Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by Deleted on Sept 10, 2007 12:44:17 GMT 1, Lots of artist and musicians borrow from the past.
So why is it that an artist can borrow an idea and interpret it in their own way and get away with it(for example beejors- immodium), whilst a musician gets sued if they even lay a few beats down that sound similar ?.
Lots of artist and musicians borrow from the past.
So why is it that an artist can borrow an idea and interpret it in their own way and get away with it(for example beejors- immodium), whilst a musician gets sued if they even lay a few beats down that sound similar ?.
|
|
Strange Al
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,293
👍🏻 64
October 2006
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by Strange Al on Sept 10, 2007 12:46:42 GMT 1, Lots of artist and musicians borrow from the past. So why is it that an artist can borrow an idea and interpret it in their own way and get away with it(for example beejors- immodium), whilst a musician gets sued if they even lay a few beats down that sound similar ?.
The basic answer is that the music industry is simply more litigious than the art fraternity.
Lots of artist and musicians borrow from the past. So why is it that an artist can borrow an idea and interpret it in their own way and get away with it(for example beejors- immodium), whilst a musician gets sued if they even lay a few beats down that sound similar ?. The basic answer is that the music industry is simply more litigious than the art fraternity. |
|
|
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by carlito on Sept 10, 2007 12:50:50 GMT 1, i thought music had always borrowed from the past?
i thought music had always borrowed from the past?
|
|
|
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by Existencil on Sept 10, 2007 12:52:06 GMT 1, Music borrows from the past & gets away with it all the time. It's just covered up & presented with a different skin. Same with art.
Stuey*Esquire
Music borrows from the past & gets away with it all the time. It's just covered up & presented with a different skin. Same with art.
Stuey*Esquire
|
|
pezlow
Junior Member
🗨️ 5,388
👍🏻 254
January 2007
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by pezlow on Sept 10, 2007 12:53:10 GMT 1, I would have thought that it had a lot to do with the burden of proof. It is easy to prove plagiarism in music but not so easy with art.
I would have thought that it had a lot to do with the burden of proof. It is easy to prove plagiarism in music but not so easy with art.
|
|
|
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by a4mnt on Sept 10, 2007 13:00:28 GMT 1, it also depends if you get caught doing it.
loads of people sample stuff and get away with it, but if they are only selling a small amount of records, then generally they go under the radar.
You could probably nick a loop or vocal snippet from someone huge like Madonna and chuck it into an underground dance track that sold 1000 copies, with no problems at all. But you obviously couldn't sample a Madonna vocal and get into the charts with it unlicensed.
So a lot of the time it just depends on if you are seen, or heard. And whether you are worth bothering with.
I would imagine the underground art scene operates in a similar way.
it also depends if you get caught doing it.
loads of people sample stuff and get away with it, but if they are only selling a small amount of records, then generally they go under the radar.
You could probably nick a loop or vocal snippet from someone huge like Madonna and chuck it into an underground dance track that sold 1000 copies, with no problems at all. But you obviously couldn't sample a Madonna vocal and get into the charts with it unlicensed.
So a lot of the time it just depends on if you are seen, or heard. And whether you are worth bothering with.
I would imagine the underground art scene operates in a similar way.
|
|
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by Deleted on Sept 10, 2007 13:15:38 GMT 1, So does anyone know of any cases in the art world where someone has been sued ?
So does anyone know of any cases in the art world where someone has been sued ?
|
|
doughy
New Member
🗨️ 222
👍🏻 1
May 2007
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by doughy on Sept 10, 2007 14:50:26 GMT 1, If you get caught copying someones art, or can see the inspiration, you get called "unoriginal".
Copy someones music/lyrics/beat, you have no house left!
More potential money & lawyers in Music, per artist, than art.
If you get caught copying someones art, or can see the inspiration, you get called "unoriginal".
Copy someones music/lyrics/beat, you have no house left!
More potential money & lawyers in Music, per artist, than art.
|
|
Strange Al
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,293
👍🏻 64
October 2006
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by Strange Al on Sept 10, 2007 14:54:13 GMT 1, So does anyone know of any cases in the art world where someone has been sued ?
There are hundreds of examples. Though most famously Jeff Koons. Rogers v. Koons is one of the leading cases in copyright law.
