Part One

I just stumbled on an article about music copyright infringement and wondered whether this law suit will result in the death of something important… Something that can change the world, transform understanding, bring people together and inspire generations? Could this bring about the death of music? Am I right to be worried?

When a “Vibe” becomes the basis for infringement, the song title Blurred Lines is ridiculously ironic

The Rolling Stone article I am referring to (found here) tells the story of a 2013 song entitled “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. Following its success, the artists were accused of infringing the copyright of a Marvin Gaye song called “Got to Give it Up” which they openly talked about as having inspired them to write the song.

In the five years since a court ruled that “Blurred Lines” infringed on Marvin Gaye’s 1977 “Got to Give It Up,” demanding that Thicke and Williams fork over $5 million to the Gaye estate for straying too close to the older song’s “vibe,” the once-sleepy realm of music copyright law has turned into a minefield.

What does this mean going forward? Apart form the obvious massive surge in law suits and equally massive win for insurance companies… it could mark the end of music – couldn’t it? The Guardian, reporting on the outcome of the appeal, quoted the two-to-one outnumbered appellate judge, Jacqueline Nguyen…

Jacqueline Nguyen, argued that the songs “differed in melody, harmony and rhythm” and said the verdict “strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere”.

The Guardian, (article)

A devastating blow… A blow that devastates… To devastate – to destroy or ruin. “The city was devastated by a huge earthquake” Perhaps the future, the dictionary example of the word in use will read “Music was devastated by the Blurred Lines decision.”

Copyright Before

Copyright used to be about protecting lyrics and melody against plagiarism and exploitation. Infringement meant that if you deliberately concealed copying a lyric or a melody you found yourself in trouble – fair and square. Sound reasonable? Yes, I think we’d agree.

Copyright Now

Far more abstract qualities of rhythm, tempo, and even the general feel of a song are also eligible for protection — and thus that a song can be sued for feeling like an earlier one.

I question “eligible for protection.” Is this fair and square? How can this be right? This is no longer about plagiarism. How can courts justify putting influence and other abstract qualities of art (which in itself is inherently emotional, poetic and ambiguous) like mood or feeling on trial before a jury. It boggles the mind. I have always believed that opinion and criticism was the domain of critics not the courts. Am I that naiive?

Lets not forget the purpose of a legal system in society… Quick search on Google reveals:

Laws provide a framework and rules to help resolve disputes between individuals. Laws create a system where individuals can bring their disputes before an impartial fact-finder, such as a judge or jury.

A framework – something strong and supportive. Rules  – a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles. Impartial – unbiased, fair and just. A fact – something known to be true.

What constitutes “straying”? How close is “too close”? Exactly what defines a “vibe” and which “vibe” are we focusing on? How “impartial” must you be to answer these questions? What vague ideas rather than “facts” are you seeking? Blurred Lines indeed!

How can this be “law” and not a waste of the court’s time and the destruction of one of society’s cornerstones and humankind’s great differentiator (creativity/artistic expression)? At this rate Marvin Gaye’s name will become the scorn of music, composers and musicians – hardly a legacy the artist deserves. No composer can compose or songwriter write because nothing is original and the building blocks are now incendiary. Personally, I’m leaning towards thinking that the insurance companies are in serious financial trouble and looking for the easiest target to drain wealth from to stall going under. Errors and omissions insurance…

“can run from $20,000 to $250,000 a year” Joe Charles, senior vice president at insurance provider Alliant Insurance Services

What will the outcome be?

READ Part Two and find out

The post Copyright Infringement or Death? Part One appeared first on Katja Maas Multidisciplinary Design Services.

Part Two

Try to imagine a world where no artist dared to be influenced or inspired by another artist that came before them? Try to picture what the history of art would look like if DaVinci’s work had never been created. Or Picasso’s for that matter. In music, there would be no Beethoven because there was no Mozart. There would be no Coldplay without Travis. What shallow, narrow-minded rubbish would constitute music or art in such a sad and fearful world? Nothing could ever come before… There would be no springboard for the new. Art and music would be perpetually dysfunctional wheels reinvented without context.

Who would be the next target for litigation with these new abstract parameters? Actors perhaps? I’m sure there is equal scope there – indeed the definition of “acting” pretty much ensures there is. Painters? What about use of colors, mood, feeling and subject matter…. hmmmm “red” “blue”  “melancholy” “abstract” “male” “female”  “sunflower” yup – endless scope for repetition which means endless scope for “infringement”. Designers? Filmmakers? No creative individual will be safe unless these new blurred abstract concepts are returned to rational rules.

You must be wondering if there is a justification for all this fuss. I’m putting the audio of both tracks from the case that changed the game down below so you can listen for yourself.

