MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: when the shoe is on the other foot (music soundbite ripoff)  (Read 2889 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tan510jomast

« on: March 22, 2009, 10:44 »
0
as an artist who writes and sell music in my younger days, i now am standing in the middle as to copyright infringement. we all know how angry and rightly so, protective, we get when we find someone ripping off our photographs OR concept.
now , as i look through youtube and other public threads, i see people using music bites to publicize their own wares.
as a recording engineer in the 80s, i was told 4 bars is legal, after i questioned how some advertiser can ripoff smoke on the water intro. at that time, it was an exception . nowadays with rap music and video games, i hear all my favourite riffs being used as i lived in an apartment building with walls as thin as cardboard.
i hear mahavishnu orchestra, deep purple, jeff beck, king crimson,etc.. mindnumbing riffs repeatedly all day. i went downstairs to check out why this is so.
the neighbour's mother said her son is playing video games.
ah so ! i wonder if these companies and artists of the other fields are actually paying royalties to use them. if not, i can see why the public at large , ie. commonfolks , think it's okay to use our images for their own sites too.
it's an industry thing, isn't it?  oh, so i can't use your stock photos? but the video games can rip off "20st century schzoid man", "catfood", "willie the pimp", "mars",etc.. ???
if one is wrong, the other is not right.  we should look more to changing copyright infringement as awhole. not just with our self interest as photographers. and myself , like many of you i discovered lately, who are musicians too.
what do you think? fire away....


RacePhoto

« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2009, 22:51 »
0
Glad you put this in off topic. I thought that the rap versions were paying royalties on obvious copied themes. There was some sort of judgment against sampling portions of old songs which was going on all the time with the scratch tracks and re-sampling things.

Speaking of Holst "The Planets" (Mars) and rip off, since you mentioned Willie the Pimp, you'll recognize some serious re-use of a melody in "Call any Vegetable" lifted directly from Holst.  ;D The apparent segment that sounds like Louie Louie (as if someone could copyright a three chord rock progression anyway) actually had one note cleverly changed.

I wonder if the Iron Man you heard was identical or has the one note change, to make it legal. I don't want to go there. I'm not defending them, but sometimes things aren't exactly what they sound like on the surface. My Sweet Lord...  ::) Ghostbusters / I need a new Drug. Was Smoke on the Water the first or had that riff been used many times by others.

Ledbelly, Robert Johnson and T-bone Walker own the right to almost every blues song written after them.  ;D

« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2009, 03:20 »
0
It will be interesting to see how Coldplay get on, they are being sued over this.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvB9Pj9Znsw" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvB9Pj9Znsw</a>

tan510jomast

« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2009, 09:43 »
0
Race,
the thing that makes copyright infringement full of loopholes is that you can "steal" chord progressions, but not licks.
you can even "steal" lyrics as long as it's not too obvious. but even that , it's not all in black and white, or should i say lines and dot, heh heh!
eg.  elmore james "dust my blues" ...  has been "composed" by every other blues musicians worth their salt.
or you could reverse a tune and call it your own. like chick corea "spain" which is rodrigo 's  "aranjuez" played backwards.

such a loophole is what could also affect photography .
eg. do you remember that famous cover on National Geographics of a native girl from the andes or wherever?
i actually walked by a gallery in Montreal once, where they was in the shop window a painting of it. no attempt to change anything. identical colours,etc..
only thing different was painted instead of the photograph itself.
i wonder if National Geographic would have approved.

my mind boggles. my point is, no matter what you do , as an artist, to protect your work, you can be sure as hell fire , someone will find a loop hole to plagiarize it "legally".  like the ad with John Waits voiceover?

RacePhoto

« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2009, 12:34 »
0
Tan, music is different from photos and I don't disagree with you. I'll stick with photo issues. Roll Over Bethoven ELO using Bethoven's 5th as the opening lines. :)

Making a painting or drawing from a photo, say a cover of National Geographic is not considered a derivative work. However if someone does and abstract using segments of other photos, like the guy who used feet from shoe ads, it appears that the collage is a new work. I think that stinks, but that's the court system. I've seen people who call themselves artists, doing drawing and paintings from the cover of Time. I call it imitation and copying.

This one is interesting, the artist is using photos as his source material. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2008887655_apartistalabama.html

"Daniel Moore, the football artist in a legal battle with the University of Alabama over trademark law, is taking orders for a new painting "The Blowout," depicting the Tide's 36-0 rout of Auburn last November.

Moore, whose depictions of celebrated moments in Alabama football history have become collectors' items, was sued four years ago by the university, which claimed trademark law violations and sought payment of licensing fees.

Moore and his publishing company, New Art Life Inc., filed a countersuit, accusing the university of damaging his business. His attorneys contend his work captures historic events and is speech protected by the Constitution."   ;D

There have been successful suits against people who have re-shot a well known photo, same style, lighting and positioning of the models. (in one case a polka dot dress) Copying is not legal when it comes too close to the original.

This one is pretty well known. Rodgers vs Koons puppy sculpture made from Rodgers photo on a postcard. Koons likes to push the limits of reproduction of other words, as derivatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/19/nyregion/a-picture-a-sculpture-and-a-lawsuit.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

While there are many "loopholes" in music, there are less in photography.

Sometimes we see complaints here about copying concepts. I made what I thought was an original shot back when I got the first 100mm macro lens. I posted it here and someone linked me to about a half dozen other similar photos, already up on stock sites. Of course mine is the best!  ::) I don't think someone could claim anything for "couple walking on the beach" "business handshake" "lady on headset at computer" or many other everyday events. Copying the original is illegal, shooting the same concept would be hard, if not impossible, to prosecute.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
MUSIC!

Started by ludesal Off Topic

23 Replies
8888 Views
Last post March 10, 2007, 11:54
by digiology
11 Replies
6637 Views
Last post November 13, 2007, 13:00
by sharply_done
3 Replies
3535 Views
Last post March 30, 2009, 04:29
by RacePhoto
23 Replies
7914 Views
Last post September 06, 2012, 13:38
by JPSDK
9 Replies
4765 Views
Last post April 02, 2014, 01:25
by nicku

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors