Names Of Songs Used As Names Of Bands – Can’t Think Of A Name For Your Band, Copy One

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Even though many do not believe this and suffer the fear and trepidation over the subject of copyright and copyright protection, it is LEGAL and COMMON to copy a name and use it as another name.  In fact, copyright does NOT protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions.

It is common to copy MOVIE titles and use them as titles of television episodes.  I addressed this in a discussion of names of movies used as names of Dexter episodes.

It is common to copy SONG titles and use them as titles of television episodes.  I addressed this in a discussion of names of songs used as names of Dexter episodes.

____________________________________________________________________

These could be considered examples of referencing – a title has been referenced by its use as another title.  These could be considered examples of copying – a title has been copied and used as another title.

Listed below are some of the categories and specific names that are NOT copyright protected:

Names of businesses Comcast, Xfinity, Dupont, Monsanto, Apple, Samsung, Honda, L.L. Bean, etc.

Names of organizationsAFL-CIO, Major League Baseball, Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Boston Red Sox, etc.

Names of performing groups –  Stevie Wonder, The Beatles, Broken Bells, Bob Marley, Arctic Monkeys, Daft Punk, Neil Young, etc.

Names of title of works Alien, Animal House, Citizen Kane, Things Fall Apart, Pride and Prejudice, Life of Pi, Take Five, Ring Of Fire, A Hard Day’s Night, etc.

Advertising slogansHey Mikey…He Likes It; Don’t Leave Home Without It; Got Milk; A Diamond Is Forever; Plop Plop Fizz Fizz, etc.

List of ingredients – butter, eggs, flour, milk, salt, baking powder, mild cheddar cheese, frozen chopped spinach, chopped onion and salt

Recipe 

4 Tbsp  butter

3 eggs

1 c flour

1 c milk

1 tsp salt

1 tsp baking powder

1 pound mild cheddar,  grated

2 packages frozen chopped spinach  (thawed and drained)

1 Tbsp chopped onion  (optional)

seasoned salt  (optional)

The documentation – Circular 34 – from the U. S. Copyright Office describing this lack of copyright protection is found here and the first link of this sentence.

____________________________________________________________________

These are examples of referencing – a title has been referenced by its use as another title.  These could be considered examples of copying – a title has been copied and used as another title.

____________________________________________________________________

The titles of the following thirteen (13) songs did NOT sacrifice their lives for (but did spawn) second lives as names of bands.  Re-using a name is respectable, common, copyright-legal and in keeping with the traditions of many societies.

THE SONGS and THE BANDS

1.  Beatles Hello Goodbye (1967) was used for band name, Hello Goodbye.

2.  Black Sabbath After Forever (1971) was used for band name, After Forever.

3.  Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band Death Cab For Cutie (1967) was used for band name, Death Cab For Cutie.

4.  Dave Brubeck Take Five (1959) was used for band name, Take 6.

5.  Bob Dylan Ballad Of Frankie Lee And Judas Priest (1967) was used for band name, Judas Priest.

6.  Inside Out Rage Against The Machine (1991) was used for band name, Rage Against The Machine.

7.  Tommie Johnson Canned Heat Blues (1928) was used for band name, Canned Heat.

8.  New Edition Boys To Men (1988) was used for band name, Boyz II Men.

9.  Queen Radio Ga Ga” (1984) was used for artist name, Lady Gaga.

10.  Steely Dan Deacon Blues (1977) was used for artist name, Deacon Blue.

11.  Talking Heads Radio Head (1986) was used for band name, Radiohead.

12.  Talking Heads The Big Country (1978) was used for band name, Big Country.

13.  Muddy Waters Rolling Stone (1950) was used for band name, The Rolling Stones.

____________________________________________________________________

The moral of the story – the tongue-in-cheek humorous moral of the story?  If you’re stuck coming up with a name for your band, song, film, poem, novel, photograph or sculpture, you will probably not get into copyright trouble by naming your work of authorship after someone else’s work of authorship.

If you can’t think, copy someone who can.

If the name was good then, it might be good now.

If you can’t create, copy.

____________________________________________________________________

 

Should The Rolling Stones Sue Badfinger?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The 4th “SHOULD” post.  The 4th “You stole my 3-4-5-8” post.

OK, this is getting long.  How long will this 3-4-5-8 be stretched out?  The answer?  I’ll end this 3-4-5-8 posts with the next installment of the series:  the 5th “SHOULD” post.  But for today –

Today’s songs and potential case:

The Rolling Stones – Street Fighting Man  (1968)

Badfinger – Come And Get It (1970)

My last three posts have featured pairs of songs that feature the same four (4) notes –  3-4-5-8  -prominently in their choruses/hooks.  The songs and potential case from the previous post:

Badfinger – Come And Get It  (1970)  v.  XTC –  Then She Appeared  (1992)

The songs and potential case from the post before that (February 27, 2014):

XTC –  Then She Appeared (1992)  v.  Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

The songs and potential case from the post before that (February 24, 2014):

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)  v.  Sebastian Mikael – Last Night ft. Wale (2013)

I raised the possibilities and reasons why these songs could be in litigation – all of those songs feature the 3-4-5-8 melody.  I did NOT take a side – my purpose was to be illustrative and solicit responses.  I heard “Last Night” by Sebastian Mikael for the first time as I was driving home from the airport in Nashville Sunday night (February 23, 2014) and couldn’t help but notice the 3-4-5-8’s jumping out of the car radio.  That led to an investigation of the 3-4-5-8 melody as well as the music of Sebastian Mikael, Toby Keith, XTC, Badfinger and now The Rolling Stones.

