11–20 of 65 posts
They are not similar enough. I'd say that sure, there was clearly some inspiration, as with all art. Sometimes there is more sometimes there is less, sometimes the inspiration is obvious.
This lawsuit definitely does set a dangerous and unfortunate precedent. Can't say I'm surprised about it. :(
I think this is stupid. "Feelings" aren't copyrightble.
Let's step back a little. The story is clearly written to trigger outrage -- really, meant to trigger your precise response. So, let's spend a google seeing if there are elements of this story that were left out due to not fitting the narrative (note: this isn't to say the decision wasn't stupid, or that you are wrong in any factual sense). Okay, so first that that pops up is that the children of Marvin Gaye were the…
What about the jury? This was a jury case.
You die, your live's work should become public domain, meaning, no one can use it and pervert it or change it or use it for profit, but it should not be controllable or some "estate", i.e., your parasitic children and dependents, start suing to extract even more undeserved, unearned, and unwarranted wealth.
OK, I just listed to both. They are not similar enough. I'd say that sure, there was clearly some inspiration, as with all art. Sometimes there is more sometimes there is less, sometimes the inspiration is obvious. This lawsuit definitely does set a dangerous and unfortunate precedent. Can't say I'm surprised about it. :(
I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT, YOU COPYING SCUM.
Listen for yourself: https://youtu.be/ziz9HW2ZmmY
Interesting. The basic percussive, vocal and guitar riffs are clearly based off the original, though the modern version is more polished and better packaged. The lyrics are definitely different between the two, changing the meaning and full structure of the song. I'm not sure this justifies a copyright infringement, particularly in the era of remixes. If we can legally use actual samples of another song to build your…
If a musician can be sued for being inspired by another, then dark times are ahead for all musicians.
"What was your inspiration for this song?" "No comment."
If it's not "Look! Pirates! We're all going to die!!! We need to strengthen copyright NOW!"
Then it's: "Ouch! I lost a copyright lawsuit! We're all going to die!!! WHO is responsible for this insanity?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. The basic percussive, vocal and guitar riffs are clearly based off the original, though the modern version is more polished and better packaged. The lyrics are definitely different between the two, changing the meaning and full structure of the song. I'm not sure this justifies a copyright infringement, particularly in the era of remixes. If we can legally use actual samples of another song to build your…
Remixes pay copyright royalties.
Of course, I imagine that most artists work out contracts with the copyright owners and simply pay the royalties simply because it's less expensive than a protracted copyright lawsuit. This doesn't make it a legal standard, however.