So does anyone know of any cases in the art world where someone has been sued ? There are hundreds of examples. Though most famously Jeff Koons. Rogers v. Koons is one of the leading cases in copyright law. |
|
|
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by saltandiron on Sept 10, 2007 15:00:24 GMT 1, So does anyone know of any cases in the art world where someone has been sued ? There are hundreds of examples. Though most famously Jeff Koons. Rogers v. Koons is one of the leading cases in copyright law.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
So does anyone know of any cases in the art world where someone has been sued ? There are hundreds of examples. Though most famously Jeff Koons. Rogers v. Koons is one of the leading cases in copyright law. |
|
|
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by a4mnt on Sept 10, 2007 15:01:35 GMT 1, the music business also has specialist music analysts who have encyclopaedic knowledge of previously released music and can listen to new music to determine if there is any unlicensed sampling being used.
its not as simple as it sounds i'm sure.
and i think also there is an acceptable amount of alteration of sampled music to warrant it being different to the original piece. ie a % of change. how they check that, who knows.
maybe Curley will tell us?
the music business also has specialist music analysts who have encyclopaedic knowledge of previously released music and can listen to new music to determine if there is any unlicensed sampling being used.
its not as simple as it sounds i'm sure.
and i think also there is an acceptable amount of alteration of sampled music to warrant it being different to the original piece. ie a % of change. how they check that, who knows.
maybe Curley will tell us?
|
|
Curley
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,012
👍🏻 7
June 2006
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by Curley on Sept 10, 2007 15:53:34 GMT 1, the music business also has specialist music analysts who have encyclopaedic knowledge of previously released music and can listen to new music to determine if there is any unlicensed sampling being used. its not as simple as it sounds i'm sure. and i think also there is an acceptable amount of alteration of sampled music to warrant it being different to the original piece. ie a % of change. how they check that, who knows. maybe Curley will tell us?
That is correct i believe they are called musicoligists.
i presume they work from sheet music so they can see how close the tracks are note for note. More recently i have wondered how Cornershop have not sued The View as their single sounds just like Brimfull of Asha.
i think a key word here is derivitive
i know that there are also specialist sample clearance services for people who want to use samples in their compositions. Thinking recently Coldplay sampling a massive chunk of Kraftwerk which would have cost them about 90% of the publishing on that one track as it was essentially Kraftwerks melody line.
hope that helps 
the music business also has specialist music analysts who have encyclopaedic knowledge of previously released music and can listen to new music to determine if there is any unlicensed sampling being used. its not as simple as it sounds i'm sure. and i think also there is an acceptable amount of alteration of sampled music to warrant it being different to the original piece. ie a % of change. how they check that, who knows. maybe Curley will tell us? That is correct i believe they are called musicoligists. i presume they work from sheet music so they can see how close the tracks are note for note. More recently i have wondered how Cornershop have not sued The View as their single sounds just like Brimfull of Asha. i think a key word here is derivitive i know that there are also specialist sample clearance services for people who want to use samples in their compositions. Thinking recently Coldplay sampling a massive chunk of Kraftwerk which would have cost them about 90% of the publishing on that one track as it was essentially Kraftwerks melody line. hope that helps |
|
|
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by a4mnt on Sept 10, 2007 16:13:20 GMT 1, Its amazing how these created pop bands aren't gagging to write their own tunes, as the money paid for performance is surely meagre compared to publishing royalties.
Writers queued up to write tunes for the Spice Girls and the like and who can blame them when publishing royalties on composition alone is something like £15-£20 per minute on Radio 1. Times that by the amount of heavy rotation on the playlist and then times it again by all the worldwide radio stations that pay PRS and add TV performance royalties as well. Then add mechanical royalties on all formats manufactured.......well, its a lot on a hit single. And all the time the manufactured pop band aren't receiving any of this pay day as far as i know if they had no input into the creation of the original music.
Crazy.
They say it takes 4 years for a pop band to pay for itself, and as publishing is totally seperate from the profit and loss accounts of a typical pop band, then you think they would be desperate to write their own stuff. But they don't seem to a lot of the time.
This is why Gary Barlow is so well off I suppose and the others in take that aren't so well off.
Once they've cleared the debt on their accounts, I guess they do very well with touring and performances, but me, i would have wanted to be in there from the start and have PRS sending me a fat cheque every 6 months.
Its amazing how these created pop bands aren't gagging to write their own tunes, as the money paid for performance is surely meagre compared to publishing royalties.