_______________________________________________________________________

Today I ask a related question and what would be a precedent to the Badfinger v. XTC case which was a precedent to the XTC v. Toby Keith case which was a precedent to the Toby Keith v. Sebastian Mikael case  – namely, should The Rolling Stones sue Badfinger for stealing the 3-4-5-8 of The Rolling Stones?  (Again, all of these are, to my knowledge, hypothetical cases.)  A funny twist to this is that it would be The Rolling Stones suing their friend Paul McCartney as McCartney wrote “Come And Get It.”  (Here is Paul McCartney singing and playing every instrument on his song, Come And Get It.  He allowed Badfinger to record it if they stuck to it as faithfully as he demanded.  This recording is from The Beatles Anthology 3, a must have double CD.)

The 3-4-5-8 occurs prominently twelve (12) times in The Rolling Stones’  Street Fighting Man  (1968).

The Rolling Stones – Street Fighting Man  (1968)

0.35  except to sing for (a rock n roll band)

0.39  cause in sleepy

0.40  London town there’s

0.42  just no place for a street fighting (man)

1.20  except to sing for (a rock n roll band)

1.24  cause in sleepy

1.25  London town there’s

1.27  just no place for a street fighting (man)

2.10  except to sing for (a rock n roll band)

2.14   cause in sleepy

2.15  London town there’s

2.17  just no place for a street fighting (man)

Badfinger – Come And Get It (1970)

The 3-4-5-8 occurs frequently and prominently in Badfinger’s Come And Get It although slightly modified with a repeated “5” and “8”  –   3-4-5-5-8-8-8.  (As the song progresses, the  3-4-5-8 that usually features the lyrics “if you want it here it is” and “if you want it anytime” changes from 3-4-5-8 to 8-6-5-5 and other non-3-4-5-8 melodies.)

Badfinger’s Come And Get It (1970, U.S. release)

0.05  if you want it here it is

0.15  if you want it any time

0.38  if you want it here it is

0.51  if you want it here it is

1.02  if you want it any time

_______________________________________________________________________

Should The Rolling Stones sue Badfinger over the 3-4-5-8 melody that was so prominent in their Street Fighting Man and so prominent in Badfinger’s Come And Get It?  As I’ve stated before, there are music copyright infringement lawsuits in the courts in 2014 that involve NO melodic similarity.

_______________________________________________________________________

Should Badfinger Sue XTC?

file1441263245035

The 3rd “SHOULD” post.  The 3rd “You stole my 3-4-5-8” post.

Two of my last posts have featured pairs of songs that feature the same four (4) notes –  3-4-5-8  -prominently in their choruses/hooks.  The songs from the February 27, 2014 post:

XTC’s Then She Appeared (1992)

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

The songs from the post before that (February 24, 2014):

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

Sebastian Mikael – Last Night ft. Wale (2013)

I raised the possibilities and reasons why these songs could be in litigation. I did NOT advocate that a lawsuit should happen and I did NOT take a side – my purpose was to be illustrative and solicit responses.  I heard “Last Night” by Sebastian Mikael for the first time as I was driving home from the airport in Nashville Sunday night (February 23, 2014) and couldn’t help but notice the 3-4-5-8’s jumping out of the car radio.  That led to an investigation of the 3-4-5-8 melody as well as the music of Sebastian Mikael, Toby Keith, XTC and now Badfinger.

_______________________________________________________________________

Today I ask a related question and what would be a precedent to the XTC v. Toby Keith case which was a precedent for the Toby Keith v. Sebastian Mikael possibility  – namely, should Badfinger sue XTC for stealing “Badfinger’s” 3-4-5-8?

Badfinger’s Come And Get It (1970)

XTC’s Then She Appeared (1992)

The 3-4-5-8 occurs frequently and prominently in Badfinger’s Come And Get It although slightly modified with a repeated “5” and “8”  –   3-4-5-5-8-8-8.  (As the song progresses, the  3-4-5-8 that usually features the lyrics “if you want it here it is” and “if you want it anytime” changes from 3-4-5-8 to 8-6-5-5 and other non-3-4-5-8 melodies.)

Badfinger’s Come And Get It (1970, U.S. release)

0.05  if you want it here it is

0.15  if you want it any time

0.38  if you want it here it is

0.51  if you want it here it is

1.02  if you want it any time

XTC’s  Then She Appeared (1992) is a song written and recorded almost twenty (20) years before Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup (2011) but more than twenty (20) AFTER Badfinger’s Come And Get It (1970).  It also prominently features the 3-4-5-8 melody.  The 3-4-5-8 is the opening vocal and the hook throughout the entire song.

