Who's Online Now
27 registered members (Deej56, Harriet Ames, Barry David Butler, ejlawrence, couchgrouch, 9ne, DavidG, Dave Rice, Ilmer_uzumaki, Brian Austin Whitney, 4 invisible), and 270 guests, and
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Shout Box
Member Spotlight
Michael W. Brown
Michael W. Brown
Gun Barrel City, Texas
Posts: 1,787
Joined: July 2009
Show All Member Profiles 
What's Going On
Creativity and the Use of BIAB and Loops
by Martin Lide. 04/30/17 01:38 AM
Edelweiss (Hey Now)
by Deej56. 04/30/17 12:38 AM
Stick It Where The Sun Don't Shine.. (RAP)
by Deej56. 04/30/17 12:22 AM
Nightmare Of My Dream
by Deej56. 04/30/17 12:20 AM
Going Down With The Sun
by Deej56. 04/30/17 12:13 AM
Unsaid
by Deej56. 04/30/17 12:11 AM
Drunk Dial
by Vicarn. 04/29/17 09:36 PM
Women of The Wild Bunch
by Neil Cotton. 04/29/17 06:23 PM
That woman could raise the dead
by Neil Cotton. 04/29/17 06:17 PM
Tickled Pink
by Ilmer_uzumaki. 04/29/17 04:32 PM
Your love took me away
by Ilmer_uzumaki. 04/29/17 04:19 PM
Tell Me Everything (Scratch Track)
by Colin Ward. 04/29/17 03:22 PM
Go Preds Go
by MidniteBob. 04/29/17 03:03 PM
J. Geils dies.
by tanell59. 04/29/17 02:53 PM
last place God would look
by nightengale. 04/29/17 02:26 PM
You're Not Gonna Make A Sad Country Song Out Of Me
by nightengale. 04/29/17 02:20 PM
Letters From Afghanistan
by Barry David Butler. 04/29/17 01:24 PM
Dreams That Dreamers Dream
by Barry David Butler. 04/29/17 01:01 PM
HOOKED AND HURTIN'
by Neil Cotton. 04/29/17 10:13 AM
London's Ferris Wheel, (Daubert)
by Johnny Daubert. 04/29/17 01:36 AM
Death of Cards. Travis & Vic
by Travis david. 04/29/17 12:43 AM
Travelling Man.
by Moosesong. 04/28/17 10:56 PM
Death
by Perry Neal Crawford. 04/28/17 04:19 PM
Pro and NSAI questions
by Marc Barnette. 04/28/17 04:04 PM
The Way Things Are
by Michael LeBlanc. 04/28/17 02:11 PM
"Unfinished Heart" NEW SONG
by Michael LeBlanc. 04/28/17 02:06 PM
Fall Guy
by nightengale. 04/28/17 12:56 PM
KISSING BRIDGES
by Rob B.. 04/28/17 07:42 AM
.
by Kurt Fortmeyer. 04/27/17 09:33 PM
Top Posters(All Time)
Calvin 19,056
Kevin Emmrich 10,527
Jean Bullock 10,330
Kaley Willow 10,240
Travis david 10,017
Two Singers 9,571
Joice Marie 9,186
Mackie H. 8,673
Mike Dunbar 8,574
glynda 8,557
Tricia Baker 8,318
Colin Ward 7,743
Corey 7,357
couchgrouch 7,159
Wyman Lloyd 6,578
Mark Kaufman 6,426
Joe Wrabek 6,390
ben willis 6,051
Dave Rice 5,883
Lynn Orloff 5,788
Louis 5,718
Linda Sings 5,601
niteshift 5,312
KimberlyinNC 5,195
Vicarn 5,064
Derek Hines 4,893
DonnaMarilyn 4,596
Blake Hill 4,528
Bob Cushing 4,342
Bill Osofsky 4,199
Cindy Miller 4,178
Tom Shea 4,173
Neil Cotton 3,904
TamsNumber4 3,903
nightengale 3,900
Roy Cooper 3,877
Caroline 3,865
Kolstad 3,734
Dan Sullivan 3,710
MFB III 3,687
Dottie 3,427
joewatt 3,411
Bill Cooper 3,279
John Hoffman 3,193
beechnut79 3,154
Skip Johnson 3,027
Pam Hurley 3,007
Terry G 3,005
Harriet Ames 2,863
PopTodd 2,855
E Swartz 2,809
Nigel Quin 2,795
MidniteBob 2,568
Tom Tracy 2,558
