2 Live Crew Case Summary

As an artist, the protection of all intellectual property created for distribution should be a priority. The type of protection this case focuses on is the protection granted by copyright. When a piece of work is copyrighted, the copyright grants the creator the exclusive right to use and distribute the piece for the duration of their life plus 70 years. As a creator, copyrighting completed art before disclosing the art with any other interests is very beneficial when proving ownership in a federal court proceeding. Devin Copeland v. Justin Bieber is a case that is based around the copyrights to a song entitled “Somebody to Love”. The facts will be introduced, followed by the issues that arose in court, then the courts analysis of those issues, closing with the lessons learned to be applied to the future of Planet Florida Artist Managements business ventures.

Art has undoubtedly become a decisive aspect of our culture; embedded in the way we learn and grow on a daily basis. Art forms such as music, television and dance dominate our society as an outlet of freedom of speech for humanity. The evolution of music has rapidly exceeded its original classifications, developing new genres with greater appeal to an audience, hence its influence on society has expedited. In recent times, lyrics (specifically rap lyrics) have been introduced into the court room as a form of documented confessional evidence, evidently challenging law’s authoritative nature. This essay will closely follow the genre of rap and its relationship with law, through cases based in the United States of America (USA). In addition, the trial of Simon Bikindi in Rwanda and Smith v The Queen will be used to form an acute analysis on the influencing factors of relevance, identity, freedom of speech and current constitutional law.

The precedent for using rap lyrics as evidence can be traced as far back as 1994 in California, when they were used to prove that Francisco Calderon Mora was a member of the Southside F Troop gang. The prosecutor went on to say that since he was a member of the gang, Mora has the motive and intent to commit the killing he was tried for. [O’Connor] Since this case many prosecutors through the years have started using lyrics as critical pieces of evidence in these types of trials. Often using these pieces as evidence is unfair to the defendant because they

The (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer is seeking the sum of $1 million from the (Defendant) Bobby Bandleader, for alleged copyright abuse of the song “Happy Birthday to You”. The (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer is the copyright holder to the said song. The (Defendant) Bobby Bandleader is a Bistro owner who performs the song in an altered version (his own words are used) to his customers on their birthdays and have been doing so for the past twenty years without obtaining any licensing or permission from the copyright holder (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer.

In this essay, you will read about an artist in the name of Robert Matthew Van Winkle, known professionally as Vanilla Ice who became famous for a while, not because of his talent, but because of the copyright of someone else baseline. He thought changing the rhythm of David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” baseline and not giving him credit would avoid him from any questions. In this essay I will provide you my opinion of Vanilla Ice’s song “Ice, Ice, Baby”as an example of plagiarism, with evidence provided of what he did wrong, and what he could have caused.

In the article Rap and Moral Character by Susan Dwyer, the subject of concern is the consequences of listening to rap music and the effect it has on moral character. The author argues that rap music contribute to the corruption of moral character, it is misogynistic, promotes violence and street crime. In this paper I will examine the author’s claims, use of key concepts, and her reasoning. By doing so, I will be able to demonstrate that Dwyer’s thesis is unjust and unsupported. In what follows, I will analyze the claims to show that the author’s arguments are irrelevant and lack sufficient evidence to support her thesis. Secondly, I will examine the author’s reasoning to point out fallacious reasoning and lastly I will evaluate her use of

◦ If the asset group is tested for recoverability while it is classified as held

The expressive use exception has a “caveat” and it is not available if it meets three conditions: “the work does not contain an image or likeness that is primarily commercial, not transformative and is not otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or New York Constitution.”

The case I chose to write about is Pharrell Williams hit 2014 "Happy". The song was released in 2013 and has accumulated over 46 million views on YouTube since then and has won various awards and nominations as well as appearing in the popular animated movie Despicable Me 2. Although the case as of now has not been taken to court, the track’s rhythm sounds oddly familiar to a song written by Marvin Gaye in 1965 titled “Ain’t That Peculiar”. The family of Gaye has had previous issues with Pharrell and other popular artist plagiarizing as well. In 2013 the family sued artist Robin Thicke and Williams for their song “Blurred Lines” on the grounds of copyright infringement for sounding almost exactly like Gaye’s song “Got To Give It Up”. Early

The second approach to copyright is the democratic approach. All works of art are ideas built on a foundation of other ideas. The democratic approach advocates that intellectual property belongs to the society and should be available for the general good of the public. If the particular usage is intended to derive financial benefit or any other business-related benefits, it is considered inappropriate usage. If the utilization of factual work were more usable than the use of someone’s creative work, then that would not be fair use. There is no specified edge to the amount of quoted work that can be called “fair use.” The courts exercise common sense to determine if it was too much. If the utilization of the material created market or stirred a competition, and if the fair use diminishes demand for the original product, it is not considered as appropriate use (Crews, 1993).

The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) seeks to protect individuals who have created original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. Sections 14(1) and 36 provide that copyright is infringed when a person reproduces a substantial part of another’s work without the license of the owner of the copyright. In 2010 the Federal Court of Australia considered whether the flute riff in ‘Down Under’ a song by popular Australian group Men at Work was a substantial reproduction of the iconic children’s song ‘Kookaburra’ composed by Marion Sinclair. This case attracted significant media coverage and public interest.

Many music artists have had other people attempt or succeed to sue them for their explicit lyrics and sexual content. 2 Live Crew was one of these music groups. In June of 1990, a Broward County judge in Florida declared that their album, As Nasty as They Want to Be, was legally obscene. (http://www.xyno.de/) 2 Live Crew’s record was the first one in America to be deemed legally obscene although a Georgia appeal court later overturned this decision in May of 1992 (http://music.lycos.com/artist/bio.asp?QW=2+Live+Crew&AN=The+2+Live+Crew&MID=66486&MH=). Some people believe that a label should be placed on albums by artists who have explicit content in their recordings.

Music is and always has been meant to be enjoyed by the public and because of this it is understandable that rhythm & blues music would be recreated for entertainment purposes. It is when another group recreates a version and not only claims it as a part of their work to benefit financially that it truly becomes unethical. To add insult to injury, the covers were often able to surpass the original song in record sales, radio play, and rankings on rhythm & blues and pop charts. An example could be the Crew Cuts cover of The Penguins “Earth Angel.” After listening to both of the tracks it is easy to notice that the Crew Cuts had the capital to recreate the song with more sophisticated production, as the group's harmonies and larger instrument presence outdid the simpler version performed by The Penguins.

I agree because the artist named Weird Al Yankovic. He uses the instrumentals for a popular songs and changes the lyrics to make fun of it. Yankovic has never been sued for his work because they are parodies. Since Negativland made a parody of U2’s “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for”, they should not be sued. Negativland released their album with a huge title saying "U2" and "Negativland" in a smaller font with an image of the WW2 U-2 spy plane on it.

Eventually Ladbroke v. William Hill [1964] 1WLR 273 reiterated the requirement of ‘labour, skill and judgement’ and that originality required only that the work originated from the author. It is clear that to convey