I was caught in that gray area when I first listened to “Get Free” following the news. The progression, mood, and melodic contour of the verse are all similar to those of “Creep.” Nevertheless, the chorus follows its own course, and the structure as a whole feels unique.
The statement, “All music is influence, and influence is theft in disguise,” came to mind. Maybe a bit melodramatic. However, when these lawsuits occur, they are remarkably accurate.
Nevertheless, it seems excessively aggressive to demand 100% of a song’s publishing. especially when a similar claim has already led to modifications to your own track. Del Rey’s 40% offer seemed like a fair middle ground. Many saw Radiohead’s purported insistence on complete ownership as more of a power move than a matter of principle.
Remembering that Radiohead once rejected “Creep” only serves to heighten the irony. Thom Yorke was openly antagonistic to requests from fans, and they famously declined to perform it at concerts. They were treated like an artistic albatross for the song that made them famous.
However, years later, when the song “Get Free” reverberated, “Creep” suddenly became important once more—not as performance art, but as a priceless work of intellectual property. A once-forgotten song was now being fiercely guarded.
These changes demonstrate the growing emphasis on legal ownership in the music industry. For commercial purposes rather than necessarily for artistic integrity. These days, songs are assets, each note and lyric a potential line on a balance sheet, rather than merely expressions.
It poses a difficult question: how do we differentiate between theft and tribute when influence cannot be avoided? Of course, there are legal definitions, but they frequently overlook subtleties. And subtlety is crucial in music.
Influence is more than just inspiration for musicians like Lana Del Rey, who create songs that resemble stolen dreams and movie snippets. That makes judgment more difficult, but it does not justify copying.
Both parties probably avoided protracted scrutiny by settling the conflict in private. Nevertheless, the case made an impact—not because of the verdict, but because of what it showed about the precarious equilibrium between ownership and art.
Songs reverberate with one another. I always have and I always will. What shifts is our response when the echo gets a little too loud.
