Tag Archives: copyright terms

A to Z of Making It, Classic Songs to Be Discovered, Copyright, Influenced, Music, My Stories, Stupidity

Four For Friday

PET SHOP BOYS vs DRAKE

The Pet Shop Boys need to relax.

The lyric in question is “the west end boys and east side girls”.

The lyrics are the main Chorus words for “West End Girls” by Pet Shop Boys and those same words are said three times in Drake’s song “All The Parties”, which is a shit song by the way.

And the words are not said with any sense of melody or to a backing track of music. They are just said. Spoken like and then auto tuned.

But “East End Girls” is at 239 million streams on Spotify so the Pet Shop Boys are very protective of their intellectual property.

COPYRIGHT TERMS

John Naughton writing for the The Guardian said the following;

…especially copyright – have been monopolised and weaponised by corporate interests and that legislators have been supine in the face of their lobbying.

Authors and inventors need protection against being ripped off.

It’s obviously important that clever people are rewarded for their creativity and the patent system does that quite well.

But if a patent only lasts for 20 years, why on earth should copyright last for life plus 70 years for a novel?

Yes why should it.

When the songs from the 60s were recorded, the Copyright terms for the songs was 28 years with the chance to renew for another 28 years. A total of 56 years.

And yet those songs got retroactively locked up for a long time by a 1978 Amendment to the Copyright Act by Disney which changed the terms to “life of the creator plus 70 years”.

This would mean that Disney’s “Mickey Mouse” created in 1928 and based on the laws of the time, should have been out of Copyright by 1984 however it would be locked up until 2003.

But in the late 90s and with the 2003 date looming, another Disney amendment was made that extended this law for Corporate works to 95 years. So the Mickey Mouse work from 1928 would finally be out of Copyright in 2023.

And 10 months in, Disney hasn’t suffered the financial losses they said they would if they lost the rights to Mickey Mouse.

SITE BLOCKING

In Australia, the Labels and the Movie/TV networks can go to the Federal Court with a list of sites they want blocked and the Federal Court will just approve the lists and the ISPs will then need to block their users from accessing these sites

The Federal Court is meant to review the lists (which they don’t) before rubber stamping the lists (which they immediately do). Because hey, these entities are the good guys, trying to protect Australians from pirates. And the ISPs need to do their bit to protect the business models of the labels and studios.

WHAT I’M CRANKING RIGHT NOW

Savior from Rise Against.

I became a fan because of the Guitar Hero game this song featured on many years ago.

And at 618 million streams it’s definitely making money for whoever holds the rights to it.

Standard
Copyright, Derivative Works, Music, My Stories, Piracy, Stupidity

Four For Friday

When I started these weekly posts it was a means to keep me blogging during a hectic schedule.

And there was no definitive structure as to what I would cover. But I can see that Cooyright issues keep appearing.

And here is another week devoted to that beautiful term. Copyright. Which was designed to give the creator a limited monopoly on their works so they could create more works.

LETS GET IT OVER WITH

Ed Sheeran can’t get a break. Last week, the case against him from the daughter of Ed Townsend was dropped.

But this week, an organization called “Structured Asset Sales”, (SAS) have started their own litigation.

They control a different one-third stake in Townsend’s copyrights. They “own” the basic notation (musical score) filed at the Copyrights Office decades ago.

When the original case was happening, (SAS) was also a part of it, seeking a “monopoly over a basic musical building block.”

Their case was also thrown out.

But they are appealing their part. Because hey, they created nothing and believe they should be paid for creating nothing. And they want a monopoly on a feel and style.

A big reason why Copyright had expiry terms initially was to stop all this crap. Politicians had a foresight back in the early 1900s to see this coming.

And that changed in the 60s when the labels and book publishers started to amass intellectual property and then started to lobby politicians to change laws and bring in new laws to give these corporations a monopoly on the works.

It’s funny now, how the labels are also getting sued from the very laws they sponsored to benefit them.

124 WEEKS

In April 2021, UFC fighter Jake Paul knocked out Ben Askren in less than two minutes.

Soon after, the popular H3 Podcast on YouTube commented on the fight and showed a clip of the fight.

Event promotor Triller wasn’t happy and issued a copyright infringement lawsuit demanding $50 million in damages.

H3 opted for a fair use defense.

The case is now in its 124th week.

The clip of the fight was 119 seconds long.

Who are the real winners here?