The thirteen (13) examples of 3-4-5-8 in Then She Appeared, complete with associated lyrics, are heard here:

XTC – Then She Appeared  (1992)

0.22  then she appeared

0.31  then she appeared

0.50  cherubim cheered

0.59  then she appeared

1.08  then she appeared

1.26  know it sounds weird

2.02  then she appeared

2.11  then she appeared

2.30  all Edward leared

3.06  then she appeared

3.15  then she appeared

3.24  then she appeared

3.33  then she appeared

_______________________________________________________________________

Are four (4) prominent and clearly-heard notes in common between songs reason enough to instigate a copyright infringement lawsuit?  As mentioned before, one answer could be found in comparing this hypothetical (or not) Badfinger v. XTC music copyright infringement case to the actual Marvin Gaye v. Robin Thicke copyright infringement case in which NO notes were in common between the songs.

If one can sue when the similarity is only STYLE and NOT melody, surely one is even more likely to sue when the similarity is MELODY and not STYLE.

(Do any/all the tags in this post have any bearing on the merit of this potential copyright infringement lawsuit?)

As always, I welcome your comments.

Too Many Frivolous Music Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

Toy

Saturday, March 1, 2014.

On March 1, 1810, one of my great musical heroes Frédéric Chopin was born.

February passed too fast.  I had too much to finish including two big projects for this weekend.  It still feels like February.  I should be working but I’ll procrastinate with a few thoughts below.

I was interviewed by Substream Magazine awhile ago and the interview appeared in print on February 27, 2014.  Katie McCort, who interviewed me and wrote the article, Copyright Law and the Music Industry: Part I, was very well prepared and knowledgeable and I really like the thrust of her writing.  When I was interviewed I did not know that there was a specific reason for the interview – a specific new case, for example, the seeming nonstop talk about the Marvin Gaye / Robin Thicke matter from summer 2013.  The conversation with Katie seemed to be more focused on copyright – the rationale for its existence and how copyright is actually manifested – the neutral, the good and the bad.  Her research seemed to lead our conversation down particularly engaging paths including some specific copyright matters.  There is a Part II to her series about copyright law and the music industry.  I look forward to it.

I was interviewed about music copyright & Gaye & Thicke several times including one at ABC News Radio in Nashville.  That was a really fun interview as I was sitting at the microphone with the interviewer simply chatting about these cases, thinking this was just a soundcheck.  After a few minutes he thanked me and told me how good the interview had been.  It was later broadcast on many ABC stations.  I never heard it but heard from friends who remarked how well the interviewer (and I) had sounded.  (I suddenly hear Stevie Wonder’s harmonica followed by Dionne Warwick singing, “That’s what friends are for…”)

__________________________________________________________________

As a music copyright expert witness, I am in the position to assist so many to SUE so many.  Potential and actual plaintiffs (and defendants) approach me with music.  It is an extremely important responsibility to have thrust one’s way.  Attorneys usually will heed my advice – when I’ve said something does not rise to the level of copyright infringement, usually a case is not initiated.  If the case does not begin, my employment does not begin!  If I agree with a potential plaintiff or defendant, my employment can last from a day to many years.  (My longest term of employment has been over a span of 9 years, and, in 2014, is not over.)

I see too many experts in too many fields simply agree with every matter/potential employment that comes their way.  The term for such a person is hired gun.  There was once an American Western television show about a hired gun – an actual gun slinger, literally not figuratively with a gun.  Have Gun Will Travel.  (“I’d like you to take a look at this gun…This gun was handcrafted to my specifications and I rarely draw it unless I mean to use it.”)

[Note at 6.58 of that Have Gun Will Travel excerpt – “…until you get to Twin Peaks….”  David Lynch’s Twin Peaks is one of favorite television shows and television series soundtracks.  Coincidentally, David Lynch came up in conversation on Facebook last night as this great photograph of an unlikely trio – The Dixie Chicks, Rick Rubin and David Lynch – was published.]

If a consultant/expert ALWAYS sides with the side that approaches her/him, that consultant/expert is considered by some to be a hired gun.  When a consultant/expert turns down the person/side approaching her/him, the consultant/expert is turning down employment.  Some will credit a person who can say “no” to money as having some virtue.  That person can have virtue but will not have income stemming from virtue or that potential source of income.

What many people seem to think when it comes to copyright infringement in music is….

if two songs sound alike, the new one must have infringed the first one.

But sounding similar or alike is not necessarily copyright infringement.  (This issue is at the center of the Marvin Gaye / Robin Thicke matter.  Those two (2) songs are NOT substantially similar in any other respect.)

The group, “America,” was thought by many to have infringed Neil Young because the singer on America’s Horse With No Name (1972) sounds similar to some recordings featuring Neil Young singing.  Many other musical artists have been accused of copyright infringement based solely on the non-copy protected sound of a musical group or artist.

The sound alike / soundalike issue fascinates me and is one to explore in additional posts.  Unfortunately, sounding alike can, unnecessarily, lead to copyright infringement lawsuits.

Your thoughts?

_________________________________________________________

[My third of five (5) articles in a series about potential music copyright infringement cases will be posted tomorrow.]

 

 

Should XTC Sue Toby Keith?

file9991341804669

Another “SHOULD” post.  Another “You stole my 3-4-5-8” post.

My last post was about two (2) songs that both featured the same four (4) notes –  3-4-5-8  – prominently in their choruses/hooks.  The songs were

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

Sebastian Mikael – Last Night ft. Wale (2013)

I raised the possibility and reasons why these songs could be in litigation. I did NOT take a side – my purpose was to be illustrative and solicit responses.  I heard “Last Night” by Sebastian Mikael for the first time as I was driving home from the airport in Nashville Sunday night (February 23, 2014) and couldn’t help but notice the 3-4-5-8’s jumping out of the car radio.

_______________________________________________________________________

Today I ask a related question and what would be a precedent to the Toby Keith v. Sebastian Mikael possibility  – namely, should XTC sue Toby Keith for stealing their 3-4-5-8?

XTC  Then She Appeared (1992)

Toby Keith  Red Solo Cup (2011)

XTC’s Then She Appeared (1992) is a song written and recorded almost twenty (20) years before Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup (2011).  It also prominently features the 3-4-5-8 melody.  The 3-4-5-8 is the opening vocal and hook throughout the entire song.

The thirteen (13) examples of 3-4-5-8 in Then She Appeared, complete with associated lyrics, are heard here:

XTC – Then She Appeared  (1992)

0.22  then she appeared

0.31  then she appeared

0.50  cherubim cheered

0.59  then she appeared

1.08  then she appeared

1.26  know it sounds weird

2.02  then she appeared

2.11  then she appeared

2.30  all Edward Lear-ed

3.06  then she appeared

3.15  then she appeared

3.24  then she appeared

3.33  then she appeared

The sixteen (16) statements of 3-4-5-8 in Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup (2011):

0.32  red solo cup

0.35  I fill you up

0.44  red solo cup

0.47  I lift you up

1.19  red solo cup

1.22  I fill you up

1.31  red solo cup

1.33  I lift you up

2.21  red solo cup

2.24  I fill you up

2.32  red solo cup

2.35  I lift you up

2.44  red solo cup

2.47  I fill you up

2.56  red solo cup

2.59  I lift you up

_______________________________________________________________________

Are four (4) prominent and clearly-heard notes in common between songs reason enough to instigate a copyright infringement lawsuit?  One answer could be found in comparing this hypothetical (or not) XTC v. Toby Keith music copyright infringement case to the actual Marvin Gaye v. Robin Thicke copyright infringement case in which NO notes were in common between the songs.

If one can sue when the similarity is only STYLE and NOT melody, surely one is even more likely to sue when the similarity is MELODY and not STYLE.

(Do any/all the tags in this post have any bearing on the merit of this potential copyright infringement lawsuit?)

As always, I welcome your comments.

Should Toby Keith Sue Sebastian Mikael?

file7001249784548

Should Toby Keith sue Sebastian Mikael?  Have you heard Toby Keith’s 2011 song, “Red Solo Cup?”  Have you heard Sebastian Mikael’s 2013 song, “Red Solo Cup?”

Toby Keith – Red Solo Cup (2011)

Sebastian Mikael – Last Night ft. Wale (2013)

Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup features the lyrics, “red solo cup, I fill you up” and “red solo cup, I lift you up” always sung to the same melody, an ascending four-note pattern that is the hook:  -3-4-5-8.

The 3-4-5-8 melody is heard sixteen (16) times in Red Solo Cup.

Sebastian Mikael’s Last Night features the lyric, “four shots ago,” always sung to the same four-note pattern as heard in Red Solo Cup, used in all four (4) choruses, and in a similar prominent manner as well:  3-4-5-8.

The 3-4-5-8 melody is heard four (4) times in Last Night.

If both songs use the same pitches but one was recorded and released earlier, shouldn’t the publisher(s) of Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup sue the publisher(s) of Sebastian Mikael’s Last Night ?

The sixteen (16) statements of 3-4-5-8 in Toby Keith’s Red Solo Cup:

0.32  red solo cup

0.35  I fill you up

0.44  red solo cup

0.47  I lift you up

1.19  red solo cup

1.22  I fill you up

1.31  red solo cup

1.33  I lift you up

2.21  red solo cup

2.24  I fill you up

2.32  red solo cup

2.35  I lift you up

2.44  red solo cup

2.47  I fill you up

2.56  red solo cup

2.59  I lift you up

The four (4) statements of 3-4-5-8 in Sebastian Mikael’s Last Night:

0.46  four shots ago

1.54  four shots ago

2.37  four shots ago

3.40  four shots ago 

_______________________________________________________________________

To reiterate some of the similarities between Red Solo Cup and Last Night:

Toby Keith sings 3-4-5-8 sixteen (16) times throughout Red Solo Cup.

3-4-5-8 is the hook.

Sebastian Mikael sings 3-4-5-8 four (4) times throughout Last Night.

3-4-5-8 is always an important part of each chorus.

Both songs feature the same four (4) notes –  3-4-5-8.

Toby Keith recorded and released Red Solo Cup well before Sebastian Mikael recored and released Last Night.

Why wouldn’t Toby Keith’s publisher(s) sue Sebastian Mikael?

_______________________________________________________________________

Are four (4) prominent and clearly-heard notes in common between songs reason enough to instigate a copyright infringement lawsuit?  One answer could be found in comparing this hypothetical (or not) Toby Keith v. Sebastian Mikael music copyright infringement case to the actual Marvin Gaye v. Robin Thicke copyright infringement case in which NO notes were in common between the songs.

