{"id":17678,"date":"2025-05-28T16:40:25","date_gmt":"2025-05-28T15:40:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/?p=17678"},"modified":"2025-09-27T06:00:45","modified_gmt":"2025-09-27T05:00:45","slug":"copyright-protects-the-expression-not-the-idea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/?p=17678","title":{"rendered":"Copyright protects the &#8220;expression&#8221; not the &#8220;idea&#8221;!"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>&#8230;<strong>Dua Lipa&#8217;s global hit &#8220;Levitating&#8221; spent 68 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 &#8211; various songwriters were claiming the song infringes on their compositions<\/strong>&#8230;<\/p>\n<table width=\"100%\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" width=\"100%\">The Case (s)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"50%\">\nDua Lipa ft. DaBaby &#8211; &#8220;<strong>Levitating<\/strong>&#8221;<br \/>\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Dua Lipa - Levitating Featuring DaBaby (Official Music Video)\" width=\"347\" height=\"260\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/TUVcZfQe-Kw?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"50%\">\nArtikal Sound System &#8211; Live Your Life, 2017<br \/>\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"03 Live Your Life by Artikal Sound System\" width=\"380\" height=\"260\" scrolling=\"no\" frameborder=\"no\" src=\"https:\/\/w.soundcloud.com\/player\/?visual=true&#038;url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F315411984&#038;show_artwork=true&#038;maxheight=260&#038;maxwidth=380\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"50%\">\nCory Daye &#8211; Wiggle And Giggle All Night<br \/>\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"TOPPOP: Cory Daye - Wiggle And Giggle All Night\" width=\"347\" height=\"260\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/EsEXuWK7PZE?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"50%\">\nArtikal Sound System &#8211; Live Your Life, 2017<br \/>\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Miguel Bos\u00e9 - Don Diablo (Video Oficial)\" width=\"347\" height=\"260\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/XCtlrFwKE_Y?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>| &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;<em>Text by Heather Antoine<\/em> &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;<br \/>\nCopyright protection gives to the author \u201cexclusive property rights in the work, such as the sole right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, display and perform the work.\u201d (Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. \u00a7 101)) In Section 102, the Copyright Act provides, \u201c[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.\u201d Copyright protects the \u201cexpression,\u201d but not the \u201cidea.\u201d Arguably, the reason for this and the purpose of copyright law is to protect original works of art and to promote the creation of new works.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The idea of \u201csubstantial similarity\u201d<\/strong><br \/>\nTo prove copyright infringement, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant had access to the plaintiff&#8217;s work and (2) that the defendant&#8217;s work is substantially similar to protected aspects of the plaintiff&#8217;s work.<br \/>\nA series of tests are used to determine whether two creations are \u201csubstantially similar.\u201d Very broadly speaking, substantially similarity in the musical context is determined via comparison of the general ideas \u2013 the \u201cextrinsic\u201d test \u2013 and comparison of the protectable elements of those ideas \u2013 the \u201csubjective\u201d test.\u201d Lay people may not hear pitch, timing, or harmonic context. They may hear the chords and vocals though. Music is incredibly complex, as are the protectable and, importantly, not protectable elements. This one of the reasons forensic musicologists often take the center role in these cases.<\/p>\n<p>| &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;<em>Text by Heather Antoine<\/em> &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>[ <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/legalentertainment\/2022\/03\/08\/dua-lipa-sued-again-and-again-for-copyright-infringementdo-these-lawsuits-have-merit\/\" target=\"_blank\">Forbes \/ Business \/ Hollywood &#038; Entertainment &#8211; Mar 08, 2022<\/a> ]<\/p>\n<p>***<br \/>\n<strong>Heather Antoine<\/strong> is a Partner and Chair of Stubbs Alderton &#038; Markiles LLP\u2019s Trademark &#038; Brand Protection and Privacy &#038; Data Security practices, where she protects her client\u2019s intellectual property &#8211; including brand selection, management, and protection. Heather also helps businesses design and implement policies and practices that are compliant with domestic and international privacy laws.