You Decide: Laws 310 Week 3 Essay

During the 1900s, passion of composing music arose and encouraged many young teens to create garage bands and elder to perceive music as career. Famous musicians like Robert Johnson, Bill Monroe, and Elvis Presley were seeking the same. Although many were composing songs, most of them adapted their own versions from many which created a list of similarities and differences between them. Most commonly similar were themes or forms yet some differentiated in delivery style or instrumentation. Many artists got more creative and used similar instruments but give a twist into the sound play. This can be seen in the script or heard in the audio of the songs “Walkin’ Blues” and “Blue Moon of Kentucky” like many others.

Transformative qualities are an essential aspect of deciding the applicability of fair use when borrowing from copyrighted works. Transformative equates to works that step beyond the replication of a copyrighted work. This can be accomplished by changing the purpose and adding artistic value to the new creation. Through the incorporation of a new purpose and character, consideration of the minimal portion used of the copyrighted work, and inspection of the lack of effect on the market of the original work, it is conclusive that Kanye West’s “Champion” falls under the protection of fair use when taking into account its incorporation of Steely Dan’s “Kid Charlemagne.” West uses a

For all of music’s history, the industry has favored the interests of songwriters over those of the performers. It appears that the industry believes that songwriters, both composers and lyricists, have full exclusive rights to whatever they compose, while performers have none to the music they perform. In Rock: Music, Culture, and Business, Schloss, Starr, and Waterman hold this value to be true in all of music’s history as well as currently, today. In terms of music business, this still remains an uneasy question to answer; to say whether, performers and composers both have rights, I have to agree. Schloss, Starr, and Waterman would be correct in that fact because performers like composers place their own styles and twists on the music. Therefore,

Over the past fifty years, the British Music Publishing industry has undergone dramatic changes. It has evolved as an entity with innovations in technology, changes and creations of laws and new mediums to promote and exploit songs to a wider audience. Therefore, the way in which the music publishing industry operates and exploits its assets has completely transformed, and continues to do so at a rapid pace. This paper will attempt to explore the ways in which publishers exploit song copyrights and the way in which this has changed over the past 60 years. It is important to define what is meant by copyright and its role within the industry. The Performing Right Society website states: “Copyright

Most artist acknowledge that they sampled the work of another and there is a fee that the must pay to use it. As long as those two things are done then an artist shouldn’t be able to keep them from using it. That is the argument of artist like J. Cole and Kanye West.

THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the %ORDER_DATE%, by and between Malcolm Lil John (hereinafter referred to as "Licensor"), and %CLIENT_NAME% (hereinafter referred to as "Licensee"), relating to the sale of %BEAT_NAME% (hereinafter referred to as "Master") serves as a legally binding agreement . This agreement grants the Licensee certain exclusive rights to the song being licensed.

The District Court ruled for 2 Live Crew because the commercial purpose of 2 Live Crew’s song did not infringe on fair use because it was a parody. Judge ruled that parody that showed how “banal” Orbison’s and Dees’s song was and that 2 Live Crew

Royalties for songs are paid out 50% to the writer and 50% to the copyright holder. For music publishing companies, there are three main types of deals that an artist can enter

In addition, based on one of the statutory factor, the substantiality of the portion used was too small and therefore, the impact was minimal. However, Acuff-Rose Music Inc., appealed the decision to the 6th District Court of Appeal, arguing that the recognizable riff of the song, the nature of the song, and the fact that it was “wholly commercial” deem it was not a fair use. The 6th District Court of Appeal analyzed parody and to the extent it is transformative. In doing so, the court offered the following opinion, “the use of the copyrighted work is wholly commercial, so that we presume that a likelihood of future harm to Acuff-Rose exists” (Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell, 1992, para. V.). Further, the court also clarified parody as a term which may be described as when one artist, for comic effect or social commentary, closely imitates the style of another artist and in so doing creates a new artwork that makes ridiculous the style and expression of the original. Further the court of appeal was broader in scope, the court reviewed and cited section 106 of the copyright Act, which “grants to the copyright holder a variety of exclusive rights in the copyrighted work, including the right to ‘reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords,’ and to ‘prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” Therefore, the words and music to Orbison’s song "Oh Pretty Woman" were subject to protections. In summary, the court of appeal concluded that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment for Campbell and 2 Live Crew’s use of Acuff-Rose’s copyrighted material was not a fair

Cusic begins his paper with the effect of co-writing asserting that the artist loses much more money when they could have earned more if they had created a song themselves. He then goes on to explain how fans and critics feel the need for a song to be legitimate and that if a singer doesn’t create his or her own song they are seen as an invalid artist. However, Cusic asserts that fans and critics do not care for the artist’s reason for creating the song, and that the audience’s connection to the song is the reason why it is even purchased or seen as real music. Cusic affirms that singers who create cover songs are not any less legitimate compared to artists who create original music and that singers have their own way of describing what a song means to them.

When applied four factors with this case, the purpose and character of the use of 2 Live Crew seems to be a commercial purpose and nature of parody is usually copy works which popular in the past. The third factors, the portion of copyrighted work that use by 2 Live Crew was reasonable in purpose of making a parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman” even if heart of original work was copied because of the parody aim to take most similar to original work in a humorous way. Considering the last factor, the Court stated that two works provide different market purpose consequence, the parody would not have a negative effect and seldom substitute for the original song. The court also added that there was no obvious evident that show a possible harm to the rap market by parody version which created by 2 Live Crew. The Supreme Court reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the

Music and concerts are an everyday occurrence for people. Changes through the generations of the music industry has become more complicated and confusing. To defy these issues certain organizations were created to help songwriters, composers, and music publishers. Well known organizations such as Broadcast Music Inc. and The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers help people in these positions with legality and protection of their music publicly.

A court ruled this week that “Blurred Lines” singers Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams must pay Marvin Gaye’s children $7.3 million for infringing on the copyright of Gaye's 1977 song “Got to Give It Up.” Such plagiarism cases have been a familiar refrain in the music business for decades, and Thicke and the "Voice” coach are just the latest performers to be slapped.

She may state that Scorchme should not make any change in the original lyrics or in the fundamental character of the music of the music work, or to make any other use of the music not expressly authorized without her approval. She may also want to approve rights on how her name and the name of her song appears when given credit.

Copyright law is a part of not only music but many other products for example the software that you are reading this document on has more than likely got copyright protection. But for the purpose of this Document the main topic of copyright is going to be based around music.