Polly Hager 2,526
Jerry Jakala 2,524
Al Alvarez 2,499
Eric Thome 2,448
Hummingbird 2,401
Nelson 2,359
Stan Loh 2,263
Sam Wilson 2,241
Judy Hollier 2,232
Erica Ellis 2,202
Wendy D 2,147
TrumanCoyote 2,096
Marty Helly 2,012
DukeWill 1,984
Ray Thyer 1,929
Clint Anglin 1,904
cindyrella 1,888
David Wright 1,866
Clairejeanne 1,851
Cindy LaRosa 1,824
maccharles 1,732
floyd jane 1,713
Ronald Boyt 1,675
Noel Downs 1,620
Iggy 1,583
Cal 1,574
Jack Swain 1,554
Rick Heenan 1,550
Pete Larsen 1,537
Ann Tygart 1,529
Tom Breshers 1,487
Tom Franz 1,450
RogerS 1,445
Ralph Blight 1,440
Chuck Crowe 1,435
Kenneth Cade 1,429
Rick Norton 1,427
bholt 1,411
Letha Allen 1,406
Stan Simons 1,402
in2piano 1,397
mattbanx 1,384
Jen Shaner 1,367
Charlie Wong 1,347
KevinP 1,324
Vondelle 1,316
Tom W. 1,311
Jan Petter 1,300
scottandrew 1,292
DakLander 1,265
GocartMoz 1,253
Janice & Bud 1,242
Ian Ferrin 1,230
IdeaGuy 1,209
Glen King 1,209
AaronAuthier 1,177
Diane Ewing 1,158
PeteG 1,146
summeoyo 1,083
Gerry 1,076
BobbyJoe 1,075
joro 1,045
S.DEE 1,040
yann 1,037
Tony A 1,016
argo 986
peaden 984
Wolvman 960
Jak Kelly 912
krtinberg 890
IronKnee 884
Petra 883
Drifter 856
RJC 845
Brenda152 840
Nadia 827
Juan 797
TKO 784
frahmes 781
teletwang 762
lane1777 746
90 dB 745
tbryson 736
Andy Kemp 732
Andy K 729
Jackie444 718
3daveyO3 704
Dayson 703
Dixie 701
Joy Boy 695
ant 694
Knute 686
Lee Arten 678
Katziis 652
R.T.MOORE 638
quality 637
CG King 622
douglas 621
Mel 614
NaomiSue 601
Shandy 589
Ria 587
TAMERA64 583
qbaum 570
nitepiano 565
pRISCILLA 556
Tink2 553
musica 539
deanbell 528
RobertK 527
9ne 525
Roderic 522
Irwin 517
BB Wilbur 511
pathardy 510
goodfolks 499
Moosesong 490
Zeek 487
Stu 486
Steve P. 481
KathyW 462
allenb 459
MaxG 458
Philjo 454
fanito 448
trush48 448
R&M 442
dmk 442
arealrush 437
DGR 436
avweek 435
Stephen D 433
Emmy 431
Rob L 426
marquez 422
kit 419
Softkrome 417
kyrksongs 415
RRon 408
Laura G. 407
VNORTH 407
Debra 407
eb 406
cuebald 399
EdPerrone 398
Dannyk1 395
Hobart 395
Davyboy49 393
Smile 389
GJShades 387
Ezt 384
tone 380
Marla 380
iggyiggy 378
coalminer 377
Cecilee 376
java 374
spidey 371
sweetsong 370
danny 367
Jim Ryan 360
papaG 353
Alek 351
Z - man 350
John K 348
JamesDF5 347
Jaden 344
ddreuter 341
TheBaz 340
Steggy 339
leif 339
tonedeaf 336
rickwork 334
Eddie Ray 332
Johnboy 328
Bob Lever 328
Helicon1 327
lucian 326
Muskie 321
kc 319
Z. Mulls 318
ptondreau 313
ONOFFON 312
Chris B. 310
trush 304
ed323 297
Ellen M 293
lizzorn 291
nicnac49 290
pomeranj 289
Char 286
ktunes 285
mastrose 280
pammie 279
Register Today!
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!
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
#1126036 - 03/30/17 09:46 PM BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT  
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
summeoyo Offline
Top 500 Poster
summeoyo  Offline
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
Harrisburg, PA, USA
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.

