7 members (Gary E. Andrews, Fdemetrio, Perry Neal Crawford, Guy E. Trepanier, couchgrouch, Sunset Poet, 1 invisible),
795
guests, and
224
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mutlu
by Gary E. Andrews - 04/15/24 07:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174
Top 500 Poster
|
OP
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174 |
I've read numerous articles on this and have come to the conclusion that while the arrangements were similar(aka "groove"), the lyrics and melody were definitely not copying Marvin Gaye's "GOT TO GIVE IT UP". I'm getting tired of copyright infringement suits that stretch the definition of such infringement. Should it get to the point where if a composer uses a rock rhythm with the same BPM as a 20+ year old song of which they may not even be aware that they should be sued? As it is now, original music - at least where I live - has a rough road for getting exposure. Most of the big concerts that draw, are acts that are 20+ years old and no longer charting. It's intimidating to think the if some old fart artist notices that you have a few chord progressions or rhythm sections in your original tune that are the same as a song they wrote in another era but are lyrically and melodically different, they still can sue.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13 |
I'll have to find the comparison link on YouTube, but it seemed like back then I thought there was a pretty clear infringement in terms of soundalike. But I need to revisit it, as I could be thinking of a different song infringement case.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,427 Likes: 16
Top 50 Poster
|
Top 50 Poster
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,427 Likes: 16 |
It's gotten beyond ridiculous. It is one of the reasons you can't get songs heard by ANYBODY you don't know. They are simply not going to risk a copyright lawsuit. One of the reasons for the "Blurred Lines" suit. is because the writers talked about it in intereviews about how much they loved Marvin Gaye and that is was a tribute to him. That caught the attention of the Gaye family, who sued. Was a pretty obscure reference if you ask me, but what do I know?
But if I have to sit through hundreds of rap, hip hop, and other songs that are DIRECT cops of other songs, even using exiting TRACKS on other songs, and THEY don't get sued, I don't know what copyright laws are even for any more. The other night I heard this pop song with the EXACT melody of HEART AND SOUL, that piano piece every one learns when they are first learning piano. It was simply about eight verses from some modern singer that was exactly the same melody.
Personally, it seems like we should just toss out all copyright laws, and forget them, because I don't know how you protect anything any more. And EVERY SINGLE SONG SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER SONG!!! But anyone who has a hit is going to be SUED by somebody, who claims they got RIPPED OFF! And the only one's that ever go anywhere is when one hit artists sues another hit artist. Just like anything on the Internet, you put it out there, someone will take what you do, your identity, etc. Ain't technology wonderful?
MAB
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,412
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,412 |
Aw, Humm, Basically copyright law was first established, (STATUTE OF ANNE) so a writer of a book could benefit from his work before someone else took it and published it with no remittance to the writer, and also so writer's, etc., would continue to write. Copyright Law protects works mostly but allows remedies in a case of plagiarism although harder to prove in a lot of cases. IF I remember correctly Napster thought they could buy one copy of a CD and sell copies without paying a licensing fee. So I would not toss out Copyright as it is an effective tool at least in Berne Countries. While I didn't see it myself there was a confiscation of Cassette Tapes from a venue several years ago here because the Tapes were from a source that didn't pay the license fee, I think I saw some of them. I can't remember the exact words but it said on the tapes, all statutory fees paid or something to that effect. Of course no license fees were paid as the tapes were from a non Berne Country. Still some countries have not signed the Berne Agreement and rip off American Product.
Ray E. Strode
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1 |
How else can the lawyers make millions from songs? Across the board, our legal system encourages ridiculous claims by rewarding the jerks who make them. That's why people sue McDonald's because their coffee is hot and that's why murderers spend 25 years on death row and that's why artists are sued for copyright infringement. And it will never change as long as the same lawyers become the judges and politicians. Why we only elect lawyers is beyond me......
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,034
Top 500 Poster
|
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,034 |
To me it falls under the same category as these lawyer commercials I keep seeing about "Car accident? Call so and so." ... "Slip and fall? Call so and so.." .. Did you breathe at all yesterday? You may be entitled to compensation. Call so and so!"
Money grab.
I'd like to think that the songs I create are original, but if someone produces a song that reminds people of MY music? Well.. I consider that free publicity there.
