Worrying about sampling content, melodies, or chords? Creativity itself may now be threatened...

[EnochLight]

Read about this today. This is troubling:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/20/82623 ... creativity

[mcatalao]

I think he makes a good point.

This would be almost the equivalent to copyright a music style. :/

[-008']

Truly creative people need not worry.

People like Pharell and Kanye can (and should!) sweat this stuff, but it affects me 0%.

What they did is dishonest. They did not just accidentally match the song's feel and style... They sat there and studied, dissected and remade the original, purposefully ... so that they could slither around the copyright. That's not creativity. That's not original. That's creatively dodging around a law because you don't want to: pay for sample clearance, or an interpolation, or a compulsory license for a cover version.

Besides... music "creativity" needs to be stifled a little, There is way too much garbage out there! Stifle the world for a while, I'm fine with that. Perhaps it will make truly creative people stand out, and all the copycats can take a break and go hide under a rock.

I'll say it again though... This ruling will not put fear in the heart of an original and honest artist. Most of the world need not worry at all, just the copyright-dodging people like Pharell and Thicke.

To put it very simply:

My creativity is honest. It makes original music.

Their creativity in this was only: "let's creatively find our way around this copyright."

There is a HUGE difference between being creative and being creatively shady.

[Benedict]

It is clearly a re-write of the Marvin Gaye track. Saying the chords are different etc is dissembling as the track is obviously a photocopy even having Pharell utter the original song lyric over the same party background.

I agree it is probably intended with respect but it also comes across as callous. Would have been far better to do a cover and add their 'stylings'.

It agree it is a thin line tho as most early Rock & Roll and Rockabilly were almost exactly the same as each other. Or take this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIQ1I8Eouug

Purple were open about being inspired by an Otis Spann track but then imagine my surprise when I hear the solo in this Elvis track (skip to 1:20mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSaTRwTWvnA

At least these were clearly two very different tracks.

I think that sampleists believing that they can steal someone else's work and make a free buck off of it has to stop - after all I bet Vanilla Ice would beat on anyone who wanted to make dime off of anything he made.

[Olivier]

I think many of you can relate to hearing "Hey that sounds like " when you're just mindlessly improvising.
The thing with this is, in my opinion, that there's a difference in copying, and genuinely coming up with something that resembles something allready created because you are using the same musical laws.

[submonsterz]

I hear something that's all ready been done or made in everything made for many years . You all have something non original in you're music wet her it be chords notes or sounds or rhythm or words or feel or expression. Copy right is just bullshit because of that fact. There's a difference to copy something exactly to the t . But where do you draw the line to a complete replica ??? 1 note two notes ??
Just make ya tracks and worry less
plus copy right don't normally become an issue in a lot of cases until you are actually selling a lot of units worth someone saying they hear something of theirs in it to want a slice of the pie "you" made.
To me both tracks in this suit are different entities .
While holding simular traits and content they are totally different tracks in the end result .

[reason2dance]

Truly creative people need not worry. People like Pharell and Kanye can (and should!) sweat this stuff, but it affects me 0%. What they did is dishonest. They did not just accidentally match the song's feel and style... They sat there and studied, dissected and remade the original, purposefully ... so that they could slither around the copyright. That's not creativity. That's not original. That's creatively dodging around a law because you don't want to: pay for sample clearance, or an interpolation, or a compulsory license for a cover version. Besides... music "creativity" needs to be stifled a little, There is way too much garbage out there! Stifle the world for a while, I'm fine with that. Perhaps it will make truly creative people stand out, and all the copycats can take a break and go hide under a rock. I'll say it again though... This ruling will not put fear in the heart of an original and honest artist. Most of the world need not worry at all, just the copyright-dodging people like Pharell and Thicke. To put it very simply: My creativity is honest. It makes original music. Their creativity in this was only: "let's creatively find our way around this copyright." There is a HUGE difference between being creative and being creatively shady.

Next stop: "Uptown Funk" vs. "Living In America" ...

[QVprod]

Read about this today. This is troubling: http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/20/82623 ... creativity

Yep terribly annoyed by this. There is no way a song with a completely different bassline/chord progression and vocal melody is a copy. I don't care how it "feels". You can't name a pop song that doesn't sort of "feel" like something before it. Even if they did sit down and analyze the original, "feel" is not something you can copyright. It's quite normal for a producer to listen to a reference song when producing an artist, or even a songwriter producing themselves if they want a certain kind of sound. That is not stealing.

