> I don't see how filming proves that you didn't steal a melody.
What you think of as "proof" and what serves as "proof" in court are wildly different things, because court cases are largely decided on subjective merits. ie You aren't likely to be part of the jury, so hypothetical situations are simply that.
I can imagine observing a live narrative that looks improvised and creative. At that point, I'm not sure what other material difference there needs to be for me. This kind of decision isn't a life-or-death situation, so the bar is lower than absolute certainty.
Yes. Right now these cases are essentially coin flips -- will this specific judge think that these two songs sound similar enough that there's a >50% likelihood that the defendants had heard the plaintiff's work? Which is why in the long term the only solution for lawsuits like this is to change the law so that mere melodic/rhythmic similarity is not sufficient to file suit.
The best the video could do is support the defense around conscious intent. It’s not proof of that as you say because it could be a ruse (although a ruse may have discoverable evidence that makes doing it a really risky immoral gambit). It wouldn’t do anything to claims of subconscious intent (or even an honest mistake that still has liability under copyright) although the potential damages and settlement may be smaller in that case.
