Discussion in 'The Sound Hound Lounge' started by Neer, May 4, 2015.
It's interesting to see the money breakdown, but I want to know WHY those additional parties received credit. Which parts of the song are theirs, and what works are they derived from?
I realize the song is very derivative of that era, but I don't know any specific work it draws from.
The "401k " copyright claims!
F-k those farewell tours or coming out of retirement shows. Just claim some boy band ripped off something sounded close enough to the 12string chorused guitar sound on your hit tune from 1979 .
I guess since no ne buys music anymore, the new revenue stream is lawsuits-oh wait it's for royalties if people buy the song
Isn't the end part pretty derivative of 'Oops upside your head'?
My read is that
"Ronson, Mars, Phillip Martin Lawrence and Jeffrey Bhasker reached out to Nicholas Williams (AKA Trinidad James) and producer Devon Gallaspy, the authors of "All Gold Everything," both receiving a share for a sampling interpolation"
So Williams and Gallaspy each get a portion of the songwriting share.
Uptown Funk had samples of the Gap Band tune.
So I'm not seeing the hulabaloo that you are describing. This appears to be a valid claim that was settled accordingly.
Morris Day and the Time getting shafted yet again.
Oh E Oh E Oh
I played the funk guitar riff from Uptown Funk (learning it for gigs) and immediately thought "Ladies Night."
The "uptown, funk you up, uptown funk you up" is like "oops, upside your head, oops, upside your head".....the melody sounds the same.....I guess that's enough to give up a percentage......
Yer def missing the slippery slope aspect of how this ruling is if you're making this out to be a "business as usual" copyright claim. It's pretty much setting the stage for lawyers kickin their chops for "vibe" copyrighting. This is the beginning
Totally. I get "oops..." Stuck in my head every time. Can't wait for this song to run it's course and go away. I almost miss the thrift shop song.
I'm not so sure this song is setting the stage for the transformation of infringement under US copyright, any more than I think the "Blurred Lines" verdict did so.
The Ninth Circuit at least has held that in the right circumstances a combination of separately uncopyrightable elements can rise to the level of infringement. See Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton (held, songs were substantially similar due to the combination of five separately unprotectable elements: (1) the title hook phrase (including the lyric, rhythm, and pitch); (2) the shifted cadence; (3) the instrumental figures; (4) the verse/chorus relationship; and (5) the fade ending.)
Precedent from the Blurred Lines verdict?? What precedent from the Blurred Lines verdict??
If you mean in the legal sense, the blurred lines jury verdict is not really precedent.
That's kinda scary...a slippery slope...
Haha. Let's not start hashing out precedent (or the lack thereof) all over again. I'm just responding to the idea that this is a slippery slope. If it is, didn't the slope start at least fifteen years ago with Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, and doesn't the paucity of intervening examples mean that any such slope, assuming it exists at all, is exceedingly shallow, or maybe even not really a slope at all?
No. I don't mean in the legal sense. I'm making an oblique reference to the Blurred Lines verdict thread where I said the verdict sets a dangerous precedence, just to have people school me on the legal definition.
Sometimes you just can't see the forest for the trees.
If it's MY slippery slope comment, what I'm thinking is that if various elements from a song, none of which are copyrightable (?) can be taken together to be copyright infringement, then the next thing is a word or two from this song, a cowbell part from that song, a chord change from that song, etc., etc., and have copyright infringement.....wouldn't that be possible with that precedent?
One thing is, for those of us who are educated as lawyers a word like "precedent" is a term of art, particularly when it is applied to a verdict in a lawsuit. In a sense, we can't help but respond to clarify that sort of thing so that other, non-lawyers do not get the wrong impression that any verdict sets precedent.
The Bolton case does seem to stand for the proposition that a sufficient combination of what would be separately non-copyrightable elements can rise to the level of infringement, and unlike the "Blurred Lines" verdict, the earlier case is from the Ninth Circuit court, so it is indeed precedential -- at least to federal courts within that circuit. Still, that there have not been a significant number of subsequent cases relying on that rationale makes me skeptical that it has inaugurated an observable slippery slope, let alone an era likely to upend copyright as we have known it.
Yeah, what A-Bone said.
From reading about this case though, I don't think it follows the precedence of the Blurred Lines verdict either, it sounds like there were actual samples that were used. That seems entirely different.