Of course, I'm still waiting for that one big breakthrough song to get out there to be "cloned"... :-)
Peace,
Dave
"Where there's a Gill, there's a way"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30 |
From the US Copyright Office: U.S. Copyright Office www.copyright.gov/eco/help-author.htmlMusic refers to the melody, rhythm and/or harmony of a musical composition. Lyrics refers to the words of a song or other musical composition. Hmm... and I always thought just the melody & lyrics were considered. Rhythm and/or harmony opens up Pandora's Box. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,762 Likes: 23
Top 50 Poster
|
Top 50 Poster
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,762 Likes: 23 |
Keep in mind that sound recordings weren't protected at all until 1971 and involve intangibles beyond chords and melody that simply cannot be quantified, so these court decisions aren't necessarily "right" when so much is subjective and a decision can be swayed by the law team with the best presentation. I would have argued on Thicke's behalf that hip-hop/soul and pop music in general has always stood on the shoulders of it's predecessors, and that Thicke and team meant it as a homage. It's important to acknowledge ones musical roots and be proud of them. I don't believe Thicke's song did anything but possibly promote Marvin Gaye sales, so it's a curious decision indeed. Tom Waits will sue you if you sing like him while selling Doritos, but can't touch you if you just sing like him but write original songs for one's own self-promotion as artist. The difference in terms of legalese is that in the former people think that Waits himself was endorsing the fast food, while in the later the artist is just endorsing a derivative style. I don't believe there were many Thicke listeners confused by his record, thinking it was Marvin Gaye. Give music lovers some credit. Most older listeners probably understood the "homage" element of the song. Pianist Chilly Gonzales parodies all kinds of artists and styles as his basic presentation and is totally protected by "Fair Use." But he himself might have argued for the Gaye team. Chilly has gone on record stating he believes that "sound" and "groove" have usurped melody in much of today's music, and is actually thee MOST important element in rap and hip-hop. That being the case, it's understandable that something like this lawsuit could happen. But the good news is it only happens when there's lots of money to be possibly won from a potential lawsuit. Keep standing on the shoulders of your musical heroes while trying to find some unique place to stand among them all and have fun making the music you love, and if you have a million dollar hit with the most random of melodies and a groove from outer space, don't be surprised if THAT'S when there's "first contact." Mike
Last edited by Michael Zaneski; 04/01/17 12:04 PM.
Fate doesn't hang on a wrong or right choice Fortune depends on the tone of your voice
-The Divine Comedy (Neil Hannon) from the song "Songs of Love" from the album "Casanova" (1996)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123 |
On a relative side note of this specific case, words/lyrics are very separate from music AND sound recordings. They are different, separate copyright-able works. They can be registered on PA for words only, or on SR for a representation of the words, music, production etc.
One example, which I think might help people understand this is, say an entity uses a compulsory of one of your previously released compositions. They have statutory requirements which they must follow. However, their sound recording version, of your song, is in-itself a copyright-able work!
It is ultimately a great idea for songwriters to be familiar with as much of the legal stuff as they can. I will tell you that the MAJOR downside of this is that it takes a huge amount of time away from actually creating songs!
Also, obviously it becomes very expensive to get an attorney's opinion for every decision which you contemplate.
In so many instances, and this case is a good example, there has to be a considerable amount of money involved in order for the legal games to get fired-up.
The statutory monetary damages are rather minimal compared to what actual damages may be awarded.
It is surprising to come to the realization of how many laws are specifically written as "gray areas" which means that litigation is eminent, when there is lots of money involved. For instance when a song becomes well known as a significant and revenue generating product.
Now, picture the reality of opposing attorneys trying to "educate" a jury about the complexities of these laws so that they can decide whether something is an infringement of some type!
On the plus-side of this, the further away from having a hit song (worth lots of money), the less likely you will be caught up in any of the gray areas of copyright infringement litigation. However, anything is possible.
On the OP's specific case, I had read an article or two about it last year I think it was. If I remember correctly, there was a considerable amount of money involved on all sides.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174
Top 500 Poster
|
OP
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174 |
Here's where it gets sticky for me as a performer. Although people who've seen me perform, love my originals, it's hard to get booked at a club when all I currently have online is my originals. I've been recently creating parodies(that's another copyright discussion)mostly for my live act, because then I'm kinda doing covers in an area where the booking people don't think outside the box. I do report my performances to ASCAP on their ONSTAGE program, I do an impression(I'm a comedy act so I don't do "covers") of Prince singing "KISS"(falsetto and all). I've replaced his bridge lyrics with titles of Prince songs strategically placed and updated the TV show reference in the last verse to the Kardashians. I report this in my set list as a Prince song, so his estate gets due credit. However, I have three parodies and one of them is of BLURRED LINES. It's called 'HOOD GIRL. I have a much different arrangement than the Thicke song - hence different than Marvin Gaye's song. I don't see any just cause even with the recent ruling, to report my performance as a credit to Marvin Gaye as it's the lyric and melody that's being parodied in this instance. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123 |
This is beyond my comfort level. I am also not deeply familiar with the recent ruling; that story just caught my attention last year.
What I do interpret is that you are performing derivative versions of songs, and you are still reporting it to your PRO which seems appropriate.
Since these are performances, and not recordings being offered for sale commercially, then maybe you are doing all you need to do.
Parodies fly by their own rules as you pointed out, and so do derivatives. When it is only performance based though, I don't know what more you would need to do.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174
Top 500 Poster
|
OP
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174 |
To your point about the SR and PA copyrights - it would suggest that when I do my derivative performance from Robin Thicke's lyric and melody from Blurred Lines, I would credit him for performance royalty, as the SR copyright is not in play here because I use a different arrangement than the sound recording in Marvin Gaye's song. As far as recording any of the parodies I've created, I think I would best avoid that and just use them as a means to bolster the appeal of my act.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123 |
I personally would not make those recordings.
In a normal situation, you have to secure permissions to make a derivative version, by law. That means having to track down who owns or controls the various components of the works. Then acquiring the permissions and following through with the accounting.
But you may think, hey, it is a parody though. I understand, but that ground is just way too questionable for me.
Plus, here we are talking about a parody, and a work that was considered to be an infringement. So which work should be credited as part of a performance? I could only guess that you might be right in crediting the version which your performance most closely resembles.
