January 17, 2020 · Leave a Comment
I'd like to highlight a couple of informative and disconcerting articles about the state of infringement litigation in the wake of the "Blurred Lines" decision. Both pieces are worth a full read.
In The New York Times, Jon Caramanica writes that It's Got a Great Beat, and You Can File a Lawsuit to It:
Originality is a con: Pop music history is the history of near overlap. Ideas rarely emerge in complete isolation. In studios around the world, performers, producers and songwriters are all trying to innovate just one step beyond where music currently is, working from the same component parts. It shouldn't be a surprise when some of what they come up with sounds similar — and also like what came before.
The idea that this might be actionable is the new twist. Every song benefits from what preceded it, whether it's a melodic idea, a lyrical motif, a sung rhythm, a drum texture. A forensic analysis of any song would find all sorts of pre-existing DNA. […]
What's left in its wake is a climate of fear. In some recent cases, you can sense pre-emptive gamesmanship, as when Taylor Swift gave a writing credit to Right Said Fred for a cadence on "Look What You Made Me Do" that recalled "I'm Too Sexy." Or the rapid settlement Sam Smith reached with Tom Petty for perceived similarities between "Stay With Me" and "I Won't Back Down." Whether there was a direct borrowing didn't seem to matter; the potential for the perception of theft was enough to instigate an arrangement.
A few years ago, I worked with a songwriter who unexpectedly received a writer's credit on a previously unheard new song. No one contacted this songwriter beforehand — the credit just suddenly appeared on publishing statements. It turns out the 'hook' for the new song was similar to the chorus in a well-known composition the songwriter penned in the '70s. My songwriter friend didn't mind and probably wouldn't have litigated, but was happy with the outcome — the new song ended up a worldwide #1, resulting in a nice payout.
I'm sure this decision — as is the case with most of these preemptive moves — was made by the label's legal team. I imagine a group of on-staff musicologists pouring over every potential hit song looking for the vaguest of similarities. The lawyers are alerted of any resemblance and the original writers are proactively paid off with a credit and publishing share. I find this risky as it informs the original writer of the similarity. Even with the credit, I don't think anything is stopping a writer from claiming copyright infringement, that it's an unauthorized derivative work. A court might see the publicly acknowledged credit as admission. But of course, payment for essentially doing nothing is appreciated, so why bother with the hassle of going legal, right?
In Rolling Stone, Amy X. Wang explains How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits:
While copyright laws used to protect only lyrics and melodies (a prime example is the Chiffons' successful suit against George Harrison in 1976 for the strong compositional similarities between his "My Sweet Lord" and their "He's So Fine"), the "Blurred Lines" case raised the stakes by suggesting that the far more abstract qualities of rhythm, tempo, and even the general feel of a song are also eligible for protection — and thus that a song can be sued for feeling like an earlier one. […] "They're trying to own basic building blocks of music, the alphabet of music that should be available to everyone," [Katy] Perry's lawyer Christine Lepera warned in the case's closing arguments. […]
The popularity of cheap music-production software, which offers the same features to every user, has added another layer of risk. "Music is now more similar than it is different, for the first time," [prodcuer and songwriter Ross]Golan says. "People are using the same sample packs, the same plug-ins, because it's efficient."
Instrument plug-ins, to be intuitive and easy to use, tend to push users in creative directions. Certain built-in sounds rise to the top, as do sequences and arpeggiations included in the presets. Though these are sounds and one can't necessarily be sued for a sound (though it has happened!), the inspiration provided by the built-in options potentially send producers to common destinations. A similar five-note motif using a shared patch or a melodic run from an embedded sequence pattern opens up an incentive to take action. Based on what we've seen, it's uncertain a jury would understand the nuance.
And there are potential problems with services like Splice that offer samples and construction kits used by multiple producers. More than one song can easily feature the same melodic building block, and some sample pack offerings from Splice and other services even include lyrics. If a song based on a Splice melodic loop becomes a hit, what happens to the other songs using the same hook?
With copyright protectors like Content ID, it's who-gets-there-first when it comes to commercially available sample packs. If there's more than one song using a sample pack melody, the first applying for Content ID stakes the claim. Other songs using that melody might get flagged. This issue has happened in the past with Apple Loops, as producers discovered if they used specific melodic loops included with Logic Pro, the songs would get blocked by YouTube for infringing an earlier song using the same loop.
Even if a sample isn't used in its blatant form, or is obscured or twisted in the mix, it likely provides the same inspiration as other producers hearing the same sample. It's not unrealistic to think similar ideas, melodies, or compositional seeds will result from a shared inspirational foundation. Unless there's future legal clarification — or the courts decide to rely on experts rather than juries in infringement cases1Manager Lucas Keller says in the Rolling Stone article: "In British court, they'd just ask a musicologist to decide. In American court, we bring in 10 random people." — paying out 'damages' and carving out writing shares will be an expected ritual for composers of hit songs.
Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With: Apple Loops, Blurred Lines, Content ID, Copyright, Legal Matters, Plug-Ins, Sampling, Songwriting, Splice
January 8, 2020 · Leave a Comment
The definition of 'fair use' is a muddle. We can accept that fair use might apply if a derivative work doesn't seek to earn a profit, transforms the original in some way, and won't discourage purchases of the original work. But the key word there is 'might.' it's all a bit vague, and, in the USA, the definition will vary court-to-court, case-to-case. If you're going to claim 'fair use,' be prepared to defend your interpretation in the legal arena.
