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