I have been involved with several instructional projects over the years, and just like parodies, the use of other entity's copyrighted works for educational purposes fly by different rules. However, I prefer to not use ANYTHING that is not an original work. And if it is done, I have to know exactly how it stands within copyright laws or the essentially interpretive "Fair Use" which is one of the gray areas I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30 |
I've been trying to find out if "Just the Way You Look Tonight" by Jerome Kern is in the public domain, to no avail. The song first appeared in "Swing Time" (1936). Using that date as reference, it would have been copyrighted 81 years ago.Kern died in 1945. His co-writer, Dorothy Fields, died in 1974. Common sense tells me this song is in the public domain. But if an added/ renewed copyright was done by the publishing company, there could be problems. Like the fiasco with "Happy Birthday To You". It can be complicated. BTW, after a lawsuit, Happy Birthday is now officially in the public domain. Best, John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,169 Likes: 29
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,169 Likes: 29 |
One of the reasons for the "Blurred Lines" suit. is because the writers talked about it in intereviews about how much they loved Marvin Gaye and that is was a tribute to him. That caught the attention of the Gaye family, who sued. MAB I think that was it. As an architect, to have grounds for a suit someone has to seemingly replicate to detail what you have done. I've had a builder tell me to go look at another architect's design and create a facsimile. I told him to hire that architect. He was a slime ball anyway. On another occasion, someone had sent a young architect to some townhouses that I built with a camera. She was standing on a public sidewalk taking a picture. Totally legal. Dressed in jeans and boots, I walked over and asked who she was. When I found out that she was an architect, I said "that's my design." She looked indifferently at me and said "oh, nice" and walked off. No idea what became of that and if I did know I could do nothing about it...unless...there was a design that appeared very similar to a reasonable third party and an evidentiary trail establishing the intent to steal the design. The Blurred line singer went about endearing the buying public to his song and his selfless appreciation for the great Marvin Gaye...and thereby left a trail of evidence establishing and attesting to...the true origins of the song. If I was on the jury, I would have found for the plaintiff. One...it would be true. Two....too much intellectual theft goes un-punished. ps...architect's fees for a townhouse are a fraction of attorney's fees for a trial about the fees. If an architect wins he might get treble (multiple) damages for the theft but still would need to be awarded attorney's fees and court costs to come out. Not necessarily make all the hell worth it...but come out. No court case outcome is a given. There are only probabilities. (OJ trial and ObamaCare). If you sue for architect's fees on a small job (or a modestly profitable song) and lose, the hole becomes disastrous.
Last edited by Martin Lide; 04/02/17 12:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174
Top 500 Poster
|
OP
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174 |
Well here's a thought. When I read about this lawsuit, I was thinking in terms of the PA copyright because it was Marvin Gaye's family who sued. I would think that the SR copyright would be owned by the record company. The "groove" is the arrangement on the sound recording. That's where the similarity is. So unless Marvin Gaye's estate owns the SR copyright, I see this being overturned if pursued. When artists in the past released cover recordings(ie. Van Halen's version of You Really Got Me, Billy Idol's version of MONA MONA) the PA copyright entitled the original writer to writer royalties. The SR for the new version became the record company's.You didn't have the record company who owned the SR of the original suing the record company for the new version.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30 |
Where's the music industry lawyers when you need them? Oh wait, apparently they don't agree on copyright issues either. Then who does one turn to to find answers. I reckon the answer is that the issue of copyright isn't cut & dry. It will be decided on a case to case basis. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761 |
Not totally inapropos...Thanks to Warren Zevon... Send Lawyers Guns and Money.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5Xv7QqXiMMidnite
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761 |
Oh, and if ya'll wanna check out a movie link that is also not quite inapropos... Jurrassic Park....Ian Malcolm's "Ethic's Lesson"...Swap "scientists" for "musicians"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PLvdmifDSkMidnite....:-)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123 |
Midnite - AWESOME call with Send Lawyers Guns and Money man!
That song is rockin!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761 |
Well, Toby...I can't argue with ya if yer gonna be right:-)
Midnite
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,762 Likes: 23
Top 50 Poster
|
Top 50 Poster
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,762 Likes: 23 |
Hi Summeoyo,
If you are just performing the song, what's the worst that could happen? I am not a lawyer, but I venture to guess that the most likely thing that would happen, in terms of negative outcomes, is you get some form of a "cease and desist" notice or letter or email.
Same thing with a recorded performance of your Thicke parody. I have had a Leonard Cohen ("First They Drill Your Molars"--based on "First We Take Manhattan") parody up at sound cloud for ages. I make it clear on that page that that's what it is. I even called the fake band "Fine Young Cohenables" if anyone didn't get the parody aspect. I simply don't try to make any money from the recording and all is well.
Plus, you are more than likely protected by Fair Use. Here might be a good opportunity to study that stuff. Plus, there is no big money associated with you performing the song at clubs. Litigation needs a certain threshold to be crossed before any action other than a "cease and desist" might be applicable.
Plus your reasoning in your last post is sound.
But if you hate worrying about stuff, and you know that singing the Thicke parody will just keep you up at night, maybe sleep is more important?
Just some food for thought..
Mike
Last edited by Michael Zaneski; 04/03/17 02:51 PM.
