Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Harrison versus Mack Songs
In 1976 George harrison was found guilty of copyright infringement for "My Sweet Lord".
Having listened to this song and Ronald Mack's "He's so Fine" I did find them very similar in Melody and rhythm , the Harmony/Chordal structure quite alike But the tempo (Sweet Lord Slow- So Fine- Fast) quite differentand the lyrics different.
My class colleague Daniel tells me the instruments were different - as a non music crtic I had no idea about this.
I felt that if George Harrison did copy, he did it unconsciously (as he claimed) and that we all pick up ideas from things that we see and hear throughout life - which makes proving/claiming copyright fairly hard I would think.
So I would probably agree with the Court decision ( with some reservations - as above.)
It was a very enjoyable excercise !!!
Having listened to this song and Ronald Mack's "He's so Fine" I did find them very similar in Melody and rhythm , the Harmony/Chordal structure quite alike But the tempo (Sweet Lord Slow- So Fine- Fast) quite differentand the lyrics different.
My class colleague Daniel tells me the instruments were different - as a non music crtic I had no idea about this.
I felt that if George Harrison did copy, he did it unconsciously (as he claimed) and that we all pick up ideas from things that we see and hear throughout life - which makes proving/claiming copyright fairly hard I would think.
So I would probably agree with the Court decision ( with some reservations - as above.)
It was a very enjoyable excercise !!!
RS Trekking photo
After reading the licence on flickrI found this image on flickr and chose to upload it becausea) I liked it
b)It was under attribution license on creative commons which allows copying and sharing of the copyrighted work and derivative works so long as credit to the artist/creator is given.
I checked it had a CC licence with Max's help and that it is legal for me to use it as described above.
Keir Smith 'Oh So Criminal"
I enjoyed Keir Smiths "Oh so Criminal " work and thought it was a very clever and appropriate way to create a submission to the Australian Governments " Fair use and other Copyright Exceptions: An examination of fair use, fair dealing and other exceptions in the Digital Age" issues paper, provided in May 2005.
According to copyright law as I understand it "Oh so Criminal" is "illegal" - it has lots of copies of images and sounds, you could argue that it shouldn't be"illegal" because it is satirical BUT if it wasn't "illegal" it would lose a whole lot of its political impact - so to me this is the way the work should be.
I would think it would certainly have a great deal more impact than a written submission
Oh, and just a point keir smith does put his contact on so anyone who spots their (pirated?)work can contact him but of course it is too late because he has already used the work.....
According to copyright law as I understand it "Oh so Criminal" is "illegal" - it has lots of copies of images and sounds, you could argue that it shouldn't be"illegal" because it is satirical BUT if it wasn't "illegal" it would lose a whole lot of its political impact - so to me this is the way the work should be.
I would think it would certainly have a great deal more impact than a written submission
Oh, and just a point keir smith does put his contact on so anyone who spots their (pirated?)work can contact him but of course it is too late because he has already used the work.....
Lebbeus Woods versus Universal Studios 12 Monkeys
1n 1987 Lebbeus Woods drew a chair in a specific environment.
In Dec 1995 Universal Studios released the film 12 Monkeys with a similar looking chair in a similar environment.
In the court case between Lebbeus and Universal Studios the decision was for Lebbeus Woods implying that Universal had stolen his image.
I felt that it was all pretty nebulous - although the chairs and environments were similar - I didn't see any handcuffs on the Lebbeus chair (as there were in the film) and it was a only a couple of scenes in the whole film and the chair looked to be used in quite a different context in the film to the way it appeared in the sketch.
I don't know whether Lebbeus wood was paid for his original sketch buy anyone but in some way he had (presumably) already made his sketch available to the public and while I would never deny an artist their rights in my opinion I think that he was probably lucky to get a favorable court decision.
Marian Brandish
In Dec 1995 Universal Studios released the film 12 Monkeys with a similar looking chair in a similar environment.
In the court case between Lebbeus and Universal Studios the decision was for Lebbeus Woods implying that Universal had stolen his image.
I felt that it was all pretty nebulous - although the chairs and environments were similar - I didn't see any handcuffs on the Lebbeus chair (as there were in the film) and it was a only a couple of scenes in the whole film and the chair looked to be used in quite a different context in the film to the way it appeared in the sketch.
I don't know whether Lebbeus wood was paid for his original sketch buy anyone but in some way he had (presumably) already made his sketch available to the public and while I would never deny an artist their rights in my opinion I think that he was probably lucky to get a favorable court decision.
Marian Brandish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