Writers queued up to write tunes for the Spice Girls and the like and who can blame them when publishing royalties on composition alone is something like £15-£20 per minute on Radio 1. Times that by the amount of heavy rotation on the playlist and then times it again by all the worldwide radio stations that pay PRS and add TV performance royalties as well. Then add mechanical royalties on all formats manufactured.......well, its a lot on a hit single. And all the time the manufactured pop band aren't receiving any of this pay day as far as i know if they had no input into the creation of the original music.
Crazy.
They say it takes 4 years for a pop band to pay for itself, and as publishing is totally seperate from the profit and loss accounts of a typical pop band, then you think they would be desperate to write their own stuff. But they don't seem to a lot of the time.
This is why Gary Barlow is so well off I suppose and the others in take that aren't so well off.
Once they've cleared the debt on their accounts, I guess they do very well with touring and performances, but me, i would have wanted to be in there from the start and have PRS sending me a fat cheque every 6 months.
|
|
Curley
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,012
👍🏻 7
June 2006
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by Curley on Sept 10, 2007 16:39:02 GMT 1, Its amazing how these created pop bands aren't gagging to write their own tunes, as the money paid for performance is surely meagre compared to publishing royalties. Writers queued up to write tunes for the Spice Girls and the like and who can blame them when publishing royalties on composition alone is something like £15-£20 per minute on Radio 1. Times that by the amount of heavy rotation on the playlist and then times it again by all the worldwide radio stations that pay PRS and add TV performance royalties as well. Then add mechanical royalties on all formats manufactured.......well, its a lot on a hit single. And all the time the manufactured pop band aren't receiving any of this pay day as far as i know if they had no input into the creation of the original music. Crazy. They say it takes 4 years for a pop band to pay for itself, and as publishing is totally seperate from the profit and loss accounts of a typical pop band, then you think they would be desperate to write their own stuff. But they don't seem to a lot of the time. This is why Gary Barlow is so well off I suppose and the others in take that aren't so well off. Once they've cleared the debt on their accounts, I guess they do very well with touring and performances, but me, i would have wanted to be in there from the start and have PRS sending me a fat cheque every 6 months.
Absolutely spot on unless you write your own tunes you could end up on Big Brother
Its amazing how these created pop bands aren't gagging to write their own tunes, as the money paid for performance is surely meagre compared to publishing royalties. Writers queued up to write tunes for the Spice Girls and the like and who can blame them when publishing royalties on composition alone is something like £15-£20 per minute on Radio 1. Times that by the amount of heavy rotation on the playlist and then times it again by all the worldwide radio stations that pay PRS and add TV performance royalties as well. Then add mechanical royalties on all formats manufactured.......well, its a lot on a hit single. And all the time the manufactured pop band aren't receiving any of this pay day as far as i know if they had no input into the creation of the original music. Crazy. They say it takes 4 years for a pop band to pay for itself, and as publishing is totally seperate from the profit and loss accounts of a typical pop band, then you think they would be desperate to write their own stuff. But they don't seem to a lot of the time. This is why Gary Barlow is so well off I suppose and the others in take that aren't so well off. Once they've cleared the debt on their accounts, I guess they do very well with touring and performances, but me, i would have wanted to be in there from the start and have PRS sending me a fat cheque every 6 months. Absolutely spot on unless you write your own tunes you could end up on Big Brother |
|
|
|
|
|
whats the difference between music and art?, by headphonesex on Sept 10, 2007 17:41:24 GMT 1, Christ, that gym & tonic was awful. Which was a real shame as I used to play the original version a lot.
Mind you, Bob Sinclar stole the tune from Thomas Bangalter (from Daft Punk)... who was just given a production credit on the album. So he can't complain.
I wrote about that on my blog recently. That Bob Sinclar album was actually pretty damn good, which makes it more baffling that every record he's released recently battles for the title 'worst thing i've ever heard'. Is there a worse song than 'Love Generation'?
Christ, that gym & tonic was awful. Which was a real shame as I used to play the original version a lot.
Mind you, Bob Sinclar stole the tune from Thomas Bangalter (from Daft Punk)... who was just given a production credit on the album. So he can't complain.
I wrote about that on my blog recently. That Bob Sinclar album was actually pretty damn good, which makes it more baffling that every record he's released recently battles for the title 'worst thing i've ever heard'. Is there a worse song than 'Love Generation'?
|
|