URUGUAY

The Uruguayan Government has a bill in motion which would allow artists to go direct to internet platforms like Spotify and social media sites like Facebook for compensation.

Spotify would still need to pay the existing licensing agreements and if this bill goes ahead could be forced to pay again to the artists direct.

I’m all for artists getting paid but the problem lays with the entities who hold the rights to the songs. They get the majority of the streaming pool and they don’t distribute it back to the artists.

This is a perfect example.

Spotify still needs to honor the licensing agreements with the labels and publishers so these organizations will receive their cut.

And if they are aware of the artist going direct, I am sure that some creative accounting will take place to hold back any payments to the artists.

Anyway. Spotify isn’t happy with the bill and unless it’s changed they will pull out of Uruguay.

As a byproduct, the local music industry which has been growing 20% from streaming revenue will have this source of income come to zero.

ALBERT NAMATJIRA

Albert Namatjira died in 1959. He was an Aboriginal artist, painting the Australian landscapes in watercolors.

The copyright in his art is due to expire in 2029, 70 years after his death.

This means the works will be part of the public domain and anyone can use them in their works moving forward.

But lawyers for the family are arguing that Copyright should last in perpetuity. Forever. Never expire.

And they are pissed.

The issue here is that the family were getting royalties for his art up until 1983. At that point in time, the government trust that administered the rights sold them to a private organization and the royalties ceased.

It took the family 34 years to get the rights back in 2017, with the proviso they need to relinquish them again in 2029.

Furthermore in the last 5 years, Namatjira’s art has exploded in popularity and has become a valuable intellectual property.

But Copyright was never meant to be a reversionary pension fund.

Standard
Copyright, Derivative Works, Influenced, Music, My Stories, Piracy, Stupidity, Treating Fans Like Shit

Living Under The Laws That Corporations Wrote And A Bit Of Metallica For Old Times Sake

“Alice In Wonderland” turned 150 years old recently and it is still in the public imagination.

Hell, it has been in the public domain since 1907 (42 years from when it was originally published) and that still hasn’t stopped the story from making money. By having the work in the public domain it has allowed other people to create derivative versions of the story and the characters. “Alice In Wonderland” is a perfect example of how adaptions of the original story has ensured that the story gets passed on to multiple generations.

So next time you hear of someone calling for longer copyright terms, tell them about “Alice In Wonderland”.  The incentive of a 42 year copyright monopoly was a sufficient motivator for Lewis Carroll (real name Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) to create more works.

Alice In Wonderland Article

Carroll didn’t need a copyright to last 70 to 90 years after his death as an incentive to write stories. Sort of like the heirs of Marvin Gaye. Seriously, what the hell have they contributed to the arts. Copyright was never about being a lifetime pension that carries over to the children or the next of kin. The rule is simply, if the artist passes away, their music falls into the public domain.

As much as I love Hendrix, I don’t agree with his relatives holding a copyright monopoly on his works.

However a lot of people (with a large corporation or corporations attached) stand to profit from long-term copyrights.

Anyone heard of Wu-Tang-Clans single album that has an 88 year copyright caveat. What this means is that the person who paid something like $5 million dollars for has to wait 88 years to hear it. This is what happens when music is turned into something that is not music. The fans that made the group popular are not able to hear it, because greedy people attached to the group want to profit from it.

For those that do read my posts, you will note that I have mentioned a lot of times that fans of artists are not purchasing music anymore. They are purchasing art packaged as a must have for collectors. I always use Machine Head’s “Killers and Kings” Record Store Day single release with four different covers. Yep, I purchased all four singles and guess what, they are still in the shrink-wrap.

So if you need anymore proof that sales of music is all about collectables then look no further than Metallica’s “No Life Til Leather” cassette release for Record Store Day.

You see, releasing music should never be about the new album only. Music was never designed to be about locking yourself away for a year or for months in a studio while you record your new master opus. Music was never designed to be about spending months and months on promotion and marketing. Music was never designed to give rise to large copyright monopolistic corporations. However that is where music has come to.

Because it is these large copyright monopolies that have lobbied hard for internet service providers (ISP’s) around the world to store and then hand out the personal information of their users to these greedy corporations.

All in the name of copyright infringement.

What the large copyright groups have done, via their cashed up lobby groups is bypass legal process. If an internet user has been falsely accused, well, too bad. The burden (and a costly one at that) to prove that you are innocent is on the user, as the way the anti-piracy laws are written, there are basically no consequences for a copyright monopoly business from making false accusations.