#1126037 - 03/30/17 10:30 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Brian Austin Whitney Online content
Brian Austin Whitney  Online Content


Top 10 Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Indianapolis, IN USA
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@aol.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney


#1126043 - 03/31/17 09:08 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,746
Marc Barnette Offline
Top 100 Poster
Marc Barnette  Offline
Top 100 Poster

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,746
Nashville, Tn.
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

#1126044 - 03/31/17 09:49 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,699
Ray E. Strode Online content
Top 40 Poster
Ray E. Strode  Online Content
Top 40 Poster

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,699
Brunswick, Ga. USA
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
#1126046 - 03/31/17 10:44 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,743
Colin Ward Offline
Colin Ward  Offline

Top 25 Poster

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,743
Saint Petersburg. FL
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......


Colin

I try to critique as if you mean business.....

http://colinwardmusic.com/

http://rosewoodcreekband.com/


#1126050 - 03/31/17 11:21 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 963
David Gill Offline
Top 500 Poster
David Gill  Offline
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 963
Buffalo, NY
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"
#1126051 - 03/31/17 11:36 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
John Lawrence Schick Offline
Top 25 Poster
John Lawrence Schick  Offline
Top 25 Poster

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
PA
From the US Copyright Office:

U.S. Copyright Office
www.copyright.gov/eco/help-author.html
Music 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 smile

#1126085 - 04/01/17 11:22 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,465
Michael Zaneski Offline
Top 100 Poster
Michael Zaneski  Offline
Top 100 Poster

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,465
California
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." wink

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)
#1126086 - 04/01/17 01:14 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: John Lawrence Schick]  
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Toby Barns Offline
Serious Contributor
Toby Barns  Offline
Serious Contributor

Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Central Illinois
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.

#1126098 - 04/01/17 05:22 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
summeoyo Offline
Top 500 Poster
summeoyo  Offline
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
Harrisburg, PA, USA
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?

#1126100 - 04/01/17 07:26 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Toby Barns Offline
Serious Contributor
Toby Barns  Offline
Serious Contributor

Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Central Illinois
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.

#1126106 - 04/01/17 10:08 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
summeoyo Offline
Top 500 Poster
summeoyo  Offline
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
Harrisburg, PA, USA
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.

#1126111 - 04/02/17 06:46 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Toby Barns Offline
Serious Contributor
Toby Barns  Offline
Serious Contributor

Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Central Illinois
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.

#1126114 - 04/02/17 09:58 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
John Lawrence Schick Offline
Top 25 Poster
John Lawrence Schick  Offline
Top 25 Poster

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
PA
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 smile

#1126117 - 04/02/17 12:40 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: Marc Barnette]  
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 689
Martin Lide Online content
Top 500 Poster
Martin Lide  Online Content
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 689
Houston, Texas
Originally Posted by Marc Barnette
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.
#1126121 - 04/02/17 06:12 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
summeoyo Offline
Top 500 Poster
summeoyo  Offline
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
Harrisburg, PA, USA
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.

#1126122 - 04/02/17 06:42 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
John Lawrence Schick Offline
Top 25 Poster
John Lawrence Schick  Offline
Top 25 Poster

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
PA
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 smile

#1126123 - 04/02/17 07:12 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
MidniteBob Online content
Top 200 Poster
MidniteBob  Online Content
Top 200 Poster

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
Raleigh, ya'll
Not totally inapropos...Thanks to Warren Zevon...

Send Lawyers Guns and Money....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP5Xv7QqXiM

Midnite




Satchel was right. Something is gaining on me.

The Shoebox & Dinner at Eight trailers available at:

http://www.twometer.com/Two_Meter_Studios/HOME.html
#1126124 - 04/02/17 07:24 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: MidniteBob]  
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
MidniteBob Online content
Top 200 Poster
MidniteBob  Online Content
Top 200 Poster

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
Raleigh, ya'll
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=4PLvdmifDSk

Midnite....:-)




Satchel was right. Something is gaining on me.

The Shoebox & Dinner at Eight trailers available at:

http://www.twometer.com/Two_Meter_Studios/HOME.html
#1126126 - 04/02/17 09:15 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Toby Barns Offline
Serious Contributor
Toby Barns  Offline
Serious Contributor

Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Central Illinois
Midnite - AWESOME call with Send Lawyers Guns and Money man!

