While "technically" this might be true, in reality almost ALL compositions are copyright violations under this basis. This is a built in limitation of the finite tonal system most commonly used, which just by chance is going to produce "substantially similar" patterns. Millions of songs share four notes in common. If this was enforced it would prove just how ludicrous and inadequate our notions of intellectual property really are.
The question in my mind is, I suppose all jazz musicians use of quotation is legally "parody"; but, how do we know that the quote of another song was made with a humorous intent? How do we know they weren't just "ripping off" the original? I guess the less is, always claim your work is a parody if questioned. _Dave -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7:27 PM To: David Powers Cc: 313 list Subject: Re: (313) "Jaguar" Strings on 80s House record? Damn where do I start with this - you need to learn a bit more about copyright issues, sampling and music law, and fair use: http://www.music-law.com/sampling.html "There is also a rumor going around that you can use four notes of any song under the "fair use" doctrine. There is no "four note" rule in the copyright law. One note from a sound recording is a copyright violation. Saturday Night Live was sued for using the jingle, "I Love New York" which is only four notes. The test for infringement is whether the sample is "substantially similar" to the original. Remember, a judge or jury is the one who determines this and these people may be much less receptive to your music than your fans. My point is you cannot rely on fair use as a defense." _________ http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/music_law/legality_sampl ing.htm "Unauthorized sampling actually violates two potential legal rights. First, the instant you sample a portion of someone?s song (no matter how small), it constitutes a violation of the copyright in song itself - the C symbol - which is owned by the song writer or the music publisher. Second, sampling violates the sound recording copyright - the symbol - which is usually owned by the record company or recording artist. Thus, sampling without prior permission subjects the illegal copier to a copyright infringement in federal court by the original author (or publisher) and by the record company." __________ http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/music_law/use_of_notes.h tm "There are rumors that sampling only four notes is not copyright infringement because it is protected as "fair use". This notion of reducing copyright infringement down to the number of notes uses, however, is simply wrong. If you sample a single note, beat, or line from a sound recording without permission, that constitutes copyright infringement. Under current US copyright law, unauthorized "sampling" - no matter how minimal or seemingly innocuous- is usually not considered "fair use". Under US Copyright law, the true test for copyright infringement is not the number of notes sampled, but whether the sample is "substantially similar" to the original work. The other main questions is whether it should qualify as "fair use". In short, if you engage in unauthorized sampling and get sued by the owners, don?t expect to prevail in court on a "fair use" defense if you use the songs commercially for your own private benefit." ______________ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a .html In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically later in this chapter, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement. So what is a "transformative" use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation. Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody. 1. Comment and Criticism If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include: * quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review * summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report * copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or * copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case. The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases in Section C. 2. Parody A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original. ______________ It's amazing how many people involved in music still have misconceptions regarding these issues. MEK "David Powers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] lnoize.com> cc: 313 list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: (313) "Jaguar" Strings on 80s House record? 08/04/03 05:55 PM Hi, If it's not a sample there shouldn't be any problem. It's not possible to copyright just a fragment of a melody really, as far as I have ever heard. The essential question would have to be raised, does that string line encompass the "essence" of both songs, or if the additional parts in each song make them essentially two different compositions. After all, no one has ever claimed a jazz musician has to get copyright clearance when they "quote" a fragment of a popular song in the middle of their solo. That is arguably fair use, but I've never heard of a court case over this issue. By the way, in classical music the concept of theme and variations is based precisely on writing a new composition over someone's melody, and there are many other examples of borrowing melodies too (check Mahler's first symphony or Ives!). So I think history would support an argument of fair use of a melody in a new compositions, as long as the new composition is not a "derivative work", which would be protected by copyright law. Of course, who knows what you could get a judge to buy who had little understanding of music. _Dave ---------- Original Message ------------- Subject: Re: (313) "Jaguar" Strings on 80s House record? Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:08:14 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Klaas-Jan Jongsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You're kidding right? A coincidence? Everything in that string bit is in Jaguar -even how the notes waver before the descending notes come in. This more than sounds " a lot like" it - the strings in Jaguar clearly is a sample of that track with maybe a tempo change (and maybe extra accompaniment over and under to fatten up the sound). Or, it was reperformed by Rolando using the same keyboard practically note for note - would be too many coincidences to be a coincidence if you know what I mean. TCoy probably wouldn't do anything about it because of the use of Eric B. & Rakim, in the Carino track, would cost a lot more to licence and TCoy would most likely get sued in turn if Eric B & Rakim knew about it. So, I'm sure the producer of Carino, if they are alive still, are keeping real quiet and not bothering with taking any action against Rolando if UR didn't clear it. This is all a moot point if Rolando/UR cleared it all with the owners of Carino. Whether that be the performance and the publishing (if it was a sample) or just the publishing (if Rolando re-performed the section used). Either way, both tunes are cool and I do hope that UR has got their bases covered on this. MEK Klaas-Jan Jongsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kent williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .nl> cc: 313 list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: (313) "Jaguar" Strings on 80s House record? 08/04/03 01:13 PM On maandag, aug 4, 2003, at 20:08 Europe/Amsterdam, Kent williams wrote: > It also is note for note the same as the beginning couple of bars of > the > strings in Jaguar ... just interesting to compare. Oh sure but i think that it so more a coincident, i once got accused by someone for copying a melody from a Joy Division record once. I never realized it until i heard them played bak to back and i had to agree that my track sounded a lot like that Joy Division track :) > My friend who found that thought that Rolando was copying; I argued > that > the string line on both are fairly generic and depend on the context > for > any distinctiveness. > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Klaas-Jan Jongsma wrote: >> Well they use the same (Oberheim?) synth for sure, but that is where >> the comparison ends i think? >> >> On maandag, aug 4, 2003, at 19:48 Europe/Amsterdam, Kent williams >> wrote: >> >>> My friend Rich found this: >>> >>> http://www.psychiatry.uiowa.edu/~kent/Carino-TCOY.mp3 >>> >>> Listen to the string synth at the beginning, contrast and compare >>> with >>> synth strings in "Night of the Jaguar" >>> >> >
