Why Ridiculous Copyright Length Hurts Music Most
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- A lawyer discusses how the extremely long length of copyright terms in the United States and worldwide is especially problematic for music. The attorney discusses how musicians and others in the music industry are especially stifled, and forced to pay licenses, due to various factors discussed in the video. These include the common use of samples and other techniques like sampling in music, and because it is more difficult to distinguish between ideas (which are not copyrightable) and expression of ideas (which are potentially copyrightable). The Got to Give It Up v Blurred Lines case is also referenced.
Attribution for the Justin Bieber photo: "Justin-Bieber" by Nokia621 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 (with some cropping).
Disclaimer: This video is not legal advice. Do not rely upon it. I do not warrant the accuracy. No attorney-client relationship is created or implied.
They’ll keep lengthening it.
Seems like it
Whats your take on some more famous copyright infringement cases like Radiohead's Creep vs the Hollies The Air That I Breathe? Are those similar enough to justify the lawsuit and awarding The Hollies some royalties? Are some of these cases legitimate, while others are not, in your opinion? I'd love to get your take on a few of these more famous cases. Maybe this could even make a good video or series for this channel?
Very good question. I did an in-depth video about the ridiculous Blurred Lines case. It's too easy to find infringement with pop music where there are limited chord and song structures. I think Radiohead should have won if that got litigated, but they settled.
The song "The Air That I Breathe" was written by Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood. The Hollies would not have claim to any royalties unless their particular recording was sampled, or they happen to have bought the publishing rights.