   

Personally, I agree with the outnumbered appellate judge, Jacqueline Nguyen and don’t think they are the same. I do however accept that they have both used a distinctive sounding instrument (in the percussion – the tin cow bell) and thus sound somewhat similar. But “similar” is not “the same.” And “similar” in human evolution as in art is about change and progress. Necessary for evolution.  Essential for growth. Critical for survival.

What if this song never existed?

That’s a hard question to answer. How can you tell across time what the precise effect any single tiny act has on everything else. Chaos theory suggests that there is significant impact. My mentor, Milton Glaser and many Buddhists advocate “One thing leads to another and everything is connected.”  And, I just watched “Its a Wonderful Life” again recently…

Here are a few things that I can guarantee wouldn’t exist…

I have always preferred my friend, Toni Menage and her band, Project Orange’s cover of this song and if it wasn’t for her cover I wouldn’t have made this cute wee video with my kids and their friends and a big old box… that reminds them of simple pleasures and taught them about the magic of editing…

And Weird Al Yanovic wouldn’t have made this brilliant video on literacy in a time when grammar is no longer taught in schools (I’m talking about in the US – I’m sure the developing countries have such essentials covered. Developing countries… hmmm, I guess that means we are not developing… which means we are in decline… what a depressing thought – but I diverge) and at the same time smart phones are dumbing down the population at an alarming rate. LOL LMAO WTF …

And Post Modern Jukebox wouldn’t have created their Blue Grass version (that really makes me question the courts what are you thinking about). It certainly doesn’t have any relationship with Marvin Gaye’s song, in fact it demonstrates the essence of Blurred Lines has even greater difference.

The Future of Copyright Infringement

It stands to reason that the natural progression of all this is that future musicians and songwriters cannot use the same instruments… or any chord anyone has been used before… or even the same number of beats in the bar… because they absolutely will be infringing on something they can be sued for under these vague parameters. What would that mean? That would be the death of music, would it not? Is that important? Would there be less joy or empathy in the world? Does that matter? Would there be less coming together of communities? When there is less joy and more isolation is there more or less spending? The answer to that will likely determine if things are encouraged to go this far… (Oh I’m such a cynic!)

One Thing Leads to Another or Everything is Connected

A lecture title from my mentor Milton Glaser given to Edinburgh Napier University. A truth if you work in a creative field like I do. Absolutely everything is connected. Of course one thing leads to another. How can it be any other way? Creative imaginations just make connections that others don’t, but the connections exist and are there to be made.

I have to finish on this article if only because it so poetically landed on my lap when I was searching for everything is connected… Apparently there is now scientific proof that might undermine what is happening in the courts.

Ubiquitous Interconnection is revealed by The science of “vibes”

Sometimes a person, creature, or thing really resonates with you. Full article

In a Dec. 5 post in Scientific American entitled “The Hippies Were Right: It’s All About Vibrations, Man!” lawyer and philosopher Tam Hunt explains a new theory of consciousness he developed with his colleague, psychologist Jonathan Schooler, at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

(I’m hoping… you can’t be sued for being conscious can you?)

_____________________________________________________________________

Creative Strategy? A fancy workaround. What could that look like?

Option One. Follow the UK and at least use ethical academic scholars on decisions that could lead to the death of an art form that advances society. (Can you tell I’m mad about this?)

Option Two. Capitalize on the freedom that religion has here in the states and start a new religion worshiping Creativity… followers could be called Creatives… core values wrapped around connection, community, generosity and continuity, pillars – honor your inspiration, create, do no harm, and be kind … (That could be cool.)

Option Three. We could all agree not to pay insurance companies and not to sue eachother. (Ha!)

Option Three B. The Gaye Estate and all other subsequent winners of a similar cases publicly give the awarded money back and draw a sharp line in the sand to protect the future of humanity. (Make my day!)

Option Four. All American artists and composers move to Scotland or another safe country out of reach. (Go Scotland!)

Option Five. If the Hunt and Schooler theory is true and everything is connected, then perhaps nobody owns anything since the beginning of time and there can be no intent because everything is a vibration and we can’t help but spontaneously align… (Thank you science!)

What do you think? Option Two? 😉 Option Four? Ahhh! Option Five! No? Perhaps something else altogether? Comment down below…

Footnote. I would like to link to this essay “Influence, Imitation and Plagiarism” but it doesn’t exist online, it can only be found in the back of the book Art is Work by Milton Glaser. I recommend reading the full essay but here is the bit I thought was useful to remind the legal system of the boundaries and hopefully encourage them to move the lines back… or refrain from doing immeasurable harm (depending on how you want to look at it).

READ Part One Here

The post Copyright infringement or death? Part Two appeared first on Katja Maas Multidisciplinary Design Services.

The post From Derelict to Chic appeared first on Katja Maas Multidisciplinary Design Services.