Fate doesn't hang on a wrong or right choice Fortune depends on the tone of your voice
-The Divine Comedy (Neil Hannon) from the song "Songs of Love" from the album "Casanova" (1996)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174
Top 500 Poster
|
OP
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,174 |
I examined some references on Fair Use before I started performing my parodies. Most reasonable people would have no issues unless there were extremes in negativity either toward the original artist or crossed lines in bad taste. I thought it would be an interesting discussion though on who rightly deserves the credit(however small that would be for the derivative work). I shall be giving it the Robin Thicke because in no way is my performance of "HOOD GIRL a derivative work of Marvin Gaye's song. I don't worry, I be happy(is that a derivative comment?)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13 |
Parodies are broadly protected as long as they parody the actual song versus say doing a campaign version of the lyric which promote something unrelated to the song or interestingly enough, as long as you don't just rewrite a few lines here or there which would be derivative versus a parody. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman (which I don't think rings true as a parody, but oh well) version being a lawful parody means folks can likely do about anything as long as the underlying owners are properly compensated.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761 |
Ok, gonna toss in some ancient history here...And the Grandfather of these lawsuits.. George Harrison..."My Sweet Lord" v/s "He's So Fine"...? Feel free to Google the names, but here is what happened... While the album "All Thing's Must Pass" was being recorded, George laid down "My Sweet Lord".....The Original Producer of that album--A DOUBLE ALBUM-thought the "riff" may have been similar to "He's So Fine"...But never said a word... Mididway through the recording, George fired the producer, who, being very pissed, then went on to contact the owners of the copy "He's So Fine"....And that's where the lawsuits started....From a pissant & bitter producer who was "let go" after having been paid for his services up til that point.... It also inspired George to write this..."This Song"...: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BK0OT4Py0To quote Yogi Berra: You could look it up:-) Midnite
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761 |
...And if anyone over the age of 60 wants to Google... "Your The Reason God Made Oklahoma"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt5mZfcdgucYou will find out that that got their pants sued off by the copyright owners of "Rocky Top"....Osborne Brothers recording... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPM-M79LfrwLegitimate Lawsuit??? Probably? Yes! Intentional theft by the writers of "Your The Reason God Made Oklahoma"? I'm guessin' not..... Bottom line... "C'est la vie"...You never can tell....Or so said Mr. Berry... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1oyvAMtFskMidnite
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,412
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,412 |
Humm, Are ye sure midnite? Rocky Top was written by Felice and Boudleaux Bryant and You're The Reason God Made Oklahoma looks like it was written by David Frizzell and Shelly West. And they sound nothing a like. Several people have recorded Rocky Top.
Ray E. Strode
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761 |
Yeap, Ray... I'm perdy derned shootin' sure:-)
Edited to add that I changed my "Rocky Top" intro to say that it was the Osborne Brothers' recording of it...And changed the "link" to only the song, and not the "live" video....
I may be fuzzy on the details..Wouldn't be the first time:-)... but yeah, lawsuits flew all over the place during the late 80's....Because someone had a "hit" with "Oklahoma"..And the judge agreed....It got really convoluted during the trial..Silly & a pity....eh?
And actually, if you adjust the tempo to mix & match, they sound exactly alike for the most part....At least that's what the lawyers said...And I'm'a guessin' that the lawyers were the ones who made the most money offa that lawsuit....
Midnite
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,761 |
And if ya'll wanna really see how STOOPID these lawsuits can be: Back around the mid-90's, a band...Sorry that I don't recall the name...put out a song that had something like a 30 second break of nothing but silence... And they got sued by John Cage, because John claimed that they'd stolen the "silence" from him....And Mr. Cage won!!!!.... Seriously, I am not creative enough to make this sh!t up....!! Here is a performance Mr. Cage's masterpiece..4'33": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN2zcLBr_VMEWait for it...Wait for it...Wait for it.........Wait for it........Maybe Paul Simon shoulda sued John Cage for his stealing of "The Sounds Of Silence"..... Midnite
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123 |
Ultimately, anybody can try to sue anyone over anything.
When writing, words or music, it can be a discouraging realization that there are inevitably going to be similarities to something else that has already been written.
Even if you never heard of some other works, you could unknowingly be doing something very similar to an existing work.
A lot of instances of this are innocent coincidences. This is certainly a viable defense, yet it still has to be proven.
All the while the legal fees continue to mount up.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,169 Likes: 29
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,169 Likes: 29 |
Ultimately, anybody can try to sue anyone over anything.
When writing, words or music, it can be a discouraging realization that there are inevitably going to be similarities to something else that has already been written.
Even if you never heard of some other works, you could unknowingly be doing something very similar to an existing work.
A lot of instances of this are innocent coincidences. This is certainly a viable defense, yet it still has to be proven.