<br \/>\n<em>(Forbes Info)<\/em><br \/>\n&nbsp;<br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; <em>article 1<\/em> &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Musicologists Break Down &#8216;Levitating&#8217; Similarities<\/strong><br \/>\n<em>By Ethan Shanfeld (Variety) &#8211; Mar 17, 2022<\/em><br \/>\n[ <a href=\"https:\/\/variety.com\/2022\/music\/news\/dua-lipa-levitating-lawsuits-explained-1235204715\/\" target=\"_blank\">Aticle &#8211; Variety<\/a> ]<\/p>\n<p>Dua Lipa got hit with dual lawsuits this month surrounding her mega-hit song \u201cLevitating.\u201d<br \/>\nThe first of the copyright infringement suits comes from Florida reggae band Artikal Sound System, which accused Lipa of copying its 2017 song \u201cLive Your Life.\u201d The second hails from songwriters L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer, who allege that Lipa stole from two of their songs \u2014 \u201cWiggle and Giggle All Night\u201d (1979) and \u201cDon Diablo\u201d (1980).<br \/>\nVariety spoke with musicologists E. Michael Harrington, who consulted on Katy Perry\u2019s \u201cDark Horse\u201d case and was approached by Linzer and Brown in their attempt to defeat Lipa; and Judith Finell, who delivered the landmark expert testimony on behalf of the Marvin Gaye estate in the infamous \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d case.<br \/>\nWhile \u201cLevitating\u201d certainly shares similarities with the plaintiffs\u2019 work, Harrington and Finell explain why determining infringement requires more than meets the ear.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Sonic similarities<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cSounding alike is almost always unimportant,\u201d Harrington says, emphasizing that music of a particular style will generally be built upon the same musical ideas and motifs that define the genre.<br \/>\nHarrington emphasizes that in Western music, there are only 12 notes. However, the vast majority of popular music limits itself to a fraction of those, as there are only seven notes in the major scale.<br \/>\nHarrington compares it to having a conversation within the confines of the English language: \u201cSometimes this word leads to this word leads to that word. It\u2019s the same with musical notes\u2026 What juries need to understand is that you can independently come up with the same notes without copying.\u201d<br \/>\nAs analyzed in a YouTube video by music theorist Adam Neely, both \u201cLevitating\u201d and \u201cLive Your Life\u201d are in the key of B minor and are around 100 beats per minute. Both choruses contain the chord progression Bm7-F#m7-Em7, but \u201cLevitating\u201d resolves on Bm7 (or, the \u201cone\u201d), while \u201cLive Your Life\u201d stays on Em7. According to Neely, the notes sung in each chorus relative to the key also share a similar pattern. It\u2019s also worth noting the lyrics. The chorus of \u201cLife Your Life\u201d goes, \u201cAll day, all night \/ Party to the sunrise,\u201d while \u201cLevitating\u201d follows a similar rhyme scheme and also contains the lyric, \u201cI need you, all night \/ Come on, dance with me.\u201d<br \/>\nSays Neely: \u201cThe melodies of \u2018Levitating\u2019 and \u2018Live Your Life\u2019 are nearly identical. The same notes of the key are being targeted on the same beats with the same rhythm\u2026 which is called the Charleston: a dotted eighth followed by a 16th note followed by a rest.\u201d Despite this, Neely says he doesn\u2019t think Artikal Sound System has grounds to sue.<br \/>\nWhile at face value, the sound recordings do sound similar, it\u2019s important to remember that musical aspects like the key, tempo and instrumentation are not protected by copyright law. The supposed lyrical similarities? According to Harrington, suggesting that using a few \u201ccommon\u201d words in a pop hook is infringement is \u201csilly.\u201d<br \/>\nAccording to Finell, what\u2019s protected by copyright are \u201cspecific series of expressions of music \u2014 not ideas, but expressions. That means a series of lyrics, a series of pitches or rhythms that formulate a melody, a series of chords or harmonies, and other kinds of identifiable features. Songs can share style and not end up in a copyright suit. But when they share real, serious identifiable creative traits that are protected by copyright law\u2026 that\u2019s when lawsuits occur.\u201d<br \/>\nBoth \u201cWiggle and Giggle All Night\u201d and \u201cDon Diablo\u201d share a similar vocal melody in the verse to \u201cLevitating,\u201d but no other major musical similarities are present.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Proving access<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For a plaintiff to win an infringement suit, one of the things they must prove is that the defendant had access to their work, showing that the defendant could have had the chance to reasonably view or copy it. There are three theories of access plaintiffs may use: the chain of events theory (proving that the protected work was passed on to the defendant), a combination of wide dissemination and subconscious copying (proving that the protected work was widely distributed by means of radio, television or the internet) or showing striking similarity (proving that the two works are so similar that there is no other explanation but copying).