Re: Acknowledging samples

Lack of attribution does not make it a copyright violation in the US for music.

There also exists the possibility that the original music is actually much older than the disco song which just took an old traditional tune and dressed it up in disco garb. This sort of reworking of folk songs and themes from public domain classical music into various pop music no doubt preexists copyright law.

If the disco version is a creative arrangement of a public domain song, the arrangement itself could be copyrightable.

But, under US law, and this is quirky, the sound recording itself, i.e., the sound itself, can be reproduced by a sound-alike group without infringing the sound recording, though it may be infringing the music.

This is not easy stuff.

About rhythm guitar -- mostly by definition a rhythm is not copyrightable and by definition a rhythm guitar is playing a series of non-original chords in, well, rhythm. In this instance, a disco rhythm. It is hard to see a copyright in the music itself in this case if the copying is of a chord progression as played by a rhythm guitar in the disco genre.

Elton John's copyrights most likely do not extend to chord progressions or rhythm -- most of his stuff is based on quite ancient, traditional "church music" (English protestant) chords. But the melodies and the combination of stuff would be sufficiently original and creative to have a US copyright.

Again, this is messy stuff.

Finally, and this will be my last digression from the work I am avoiding -- at least for awhile :) -- of course the hymnal should give full credit to sources, especially those still in copyright. But it should give credit to Bach and Martin Luther if they wrote the music and arrangement and words, even though the copyright is long expired on both (if there ever was a copyright in either).

Steve

On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:30 AM, Varvel, Virgil wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Varvel, Virgil
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:17 AM
> To: 'CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property'
> Subject: RE: CNI-COPYRIGHT Digest #2789
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the response on my question regarding music use. In this
> particular case, it was a specific song, and enough of it that I
> immediately recognized the song (although I can't remember the name of
> the song at the moment). I would think that the given piece was
> part of
> the heart of the given work and represented most of the chorus rhythm,
> guitar piece from that song.
>
> I think that I can see it being a fair use if nothing else, but the
> real
> question is then whether you could use this much of a song (and it is
> just presented in such a similar way that it had to be done with
> knowledge) without attribution. Is it a copyright violation then?
> More
> scholarly argumentation would then ask if it is plagiarism? More
> religious connotations would ask why a 'Christian' artist wouldn't
> give
> credit anyway too I guess.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Virgil E. Varvel Jr.
> Illinois Online Network
> University Outreach and Public Service
> University of Illinois
> Vvarvel[_at_]uillinois.edu
>
> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:25:01 -0400
> Message-ID: <redirect-15177801[_at_]cni.org>
> From: "Steven Jamar" <stevenjamar[_at_]gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CNI-(C)] Acknowledging samples
> In-Reply-To: <list-15175739[_at_]cni.org>
> References: <list-15175739[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Into the swamp with this one!
>
> For some music, what seems to be music is really just a beat and such
> a pedestrian tune that the copyright in it is very, very thin. For
> example, the talking blues genre cannot be tied up by copyrighting a
> blues song. And so it is for the blues chord progression in general.
> And for the basic rock cord progression, and so on. Nor can a shuffle
> rhythm, swing, rumba, cha-cha-cha, rap, hip-hop, etc. Nor disco.
>
> But, at some point the combination becomes copyrightable, creative,
> original expression.
>
> But that point is hard to define, especially for ordinary, pedestrian
> renditions of disco or rap or country or rock.
>
> So, your choir's song could be just a sound alike because at some
> level so much of that type sounds alike (like all manilow sounds like
> manilow or fogarty sounds like fogarty), but it might still be
> original and not infringing as either a copy or derivative work.
>
> "Inspired by" is generally not infringing unless it is really a copy
> or is less inspired by than derived from.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 9/14/06, Varvel, Virgil <vvarvel[_at_]uillinois.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> Quick question. Our choir was practicing a song last night. As I
>> was
>> listening to it, I realized that the primary beat of the song was
> taken from
>> an old disco tune of all places. On the music, there was no
> attribution to
>> where this melody came from, only to the lyrics and the arrangement.
> My
>> question is whether you can take from another artist in this way
> without
>> attribution? First, is this alright within copyright law? It seemed
> to be
>> similar to plagiarism to me as well, since there is no credit given.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Virgil E. Varvel Jr.
>>
>> Illinois Online Network
>>
>> University Outreach and Public Service
>>
>> University of Illinois
>>
>> Vvarvel[_at_]uillinois.edu
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Prof. Steven Jamar
> Howard University School of Law
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://
> mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:stevenjamar[_at_]gmail.com
Washington, DC  20008	                         http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but  
also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man,  
but you refuse to hate him."

Martin Luther King, Jr.