Techdirt: There were two very interesting stories last week concerning hit songs allegedly "inspired" by hits from previous decades, but the stories are quite different. First up, was the news that Robin Thicke (along with Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris Jr.), whose song Blurred Lines appears to be the undisputed hit of the summer this year (with some controversy over the content), had filed for a declaratory judgment against Marvin Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music, after those two claimed that Blurred Lines infringes on Marvin Gaye's Got to Give it Up and Funkadelic's Sexy Ways.
4 comments:
I've actually heard of this happening before and I honestly can't decide which side I would support. In one way, yes it is copyright infringement but on the other hand, if the one being copied sees it as a compliment, is it still a problem? Pete Townshend had nothing against the similarities of his song and One Direction's song... so does that still make it illegal? When we were little we hated it when other people copied what we did, but then the idea that 'copying is the biggest sign of flattery' was thrown around, well then what am I supposed to say about that!? "No, I don't want your admiration for a piece of work that I made?!"
I guess, the reason my head keeps spinning around this subject is because everything we do is inspired by what we see others doing and what is around us. So if our final product is similar to our inspiration, is it wrong, or should we just accept it as flattery? Sometimes I think I prefer flattery!
I think that the more our popular music becomes fueled by sampling techniques, the more gray this issue is going to become until it simply ceases to be one. We are hearing more and more pop songs that copy pretty directly from bass lines and guitar riffs from past decades, and no one makes a fuss then. It is common practice in classical music for composers to copy/borrow chord progressions and lines from each other, and it is understood as a way of paying homage to previous innovators and those who paved the way for new genres of music. No one can own musical notes, and in my opinion, hearing a new song that is similar to an old song just strengthens the trend and gets both sides good publicity (and ultimately more sales)
Using other people's music as inspiration happens a lot in the music industry.
For instance, in the movie industry directors use a temp track (an existing piece of music or audio)during the editing phase as a guideline for the composer for the mood or atmosphere the director is looking for in a scene.
The problem with this tracks is that sometimes the director becomes so attached to them, that he forces the composer to compose "original work" for the movie that sounds extremely similar to the temp this music. Because of that composers really hate temp music.
I know of an example from Star Wars were The Imperial March and Chopin Sonata No.2 in B flat Minor sound really similar. It's quite weird actually.
Although I understand that artists and recording labels have a right to protect their music from legitimate infringement, this does not seem to be the issue in this case. Bridgeport seems to be playing the role of the patent troll in order to extract some money out of the whole affair. Well at least it's understandable..
There are several highly successful companies who simply buy up patents and turn around and sue other companies to extract lucrative patenting fees. The tech industry definitely comes to mind. It is not surprising to see the same tactics employed in such a gray area as the music industry.
Post a Comment