If one can sue when the similarity is only STYLE and not melody, surely one is even more likely to sue when the similarity is MELODY and not style.

(Do any/all the tags in this post have any bearing on the merit of this potential copyright infringement lawsuit?)

As always, I welcome your  comments.

Tracing The Origins Of Blues Songs: Culture Or Copying?

IMG_4027b

Music of Blind Lemon Jefferson, Leadbelly, Carl Perkins, Albert King and The Beatles 

Many songs’ origins can be traced to earlier sources and often specific authorship, or authorship as a mighty fortress that had to exert its mighty power, was a foreign concept.  Ideas and the expressions of ideas are often regarded as benevolent entities and means by which a society builds its culture.  Members of a society share what is performed, heard, seen, filmed, photographed, painted, sculpted, danced, acted, woven, cooked, eaten and more.

It can be illuminating to examine how certain songs have come into existence.  How important was authorship?  Were several responsible for the creation of a song?  Did parts of the song come together at different times and places?

________________________________________________________________________

Albert King “Searching For A Woman” (1961) referenced Carl Perkins “Matchbox” (1956)

Albert King’s Searching For A Woman  (1961) –  At 0.28 – 0.48 of this recording, one hears:

“sometimes I wonder would a matchbox hold my clothes, yeah sometimes I wonder would a matchbox hold my clothes, I don’t have so many but I’ve got so far to go.”  

Albert King is not the author of that lyric as it had been heard prior to “Searching For A Woman.”  King simply interpolated it/referenced it from a prior source.  Or was it from more than one prior source?

Carl Perkins’ Matchbox  (1956) – At 0.05 – 0.20 of this recording, one hears:

“well I’m sitting here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, yeah I’m sitting here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, I ain’t got no matches but I got a long way to go.”

Carl Perkins’ Matchbox  (1956) was a big hit in the 1950’s.

The Beatles released their version of Matchbox in 1964, reviving Perkins’ popular song.  The Beatles loved Carl Perkins and recorded three (3) of his songs.  (Notice that Ringo’s vocal is double-tracked in Matchbox and typical for Beatles’ cover recordings, they stay as true to the original as possible.)

Continuing with MATCHBOX…

Carl Perkins “Matchbox” (1956) referenced Leadbelly “Packin’ Trunk” (1935)

Carl Perkins’ Matchbox  (1956) – At 0.05 – 0.20 of this recording, one hears:

“well I’m sitting here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, yeah I’m sitting here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, I ain’t got no matches but I got a long way to go.”

Leadbelly’s Packin’ Trunk  (1935) – at 0.45-1.05 of this recording one hears:

“I’m sitting down here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, I’m sitting down here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, I’m sitting down here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes”

Leadbelly “Packin’ Trunk” (1935) referenced Blind Lemon Jefferson “Match Box Blues” (1927)

Leadbelly’s Packin’ Trunk  (1935) – at 0.45 – 1.05 of this recording one hears:

“I’m sitting down here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, I’m sitting down here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, I’m sitting down here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes”

Blind Lemon Jefferson’s Match Box Blues  (1927) – at 0.38 – 1.04 of this recording, one hears:

“sitting here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, I’m sitting here wondering would a matchbox hold my clothes, I ain’t got so many matches but I’ve got so far to go” 

Is Blind Lemon Jefferson the source of this lyric about a person owning so little that all of his clothes could fit into a matchbox?

__________________________________________________________________________

Do lyrics and/or music of any of these songs REFERENCE any other song(s)?

Do lyrics and/or music of any of these songs COPY any other song(s)?

Do lyrics and/or music of any of these songs STEAL FROM any other song(s)?

Do lyrics and/or music of any of these songs INFRINGE any other song(s)?

Are musical traditions, for example in any of the songs above, at odds with copyright law?

Assuming that any of these instances above involves the TAKING of someone’s intellectual property, isn’t it only taking a “little bit” and how important can a little bit be?

Should musical tradition(s) trump copyright law?

Should copyright law trump musical tradition(s)?

If Blind Lemon Jefferson’s Match Box Blues  (1927) is under copyright, would one or more of those who followed him have infringed his copyright?

If Blind Lemon Jefferson’s Match Box Blues  (1927) is NOT under copyright and in the public domain, would copyright vest in Leadbelly’s Packin’ Trunk  (1935)?

And how does one answer any/all of the questions above if the country of origin of the manufacture and distribution of specific recordings are OUTSIDE of the United States of America?

__________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Dre Should Have Hired Me

file3231306994051

The moral of the story below?  Not hiring me can cost money.

Dr. Dre hired a musicologist for an opinion on whether he could use a bass line from another song, one that Dr. Dre had not composed.  That expert told Dr. Dre that the bass line was not original and therefore Dr. Dre was free to use it.

I would have told Dr. Dre that that bass line WAS original and that Dr. Dre should NOT use it. 

But, Dr. Dre did not consult with me.  Dr. Dre took the advice of a different expert witness and it cost him $1.5 million.

