The Copyright Clause Of The State Of Washington Should Change Copyright Policy Of Remixing

Sampling nowadays is so common and some artists have taken it to a level that it is an art to use samples. If used correctly. My paper will focus on how sampling became a new way to create songs. And expose how big the sampling industry is. Web pages like Beatport sell samples and stems. So Dj’s can download them and mix them live. If a piece of music is distorted, might that be transformative and even be fair use? Using various resources and examples I will discuss whether should or shouldn’t there be a compulsory license for sampling.

Art defines us, allowing us unleash our personalities and creative abilities through forms such as painting, sculpture, and, of course, music. For centuries, music artists in specific have exchanged ideas, embracing the culture of combining folk songs and tunes into their newer pieces of music. Today, some music artists wish to carry on with that tradition in what is now known as “rap sampling”. This method of sharing music has now interfered with the modern concept of copyright. With this relatively new legal action used to protect original works, ancient traditions of sharing music can no longer be practiced freely.

Transformative qualities are an essential aspect of deciding the applicability of fair use when borrowing from copyrighted works. Transformative equates to works that step beyond the replication of a copyrighted work. This can be accomplished by changing the purpose and adding artistic value to the new creation. Through the incorporation of a new purpose and character, consideration of the minimal portion used of the copyrighted work, and inspection of the lack of effect on the market of the original work, it is conclusive that Kanye West’s “Champion” falls under the protection of fair use when taking into account its incorporation of Steely Dan’s “Kid Charlemagne.” West uses a

Is important for anyone who has created any intellectual property to protect it. In the music industry, in order for someone to protect their work, they must obtain a copyright. Music has been around before anyone could obtain a copyright and when the invention of the computer came along it made it easier for someone to steal another artist's intellectual property with the help of the internet. This paper will cover what events have taken a big role in copyright protection for artist, the consequences if someone was to break the rules of a copyright which is called copyright infringement, and how will a copyright hold in the future. Were copyrights enacted without the thought of life changing technology, and how can some music companies

The duration of copyright determines the length of protection. Limitations on this length exist to ensure works enter the public domain. Therefore, the length of protection is one of the most relevant and debated issues regarding copyright law. The proponents and opponents of copyright term extension make compelling arguments, but both sides agree that copyright law should encourage creativity and innovation. If Disney is successful in once again lobbying for an extension of duration, a substantial number of works will fail to enter the public domain in a timely manner. This will, consequently, lead to a stifling of creativity and a suppression of innovation that could be detrimental to progress in the realms of science and the useful arts.

Sampling is a technique that many artists have used for decades, when given the opportunity to record a new track. Sampling has transformed the music industry, by allowing an artist to broaden their horizons, and give people the ability to have a different outlook towards a particular song. Often times when a producer is trying to assist the artist or group, they will present the artist with many beats and mixes. Of the beats and mixes provided, a few of them may be a sample of another artist’s work. Often times when an artist or group admires the work of another artist, they will get their permission to sample their music and incorporate into the work that they are about to produce. Another reason an artist may decide to sample the work

Copyright Laws Stifle Creativity? Foratv.12 mar. 2009. Web. Nov 12, 2015. Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. He teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, contracts, and the law of cyberspace. Lessig discuss the influences of “remixes” in this generation when everything can be copy and post. He stress the point of the future of originality of arts or ideas in this when everything can the forward. In this context my position was neutral, because I am not completely informed about this issue. As a result, I have not made my mind yet. Lessig is focusing on the informations that the neutral audience need in order to make a decision. He shows us relatively videos, such as the one of a mother celebrating his son, with a song in the background. Lawrence Lessig is using “Ethos,” to deliver his message. He is a recognized Law’s professor and has authority on the subject.So, automatically this impact the audience by trusting his ideas and beliefs. Additionally, I found his message to be persuasive, I would not change it. Because, he is not only an authority in this subject, but he also stress his message while using persuasive arguments. Also, he uses the media and relatively videos, that proves his point and a neutral audience can

