But they had to lose in court before they paid Willie Dixon and others. I always wondered if Led Zeppelin was to blame for this, or was it their label, Atlantic Records in the USA – I don't know what label published LZ in the UK or Europe. Record labels owned the rights to the music they recorded, and very often had a rather poor track record of fully attributing authorship of that music.
I think Zep got sued because of their status financially. No one was making the money they were during their heyday. There are soooo many songs out there, yesterday and today, with lyrics based off other songs lyrics. In fact, I can't imagine, even for one second, the Dixon et al never did the same.
I'll go a step further and say there's nothing I've ever written that's not based on something I've read. Does that mean I'm plagiarizing? Moreso, every book and thesis have some form of "plagiarism" in it.
Jimmy Page has pointed to other albums that predate theirs where something they "borrowed" was used and not attributed to anyone - e.g. the original artist - thinking why he couldn't use it too. Not saying two wrongs make a right, just pointing this out.
Also, in music you cannot copyright a chord progression. Only the melody and/or lyrics can be copyrighted. In the industry a musician can make a key contribution to a song that makes the song popular, and still get no credit. Either for the recording or financially in royalties. This is why it sucks being a studio musician financially. The "artist" gets all the spoils for singing a melody over a common chord progression. Even though the songs wouldn't have been a hit without the studio musicians contribution.
For example, technically Axl Rose could have gotten full credit and royalties for playing the chord progression, DCGD (which can't be copyrighted), and singing the lyrics and melody of Sweet Child of Mine (which can be copyrighted), and Slash could have received nothing for the main guitar part he added.
Keep in mind a band can do whatever they want in terms of royalties or song writing credit. Bands like GnR and REM shared songwriting credits and royalties amongst the whole band. The Beatles didn't share songwriting credit, but shared royalties evenly between all the band members. Some bands share percentages. There's every scenario you can imagine.
Once in a while some studio musician or (former) band member sues and wins to get royalties for contributing a key part to the song. It's all a line in the sand. Which means winning a case doesn't mean the artist did anything wrong.
Sorry for the long reply..... being a guitarist, this is something that's always bothered me how the industry works.