The two songs are:

Fatback Band – Backstrokin’  (1980)

Dr. Dre – Let’s Get High (2001)

________________________________________________________________________

Fatback Band’s Backstrokin’  (1980) is a long, fun funk song.  It is just over 6 minutes long and primarily alternates between two sections:  A and B.  Section A is the chorus where one hears the message of the song – “tighten up on your backstroke.”  Section B is the contrasting section, similar to a verse section.  Other than A & B there is an introduction from 0.00 – 0.16 that returns at 4.17  – 4.54.

The overall form is:

intro, A, B, A, B, A, B, intro, A.

The time each section begins is below:

0.00 –  intro

0.17  –  A

1.22  –  B

1.55  –  A

2.44  –  B

3.17  –  A

4.06  –  B

4.17  –  intro

4.55  –  A

Dr. Dre was a musician who liked the bass line of the A section of Backstrokin’ (1980) and wanted to use it in a song he was going to record – Let’s Get High (2001).  Dr. Dre was not going to sample the bass line on his recording – instead he hired a bass player to re-perform that bass line.

Dr. Dre decided to get the opinion of a musicologist as to whether he could legally re-perform that bass line.  The musicologist hired (not me) told him that the bass line was unoriginal, not subject to protection by copyright law and therefore Dr. Dre would be free to recreate the bass line.  (“Recreate” is also known as “interpolate” or “replay.”)

The bass line consists of only a few diatonic, unoriginal pitches from the minor scale.  The pitches are:

1-2-b3-2  which are heard in the first measure, and

1-2-b3-5  which are heard in the second measure.

In total, the bass line is 1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3-5. two (2) brief measures, and is repeated throughout each A section.  This bass line could be considered the hook (or one of the hooks) of the song.

As a single, short two-measure phrase (-1-2-b3-2-  -1-2-b3-5- ), this bass line is NOT original.  But what Dr. Dre intended was NOT one (1) single statement for a few seconds, but to repeat this phrase over and over for the entire two (2) + minutes of the song.  Once this phrase is repeated a few times, it is no longer unoriginal – it becomes ORIGINAL and subject to copyright protection. 

________________________________________________________________________

It is easy to find earlier examples of this basic, common -1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3 melody (with or without the “-5-” at the end) that is featured prominently throughout Backstrokin’.

The first that came to my mind was the principal melody of the 3rd movement of the Symphony No. 1 in D by Gustav Mahler:

Gustav Mahler –  Symphony No. 1 in D, Mvt. III  (1896).  The entire first movement is based on this 1-2-b3-2-1 melody.  This motif/melody is masterfully developed by one of the best art music composers – Gustav Mahler.  (The melody begins at 0.13 played by a solo contrabass.  The next instrument to play the melody is the bassoon at 0.41.  You’ll likely notice that this is a variant of the famous “Frere Jacques” but in a minor key, instead of major key.  Dr. Dre co-opted Fatback Band who co-opted Mahler co-opting and contorting “Frere Jacques.”)

Other music that features 1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3, recorded before Fatback Band and Dr. Dre include:

Pink Floyd – Another Brick In The Wall  (1979)  The 1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3 melody is heard in the words, “We don’t need no education” beginning at 0.09.

Cream – We’re Going Wrong  (1967)  The 1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3 melody is heard in the strummed chords in Eric Clapton’s guitar, and Jack Bruce’s faint bass, beginning at 0.02.

Pete Seeger – Waist Deep In The Big Muddy  (1967)   The 1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3 melody is heard in  the guitar beginning at 0.03.

Music recorded after Fatback Band that features 1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3 include:

Tupac Shakur – Nothing But Love  (1997)  The 1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3 melody is heard in the synth beginning at 0.00.

Michael Jackson – Smooth Criminal  (1987)  The 1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3 melody is heard in the synth beginning at 0.14.

________________________________________________________________________

To repeat – Dr. Dre could have used the simple 1-2-b3-2-1-2-b3-5 melody without a serious copyright problem IF he had used it only once or twice.  But using that melody repeatedly in the same manner as Fatback Band spelled trouble.  Dr. Dre was given bad advice.  I am thrilled that I was not the one to make such a big mistake.

The added bonus of this post – I am encouraging readers to listen to Gustav Mahler, Pete Seeger, Cream, Pink Floyd, Fatback Band, Michael JacksonDr. Dre and Tupac Shakur.

Music Discovery

file6131250498047

I had a really good meeting with a friend last night who went “under the hood” of my website with me and offered some great ideas.  One was to add a new entry under “Categories” –

* * * MUSIC DISCOVERY * * * 

I think what he intended by Music Discovery was for me to feature and write about music that mattered a lot to me and/or music I stumbled upon recently and wanted to highlight.  I think a new section of www.EMichaelMusic.com might spring from it.  But for now, I am treating this “Music Discovery” in another way.  I want this more interesting and lesser known music to be a more easily searchable item.

After we hung out, I created the category, “Music Discovery,” traipsed through all of my posts to see which contained links or references to music that I thought might be unfamiliar to some of my friends, and linked them to “Music Discovery.”

__________________________________________________________________________

To begin with my oldest Music Discovery-categorized post, I’ll highlight this song by Caetano Veloso.