That song is rockin!!

#1126127 - 04/03/17 12:20 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
MidniteBob Online content
Top 200 Poster
MidniteBob  Online Content
Top 200 Poster

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
Raleigh, ya'll
Well, Toby...I can't argue with ya if yer gonna be right:-)

Midnite






Satchel was right. Something is gaining on me.

The Shoebox & Dinner at Eight trailers available at:

http://www.twometer.com/Two_Meter_Studios/HOME.html
#1126150 - 04/03/17 02:49 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,465
Michael Zaneski Offline
Top 100 Poster
Michael Zaneski  Offline
Top 100 Poster

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,465
California
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)
#1126157 - 04/03/17 06:46 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
summeoyo Offline
Top 500 Poster
summeoyo  Offline
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,083
Harrisburg, PA, USA
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?)

#1126159 - 04/03/17 07:05 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Brian Austin Whitney Online content
Brian Austin Whitney  Online Content


Top 10 Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Indianapolis, IN USA
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@aol.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney


#1126181 - 04/04/17 10:06 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,743
Colin Ward Offline
Colin Ward  Offline

Top 25 Poster

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,743
Saint Petersburg. FL
Of course, some songs are so obvious............

I'd Rather Go Blind.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sq3ME0JHQ

Tennessee Whiskey.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=102&v=JqPcXhqQHQ8


Colin

I try to critique as if you mean business.....

http://colinwardmusic.com/

http://rosewoodcreekband.com/


#1126218 - 04/04/17 07:15 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: Colin Ward]  
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
MidniteBob Online content
Top 200 Poster
MidniteBob  Online Content
Top 200 Poster

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
Raleigh, ya'll
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=13BK0OT4Py0

To quote Yogi Berra: You could look it up:-)


Midnite





Satchel was right. Something is gaining on me.

The Shoebox & Dinner at Eight trailers available at:

http://www.twometer.com/Two_Meter_Studios/HOME.html
#1126219 - 04/04/17 07:36 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: MidniteBob]  
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
MidniteBob Online content
Top 200 Poster
MidniteBob  Online Content
Top 200 Poster

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
Raleigh, ya'll
...And if anyone over the age of 60 wants to Google...

"Your The Reason God Made Oklahoma"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt5mZfcdguc

You 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-M79Lfrw

Legitimate 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=d1oyvAMtFsk

Midnite


Satchel was right. Something is gaining on me.

The Shoebox & Dinner at Eight trailers available at:

http://www.twometer.com/Two_Meter_Studios/HOME.html
#1126223 - 04/04/17 08:39 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,699
Ray E. Strode Online content
Top 40 Poster
Ray E. Strode  Online Content
Top 40 Poster

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,699
Brunswick, Ga. USA
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
#1126224 - 04/04/17 09:14 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
MidniteBob Online content
Top 200 Poster
MidniteBob  Online Content
Top 200 Poster

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
Raleigh, ya'll
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


Satchel was right. Something is gaining on me.

The Shoebox & Dinner at Eight trailers available at:

http://www.twometer.com/Two_Meter_Studios/HOME.html
#1126227 - 04/04/17 10:35 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
MidniteBob Online content
Top 200 Poster
MidniteBob  Online Content
Top 200 Poster

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,568
Raleigh, ya'll
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_VME

Wait 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


Satchel was right. Something is gaining on me.

The Shoebox & Dinner at Eight trailers available at:

http://www.twometer.com/Two_Meter_Studios/HOME.html
#1126249 - 04/05/17 10:26 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Toby Barns Offline
Serious Contributor
Toby Barns  Offline
Serious Contributor

Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 123
Central Illinois
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.