<br \/>\nIt\u2019s likely that Artikal Sound System hopes to demonstrate striking similarity, as in their suit the reggae band claims the songs are so similar that it was \u201chighly unlikely that \u2018Levitating\u2019 was created independently.\u201d<br \/>\nIn the other complaint, Brown and Linzer\u2019s attorneys point to interviews in which Lipa \u201cadmitted that she deliberately emulated prior eras\u201d and \u201ctook inspiration\u201d to create a \u201cretro\u201d sound. Emulating eras and taking inspiration to create a retro sound, however, are far from copyright infringement.<br \/>\nOne of the focal points of the \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d trial was a 2013 GQ interview, in which Robin Thicke said, \u201cPharrell [Williams] and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye\u2019s \u2018Got to Give It Up.\u2019 I was like, \u2018Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.&#8217;\u201d While, again, inspiration does not equal infringement, the quote provided the Gaye estate with an explicit connection between \u201cGot to Give It Up\u201d and \u201cBlurred Lines,\u201d and it worked against Thicke and Williams in the trial.<br \/>\nThe songwriting process of \u201cLevitating\u201d is also well documented, but in this case it works in Lipa\u2019s favor. Specifically, in a 2020 episode of the podcast \u201cSong Exploder,\u201d the pop star and her collaborators break down how the introductory synth loop \u201calmost immediately\u201d led to the creation of a verse and chorus melody.<br \/>\nFinell notes that the creative process behind the music ultimately does not influence the \u201csimilarity level.\u201d However, it is one of many extramusical factors that can end up influencing a jury.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Prior art<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the biggest hurdle for Artikal Sound System, Brown and Linzer is that all of the considered works draw on prior art.<br \/>\n\u201cThere are 140,000 words in the copyright law. The most important is original. It says, \u2018Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship,&#8217;\u201d Harrington says. \u201cThere are rulings that say something\u2019s not sufficiently original to deserve protection.\u201d<br \/>\nIn other words, while the plaintiffs claim that Lipa infringed on their copyrighted expression, the very ideas they claim as original can be found in numerous examples of earlier songs, rendering their case for originality quite flimsy.<br \/>\nNeely points out that the Charleston rhythm is nothing new, and has been used prominently in songs by the Jackson 5, DNCE and, perhaps most notably, Outkast\u2019s \u201cRosa Parks,\u201d just to name a few. The chord progression of \u201cLive Your Life\u201d is also extremely basic and can be heard in earlier songs like \u201cEvil Woman\u201d by Electric Light Orchestra. Per Harrington, the core melody in \u201cWiggle and Giggle All Night\u201d and \u201cDon Diablo\u201d appears in an earlier Hank Williams song.<br \/>\nIn order to determine infringement, the plaintiffs must prove that their own work is sufficiently original. In this case, that might be an uphill battle.<\/p>\n<p><strong>What happens next<\/strong>?<\/p>\n<p>While it\u2019s possible that these lawsuits will go before a jury, Lipa may also seek to settle outside of court, a trend that has seemingly increased in the years following the \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d case.<br \/>\nAfter the ruling, Thicke and Williams\u2019 attorney Howard King told Rolling Stone, \u201cI feel like I\u2019ve let songwriters around the world down by helping establish this horrible precedent that somebody can make a claim based upon a song that sounds the same, yet is materially different \u2014 and if they can find eight people who don\u2019t read music, they might win.\u201d<br \/>\nWhile the impact of that suit may have been overstated in the years immediately following it (Finell says there are \u201ca lot of misperceptions about the \u2018Blurred Lines\u2019 case and its impact on creativity,\u201d while Harrington admits that the number of frivolous copyright suits \u201cseems to have calmed down\u201d), for a few years it seemed like some sort of doomsday for songwriters. For example, in 2015, Jidenna ceded preemptive writing credit to Iggy Azalea for his song \u201cClassic Man\u201d for fear of going to court. He said on Hot 97, \u201cEver since the decision of Robin Thicke and Pharrell, we believe that it was important to make sure that we are safe. When that Robin Thicke verdict came out, we realized that the game had changed in music.