For instance, every time I hear the start of this song....
I think of this song....
So if I were to hear these on the radio...I would say the Queen song copied Vanilla Ice (wait...let me explain).
Because I grew up hearing V.I.'s song all the time. It wasn't until recently that I started hearing the Q's. So on the radio...it makes sense that I would think the latter copied the former. HOWEVER...I know the is not the case once I knew the musician's involved as the latter was around before the former.
Further more, during a previous month, my student's created this song:
Only after the fact did someone mention that the beginning lyrics sounded like this song...which I had never heard. Granted we said "we wear..." and it was in Spanish. However, under what we learned this week, I would be or could be found guilty of copyright infringement.
So, I'm left with the old addage that "ignorance is bliss" vs. Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (in English means "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one")
For instance,
there was probably HUGE agreement, permission, legal issues things that happened before Weird Al was able to create this because it is created after this...
And likewise,
is taken from Faith Hill (apologies, the video embed code was disabled).
I can completely understand how confusion can set in when you see professionals appear to "rip off" other artists work. The general public does not see the behind the scenes work with copyright and legalizing their use of a copyrighted work.
I know when I saw the mashup episode of Glee, I wondered what other songs could be smooshed together into one. YouTube is full of wannabe Gleeks and mashers. The other thing filling up the bandwidth on YouTube are people creating their own videos, pictures to music, etc. Similar to things we created in MTA.
How do cover bands work? Are they all obtaining permission to perform and book gigs (often paying gigs)? And all the Elvi in Vegas, who do they get permission from to copy the King?
Where does this leave us? Do we need to change our summer reading to include copyright laws? As a teacher I see a LOT of plagiarism and a collective knowledge process of thought among my students. With the use of internet and having information at his fingertips, I had one student tell me that it was all "free for the taking." While I internally went ballistic, I tried to think of where he was coming from. It is my opinion that all the copyright issues were dealt with behind the scenes; therefore, creating a "I didn't know that happened" mentality among the students (general public). At the heart of the copyright issues, IMHO, is this "knowledge of the collective" or "all for one; one for all".
I'm hoping that I have confused the poo out of you, because this issue is SO complicated and SO extensive, that the is a fabulously large grey area where the balance between creative expression and legal rights need to be weighed out, challenged, questioned, thrown out, etc etc etc.
All the legal mumbo jumbo needs to be in plain English and brought to the public instead of fear and intimidation by legal action...education before prosecution.
Looking forward to the comments...
Further more, during a previous month, my student's created this song:
Only after the fact did someone mention that the beginning lyrics sounded like this song...which I had never heard. Granted we said "we wear..." and it was in Spanish. However, under what we learned this week, I would be or could be found guilty of copyright infringement.
So, I'm left with the old addage that "ignorance is bliss" vs. Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (in English means "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one")
For instance,
there was probably HUGE agreement, permission, legal issues things that happened before Weird Al was able to create this because it is created after this...
And likewise,
is taken from Faith Hill (apologies, the video embed code was disabled).
I can completely understand how confusion can set in when you see professionals appear to "rip off" other artists work. The general public does not see the behind the scenes work with copyright and legalizing their use of a copyrighted work.
I know when I saw the mashup episode of Glee, I wondered what other songs could be smooshed together into one. YouTube is full of wannabe Gleeks and mashers. The other thing filling up the bandwidth on YouTube are people creating their own videos, pictures to music, etc. Similar to things we created in MTA.
How do cover bands work? Are they all obtaining permission to perform and book gigs (often paying gigs)? And all the Elvi in Vegas, who do they get permission from to copy the King?
Where does this leave us? Do we need to change our summer reading to include copyright laws? As a teacher I see a LOT of plagiarism and a collective knowledge process of thought among my students. With the use of internet and having information at his fingertips, I had one student tell me that it was all "free for the taking." While I internally went ballistic, I tried to think of where he was coming from. It is my opinion that all the copyright issues were dealt with behind the scenes; therefore, creating a "I didn't know that happened" mentality among the students (general public). At the heart of the copyright issues, IMHO, is this "knowledge of the collective" or "all for one; one for all".
I'm hoping that I have confused the poo out of you, because this issue is SO complicated and SO extensive, that the is a fabulously large grey area where the balance between creative expression and legal rights need to be weighed out, challenged, questioned, thrown out, etc etc etc.
All the legal mumbo jumbo needs to be in plain English and brought to the public instead of fear and intimidation by legal action...education before prosecution.
Looking forward to the comments...
Jenney it is a frustrating topic no matter how many different views we may have about copyrights. It was interesting to read your question on "How do cover bands work? Are they all obtaining permission to perform and book gigs (often paying gigs)? And all the Elvis in Vegas, who do they get permission from to copy the King?". How can they really perform those songs, obviously created by another artist, and get paid for there performance?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that educating the public on this topic will dispose of the myths and misconceptions of copyright laws and fair use.
Great points. You really do have to wonder just how many notes are there out there in the world. I mean eventually some are just going to match a little right? Now the musicians are not only going to have to fight all the illegal downloading, but fight each other too. And im sure the people who do parody songs or like Glee have teams of legal people getting them permissions, but you are correct, what about the country fair cover band?
ReplyDeleteOne night on America's Got Talent there was a 22 year old girl that came out who looked exactly like Justin Bieber. Obviously she is older so it was her look first, but can you copyright looks? She should go after him. :) But then she did her own parody of his song "Baby" so they should be going after each other. I somehow think Bieber would get the short end of that stick, but it'd be interesting to watch.
Jenny
ReplyDeleteI like viewing your thoughts before the section. I think that all teachers use materials not knowing that we should be asking permission for use. So many of us do not even know about the “Best Practices” because they don’t realize they are suppose to be asking permission.
I love the way you internalized the information and took it further. I would never have thought to do a comparison of music that I enjoy listening to and reflect on the original song. In this day and age so many songs are a remake, remix, or utilizes the instrumental aspects of songs that came years before it. I think that so many hip-hop artists should pay homage to James Brown because so many of their beats are samples of the God Father of Soul. As I continue to read your blog I am having so many thoughts. The biggest one is: Are college bands infringing on copyright laws?” My university band had an arranger but it is still another artist’ s song. He would give himself credit for the arrangement, but does that free him from copyright infringement?
In the conversation about your students, I think that you should include at least a session on copyright for your students. My students are 6 years old so most of their work is their own unless they are rewriting an ending to a story. Your students seem old enough to write papers and follow the plagiarism guidelines. Copyright infringement is a form of plagiarism, and they can be sued for using it. You don’t have to change your entire summer plan, but I would definitely include something about it.
I love your comment “all the legal mumbo jumbo needs to be in plain English….educate before prosecution”. It is just yet another side dish to be added to the plate of educators to teach our children. I guess they do not realize we are all ready standing at the buffet filing up our plates with what we are required to have with no room for the items we want to have.
Good luck this summer!
I believe you can play and sing other people’s music without their permission as long as you do not replay their performances or recordings of their music. This is how cover bands operate. It is also seen when church choirs and congregation sing hymns and other material created by others.
ReplyDelete@Sonni, I would agree with your comments, but cover bands make money singing other people's work. I believe that is still copyright infringement.
ReplyDeleteAlso with church, a license needs to be obtained in order to use material created by others. And only music that is within that license may be sung or played. Unless there is a "Creative Commons" kind of thing for songs. Is that what the CILW# (or some letters like that)???
Anyway, I think there is still a license or just specific songs that can legally be sung or played at church.