[submonsterz]

Read about this today. This is troubling: http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/20/82623 ... creativity

Yep terribly annoyed by this. There is no way a song with a completely different bassline/chord progression and vocal melody is a copy. I don't care how it "feels". You can't name a pop song that doesn't sort of "feel" like something before it. Even if they did sit down and analyze the original, "feel" is not something you can copyright. It's quite normal for a producer to listen to a reference song when producing an artist, or even a songwriter producing themselves if they want a certain kind of sound. That is not stealing.

agree on that . Plus ill add I think it's stealing to think anything produced nowdays is stealing as everything is a remix of the past . From many generations ago. The notes and chords have not changed and anything tonally pleasing and more than likely be used has been used in one way or another . Copy right in my mind stands for copying an item blow for blow in all elements. Anything else is just remixing and copyright don't exist out of the realm of exact replication

[littlejam]

hello,

Pharrell also 'ripped off' happy from another Marvin Gaye tune


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RVlo0lPkcM


if you watch a live video of Marvin Gaye performing his song
you see that Pharrell even took the 'choreography' for his own video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM7SehIuO-M

i have lost a of respect for Pharrell

Gaye's family haven't stated whether or not they will pursue more litigation over the happy song


:s0826: , j

[submonsterz]

hello,

Pharrell also 'ripped off' happy from another Marvin Gaye tune


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RVlo0lPkcM


if you watch a live video of Marvin Gaye performing his song
you see that Pharrell even took the 'choreography' for his own video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM7SehIuO-M

i have lost a of respect for Pharrell

Gaye's family haven't stated whether or not they will pursue more litigation over the happy song


:s0826: , j

really m8 you can find note sequences chord structures and sequences all sorts of simularitys in near on any music you listen to if you dig deep .
Unless you copy an item like a replica then it is not the same. And really I'm shure every note and expression Marvin gay used can be found in music from old if you look deep enough too .
Classical music has alone cover near on every note and chord structure that will ever be used

[selig]

Interesting responses here - in this "everything is a remix" generation I'm actually quite surprised to hear anyone complain about what Pharrel did. No laws were broken, and there's very little being "copied", mostly (if anything) what some would call "vibe".

There are so FEW similarities here, and absolutely no direct comparisons between tracks including the drum parts, bass lines, even cowbell patterns - nothing has actually been copied!

But what I find surprising is that more typically the argument has gone the other way, suggesting that even outright sampling of a recording should be allowed - talk about "stealing" the vibe! Is there no middle ground?

Interesting times indeed, carry on (and keep it 100 please).

[pushedbutton]

What a lot of people don't know is that Pharell and Robin Thicke finished 'producing' their song and were advised by their lawyers to counter-sue Marvin Gaye's management before they'ed even heard it. Kinda like putting a brick though someone's window and claiming damages on the brick.

[selig]

What a lot of people don't know is that Pharell and Robin Thicke finished 'producing' their song and were advised by their lawyers to counter-sue Marvin Gaye's management before they'ed even heard it. Kinda like putting a brick though someone's window and claiming damages on the brick.

Wait - how could there be a "counter suite" if one party wasn't even involved yet?

I can't agree with your analogy, since putting a brick through a window is breaking a law. What law are you suggesting they broke here? 

What is also not known by a lot of people is that the Gaye family only owns the rights to the sheet music, and it's the sheet music they were defending in that trial. The problem is that the only thing claimed to have been 'copied' is the "vibe" of the song, which in no way is described by the sheet music. 

[pushedbutton]

Just saying, if you felt you'd not done anything wrong why suddenly decided to start legal action before you've even been accused of anything? I don't know but I imagine nobody would have  batted an eyelid if they didn't take pre-emptive action.

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/blurred-li ... es-1845168

Seems suspicious to me.

[EnochLight]

So does this mean the entire genre (and several sub-genres) of trance (and various other electronic music) will see artists being sued now, since apparently arpeggios and anthem strings have been done before?

This is what I find most troubling about that lawsuit, and the fact that the court ruled in Gaye family's favor.  Pop music (hell, almost all music) is heavily inspired, related, and regurgitated in some way.

[selig]

Just saying, if you felt you'd not done anything wrong why suddenly decided to start legal action before you've even been accused of anything? I don't know but I imagine nobody would have  batted an eyelid if they didn't take pre-emptive action.

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/blurred-li ... es-1845168

Seems suspicious to me.

