Photo courtesy of The Irish Times

After its release, Olivia Rodrigo’s album “Sour” dominated social media, radio stations and Billboard charts. The first wave of popularity was driven by both the interest in the breakup behind the album, as well as the average listeners’ appreciation for the music itself.

Following the initial attention, the album was analyzed, scrutinized and compared to other artists’ music. Namely, comparisons were made between Rodrigo’s music and the music of Taylor Swift, Paramore, Jack Antonoff and St. Vincent (Anne Erin Clark). After these connections were made, Rodrigo added them to the writing credits of the respective songs. 

Swift, Antonoff and Clark were all added to the writing credits for Rodrigo’s song “deja vu,” due to the similarities between Rodrigo’s bridge and the bridge on Swift’s song “Cruel Summer,” a song all three co-wrote. Antonoff and Swift were also added to the writing credits of Rodrigo’s “1 step forward, 3 steps back” for its use of the piano chords from Swift’s song “New Year’s Day.”

In her song “good 4 u,” Rodrigo utilized interpolation, the re-recording of an existing body of work – in this case, Paramore’s “Misery Business.” This is different from a sample, which is when an audio file of a preexisting song or audio clip is used in production. Usually, samples require sample clearance in the form of a written agreement from the original musician. For use of interpolation, copyright clearance is not essential. The use of interpolation from Paramore’s “Misery Business” on Rodrigo’s “good 4 u” was so recognizable that it even sparked a trend on TikTok. Subsequently, its credits have been updated to recognize Paramore’s Josh Farro and Hayley Williams’ contributions to the song. 

Acknowledging an interpolation or influence in writing credits is not a new concept. Often, artists will still acknowledge the original writers in the credits. What makes the case of Rodrigo’s credits so unusual is the amount of money each will receive from royalties, as well as the standard to which an artist will be held responsible for crediting other musicians. 

According to a report from Billboard, Swift will likely receive $325,678. Antonoff will receive about $260,542 and Clark will end up receiving approximately $65,135. Williams and Farro will be taking home $1.2 million in royalties. 

This large amount is in part due to the chart-topping success of “good 4 u,” and in part due to the unusually substantial percentage of royalties Williams and Farro will earn. Rodrigo and her co-songwriter Daniel Nigro will receive 50% of the royalties, while Williams and Farro will receive another 50%.

“I love ‘Cruel Summer,’ it’s one of my favorite songs ever,” Rodrigo said in a Rolling Stone interview back in April. “I love the harmonized yells she does.” Rodrigo has also continuously and quite notoriously acknowledged that she finds a lot of her inspiration for her music from Swift. Yet, the case of intellectual property with “Cruel Summer” is much more convoluted than the other two bodies of work for which writing credits have been updated.

While it has been the case that the writers of the original interpolation more than likely receive credit on a song that uses its chords or melody, that has not been true for those who simply influence a unique type of vocal arrangement. 

Therefore, Swift’s name attached to a song that was written by someone who utilizes similar methods as her both raises questions and lowers the standard to which artists must receive credit for a song.

Moving forward, Rodrigo’s actions may create new confusion as to what the difference between inspiration and duplication is, and where the line is now drawn.