What happens when a DJ takes LMFAOs new song adds a few new sound effects to it, speeds it up 10% and publishes it on their new album as 'their' new track. Who owns the copyright to that..? Technically its LMFAOs song as they put the hard work into the creation of the track, melodies, words etc but a slight change in the beat and it no longer belongs to them...
I work as a dance teacher and I know that for my current production we actually had to receive permission from the record companies to use their tracks as we would be 'acting dj' and mixing them, speeding them up as well as adding our own sound effects to the tracks to fit our particular theme and this was all necessary in order for us to avoid being penalised for breaching copyright laws.
I understand copyright but just don't see how DJs don't get into trouble for copyright breaching when we had to ask for permission to use the tracks to do the exact same thing that a DJ does... (Anyone that understands this please feel free to explain)
Speaking of copyright associated with music use... A recent copyright case involved the 1980' band Men at Work and Larrikin Music. It look 28 years for the similarities to be noticed between Men at Works hit song "Down under" and Marion Sinclair 1934 girl guides jamboree song "Kookaburra sits in the Old Gum Tree". Men at Work were found guilty of a copyright infringement and were ruled to pay 5% of all profits made from May 2002 to Larrikin Music (Originally Larrikin was asking to 40-60% of profits which was ruled unrealistic). Who would have thought that the sort of 'unofficial' Australian anthem would be in the middle of a copyright infringement case!
What do you think about the Men at Work copyright case.. Have a listen to the tracks! Do you think that Men at Work stole the tune to the song?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-04/listen-to-a-mix-of-both-songs-and-compare/321638
Interesting contradictory issue of copyright - DJs... I honestly am unsure what to think about that. It does seem unfair that dancers, people in productions etc. need to attain permission to use a song when DJs do not. I find it very ironic becuase when one dances to a song - it's usually very obvious the dancer is dancing to a song they have not written - and we are meant to be concentrating on the dancers and dancemoves rather than the song itself. With DJ-ing, they are purely taking the song and changing it to show off their remixing skills - and we are actually concentrating on the music itself. Perhaps it is some unwritten law between DJs and musicians? Definitely seems unfair though!
ReplyDeleteWith the song "Down Under" being sued for copyright, I feel that they appropriated the song... because they were trying to make a song that seemed truly aussie so they appropriated the feel and slight melodies of the kookaburra song. I don't think it undermined the kookaburra song at all, and had no impact on it except to make them both seem more australian. The fact that it took that many years to even notice says something about the fact it wasn't completely obvious too!!!!
I cannot believe Larrikin Music actually won their case. I listened to the link and yes I can hear a slight similarity but not enough to be sued over. Especially when there are artists that directly use riffs and melodies to provide a background line to their song (ahem Kanye West). But I guess there are no boundaries when it comes to copyright.
ReplyDeleteI think in the case of DJS, and artists using other artists melodies, riffs etc in their songs, there are guidelines and laws worked out where the artists borrowing the music either references the original song- i.e. a remix of a song would be; ‘song title- remixed by DJ x’. Or, they pay the original artist a certain amount to use their tunes, similar to royalties. Also, in some cases a song/lyric/melody is copyright only for a certain amount of time, say 5 years, and once that time is up, if they don’t renew their copyright, it is free for all.
ReplyDeleteI think the real question is who copyright laws are really protecting;, are these laws really helping the original artists? Or merely reinforcing the power and control held by the large corporations who own the content anyway?
@Dimity; Kanye West is a shocker!! I literally hate it, because I do enjoy a lot of his music, but I know exactly why- because I already know the chorus of the song! I however, am somewhat of a hypocrite, because although I dislike Kanye West for his sampling, I love Girl Talk, who purely exists from sampling. I think the difference is, Girl Talk does not make any excuses for it, and Kanye continually writes around existing popular songs. Is there really a difference? Probably not. But I'm sticking to it.
ReplyDelete