Why Sometimes Plagiarism Doesn’t Matter

An article by Anthony Tringali and Stephen Cox at The Hollywood Reporter highlights a claim that, by authors’ own admission, borders on the blasphemous: That Over the Rainbow, the iconic ballad from The Wizard of Oz, was at least in part a plagiarism of an earlier song. 

Composed by Harold Arlen and lyricist E.Y. “Yip” Harburg, the song is easily one of the most iconic of all time. It is literally the best-known song from one of the best-known movies of all time. 

However, according to Norwegian pianist Rune Alver, it is also eerily similar to an earlier work entitled Concert Étude, Opus 38 by Norwegian composer Signe Lund. Though Alver agrees that the songs have differences, most notable that Over the Rainbow is in a major key and Opus 38 is in a minor one, he claims that the similarities are too striking to ignore, saying, “Of course it is plagiarism.” 

But for all Alver’s certainty, the article highlights that the case has layers upon layers of complexity. Music plagiarism cases tend to be complicated under the best of circumstances. However, Over the Rainbow is 85 years old, all those involved in writing and performing it have passed away and, though the similarity between the works is apparent, there are disagreements about exactly how similar the works are. 

But the biggest complexity might be Lund herself. Though she was widely regarded during the 1910s and 1920s, her support for Nazism later in life caused her to largely be written out of the history books.  

When World War 2 ended in 1945, Lunde was denied the right to vote and was barred from the Norwegian Composers’ Association, an organization that she had helped found. As her great-great-granddaughter said, Norway “Wanted to forget her.” 

When compared to Arlen, who is still much beloved today, it is easy to see why even those who are convinced the works are extremely similar, stop short of calling it conscious or intentional plagiarism. 

However, the case does have several other issues that prevent it from being a slam dunk, to understand why, we must look at the facts of the cases and the allegations being made.  

The Alleged Plagiarism 

Opus 38 was published in 1910, some 28 years before the release of The Wizard of Oz. Given Arlen’s previous jobs and Lund’s international fame, including tours of the United States, it is almost certain that Arlen either heard the song or seen the sheet music. 

However, that interaction would have almost certainly happened before 1926. That was when Lund returned to Norway for the final time. More likely, it happened well before that. The most likely overlap was in 1917 when Lund was touring upstate New York or in the early 1920s, when Arlen was working at a music shop as a “song plugger.” 

As a result, if Arlen did see or hear the song, it was likely well over a decade before he started work on Over the Rainbow. This is why many of the experts interviewed said that, if he did copy, it likely wasn’t consciously. 

This is helped by Arlen’s reputation. According to Arlen’s biographer Edward Jablonski, Arlen was spooked by an accusation of plagiarism early in his career and was in constant fear that his work would sound too much like something else. 

To be clear, cryptomnesia, misremembering of something you heard or saw as an original idea, is real. However, it is limited to only ideas or very short passages, things that can be subconsciously remembered and recalled. That said, this case could theoretically be that as only a few bars and the alleged copying is not precise. 

So, it is at least theoretically possible that Arlen did hear or read Opus 38 and, over the time that passed, forgot where it came from and, when it came to him while composing Over the Rainbow, mistook it as an original idea to him.  

However, it is also possible that the similarities are simple coincidence. Music can be tricky to determine if it was copied or plagiarized. There are only so many notes and it is it is extremely easy for two unrelated songs to sound a great deal alike. The Blurred Lines case, for example, hinged more on admissions that Thicke was trying to copy the vibe or feel of Gaye’s work.  

Without that kind of admission, similar cases such as Katy Perry’s Dark Horse lawsuit or the Led Zeppelin Stairway to Heaven lawsuit went in a very different direction. 

While we will never know for certain what did or did not happen, the most likely scenario is either that the similarities are a coincidence, or it is a case of cryptomnesia. Given both Arlen’s fear of being called a plagiarist and the time that likely passed since he likely saw or heard Opus 38, it seems unlikely that he would knowingly and deliberately plagiarize, especially from such a well-known composer. 

But that begs another question: Does it matter? The answer is probably no. 

Why It Does Not Matter 

Though I am normally loath to admit that plagiarism does not really matter, this is likely a case where that is true. 

It is for a simple reason: Even if it were a clear-cut case of deliberate plagiarism, what would it change? 

Given that Opus 38 was published in 1910, the song lapsed into the public domain decades ago. Furthermore, given that Over the Rainbow is one of the most famous songs of all time and was released 85 years ago, any copyright claim would likely be further barred by the statute of limitations. 

So, legally speaking, nothing is likely to ever come of this. But nothing is likely to come of this ethically either. 

Is Over the Rainbow or The Wizard of Oz going to be less beloved? Probably not. Would Lund getting partial credit for the song raise her profile? Probably not either. The reasons she is obscure today have nothing to do with her music. 

Factor in the uncertainty that any plagiarism took place at all and the likelihood that, if it did, it was not intentional, and there is just nothing to “correct” or “fix.” Even if the evidence of deliberate plagiarism were stronger, it is unlikely to change anyone’s opinion of the works or people involved. 

At most, this will be a footnote in the history of Arlen and Over the Rainbow, nothing more.  

Bottom Line 

Plagiarism is a complicated and nuanced topic. Music plagiarism adds another layer on top of that. When you then compound that with an 85-year-old case where the copying is ambiguous and likely unintentional if it did happen, it becomes quite a mess. And that is before you realize that the alleged plagiarist is understandably far more beloved than the alleged victim. 

So yes, the case is a mess. We will never know the full truth and, even if Arlen were alive, he might not have answers either.  

But it does not really matter. Though plagiarism is never a good thing, its severity and importance varies wildly from case to case. This is simply a case where, even if it were clear cut, which it is not, nothing would really change. 

The age of the case, the ambiguity of the issue and the characters involved all conspire to make this a situation where, while the allegations are interesting from an academic standpoint, are not likely to change how anyone thinks or feels about Arlen or his work. 

While the case is fascinating and the reporting on it great, it is a story that is more likely to be the answer to a trivia question rather than a major shift in the way the public views those involved. 

However, that’s probably the best outcome for this story.