You've never dealt with lawyers have you?!? It's the lawyers that started this - can you guess why?
You make it sound like Pharrell did this on his own because of some imagined guilt. We can argue what may have been in someone's mind endlessly…

[Tumble]

It is clearly a re-write of the Marvin Gaye track. Saying the chords are different etc is dissembling as the track is obviously a photocopy even having Pharell utter the original song lyric over the same party background.

I agree it is probably intended with respect but it also comes across as callous. Would have been far better to do a cover and add their 'stylings'

Agreed completely.


Copyright exists for a reason. In this case it was infringed. And no, this won't set 'a dangerous precedent'.

This just proves that Pharrell and Thicke are both hacks.

[submonsterz]

You've never dealt with lawyers have you?!? It's the lawyers that started this - can you guess why?
This is the most sensible answer to why all this came about.
them Lawers are allways on the look out for the next big pay check to come from cases like these.

[Flandersh]

The problem is that the only thing claimed to have been 'copied' is the "vibe" of the song, which in no way is described by the sheet music. 

The best way to encapsulate a song's vibe is in the sheet through good use of texture. Personally I love to compose with a given content without using words, but notation alone; philosophy the musical way is more soft than writing with words to conceive the same thoughts and emotions.

That said, it is impossible for me to say if the original song was composed with a specifical vibe in mind, and I think it anyway is a hard case to judge if a copy of this is legal or not. History show that esoteric use of content does not make a proof of the content, and as such it may be theoretical illegal to copy the vibe of a song, but in practice tend to be dismissed as a result of the lack of evidence.

[reason2dance]

So does this mean the entire genre (and several sub-genres) of trance (and various other electronic music) will see artists being sued now, since apparently arpeggios and anthem strings have been done before?

This is what I find most troubling about that lawsuit, and the fact that the court ruled in Gaye family's favor.  Pop music (hell, almost all music) is heavily inspired, related, and regurgitated in some way.

I'm thinking about consulting a smart and inexpensive lawyer in order to sue the whole business, because "4 to the floor" is clearly a bold copy of my personal heartbeat!

More seriously: I was very surprised when I heard about this verdict. A similarity is there, but this is more in an "inspired by", not a "stolen from" way. With my level of present knowledge about this there IMHO is no justification for such a huge compensation.

If this way of thinking becomes popular, some day the heirs of Maurice Jarre might sue the heirs of Nino Rota for plagiarizing Doctor Zhivago, because The Godfather is written in the same mood ...

[selig]

The problem is that the only thing claimed to have been 'copied' is the "vibe" of the song, which in no way is described by the sheet music. 

The best way to encapsulate a song's vibe is in the sheet through good use of texture. Personally I love to compose with a given content without using words, but notation alone; philosophy the musical way is more soft than writing with words to conceive the same thoughts and emotions.

That said, it is impossible for me to say if the original song was composed with a specifical vibe in mind, and I think it anyway is a hard case to judge if a copy of this is legal or not. History show that esoteric use of content does not make a proof of the content, and as such it may be theoretical illegal to copy the vibe of a song, but in practice tend to be dismissed as a result of the lack of evidence.

This is no more complex a case to judge than any copyright case - did the lyrics or melody infringe or not? Vibe is inconsequential, and doesn't belong in the conversation if the conversation is about copyright law (at least that's how I understand copyright law).

[Flandersh]

This is no more complex a case to judge than any copyright case - did the lyrics or melody infringe or not? Vibe is inconsequential, and doesn't belong in the conversation if the conversation is about copyright law (at least that's how I understand copyright law).

In theory it is a complex case, but in practice it is rather not. And there is the difference of the work of the philosopher and the legislator.

[selig]

This is no more complex a case to judge than any copyright case - did the lyrics or melody infringe or not? Vibe is inconsequential, and doesn't belong in the conversation if the conversation is about copyright law (at least that's how I understand copyright law).

In theory it is a complex case, but in practice it is rather not. And there is the difference of the work of the philosopher and the legislator.

I see we agree on this, carry on!

[Last Alternative]

Honestly the 2 sound extremely similar to me. The actual reason for being sued is in fact concerning because no matter how original you are it's all been done. The scary part is this just opened doors for anyone to sue for any reason- and win. What's next, drum beats? Using the same exact instrument?
This world has lost its mind and is only getting more insane and irrational. I can totally see how this will eventually lead to a sterile music scene. I can even see music becoming obsolete if this kind of madness continues. More lawsuits = less artists willing to risk being sued too. But that's worst case scenario. In my opinion Blurred Lines was a total ripoff.