I am setting up this blog to address a number of technical and legal issues that, over the long run, can affect the freedom of media newbies like me to speak freely on the Internet and other low-cost media that have developed in the past ten years.
Since the 1990s I have been very involved with fighting the military "don't ask don't tell" policy for gays in the military, and with First Amendment issues. Best contact is 571-334-6107 (legitimate calls; messages can be left; if not picked up retry; I don't answer when driving) Three other url's: doaskdotell.com, billboushka.com johnwboushka.com Links to my URLs are provided for legitimate content and user navigation purposes only.
My legal name is "John William Boushka" or "John W. Boushka"; my parents gave me the nickname of "Bill" based on my middle name, and this is how I am generally greeted. This is also the name for my book authorship. On the Web, you can find me as both "Bill Boushka" and "John W. Boushka"; this has been the case since the late 1990s. Sometimes I can be located as "John Boushka" without the "W." That's the identity my parents dealt me in 1943!
Musicians generally disagree with the "Blurred Lines" verdict, for good reason; compare to classical music examples
So did Robin Thicke really “plagiarize” Marvin
Gaye? The YouTube clip below is one of
the closest comparisons I can find.
Generally, other musicians (including pop) are saying,
no, the two songs are different, and the “sampling” does not represent
infringement.
I hear an underlying common rhythm, with very similar
instrumentation, but different melodies.
That would correspond to a “ground bass” of a passacaglia or chaconne in
classical music.
The copyright applies to the score itself (separately
to words and music), and to a performance. But just as with facts in
non-fiction literature, actual chords and rhythms cannot be copyrighted.
Imagine if the underlying technique of Phillip Glass’s
music was “copyrighted”. It’s not so
different from the effective use of repetition with original rhythms in the
scherzos or some symphonies, from Beethoven to Bruckner.
Imagine, furthermore, that the opening theme of the
Mahler Third is viewed as “stolen” from the heroic theme of the Finale of the
Brahms First, which itself comes from Beethoven’s Ninth.
Furthermore, the opening of Bruckner’s Third Symphony
is based on the opening of the Beethoven Ninth. And the reconstructed Finale
versions (now gaining authenticity) of the Bruckner Ninth usually take the
Bruckner Third, Seventh, and Beethoven Ninth opening and put them together for
one “cathedral” effect. How would
artists offering “completions” of various works (or “recompositions”) protect
themselves from litigation?
Vox has a detailedanalysis of the jury ruling by
Kelsey McKinney here.
“Who sampled whom” analyzes Thicke against DMV, Detox,
Vicky Vox and Belli. Belli, here.
The New York Times has an article by litigating attorney Richard S. Busch, by Beb Sisario, linkhere. The attorney says that musicians don't like to sue record companies because they fear blackballing.
Update: March 19 Ars Technica reports (Megan Guess) that the Gaye family has asked the judge to enjoin sales or distribution of the infringing "Blurred Lines" until royalty payments are made, link here, Also, the original work was created before a change in copyright law in 1977.
Update: March 21 Here is a New York Timesreview (by Anthony Tommasini) of a concert by David Kaplan on adaptations from Schumann, comparing the classical world to popular in the discussion, as to how copyright is viewed. I'll try to find more details on this later, as I was not in NYC to attend this.
No comments:
Post a Comment