All the while the legal fees continue to mount up. Agreed. But.... If you ever get a broad podium to present your music, you can count on some variation of 1-4-5-6 sounding something like your stuff. As well, you can count on your lyrics being comparable to somebody's somewhere... If, in any way, it was an intentional derivation of a famous song....don't bring attention to it
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13 |
Ok, gonna toss in some ancient history here...And the Grandfather of these lawsuits.. George Harrison..."My Sweet Lord" v/s "He's So Fine"...? Feel free to Google the names, but here is what happened... While the album "All Thing's Must Pass" was being recorded, George laid down "My Sweet Lord".....The Original Producer of that album--A DOUBLE ALBUM-thought the "riff" may have been similar to "He's So Fine"...But never said a word... Mididway through the recording, George fired the producer, who, being very pissed, then went on to contact the owners of the copy "He's So Fine"....And that's where the lawsuits started....From a pissant & bitter producer who was "let go" after having been paid for his services up til that point.... It also inspired George to write this..."This Song"...: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BK0OT4Py0To quote Yogi Berra: You could look it up:-) Midnite I'd forgotten all about "that song"
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,762 Likes: 23
Top 50 Poster
|
Top 50 Poster
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,762 Likes: 23 |
The emergent pattern seems to be that when there's big money involved, writers/producers/offended parties take notice. It's a safe bet that the amount of interest an offended party may show in a potential plagiarism case is in direct proportion to the amount of money that could be potentially won from pursuing such a case. If say, in a parallel universe, these songs were never close to being hits...instead of George, a random guy named Biff Harrison wrote "My Sweet Lord" with just radio play in Jersey, or a Mahedis Thicke wrote and performed "Blurred Lines" and busked it on the streets of Vancouver, who would care? Even if the offended parties happened upon their performances, I doubt much more than frowns and snickers would greet the performers. Though I'd love to see a Judge Judy or Mathis reside over the occasion spat between songwriting neighbors, fighting over a song they both sing in their separate acts at their local bars, and claim the other stole cuz they both claim to have written it while singing in their respective showers with only a thin wall between them. That would be a hoot. Imagine in this Seinfeldian universe suing some poor schmuck for millions of bucks for song plagiarism--he sang (what he thought was) his song on "Talent Night" at his local deli, where he also happened to work, and he barely makes rent every month. I can imagine some form of out-of-court settlement..maybe ham sandwiches for life? Mike
Last edited by Michael Zaneski; 04/06/17 05:43 PM.
Fate doesn't hang on a wrong or right choice Fortune depends on the tone of your voice
-The Divine Comedy (Neil Hannon) from the song "Songs of Love" from the album "Casanova" (1996)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13 |
The emergent pattern seems to be that when there's big money involved, writers/producers/offended parties take notice. It's a safe bet that the amount of interest an offended party may show in a potential plagiarism case is in direct proportion to the amount of money that could be potentially won from pursuing such a case. If say, in a parallel universe, these songs were never close to being hits...instead of George, a random guy named Biff Harrison wrote "My Sweet Lord" with just radio play in Jersey, or a Mahedis Thicke wrote and performed "Blurred Lines" and busked it on the streets of Vancouver, who would care? Even if the offended parties happened upon their performances, I doubt much more than frowns and snickers would greet the performers. Though I'd love to see a Judge Judy or Mathis reside over the occasion spat between songwriting neighbors, fighting over a song they both sing in their separate acts at their local bars, and claim the other stole cuz they both claim to have written it while singing in their respective showers with only a thin wall between them. That would be a hoot. Imagine in this Seinfeldian universe suing some poor schmuck for millions of bucks for song plagiarism--he sang (what he thought was) his song on "Talent Night" at his local deli, where he also happened to work, and he barely makes rent every month. I can imagine some form of out-of-court settlement..maybe ham sandwiches for life? Mike Mike, I think that's a straw man argument and here is why. The cost of legal action has to be balanced with potential damages recovered and a win for wins sake is pointless and costly. Is your bottom line point that actual copyright infringement by say a massive corporation is perfectly okay because it isn't financially worth it to sue a nobody who doesn't make a dime? So to use the same standard, are you saying any major label multinational corporation should not only be ABLE to get away with it due to their legal power and money, but ALLOWED openly to get away with it. That sure sounds like that is your point. In other words, if you wouldn't sue a nobody, you shouldn't be suing someone famous for infringement either? Infringement cases are very rare because they are so expensive to prove even when 100% true. It's a sad truth that big money powers have gotten away with stealing from the poor since the beginning of time. But in egregious cases there has to be a way for the ripped off to punish the thieves, whether those who are ripped off are rich or poor. And sure, the pendulum works both ways as thieves also file bad lawsuits. There are certainly also cases where neither party is malicious, when similarities are undeniable but where the offending party never heard (and importantly none of the production team from session players to producers and engineers etc. who all could bring in knowledge of a sing to the source material) and it is all coincidence OR where one or more of the parties WERE influenced and DID get the idea from another source but didn't realize it. All these realities are possible which is why most illegalities are rarely as black and white as they seem on face value. But people must have the outlet to get as fair a treatment as is possible. Even if it got to trial, which they rarely have ever done, then a jury would decide if 3 things are apparent: 1. Similarities that reach the level of certainty in a court of law and as defined by the judge, 2: Access to the piece of music claiming infringement, meaning you must show a pathway between the original work and the infringers, they must of had an opportunity (to the level of certainty as defined by the judge) to hear the original piece which is often either the toughest bar to cross (say an unknown indie with little exposure to anyone including the team around the artist) or the easiest, as in another widely played hit song. And third, you must show damages significant to cross the bar as defined by the judge. That is why so few cases move forward and nuisance suits are usually settled for relative peanuts (in cases where similarity is obvious to any layman, and access is an unknown as there are so many ways to come across music today, and corporations can't chance the financial risk ambiguity, so they settle. The bottom line is that we all have opinions that may differ on whether an infringement has taken place, but we have to tolerate the bogus claims to protect those truly wronged or it will be open season on creators to a level never before seen. Brian
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,762 Likes: 23
Top 50 Poster
|
Top 50 Poster
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,762 Likes: 23 |
I think that's a straw man argument and here is why. The cost of legal action has to be balanced with potential damages recovered and a win for wins sake is pointless and costly. Is your bottom line point that actual copyright infringement by say a massive corporation is perfectly okay because it isn't financially worth it to sue a nobody who doesn't make a dime? So to use the same standard, are you saying any major label multinational corporation should not only be ABLE to get away with it due to their legal power and money, but ALLOWED openly to get away with it. That sure sounds like that is your point. In other words, if you wouldn't sue a nobody, you shouldn't be suing someone famous for infringement either?