\u201d<br \/>\nThe \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d case united musicians against what they saw as frivolous lawsuits. In 2016, 212 artists, composers, producers, musicologists and other music professionals banded behind Thicke and Williams and filed an amicus brief, in which they argued that the court must reestablish \u201climits on the scope of copyright, to ensure that future downstream authors and creators are able to draw from the wellspring of existing works.\u201d<br \/>\nHarrington says that he, and presumably the other musicologists contacted by Brown and Linzer, declined involvement in the Lipa suit because he feels strongly that \u201cLevitating\u201d is not an example of copyright infringement. With prominent music theorists denouncing the litigation and expert witnesses hesitant to join the fight against Lipa, only time will tell whether the pop star will face legal consequences, settle outside of court or come out unscathed.<br \/>\n&nbsp;<br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; <em>article 2<\/em> &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Two Copyright Infringement Lawsuits in Four Days<\/strong><br \/>\nBy Jem Aswad (Executive Music Editor, Variety) &#8211; Mar 7, 2022<br \/>\n[ <a href=\"https:\/\/variety.com\/2022\/music\/news\/dua-lipa-levitating-copyright-infringement-lawsuits-1235198010\/\" target=\"_blank\">Aticle &#8211; Variety<\/a> ]<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s almost become a model in recent years: If a song\u2019s a hit, the copyright-infringement lawsuits follow, and Dua Lipa was clobbered with two of them in four days last week. Her global hit \u201cLevitating,\u201d which has spent 68 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100, has drawn two lawsuits from songwriters claiming the song infringes on their compositions, according to multiple media reports.<br \/>\nThe first was filed March 1 by a Florida reggae group called Artikal Sound System, claiming that Lipa\u2019s song lifts from their relatively obscure 2017 track, \u201cLive Your Life.\u201d That complaint includes little specific detail beyond claiming that the two tracks are so similar that it was \u201chighly unlikely that \u2018Levitating\u2019 was created independently.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In the second, more-detailed legal complaint, filed on March 4 in New York, songwriters L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer accused Lipa of copying both their 1979 song \u201cWiggle and Giggle All Night\u201d and 1980 song \u201cDon Diablo,\u201d two tracks dating from the disco era. The pair claim the opening melody to \u201cLevitating\u201d was a \u201cduplicate\u201d of the melody to their songs; there is some similarity in the rhythmic delivery of the opening phrases in the verses, before the melodies diverge. Brown and Linzer\u2019s attorneys claim that the segment of the melody in question played a major role in the song\u2019s success on TikTok and related chart success.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe signature melody is the most listened to and recognizable part of the infringing works and plays a crucial role in their popularity,\u201d they wrote. \u201cBecause video creators frequently truncate the already brief snippets of sound on TikTok, the signature melody often comprises fifty percent or more of these viral videos.\u201d<br \/>\nIn their complaint, Brown and Linzer\u2019s attorneys pointed to press interviews in which they claim Lipa \u201cadmitted that she deliberately emulated prior eras\u201d and \u201ctook inspiration\u201d to create a \u201cretro\u201d sound.<br \/>\n\u201cIn seeking nostalgic inspiration, defendants copied plaintiffs\u2019 creation without attribution,\u201d they wrote. The complaint also names as defendants Warner Music Group, guest rapper DaBaby (whose participation in the remix Lipa has disavowed in the wake of the rapper\u2019s homophobic comments last year), and others involved in the song.<br \/>\nIn an unusual statement for a legal complaint, lawyers for Brown and Linzer resorted to puns to make their case: \u201cDefendants have levitated away plaintiffs\u2019 intellectual property,\u201d they wrote. \u201cPlaintiffs bring suit so that defendants cannot wiggle out of their willful infringement.\u201d<br \/>\nReps for Lipa, Warner Music and the multiple writers and publishers connected to the song either declined or did not immediately respond to Variety\u2019s requests for comment, punning or no.<br \/>\n&nbsp;<br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; <em>article 3<\/em> &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Dua Lipa Copyright Controversy<\/strong><br \/>\n<em>By Caitlin Muraca &#8211; April 12, 2022<\/em><br \/>\n[ <a href=\"https:\/\/cardozoaelj.com\/2022\/04\/12\/the-dua-lipa-copyright-controversy\/\" target=\"_blank\">Article<\/a> ]<\/p>\n<p>Dua Lipa has come under fire after two separate copyright infringements claims were filed against her song \u201cLevitating.