thanks for the unnessesary law lecture. how do people have time to develope these immense e-mails.
my point is only this. popular music (especially electronic music) is rife with 'derrivative' work. 'clash city rockers' copies the riff from 'i can't explain' its normal, its standard. and there's no reason why there can't be multiple good songs that sound the same. if no one released anythign unless it was completely original, then we'd be bored as hell waiting to hear some new music. On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Fred Heutte wrote: > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> > >Subject: Re: [313] Bell vs Wink > >Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:30:13 -0400 (EDT) > > .. > > >Yeah, the Wink track sounds like the Bell track. So what! Think about how > >many tracks use the same elements and how many more sound alike. > > >I don't particualrly think that the Wink track is good. Actually, it kinda > >sucks. But I think its rather immature for Bell to call him out like that. > >It doesn't seem like Wink did anythign that isn't standard practive in > >this music. > > >This also isn't the first time I've heard bitching about Dan Bell's style > >getting ripped off (though it is admittedly the first time Ive heard it > >directly from Dan)- but I think the point I'm trying to make is that Dan > >quite apparantly has sour grapes with Wink. He also certainly has sour > >grapes with Plus 8. That's a lot of sour grapes for someone who's only put > >out a few records and none for a very long time. > > >Imagine this- what if Chuck Berry sent out an e-mail bitching that Keith > >richards stole his riffs. Duh! > > > Yeah, another well-informed posting. What if Keith Richards *did* rip off > Chuck Berry? (Or more to the point, what if the Stones and a lot of other > groups ripped off Willie Dixon -- a point that Dixon won in his lawsuit.) > > http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/rock/bizmark-92.php > > The cheap personal attack on Dan Bell ("sour grapes"? "immature"??) > doesn't address the real issue here at all. > > What this all actually reminds me of, in fact, is the infamous String of > Puppies case. This happened when former-art-student-turned-mutual-fund- > salesman-turned-kitsch-but-highly-popular-with-the-monied-set artist > Jeff Koons (yes, the one who was married to "La Cicciolina" for a while) > recreated as sculptures a cutesy tourist postcard picture taken by > photographer Art Rogers of some puppies. Koons then sold his products for > hundreds of thousands of dollars -- let's not even get into the "greater > fool" theory of how the art world works here -- without paying Rogers for > use of his copyrighted work. (Are you with me so far, Josh?) > > Now of course this was a pretty far reach, copying a two-dimensional > image into a three-dimensional form (even better, Koons himself wasn't the > creator of the sculptures, he had a workshop in Italy do all the actual > work). But the court's conclusion in the case was very firm: copying > is infringing even in a different medium if it does not involve > "sufficient changes so that the works at issue undercut substantial > similarity." > > I am not a lawyer (of course), but it seems to me the issue between Dan > Bell and Josh Wink isn't "sampling" but instead a different legal > doctrine called "derivative work." If Wink's record has a similarity of > *expression* -- then it may be infringing. Thus, changing the vocal > sample from "control" to "freak" (hah) may well not change that > fundamental similarity if other elements are "substantially similar." > One legal commentator says: > > What is protected [under our copyright laws] is the original or > unique way that an author expresses his ideas, concepts, > principles or processes. In looking at the two works of art to > determine whether they are substantially similar, focus must be > on the similarity of expression of an idea or a fact, not on the > similarity of the ideas or concepts themselves. Durham Indus. v. > Tomy Corp. 630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1980). It is not, therefore, the > idea of a couple with eight small puppies seated on a bench which > is protected, but rather Roger's expression of this idea ? as > caught in placement, in the particular light, and in the > expressions of the subjects ? that gives the photograph its > charming and unique character, that is to say, makes it original > and copyrightable. > > http://www.asopa.com/publications/2000winter/law.htm > > The explanation that attorney Fergus provides is much lengthier than > this (fair use) excerpt indicates, and very helpful in fleshing out a > lot of the legal wrinkles, so check it out if you're interested. > > I see Dan's letter as a more appropriate response to Wink than the threat > of a lawsuit. The resemblance of the Bell and Wink tracks is so close > that numerous observers in addition to Dan have noted the similarity. > Since Josh Wink is obviously familiar with Dan's work, even to the point > of deriving the name of his track in a clearly derivative way from another > of Dan's records, there is more going on here than a mere accident or > coincidence. And I think Dan is completely right to squawk about it. > > Fred > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