#1126251 - 04/05/17 10:51 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: Toby Barns]  
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 689
Martin Lide Online content
Top 500 Poster
Martin Lide  Online Content
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 689
Houston, Texas
Originally Posted by Toby Barns
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 wink

#1126279 - 04/05/17 05:40 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: MidniteBob]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Brian Austin Whitney Online content
Brian Austin Whitney  Online Content


Top 10 Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Indianapolis, IN USA
Originally Posted by MidniteBob
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=13BK0OT4Py0

To quote Yogi Berra: You could look it up:-)


Midnite





I'd forgotten all about "that song"


Brian Austin Whitney
Founder
Just Plain Folks
jpfolkspro@aol.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney


#1126304 - 04/06/17 02:28 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,465
Michael Zaneski Offline
Top 100 Poster
Michael Zaneski  Offline
Top 100 Poster

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,465
California
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. wink

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)
#1126316 - 04/06/17 10:11 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: Michael Zaneski]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Brian Austin Whitney Online content
Brian Austin Whitney  Online Content


Top 10 Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Indianapolis, IN USA
Originally Posted by Michael Zaneski
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. wink

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@aol.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney


#1126331 - 04/07/17 01:48 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: Brian Austin Whitney]  
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,465
Michael Zaneski Offline
Top 100 Poster
Michael Zaneski  Offline
Top 100 Poster

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,465
California
Originally Posted by Brian Austin Whitney


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)
#1126821 - 04/21/17 11:17 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18
sjames17 Offline
Casual Observer
sjames17  Offline
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=4Gd1I3DmEd4

Tom 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

#1126829 - 04/21/17 02:07 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,746
Marc Barnette Offline
Top 100 Poster
Marc Barnette  Offline
Top 100 Poster

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,746
Nashville, Tn.
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.

#1126842 - 04/21/17 08:13 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18
sjames17 Offline
Casual Observer
sjames17  Offline
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.
#1126844 - 04/21/17 08:34 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,699
Ray E. Strode Online content
Top 40 Poster
Ray E. Strode  Online Content
Top 40 Poster

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,699
Brunswick, Ga. USA
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
#1126847 - 04/21/17 09:44 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: sjames17]  
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
John Lawrence Schick Offline
Top 25 Poster
John Lawrence Schick  Offline
Top 25 Poster

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
PA
Originally Posted by sjames17
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.html
Music 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 smile

#1126852 - 04/21/17 11:37 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18
sjames17 Offline
Casual Observer
sjames17  Offline
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....

#1126861 - 04/22/17 01:48 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: sjames17]  
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
John Lawrence Schick Offline
Top 25 Poster
John Lawrence Schick  Offline
Top 25 Poster

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
PA
Originally Posted by sjames17
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 smile

#1126876 - 04/22/17 10:59 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: summeoyo]  
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 18
sjames17 Offline
Casual Observer
sjames17  Offline
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

#1126883 - 04/22/17 11:59 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: sjames17]  
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
John Lawrence Schick Offline
Top 25 Poster
John Lawrence Schick  Offline
Top 25 Poster

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,318
PA
Originally Posted by sjames17
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 smile

#1126889 - 04/22/17 03:39 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: Marc Barnette]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Brian Austin Whitney Online content
Brian Austin Whitney  Online Content


Top 10 Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Indianapolis, IN USA
Originally Posted by Marc Barnette
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@aol.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney


#1126890 - 04/22/17 03:56 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: John Lawrence Schick]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Brian Austin Whitney Online content
Brian Austin Whitney  Online Content


Top 10 Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Indianapolis, IN USA
Originally Posted by John Lawrence Schick
Originally Posted by sjames17
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 smile


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@aol.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney


#1126990 - 04/25/17 06:39 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: Marc Barnette]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 510
pathardy Offline
Top 500 Poster
pathardy  Offline
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by Marc Barnette
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.

#1126991 - 04/25/17 06:42 PM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: John Lawrence Schick]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 510
pathardy Offline
Top 500 Poster
pathardy  Offline
Top 500 Poster

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by John Lawrence Schick
Originally Posted by sjames17
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 smile


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.

#1127033 - 04/26/17 11:31 AM Re: BLURRED LINES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [Re: pathardy]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Brian Austin Whitney Online content
Brian Austin Whitney  Online Content


Top 10 Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 18,063
Indianapolis, IN USA
Originally Posted by pathardy
Originally Posted by Marc Barnette
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@aol.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney



Support Just Plain Folks

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.


Membership
Join Just Plain Folks
to receive the free
JPNotes Newsletter!
*this is separate from
message board registration*

Newest Members
Ilmer_uzumaki, Suellen, NickDawes, tanell59, Ellie Fabe
20897 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums116
Topics116,492
Posts1,097,731
Members20,897
Average Posts Daily40
Most Online1,506
Mar 16th, 2017
Just Plain Quotes
"That's just my opinion, I could be right" -Brian Austin Whitney
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0