Caetano Veloso – Canto Do Povo De Um Lugar

This is a beautiful song recorded by Caetano Veloso, one of my favorite musician/composer/songwriter/singers, and an extremely important Brazilian musical/cultural icon.  In future posts I will elaborate on some of the music and creative output of Caetano Veloso as I have hundreds of his songs and have seen him live in concert several times in the United States.

In music, it is often important to be simple rather than complicated – to not reveal everything you know in one short space.  There are times to fill a space with a large amount of data, but more often it is important to sacrifice virtuosity and excess for clarity and memorability.  Caetano Veloso does this throughout Canto Do Povo De Um Lugar.

A few things to notice within the song –

the crescendo beginning at 0.44 as a second guitar, and then bass, enter the song

the beautiful switch to falsetto singing at 1.38

the sudden QUIET and shift of vocal register at 2.09 (pop recordings rarely/never get suddenly quiet!)

more guitar melodies in the instrumental section beginning at 2.21 – 3.28.  Within the instrumental comes the abandonment of the chord progression in favor of a single chord and more solitude, enhanced by the added prominence of the organ.

the introduction of a jarring, out of place, diminished chord  at 3.29 – 3.44, followed by a return to normal, then solace and fade out

__________________________________________________________________________

This song was selected for inclusion in my October 12, 2012 post for two reasons:

1.  The melodic cell, 1-2-3-5, is the first four notes that Caetano sings. These four notes did not originate with this song.  They can be heard in many other musical compositions before this – they should be free to be sung and/or performed without the threat of a lawsuit.  They are, in other words, in the public domain.  I included Caetano’s recording in my October 12, 2012 post as supportive musical evidence in a hypothetical music copyright infringement case.  In this hypothetical case, Five For Fighting’s song, “Superman (It’s Not Easy),” is alleged to infringe the copyright of Angie Aparo’s “Seed.”  I was asked to opine about this, from my vantage point as one who actually works in music copyright infringement actions, by a reader.  I proceeded to analyze both songs, make the decision as to where I stood (in this particular matter, with the hypothetical defendant) and then  explain some of the reasoning and evidence I would use to prove that the defendant had not infringed the plaintiff’s copyright.  (The first four notes Caetano sings – 1-2-3-5 – are the same four notes at the center of the hypothetical Aparo/Five For Fighting matter.)

The October 12 post was the third and final post about this hypothetical case.  (The first was from October 10, 2012;  the second from October 11, 2012.)

2.  Caetano Veloso’s Canto Do Povo De Um Lugar is a beautiful song.  Given an excuse to promote Caetano Veloso or his music, I will!  In my perfect world, everyone in the U. S. would be fascinated by the music and musicians of Brazil.

So, I think I will treat “Music Discovery” as music which I know – maybe learned a few minutes or a few decades ago – that I find intriguing, inspiring, innovative, beautiful, novel or just cool, and for which I want to advocate.

As always I look forward to your input.

__________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Dexter Not Only Murders, He Steals Film Titles

file0001307293788

Giving Zealous Publishers Ample Reason To Live:  I Sue Therefore I Am

Referencing FILM Titles in Dexter

Dexter Not Only Murders, He Steals Intellectual Property – Part 2

Dexter – Murderer & Larcenist Of Film Titles

Dexter, Piracy & Film (Titles)

Dexter, Piracy & Film – Publisher Perils

Dexter, Piracy & Film (Titles):  I Sue Therefore I Am

__________________________________________________________________________________

This is my second blog post about DEXTER.  In the first I explored how many episodes of DEXTER were named after song lyrics and/or song titles.  In this post, I will identify episodes named after films.

The Showtime original series, DEXTER, lasted for eight (8) seasons – each season featured twelve (12) episodes.

Throughout DEXTER, I was surprised that so many titles of episodes were references to songs, lyrics or movies.  I feel strongly that creators in contemporary cultures should feel free to acknowledge, borrow, reference, copy and transform preexisting material – in these examples, words that constitute titles.  In my opinion, the titles of episodes in DEXTER that have been referenced should NOT lead to any type of legal problem or copyright infringement (although I have been a part of copyright infringement actions brought over as trivial and ridiculous similarities as these potential issues below from DEXTER).

__________________________________________________________________________________

F I L M S   (and  Dexter)

Many episodes of DEXTER are titled after titles of films.  I’ll repeat the accusatory verbs that could be hurled at the copyright owners of DEXTER by each of the potential plaintiffs below.  While to some, referencing a movie title is not a reference/cultural reference/cultural signifier as much as it is an outrageous theft of their intellectual property.  There are many who have sued over four (4), three (3) or even two (2) words that have been copied/stolen/referenced/plundered from another source by cutthroat pirates.

To repeat the accusations from a previous post, only this time with respect to movie titles:

DEXTER references film titles

DEXTER copies film titles

DEXTER steals film titles

DEXTER misappropriates film titles

DEXTER appropriates film titles

DEXTER plunders film titles

DEXTER rips off  film titles

DEXTER thieves film titles

(I use the word, “thieves,” as a verb above, humorously, as I know “thieves” is NOT a verb.)

“Referencing” film titles is the most appropriate verb above.

What follows is my take on eleven (11) DEXTER episodes that reference movie titles.

1.

