Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Friday, August 30, 2019
'Baby Shark', Derived From A Public Domain Folk Song, Now The Subject Of A Copyright Dispute
Techdirt: If you have had a toddler in your house sometime over the past few years, you likely already know all about the "Baby Shark" song. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you are among the luckiest people on the planet. Except now I'm going to embed the video below to ensure you are aware of it.
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Fascinating. A person is claiming ownership of a song that since it first came out no one else has ever claimed and he is doing so only after several years of the song being out there in the minds of people everywhere. If we apply US Copyright law (which we can’t because we know this is South Korea and their laws are different from ours), he would not have a case because he would not be able to prove that any part of his song is original and not a derivative of what is known as an original work. Also, he too would be guilty of copyright infringement having made a version that is very similar to the original work in the first place. U.S. Courts have continuously ruled in favor of companies who sue others for copyright infringement of things like slogans and logos. The logic used by the courts is that if a regular person could infer a connection to, sponsorship of, or some form of relationship to the original work and the creator of the new work did not have permission from the original creator, then it’s infringement. Although it is in South Korea and U.S. courts rarely ever use international laws as any type of precedence, it will still be interesting to watch.
Baby Shark is a well known catchy song across the world. It is unsurprising that there is a copyright lawsuit in motion. Many popular songs are based on other works. In this instance, there are two works that are almost identical, both based on a song that is in the public domain. The public domain is comprised of works without copyright, therefore anyone can use them. When multiple works are founded from the same source it is hard to navigate a lawsuit, like in the case of Baby Shark. Many students can relate to this struggle due to the similarities of copyright infringement and plagiarism/academic dishonesty. In a world where everything is public and permanent online, it is hard to navigate the line of inspiration and copying. There is no way to paraphrase a song like using a source in an essay. It would be awkward to cite another song in the creation of another, however, if something is in the public domain, it is free for use. This copyright case is going to be a hard battle due to the lack of evidence that either side could support their argument with. This case shows the world, especially those in the education setting, how vital it is to always cite your sources.
I guess this is a revelatory realization...? I have always thought that the Baby Shark song was in the public domain because I did not know there was an author. I also very distinctly remember almost 10 years ago when this song was popular too. We all sang it around the campfires or during summer camps, and I just have always thought it was a common song like "Down by the banks". What is interesting about this article is with Only claiming copyright for only the length, rhythm, tempo, and style. Since this song is considered in the public domain, it will be interesting to see if Only's lawsuit will win or not. If he wins, this could set a precedent for other lawsuits across the country as well. I also did not know that this song was from South Korea. It will be interesting to see what the courts in South Korea decide. However, I do think it will take awhile for this to settle, as South Korea has a lot more going on besides a lawsuit over Baby Shark. Just my two sense.
I guess this is a revelatory realization...? I have always thought that the Baby Shark song was in the public domain because I did not know there was an author. I also very distinctly remember almost 10 years ago when this song was popular too. We all sang it around the campfires or during summer camps, and I just have always thought it was a common song like "Down by the banks". What is interesting about this article is with Only claiming copyright for only the length, rhythm, tempo, and style. Since this song is considered in the public domain, it will be interesting to see if Only's lawsuit will win or not. If he wins, this could set a precedent for other lawsuits across the country as well. I also did not know that this song was from South Korea. It will be interesting to see what the courts in South Korea decide. However, I do think it will take awhile for this to settle, as South Korea has a lot more going on besides a lawsuit over Baby Shark. Just my two sense.
(Sorry the first comment I made was with my Andrew ID)
Baby Shark is a well known catchy song across the world. It is unsurprising that there is a copyright lawsuit in motion. Many popular songs are based on other works. In this instance, there are two works that are almost identical, both based on a song that is in the public domain. The public domain is comprised of works without copyright, therefore anyone can use them. When multiple works are founded from the same source it is hard to navigate a lawsuit, like in the case of Baby Shark. Many students can relate to this struggle due to the similarities of copyright infringement and plagiarism/academic dishonesty. In a world where everything is public and permanent online, it is hard to navigate the line of inspiration and copying. There is no way to paraphrase a song like using a source in an essay. It would be awkward to cite another song in the creation of another, however, if something is in the public domain, it is free for use. This copyright case is going to be a hard battle due to the lack of evidence that either side could support their argument with. This case shows the world, especially those in the education setting, how vital it is to always cite your sources.
The issue of copyright and songs sounding similar is a very interesting one that has been prevalent for a while now. Recently, there has been a case involving Katy Perry’s song Dark Horse being similar to a Christian rap song made many years earlier. The jury voted against Dark Horse and in favor of the rap song. This caused a large backlash due to the fact that the evidence being presented was almost universally recognized by many professionals with no ties to the case as a misrepresentation. An interesting point brought up in the article concerning Baby Shark is the idea that the lawsuit was created following the success of the other song. This was a similar and strange situation with Dark Horse, a song that has existed for a decent amount of time prior to the lawsuit being filed. The difference with this situation, however, is the fact that it is an issue concerning the public domain. The ambiguity of copyright in this situation makes it very interesting, especially considering it’s a very popular children’s song.