Brian
Hi Brian, Interesting read on my post and great conversation. I honestly didn't have a point other than to show the absurdity of too much worry in these regards. Poor folks that are creative shouldn't worry too much if they go about writing in an honest way, even though they may end up inadvertently ripping someone off, because unless the little guy's song actually makes it big they won't be bothered too much, and then there's time to realize the similarities oneself and then re-write accordingly. If by fluke a little guys' song starts to make money, it's profile rises, and so should the author's awareness of potential similarities to others' work, and then deal with that accordingly. As you say, "The cost of legal action has to be balanced with potential damages recovered and a win for wins sake is pointless and costly." and I use this very point to point out that many creative types experience much anxiety when it comes to their "process" cuz they sometimes imagine a fate worse than death when it comes to potential copyright infringement, and mostly because high profile cases like the ones mentioned here can be inhibitors to honest, organic creativity. I mean, a poor schmuck can easily, honestly, and organically arrive at a song that is similar to another song that is in position to sue the poor schmuck. But the "imagined fate" is usually much worse than what might actually happen to the little guy. Mine was an appeal to fellow neurotics to hold on to their creativity at all costs, because nothing spells the end of that creativity more than vetting (out of fear and anxiety) every written line or musical phrase or chord sequence that one writes. I tried to use outrageous examples to induce a laugh or two to help bring this point home--not that big money should get away with copyright infringement (since the little guy often does) but that the little guy..us..should hold on to our creativity and not watch it turned into some dried up vetting process instead. And if this, my point, wasn't clear before (it wasn't even to me) then I hope it is now. Courts put great weight and grant favor to those that arrive at a musical/authorial place first, though someone else can arrive there late, but in totally honest, organic fashion and then they are a copycat, in the legal sense, and may be sued, and that's all fine and as it should be.. But creativity is NOT a game of strategically positioning one's writing or artistic persona among all others in order to have more unique features than copycat ones. So I worry that court decisions are very subtly changing the face of creativity and turning it into something more dry and calculated. More a vetting process than a creative one. I do thinking vetting one's lyrics is fine since it's just a google click away-there's no excuse now for copycat lyrics--but there is no "musical database" that can give us such immediate feedback for our music writing. This is not to say that there aren't lots of thugs at the local level, consciously ripping off songs, There are, and since they're thugs they probably know that to a great degree they can get away with it, since it's petty and local thievery. But there's probably a greater number of honest, hardworking writers (at least here) who worry that a song they arrive at organically may end up on the chopping block. My worry is that modern law is changing the face of creativity. We should just "write the damn thing" --not introduce constant vetting into that process. To me, that's the death knell of creativity. In no way was I suggesting that since (to paraphrase you) "you wouldn't sue a nobody, you shouldn't be suing someone famous for infringement either" but I can understand how you could arrive at that conclusion. It's just that we're still living mostly at the local level while reading about cases like Thicke and Harrison's. These cases are really far from our day to day experience, but reading about them can easily create havoc on ones' creative life, and they shouldn't. To wit, I am in total agreement with everything you say. Sorry you mistook what my main point was. I had just seen the new Woody Allen movie and was imagining humorous things associated with how this stuff can make an honest writer a neurotic mess. Mike
Last edited by Michael Zaneski; 04/07/17 03:56 PM.
Fate doesn't hang on a wrong or right choice Fortune depends on the tone of your voice
-The Divine Comedy (Neil Hannon) from the song "Songs of Love" from the album "Casanova" (1996)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18
Casual Observer
|
Casual Observer
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18 |
To me, there seems to be a correlation between these recent law suits and failing music sales. Stolen songs or parts of songs has been around forever. And back In the day, there was only a small handful of cases, nowadays they are brought to attention all the time. Is it because the artists are not making the same money they used to on recorded music, so any chance they get to collect, they do it? And maybe when they were making the money off of recorded music, they didn't care if others copied them? * I still think that copyrights are important. For me, why bother writing a song if you can't prove you wrote it? Why bother, just record covers in that case. The system of copyrights needs to be fixed, but I think we still need them Ed Sheeran was sued for 20 million for this copycat. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3YFOaLiUsY, he was also sued by Marvin Gaye's estate for this, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gd1I3DmEd4Tom petty has been stolen from many many times, and only until recently has he given a damn http://www.vulture.com/2015/01/tom-petty-sam-smith-plagiarism.html
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,427 Likes: 16
Top 50 Poster
|
Top 50 Poster
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,427 Likes: 16 |
I don't understand what is enforcable anymore when it comes to copyrights. There was a time when people sued about titles, or melodies being the same up to a certain point. Now, when SAMPLING of existing tracks and simply putting new lyrics to them, I can't for the life of me figure out what you would be suing for or expect to receive out of it. No one is making money on songs and the cost of legal action far outweighs anything that could be earned in a lawsuit.