Prince's representatives have tussled with fair use claims before, most famously losing the long-running 'dancing baby' case. It turns out a short snippet of a song playing in the background of a home video does fall under fair use. That makes sense.
In the most recent fair use case for the Prince estate, Kian Andrew Habib isn't as fortunate. Via Complete Music Update:
[Prince's estate] targeted six videos recorded and uploaded to YouTube by a man called Kian Andrew Habib. The estate's reps argued that the recordings of Prince's performance infringed the copyright in the songs being performed. […]
[Habib] reckoned fair use applied because his videos were "non-commercial and transformative in nature … used no more of the original than necessary, and had no negative effect on the market for the work". […]
[However, a judge ruled that] Habib's artistic decisions when filming Prince perform did not mean his use of the musician's songs was "transformative in nature". And while he may not have directly financially benefited from posting his content to YouTube, by bigging up his videos as being "rare" and "amazing" recordings of Prince performing live he drove traffic to his YouTube channel, thus ensuring he benefited from his use of the musician's work.
So, there you go. Even though you're not directly earning a profit, using someone else's work to build your reputation or follower count qualifies as commercial gain in the eyes of the law. I'm no lawyer, but my sound advice is to be wary of the protective value of fair use.
🔗→ US court rules fair use didn't apply to unofficial Prince videos on YouTube
🔗→ 'Dancing Baby' Wins Copyright Case
Filed Under: Industry News Tagged With: Copyright, Fair Use, Legal Matters, Prince, YouTube
A Tale of Two Copyright Rulings
This week saw a couple of big events in the world of music copyright. First off, resolution to the Kraftwerk "Metal On Metal" case in the EU courts, as mentioned previously. Here's Complete Music Update:
The court said in a statement yesterday: "Phonogram producers have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit reproduction in whole or in part of their phonograms. Consequently, the reproduction by a user of a sound sample, even if very short, taken from a phonogram must, in principle, be regarded as a reproduction 'in part' of that phonogram so that such a reproduction falls within the exclusive right granted to the phonogram producer".
But what about the artistic freedom of the sampler that the German Constitutional Court was so concerned about? Well, the ECJ has put some constraints on its main ruling. […] In the words of the court: "Where a user, in exercising the freedom of the arts, takes a sound sample from a phonogram in order to embody it, in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear in another phonogram, that is not a 'reproduction'". That conclusion is necessary, the court then added, to properly balance the rights of an intellectual property owner with the rights of artistic freedom.
There's been the myth of a time allowance on samples, that if one samples only two-seconds (or another arbitrary small amount) then, legally, everything is okay. This has never been true in the short history of sample litigation. The issue is identifiably and uniqueness. If, say, a jury can point to a phrase and agree that it's an unauthorized appropriation of a master recording (a sample) then it's likely deemed copyright infringement. The length doesn't matter.
The confusion is probably due to the lack of precedent and definition in the US courts. There hasn't been a high profile episode like the Kraftwerk complaint yet. So, while the ruling of the EU court doesn't necessarily say anything new (and it doesn't add any new limitations, despite what some clickbait headlines might lead one to believe) it is good to have the context fully explained by a legal body.
Then there's the court's additional opinion on the artist who artistically messes with a sample to the point of ambiguity. Of course, that artist is in the clear — thanks, EU court — but that's not so much because it's 'artistic freedom.' It's that ideally, no one would identify the errant sample in the first place. In other words, sample away. Just be sure to muck that thing up beyond all recognition.
The other big copyright news concerns this Katy Perry vs. Flame outcome. Rolling Stone:
A jury unanimously ruled that Katy Perry's 2013 hit single "Dark Horse" improperly copied Christian rapper Flame's 2009 song "Joyful Noise." The nine-member federal jury in a Los Angeles determined that Perry and her co-writers and producers will owe [$2.78 million in] damages for copyright infringement. […]
Perry, who was not present when the verdict was read, testified that she had never heard "Joyful Noise," nor heard of Flame, before the lawsuit. Her co-writers testified similarly. Flame's lawyers responded that the song was widely distributed, with millions of plays on YouTube and Spotify, and reminded the jury of Perry's origins in the Christian music scene. His team argued that Perry and her team had ripped off the main beat and instrumental line of "Joyful Noise."
One remarkable aspect is the quoting of YouTube and Spotify plays as evidence that obviously everyone's heard the song. Umm … okay. Have Spotify plays been argued as evidence in court before?
My feelings, but dialed down a bit, echo those of YouTuber Adam Neely in this video (and kudos for pointing out the similarity of the phrase in question to a famous song by The Art of Noise, which I haven't seen anyone else mention):
Additionally, Flame's Marcus Gray added in his original complaint that "Joyful Noise" has been "irreparably tarnished by its association with the witchcraft, paganism, black magic, and Illuminati imagery evoked by the same music in 'Dark Horse.'" Of course, there are some kooky internet 'theories' out there about Katy Perry and the Illuminati. But I don't know why people fear the Illuminati so much … if this all-powerful organization couldn't help Katy Perry win this case then I doubt they're competent enough to secretly run the world.1Though a hidden overload's incompetency could explain the current state of affairs.
Filed Under: Commentary, Industry News Tagged With: Copyright, European Union, Illuminati, Katy Perry, Kraftwerk, Legal Matters, Sampling