Whilst it is disappointing to hear this drama surrounding this "beloved" song, it is no surprise. I once learned that although we, as artists, think that we are creatives coming up with new ideas, a lot of what is in our heads come from what we have seen in the world. Many times the inspiration in our minds are transformed in a way where it becomes something new, but often times it may be something that is already out there. As far as the Johnny Only vs. Pinkfong case goes, Pinkfong may have, in fact, stolen Only's work. However, it does seem as though they have both heard the original version, which may be pretty close to their versions of Baby Shark, and decided to recreate it without much creativity. I must add, there are only so many musical notes out there. So in the name of recreating a folk song and staying close to the original, they both may have accidentally been on the same wavelength with their creativity.
I absolutely love this story. In my time doing blog post comments, I have always found copyright litigation to be some of the most interesting stories. It seems like the song still belongs in public domain. I am interested to see how the courts will decide, especially not knowing much about copyright law in South Korea. I wish the article went into a little more description of that process. I think it will be very difficult to claim that this song belongs to someone and take it back out of public domain. With the nature of children’s songs, almost everything is part of public domain. By giving it ownership and therefore adding a cost to the song, I believe its popularity would dwindle. Ultimately, I believe it would be in most people's favor to have it stay in the public domain. I do wonder though, why is this happening now seeing as the song gained popularity almost a decade ago.
I find this article very interesting because you wouldn’t think that such a silly song would become such a widespread phenomenon. I had no idea that the song “Baby Shark” came from an already established campfire song, the author of which is unknown. This copyright violation case seems to be a bit of a sticky situation since neither parties of this lawsuit are the original author and the original version is technically in the public domain. Johnny Only will have to really make a detailed case for the length, tempo, and style of Pinkfong’s being too similar to his own. It is a little ridiculous that Only is suing Pinkfong over a song that isn’t even his own, but greed and jealousy are powerful emotions. In this technological age, it seems as though people will do anything to get attention in the media. The only thing that would make this case even more complicated would be if the author of the original version of “Baby Shark” finally revealed himself with evidence to prove it.
I definitely remember singing this as a campfire song at camp growing up, and remember being very confused as to how it became such a widespread phenomenon. I have baby cousins that have gone to baby shark concerts and have all kinds of merchandise, but I never really thought about how much profit there is to be made with something like this. It is always clear that profit is why things like these lawsuits happen, which I would not have assumed would not be too large for something as simple as a children's song, but it must be substantial if people are looking to capitalize on it like this. It is always hard when it comes to something in the public domain and people begin to stake claims based upon their interpretation or adaptation of it, but I think that public domain exists so that people can have art to use that is accessible.
11 comments:
Fascinating. A person is claiming ownership of a song that since it first came out no one else has ever claimed and he is doing so only after several years of the song being out there in the minds of people everywhere. If we apply US Copyright law (which we can’t because we know this is South Korea and their laws are different from ours), he would not have a case because he would not be able to prove that any part of his song is original and not a derivative of what is known as an original work. Also, he too would be guilty of copyright infringement having made a version that is very similar to the original work in the first place. U.S. Courts have continuously ruled in favor of companies who sue others for copyright infringement of things like slogans and logos. The logic used by the courts is that if a regular person could infer a connection to, sponsorship of, or some form of relationship to the original work and the creator of the new work did not have permission from the original creator, then it’s infringement. Although it is in South Korea and U.S. courts rarely ever use international laws as any type of precedence, it will still be interesting to watch.
Baby Shark is a well known catchy song across the world. It is unsurprising that there is a copyright lawsuit in motion. Many popular songs are based on other works. In this instance, there are two works that are almost identical, both based on a song that is in the public domain. The public domain is comprised of works without copyright, therefore anyone can use them. When multiple works are founded from the same source it is hard to navigate a lawsuit, like in the case of Baby Shark. Many students can relate to this struggle due to the similarities of copyright infringement and plagiarism/academic dishonesty. In a world where everything is public and permanent online, it is hard to navigate the line of inspiration and copying. There is no way to paraphrase a song like using a source in an essay. It would be awkward to cite another song in the creation of another, however, if something is in the public domain, it is free for use. This copyright case is going to be a hard battle due to the lack of evidence that either side could support their argument with. This case shows the world, especially those in the education setting, how vital it is to always cite your sources.
I keep trying everything I can, but nothing seems to work for me, so sorry. The comment made at 2:39pm on 8/30 was written by Bianca Sforza.
I guess this is a revelatory realization...? I have always thought that the Baby Shark song was in the public domain because I did not know there was an author. I also very distinctly remember almost 10 years ago when this song was popular too. We all sang it around the campfires or during summer camps, and I just have always thought it was a common song like "Down by the banks". What is interesting about this article is with Only claiming copyright for only the length, rhythm, tempo, and style. Since this song is considered in the public domain, it will be interesting to see if Only's lawsuit will win or not. If he wins, this could set a precedent for other lawsuits across the country as well. I also did not know that this song was from South Korea. It will be interesting to see what the courts in South Korea decide. However, I do think it will take awhile for this to settle, as South Korea has a lot more going on besides a lawsuit over Baby Shark. Just my two sense.
I guess this is a revelatory realization...? I have always thought that the Baby Shark song was in the public domain because I did not know there was an author. I also very distinctly remember almost 10 years ago when this song was popular too. We all sang it around the campfires or during summer camps, and I just have always thought it was a common song like "Down by the banks". What is interesting about this article is with Only claiming copyright for only the length, rhythm, tempo, and style. Since this song is considered in the public domain, it will be interesting to see if Only's lawsuit will win or not. If he wins, this could set a precedent for other lawsuits across the country as well. I also did not know that this song was from South Korea. It will be interesting to see what the courts in South Korea decide. However, I do think it will take awhile for this to settle, as South Korea has a lot more going on besides a lawsuit over Baby Shark. Just my two sense.
(Sorry the first comment I made was with my Andrew ID)
Baby Shark is a well known catchy song across the world. It is unsurprising that there is a copyright lawsuit in motion. Many popular songs are based on other works. In this instance, there are two works that are almost identical, both based on a song that is in the public domain. The public domain is comprised of works without copyright, therefore anyone can use them. When multiple works are founded from the same source it is hard to navigate a lawsuit, like in the case of Baby Shark. Many students can relate to this struggle due to the similarities of copyright infringement and plagiarism/academic dishonesty. In a world where everything is public and permanent online, it is hard to navigate the line of inspiration and copying. There is no way to paraphrase a song like using a source in an essay. It would be awkward to cite another song in the creation of another, however, if something is in the public domain, it is free for use. This copyright case is going to be a hard battle due to the lack of evidence that either side could support their argument with. This case shows the world, especially those in the education setting, how vital it is to always cite your sources.
The issue of copyright and songs sounding similar is a very interesting one that has been prevalent for a while now. Recently, there has been a case involving Katy Perry’s song Dark Horse being similar to a Christian rap song made many years earlier. The jury voted against Dark Horse and in favor of the rap song. This caused a large backlash due to the fact that the evidence being presented was almost universally recognized by many professionals with no ties to the case as a misrepresentation. An interesting point brought up in the article concerning Baby Shark is the idea that the lawsuit was created following the success of the other song. This was a similar and strange situation with Dark Horse, a song that has existed for a decent amount of time prior to the lawsuit being filed. The difference with this situation, however, is the fact that it is an issue concerning the public domain. The ambiguity of copyright in this situation makes it very interesting, especially considering it’s a very popular children’s song.
- J.D. Hopper
Whilst it is disappointing to hear this drama surrounding this "beloved" song, it is no surprise. I once learned that although we, as artists, think that we are creatives coming up with new ideas, a lot of what is in our heads come from what we have seen in the world. Many times the inspiration in our minds are transformed in a way where it becomes something new, but often times it may be something that is already out there. As far as the Johnny Only vs. Pinkfong case goes, Pinkfong may have, in fact, stolen Only's work. However, it does seem as though they have both heard the original version, which may be pretty close to their versions of Baby Shark, and decided to recreate it without much creativity. I must add, there are only so many musical notes out there. So in the name of recreating a folk song and staying close to the original, they both may have accidentally been on the same wavelength with their creativity.
-Apriah
I absolutely love this story. In my time doing blog post comments, I have always found copyright litigation to be some of the most interesting stories. It seems like the song still belongs in public domain. I am interested to see how the courts will decide, especially not knowing much about copyright law in South Korea. I wish the article went into a little more description of that process. I think it will be very difficult to claim that this song belongs to someone and take it back out of public domain. With the nature of children’s songs, almost everything is part of public domain. By giving it ownership and therefore adding a cost to the song, I believe its popularity would dwindle. Ultimately, I believe it would be in most people's favor to have it stay in the public domain. I do wonder though, why is this happening now seeing as the song gained popularity almost a decade ago.
I find this article very interesting because you wouldn’t think that such a silly song would become such a widespread phenomenon. I had no idea that the song “Baby Shark” came from an already established campfire song, the author of which is unknown. This copyright violation case seems to be a bit of a sticky situation since neither parties of this lawsuit are the original author and the original version is technically in the public domain. Johnny Only will have to really make a detailed case for the length, tempo, and style of Pinkfong’s being too similar to his own. It is a little ridiculous that Only is suing Pinkfong over a song that isn’t even his own, but greed and jealousy are powerful emotions. In this technological age, it seems as though people will do anything to get attention in the media. The only thing that would make this case even more complicated would be if the author of the original version of “Baby Shark” finally revealed himself with evidence to prove it.
-Jillian Warner
I definitely remember singing this as a campfire song at camp growing up, and remember being very confused as to how it became such a widespread phenomenon. I have baby cousins that have gone to baby shark concerts and have all kinds of merchandise, but I never really thought about how much profit there is to be made with something like this. It is always clear that profit is why things like these lawsuits happen, which I would not have assumed would not be too large for something as simple as a children's song, but it must be substantial if people are looking to capitalize on it like this. It is always hard when it comes to something in the public domain and people begin to stake claims based upon their interpretation or adaptation of it, but I think that public domain exists so that people can have art to use that is accessible.
Post a Comment