But in the age of sampling, I wonder, what is supposed to be protected? Seems like an exercise in futility to me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18
Casual Observer
|
Casual Observer
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18 |
I always thought that the only thing copyrightable was the melody and the lyric.
melody including riffs, but no chord progressions, no titles, no arrangements
But aloft of these things intersect, and each case seems to be different, so who knows
I haven't heard of many cases involving lyrics, but these music cases seem to be more or prevealent today, and I think it's due to lack of music sales
Last edited by sjames17; 04/21/17 08:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,412
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,412 |
You can register a song or songs with just a basic recording on a CD now and with proper payment may be 85 dollars now or it was when I registered a book in 2015. If you don't have the Registration form you can download it and put it in your computer. I have it saved. If registering a copyright be sure to use a good grade of paper, white. You should give the Titles on the Registration form. There is the short form if you are the only writer of a song. You can register a group of songs with the one fee if you have room on the basic form or use the continuation form also on the Web Site. They will send you back your Registration. My book registration took about 8 months.
Ray E. Strode
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30 |
I always thought that the only thing copyrightable was the melody and the lyric.
melody including riffs, but no chord progressions, no titles, no arrangements
But aloft of these things intersect, and each case seems to be different, so who knows
I haven't heard of many cases involving lyrics, but these music cases seem to be more or prevealent today, and I think it's due to lack of music sales I posted this earlier from the US Copyright office: U.S. Copyright Office www.copyright.gov/eco/help-author.htmlMusic refers to the melody, rhythm and/or harmony of a musical composition. Lyrics refers to the words of a song or other musical composition. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18
Casual Observer
|
Casual Observer
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18 |
Hmm, so it says.
Not sure how you can copyright harmony, can't copyright a chord
Rhythm I can see, the rhythm used to play the melody IS the melody, so I guess that's what they mean
The harmony part has me thinking though....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30 |
Hmm, so it says.
Not sure how you can copyright harmony, can't copyright a chord
Rhythm I can see, the rhythm used to play the melody IS the melody, so I guess that's what they mean
The harmony part has me thinking though.... A chord is harmony James. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18
Casual Observer
|
Casual Observer
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18 |
yes I know, but you cant copyright a chord, otherwise nobody would be allowed to use C, without a license...
harmony must have a specific meaning under copyright laws
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,225 Likes: 30 |
yes I know, but you cant copyright a chord, otherwise nobody would be allowed to use C, without a license...
harmony must have a specific meaning under copyright laws Refers to a series of chords/ harmony as with the melody (a series of notes). Harmony is only part of determining copyright infringement, i.e., series of chords, series of notes (and their duration), and rhythm. All three are considered in a lawsuit. Bottom-line... it ends up someone's opinion, which may be different from ours (usually is). I always thought it should be determined by a person with extensive knowledge in music theory and composition. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13 |
I don't understand what is enforceable anymore when it comes to copyrights. There was a time when people sued about titles, or melodies being the same up to a certain point. Now, when SAMPLING of existing tracks and simply putting new lyrics to them, I can't for the life of me figure out what you would be suing for or expect to receive out of it. No one is making money on songs and the cost of legal action far outweighs anything that could be earned in a lawsuit.
But in the age of sampling, I wonder, what is supposed to be protected? Seems like an exercise in futility to me. Sampling is pretty open and shut violation resulting in large settlements and damages consistently when no permission is given and significant money is made. Some producers manipulate and mangle the samples so much that it can be very difficult to find, but computers have been able to parse that. I remember Roland, the keyboard company, getting massively spanked for an illegally used sample of a dance music riff in a built in sound card. They had to remove the card from all unsold units and pay a lot of money. Ironically, you hear that sample all the time in TV production work (I happen to have the unit before they pulled the card and it's a patch I used all the time to start a groove for writing purposes, then would later replace it with original production as the song developed). But that patch is still out there and I don't know the terms of the settlement which was sealed, but I hope the original creator is still getting paid somehow, though keyboard sounds are royalty free, so not sure how they could be getting paid still. That was back in the days when no laws existed to cover samples (which is why James Brown was ripped off a zillion times in early hip hop). Of course you can simply play the music of even a famous riff legally (though you must pay the appropriate royalties) but you can't be sued for example, but it still happens. One of my friends and occasional poster here on the boards was once sampled by a famous rap star who had a monster album and he handled it professionally out of court and got credits and got paid without lawyers getting a dime. It was a smart move, but different people have different styles. The Bittersweet Symphony sample lifted from the Rolling Stones cost that band everything and ended the band which had just broken internationally on top and was gone almost overnight for all practical purposes when the Stone's lawyer was done with them. Now the laws are very clear and people should sample at their own risk.. you're going to lose if you make anything worth pursuing on it without permission.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13 |
yes I know, but you cant copyright a chord, otherwise nobody would be allowed to use C, without a license...