Over the past fifty years, the British Music Publishing industry has undergone dramatic changes. It has evolved as an entity with innovations in technology, changes and creations of laws and new mediums to promote and exploit songs to a wider audience. Therefore, the way in which the music publishing industry operates and exploits its assets has completely transformed, and continues to do so at a rapid pace. This paper will attempt to explore the ways in which publishers exploit song copyrights and the way in which this has changed over the past 60 years. It is important to define what is meant by copyright and its role within the industry. The Performing Right Society website states: “Copyright

RIP: A Remix Manifesto offers a convincing case for copyright reform raising the issues about the viscous control on the ownership of intellectual property against the free access to share ideas. Gaylor (2008) is passionate about the ridiculous copyright laws and their ongoing restrictive modifications in the USA that are demolishing the creativity of new ideas and innovations that these copyright laws were originally meant to protect. Gaylor (2008) uses his favourite artist ‘Girl Talk’ who samples and remixes music, to centre his documentary in an effort to defend the public domain and its ability to share free idea, along with the use of the remixer’s manifesto- Number 1. Culture always builds on the past. Number 2. The past always tries to control the future. Number 3. Our future is becoming less free. Number 4. To build free societies you must limit the control of the past. The first point made in the remixers’ manifesto involves Gaylor (2008) exploring the history of artists who have used the creativity of the past for the inspiration of their new idea; including Walt Disney and Metallica- who has borrowed previously made song structures from musicians- both have now become harsh advocates for the current copyright laws. In keeping with Gaylor’s (2008) style, the remaining remix manifesto points will become a guideline for the remaining essay along with the issues and case study that will be represented on the poster.

Copyright is the legal right, to an inventor to perform, print, publish, film, or record artistic, literary, or musical material, and to allow others to do the same. Copyright law was developed to provide the creators and inventors of any works with powerful and effective rights of exclusivity over their creations (Patterson & Lindberg, 1991). Over the past, these rights were almost unlimited. People would use existing developments as if they were their own without any regard of the creator’s exclusive rights. The need to balance and limit such rights arose, and governments established these limits for the general good of the public.

It wasn’t until the landmark 1991 Biz Markie copyright infringement case over his use of a Gilbert O’Sullivan sample on I Need a Haircut that the courts determined sampling constituted willful infringement. Record companies, realizing the cost of an infringement case, pushed artists to declare the use of samples in their works. However, with fear of incurring additional costs, companies and artists also embraced the possibility of being sampled as they often earned royalties for their contributions. Some publishing companies, namely Bridgeport Music, Inc. and TufAmerica Inc., took the profitability of copyright ownership even

Music Copyright is a very important aspect of the music industry. The Copyright law was established to preserve the creativity and rights of authors, composers, performers of expression. Copyright is the law that protects the property rights of the creator of an original work in a fixed tangible medium. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright) A fixed tangible medium is something substantial like copying lyrics on paper or putting a song on tape or CD. Copyright can be seen every where in the music industry. Many music artist of our culture today have been involved in copyright issues. Recently, on MTV news it was stated that, "As the music industry becomes increasingly concerned about protecting the

MP3 is an audio format that allows users to compress and send music files easily over the Internet. The major problem with this music sharing is that most of the files are pirated, which has caused a stir in the music industry. Music companies and music artists have been complaining about how their music is being stolen and therefore lowering their album sales. The major blame has been put on Napster and other file sharing software available on the Internet.

A&M Records v. Napster is a landmark case in which the application of intellectual property laws has forever impacted contemporary culture with regards to digital works. The legal issues and applicable laws presented in the instant case resulted in a holding, which set forth a precedent that has influence the mode and means of digital works distribution. The outcome of Napster affects both businesses and individuals.

Music licensing is certainly not the ideal solution to maintain the integrity of the art. Music licensing has created situation in which people actually have to pay to use folk songs such as "Happy Birthday" in certain circumstances. The company that owns the license to the song actually receives millions of dollars every year for a song that nobody knows who originally wrote. However, compensating artists for their works is a complicated endeavor and does not receive much public funding in a capitalist system. Therefore, even though the licensing practice may be counter-productive the art form and overly commercialized, it is a necessary evil that must be tolerated in modern society.