\u201d The popular song recently made history as the longest-charting Billboard Hot 100 hit ever among women artists, surpassing the 69-week run of LeAnn Rimes\u2019 \u201cHow Do I Live,\u201d back in 1997-1998.2 Despite peaking at number two last year and never reaching the top spot, the song was still awarded Billboard\u2019s top song of 2021.<\/p>\n<p>The first lawsuit was filed in earlier in March when reggae act Artikal Sound System accused Lipa of plagiarizing their lesser-known 2017 track, \u201cLive Your Life.\u201d The federal claim alleges that Lipa copied the song\u2019s melody. Attorneys for Artikal Sound System \u201csimply allege[ ] that [Lipa] and her co-writers \u2018listened to and copied \u201cLive Your Life\u201d before and during the time they were writing \u201cLevitating.\u201d\u2019 Artikal claims that the songs are substantially similar and \u201ccould not have been created independently.\u201d The reggae act also names Warner Records as a defendant as well as the purported writers of the song.<\/p>\n<p>The second lawsuit against Lipa came just days after the first claim was filed. L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer allege that Lipa copied from two of their songs, \u201cWiggle and Giggle All Night\u201d and \u201cDon Diablo.\u201d10 The songwriters claim that the opening Melody in \u201cLevitating\u201d is a copy of the melody in their songs. The pair point to interviews where Lipa \u201c\u2019admitted that she deliberately emulated prior eras\u2019 and \u2018took inspiration\u2019 from earlier music to create a \u201cretro\u201d sound. The lawsuit also names other defendants, including Warner Music Group and DaBaby.<\/p>\n<p>To prove copyright infringement, the plaintiff must demonstrate two elements. First, the plaintiff must show \u201cthat the defendant had access to the plaintiff\u2019s work.\u201d Second, it must be proven \u201cthat the defendant\u2019s work is substantially similar to protected aspects of the plaintiff\u2019s work.<\/p>\n<p>Forensic musicologists play an important role in music copyright infringement cases, in which a lay person may not be able to determine the substantial similarity of the \u201cpitch, timing, or harmonic context.\u201d E. Michael Harrington, who consulted on Katy Perry\u2019s \u201cDark Horse\u201d case, explains that \u201csounding alike is almost always unimportant,\u201d as music from a particular style is \u201cgenerally [] built upon the same musical ideas.\u201d Judith Finell, who delivered expert testimony on behalf of the Marvin Gaye estate in the \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d case, explains, \u201cwhat\u2019s protected by copyright are \u2018specific series of expressions of music, not ideas, but expressions.\u2019\u201d19 Overall, Harrington \u201csays that he declined involvement in the Lipa suit because he feels strongly that \u2018Levitating\u2019 is not an example of copyright infringement.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Intellectual property lawyer Richard Busch, who served as counsel for Gaye\u2019s family in the \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d case, described Artikal\u2019s complaint as a \u201csparse bare-bones complaint.\u201d Busch believes that Artikal will face a challenge when attempting to show a likelihood of access to the song because \u201cthe song is not presently on any major streaming platform.\u201d Busch further explains that \u201csomething that\u2019s similar, like a groove or a vibe, or has a similar feel because it\u2019s the same style, it\u2019s not enough.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Whether the lawsuits against Lipa will be successful seems unlikely given the statements of expert musicologists and lawyers in the field, but only time will tell.<\/p>\n<p>***<br \/>\n<strong>Caitlin Muraca<\/strong> is a Second Year Law Student at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a Staff Editor for the Cardozo Arts &#038; Entertainment Law Journal. Caitlin is interested in Music Law. Caitlin is also a member of the Entertainment Law Society and is currently an extern at David M. Ehrlich &#038; Associates and Janine Small PLLC.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8230;Dua Lipa&#8217;s global hit &#8220;Levitating&#8221; spent 68 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 &#8211; various songwriters were claiming the song infringes on their compositions&#8230; The Case (s) Dua Lipa ft. DaBaby &#8211; &#8220;Levitating&#8221; Artikal Sound System &#8211; Live Your Life,&hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/?p=17678\" class=\"more-link\">Lexo <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,86],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17678","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media-extracted","category-music"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17678","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17678"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17678\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/letrat.eu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}