harmony must have a specific meaning under copyright laws Refers to a series of chords/ harmony as with the melody (a series of notes). Harmony is only part of determining copyright infringement, i.e., series of chords, series of notes (and their duration), and rhythm. All three are considered in a lawsuit. Bottom-line... it ends up someone's opinion, which may be different from ours (usually is). I always thought it should be determined by a person with extensive knowledge in music theory and composition. John Well, both sides always have expert witnesses (I was asked to testify in court 3 times, but only once actually got on the stand, most cases settle way before trial). Usually they are hired to support the side paying them (I did it free as a favor to a friend). Court is often just a series of opinions, often disputed by opposing sides and the jury uses their opinion of who they believe more and then again uses their own argument to other jurors to try and change their opinions, if there is disagreement, to their side of things. It's kind of shocking what happens in a jury room, especially on more important cases like murder... but I digress. It's all opinion, even though people assume the law is in there somewhere, it isn't always sad to say.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 692 Likes: 1
Top 500 Poster
|
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 692 Likes: 1 |
It's gotten beyond ridiculous. It is one of the reasons you can't get songs heard by ANYBODY you don't know. They are simply not going to risk a copyright lawsuit. One of the reasons for the "Blurred Lines" suit. is because the writers talked about it in intereviews about how much they loved Marvin Gaye and that is was a tribute to him. That caught the attention of the Gaye family, who sued. Was a pretty obscure reference if you ask me, but what do I know?
But if I have to sit through hundreds of rap, hip hop, and other songs that are DIRECT cops of other songs, even using exiting TRACKS on other songs, and THEY don't get sued, I don't know what copyright laws are even for any more. The other night I heard this pop song with the EXACT melody of HEART AND SOUL, that piano piece every one learns when they are first learning piano. It was simply about eight verses from some modern singer that was exactly the same melody.
Personally, it seems like we should just toss out all copyright laws, and forget them, because I don't know how you protect anything any more. And EVERY SINGLE SONG SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER SONG!!! But anyone who has a hit is going to be SUED by somebody, who claims they got RIPPED OFF! And the only one's that ever go anywhere is when one hit artists sues another hit artist. Just like anything on the Internet, you put it out there, someone will take what you do, your identity, etc. Ain't technology wonderful?
MAB Blurred Lines verdict was a tragedy of justice -- the only thing in common was the "feel" and millions of songs have a similar feel. Yes, the song "Play that song" by Train is a complete and rip off of Hoagy's "Heart and Soul' and Hoagy's heirs should sue. Also, Sheeran's "Photograph" is a rip off of a 2009 song "Amazing", the song had something like 39 identical notes and he lost that suit, settled for $20 million. Might seem like too big of a judgement, but, still, the song infringes. But, on Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" he is being sued by the estate of a co-writer on the Marvin Gaye song "Let's Get It On", (not the same heirs to Gaye who sued on Blurred Lines ) and, on that song, I'm hearing a "similar feel" but it's not the same song. I sincerely doubt Gaye, if he were still alive, would have sued on either song. No, we shouldn't toss out copyright laws, they are songwriter's only means of redress. Of all the songs that are published each year, only one or two are being sued, so this is not an epidemic.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 692 Likes: 1
Top 500 Poster
|
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 692 Likes: 1 |
yes I know, but you cant copyright a chord, otherwise nobody would be allowed to use C, without a license...
harmony must have a specific meaning under copyright laws Refers to a series of chords/ harmony as with the melody (a series of notes). Harmony is only part of determining copyright infringement, i.e., series of chords, series of notes (and their duration), and rhythm. All three are considered in a lawsuit. Bottom-line... it ends up someone's opinion, which may be different from ours (usually is). I always thought it should be determined by a person with extensive knowledge in music theory and composition. John Yeah, someone like you or me, right? I know you know a lot about theory, as do I. I'd feel perfectly qualified do judge whether a song is infringing or not.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,580 Likes: 13 |
It's gotten beyond ridiculous. It is one of the reasons you can't get songs heard by ANYBODY you don't know. They are simply not going to risk a copyright lawsuit. One of the reasons for the "Blurred Lines" suit. is because the writers talked about it in intereviews about how much they loved Marvin Gaye and that is was a tribute to him. That caught the attention of the Gaye family, who sued. Was a pretty obscure reference if you ask me, but what do I know?
But if I have to sit through hundreds of rap, hip hop, and other songs that are DIRECT cops of other songs, even using exiting TRACKS on other songs, and THEY don't get sued, I don't know what copyright laws are even for any more. The other night I heard this pop song with the EXACT melody of HEART AND SOUL, that piano piece every one learns when they are first learning piano. It was simply about eight verses from some modern singer that was exactly the same melody.
Personally, it seems like we should just toss out all copyright laws, and forget them, because I don't know how you protect anything any more. And EVERY SINGLE SONG SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER SONG!!! But anyone who has a hit is going to be SUED by somebody, who claims they got RIPPED OFF! And the only one's that ever go anywhere is when one hit artists sues another hit artist. Just like anything on the Internet, you put it out there, someone will take what you do, your identity, etc. Ain't technology wonderful?
MAB I sincerely doubt Gaye, if he were still alive, would have sued on either song. . Pat, Let's be fair,no one has the slightest idea of who would or wouldn't sue. I don't know why you said that but I am unaware of any public statement by Gaye saying he didn't believe in protecting his copyright, not to mention other interests incl. the arranger, label, publisher and any possible other party with a financial interest who would have influence or legal power. Lot's of times it is spouses or managers or attorneys who make all those decisions anyway, and none of us know what might have happened if someone long dead had still been around.
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
Forums117
Topics125,754
Posts1,161,305
Members21,470
|
Most Online37,523 Jan 25th, 2020
|
|
"When will we all, as artists, creators and facilitators learn that the so-called experts in our lives are nothing more than someone who has stepped forward and called themselves an expert?" –Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|