I guess this is what it means to live under the laws written by corporations.

 

Standard
A to Z of Making It, Copyright, Derivative Works, My Stories

Talking About Riffs – Progress Is Derivative (The Non-Metal Version)

Okay so what do we know.

We know that Robin Thicke released a song called “Blurred Lines” that ended up going nuclear all over the world. That means a lot of dough to share around.

We know that the family of Marvin Gaye have lawyered up with King and Ballow to sue Robin Thicke and song publisher EMI April/Sony/ATV for copyright infringement.

They claim that Robin Thicke committed copyright infringement on Gaye’s “After the Dance” to create his song “Love After War.”

They also claim that Thicke’s “Make U Love Me” shares a similar bridge and identical lyrics to Marvin Gaye’s “I Want You.”

They also claim that “Blurred Lines” was stolen from Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up”. To muddle the waters even more, allegations also abound that “Blurred Lines” was also derived from Funkadelic’s “Sexy Ways.”

It is pretty obvious that the family of Marvin Gaye don’t care about derivative progress. All they care about is money. This is not about protecting Marvin Gaye and his legacy. A legacy is protected by people and fans of music. By simply having the conversation that “Blurred Lines” sounds similar is proof that Marvin Gaye’s legacy is protected.

Listening to “Blurred Lines” and reading the reviews of the song, you know it got me interested to check out Marvin Gaye and that is what matters in today’s times. Are people listening to the music?

Of course this lawsuit isn’t just about copyright infringement. There is an argument put forward against EMI, about how they strong armed the Gaye family, about how they planted false stories in the media, about conflicts of interest (due to EMI controlling both copyrights), about professional misconduct and breaches of contract

Of course the argument put forward by Thicke and EMI is that the genres of the songs are the same however the notes are different and as far as they are concerned no infringement occurred.

Regardless of how people view this argument. One thing is clear.

The family of Marvin Gaye have been ill-advised. Even if they win the lawsuit, they still lose “financially” in the long run.

The only financial winners here are the attorneys.

The Gaye family will lose out in the long run because artists will stop referencing Marvin Gaye. Once people stop referencing Marvin Gaye this will then lead to people not talking about him. He will be absent from the conversation. The only reason why this has all come up, is that people have talked about the similarities. The Gaye family even used those conversations as part of their counterclaim.

So once people stop talking about someone, in time that person/artist will be forgotten.

The shenanigans carried out by the Gaye family is a far cry to what happened to Bobby Parker. For those that don’t know, Bobby Parker was a blues rock guitarist that passed away recently at the age of 76. He wrote a song called “Watch Your Step” in 1961. The song was a hit on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Beatles hit, “I Feel Fine” released in 1964 had that riff. The influence of “Watch Your Step” also extended to “Day Tripper” as well. John Lennon even stated that “I Feel Fine” and “Day Tripper” were songs built on variations of the “Watch Your Step” riff.

Led Zeppelin used the riff in “Moby Dick” released in 1968.

However, in order to show the progress is derivative effect in action, the “Watch Your Step” riff evolved from the Afro-Cuban jazz composition “Manteca.” That is what music is all about. Evolution by derivatives.

However, Bobby Parker reaped few rewards from the song’s success as he sold the copyright to V-Tone records owner Ivan Mogull for next to nothing. In other words, he didn’t know enough about copyright and he got shafted. Sound familiar. Labels shafting artists.

So all you artists that sign record deals remember this. The label owns your copyright. And guess what the labels are pushing for. Long copyright terms. Look at the massive expansion of the “Duration of Copyright Term” between 1910 and 1998. Just at the time that movie studios and record labels started to appear. Just at the time that the RIAA and the MPAA started to appear and become lobby powerhouses.

At the moment, in the US it is sitting over 100 years due to the 1998 Sonny Bono Act. To top it all off, the Copyright monopolies want longer terms. Longer terms means that our culture is all locked up. The whole point of copyright was to serve and benefit the Public while giving creators a short-term monopoly on their creations. There is nothing that is coming off copyright because Corporations own the majority of the copyrights.

Talking about riffs, what about that riff in “I Want A New Drug from Huey Lewis and the News. It was a hit twice. Once for Huey Lewis and the News and another time for Ray Parker Jr., with “Ghostbusters”!

Standard