DEXTER – Season 1 Episode 12 –  Born Free.   “Born Free” was a successful 1966 British movie filmed in Kenya.  Its eponymous theme song was also famous and can be heard below.

Born Free  (IMDB)  (1966)

Born Free  (Wikipedia)

Born Free (Trailer)

Born Free  (Theme song sung by Andy Williams, with a frozen, awkwardly and uncomfortably smiling picture of Michael C. Hall (“Dexter Morgan” from DEXTER)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because two (2) words are the same, and the title of this film.

2.

DEXTER – Season 2 Episode 2 –  Waiting To Exhale.  

Waiting To Exhale  (IMDB)  (1995)

Waiting To Exhale  (Wikipedia)

Waiting To Exhale  (Trailer)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because all three (3) words are the same, and the title of this film.

3.

DEXTER – Season 2 Episode 3 – An Inconvenient Lie. 

The film, An Inconvenient Truth (2006), becomes the Dexter episode, An Inconvenient Lie.

An Inconvenient Truth  (IMDB)  (2006)

An Inconvenient Truth  (Wikipedia)

An Inconvenient Truth  (Trailer)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because two (2) of the three (3) words are the same, and the title of this film.

4.

DEXTER – Season 2 Episode 6 –  Dex, Lies & Videotape.  

The film, Sex, Lies & Videotape (1989), becomes the Dexter episode, Dex, Lies & Videotape.

Sex, Lies & Videotape  (IMDB)  (1989)

Sex, Lies & Videotape  (Wikipedia)

Sex, Lies & Videotape (trailer)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because two (2) words are the same (and the 3rd word is only letter different), and the title of this film.

5.

DEXTER – Season 2 Episode 10  –  There’s Something About Harry

The film, There’s Something About Mary  (1998), becomes the Dexter episode, There’s Something About Harry.

There’s Something About Mary  (IMDB)  (1998)

There’s Something About Mary  (Wikipedia)

There’s Something About Mary  (Trailer)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because three (3) words are the same (and the 4th word is only one letter different), and the title of this film.

6.

DEXTER – Season 3 Episode 9  –  About Last Night. 

About Last Night  (IMDB)  (1986)

About Last Night  (Wikipedia)

About Last Night  (Trailer)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because the three (3) words are the same, and the title of this film.

7.

DEXTER – Season 4 Episode 5 – Dirty Harry. 

Dirty Harry is the first a series of five (5) films based on San Francisco Police Inspector “Dirty” Harry Callahan, played by Clint Eastwood.  The first of these films, Dirty Harry, dates from 1971 – the fifth, The Dead Pool, from 1988.

From the 1971 trailer: 

“This is about a movie about a couple of killers.  Harry Callahan and a homicidal maniac.  The one with a badge is Harry.”

Dirty Harry  (IMDB)  (1971)

Dirty Harry  (Wikipedia)

Dirty Harry  (trailer)

When it comes to DEXTER, a hammer can be an effective killing weapon, not just a metaphorical hammer that bludgeons one’s competitors (think AppleSamsung and other litigating bodies) but the REAL thing  –  the means by which one human murders another human.

Many would sue for copyright infringement because two (2) words are the same, and the title of this film.  The potential plaintiff could even more enthusiastically claim that “all two (2) words are the same.”

8.

DEXTER – Season 5 Episode 4 – Beauty & The Beast.

There have been at least seven (7) Beauty & The Beast films from 1946-2003.  The most successful was the 1991 animated Walt Disney version.

Beauty & The Beast  (IMDB)  (1991)

Beauty & The Beast  (Wikipedia)

Beauty & The Beast  (Trailer)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because all four (4) words are the same, and the title of this film.

9.

DEXTER – Season 6 Episode 3 – Smokey & The Bandit.

Smokey & The Bandit  (IMDB)  (1977)

Smokey & The Bandit  (Wikipedia) 

Smokey & The Bandit  (Trailer)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because all four (4) words are the same, and the title of this film.

10.

DEXTER – Season 7 Episode 6 – Do The Wrong Thing.

The film, Do The Right Thing (1989), becomes the Dexter episode, Do The Wrong Thing.

Do The Right Thing  (IMDB)  (1989)

Do The Right Thing  (Wikipedia)

Do The Right Thing  (Trailer)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because three (3) of the four (4) words are the same, and the title of this film.  Furthermore, “The Wrong Thing” could be a parody of “The Right Thing,” and many potential plaintiffs do not like being subjected to parody and ridicule.

11.

DEXTER – Season 8 Episode 3 – What’s Eating Dexter Morgan?

The film, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape  (1993), becomes the Dexter episode, What’s Eating Dexter Morgan?

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?  (IMDB)  (1993)

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?  (Wikipedia)

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?  (Trailer)

Many would sue for copyright infringement because two (2) of the four (4) words are the same, and the title of this film.

__________________________________________________________________________________

If this post seemed as if I have experience in this area, a penchant and a strong point of view, it is because I HAVE experience in this area with foolish lawsuits over trivial unprotect-ible (able) material – as few as two (2) or three (3) words in common between works of authorship – as well as a penchant and a strong point of view.

I will continue to explore how our society views referenced material from works of authorship, as well as how music and the arts intersect with law, business, technology and communication.  As always I welcome your input.

__________________________________________________________________________________