Pollstar: In September we reported that members of Blind Melon filed suit in a California court against popular YouTube dance instructor/aspiring popstar Mandy Jiroux and other co-defendants, notably her manager Kenneth Komisar, for creating the song “Insane,” which was undisputedly derived from the band’s ’90s hit “No Rain.” The original complaint claims the defendants initially presented the work as a cover and concealed that “Insane” was actually a derivative work that required a different kind of license.
2 comments:
As sympathetic as I might be to the original band for potentially losing value for their work and even though it feels like this article is trying to make the defendants’ side look like they are grasping for ridiculous straws, Jiroux and her co-defendants do have a point. Just using the information in this article, it does look like the original band never said Jiroux couldn’t make and publish her song. Yes, they said they didn’t want to participate in it but that’s all they said. There was no point when they flat out said “no you can’t make a song inspired by our work.” They were even discussing how to split the royalties from the new piece, at that point you can’t claim you didn’t know they were going ahead with their plan to make a new song. Beyond that, the large publishing houses of the music industry are well known for how ferociously they pursue people who infringe on their intellectual property. If Blind Melon had any kind of case here Sony would be there too adding its resources to the fight to ensure it got its cut of the money. The fact that it isn’t participating should be a sign to Blind Melon about their chances of winning this case.
Well, this is interesting to say the least. I think that licensing — especially covers — is very tricky and that is why you fill out the necessary paper work. I am also wondering about why Sony are not involved here since — in theory — they are the ones who gave out the rights to the track. I am unsure about how much power the band has in this sort of situation. I think that the defendants do have some grounds to work off of, but I do think that the last email is a little bit of a childish stretch for an interpretation. I think it could work but I do think it is a stretch. I am interested to see what actually happens to this case because it would provide some interesting insight as to how to go about completing covers, which is something that defiantly interests me, and what the protocols are.
Post a Comment