Unhindered Derivative Arta Essay

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 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.

Duchamp reproduced “Mona Lisa” in 1919 as just a spoof, but it shocked the people of that time and its final outcome gave birth to a whole new form of Art. The reproduction by Duchamp was titled “L.H.O.O.Q.”, which he describes it is as “She has an hot ass” , is as follows:

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

Michael R. Cohen, 25B WEST 'S LEGAL FORMS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY § 23:22 (2014) (“Since it would be virtually impossible for publishers or songwriters to monitor and control the large numbers of users of their songs, the enforcement and control of such performance rights usually falls to one of three performing rights organizations ....”).

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.

The Supreme Court has tried to explain that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution was intended to establish independent, entrepreneurial, self-sustaining authorship and publishing as the means of serving the public interest in securing the production of valuable literary and scientific works. To that one must ask what are the consequences of remix? When I think about it remixing has left a positive and inferior aspect of life for many people. When people are able to steal or copy the work of an individual without any consequence they are sending a clear message saying that they are free of the law. Therefore, I propose that the copyright office of the state of Washington should change the copyright policy of remixing so that it may benefit more people than just the original artist.

For songwriters and composers, music publishing has been an integral part of their professional lives, and quite possibly one of their most valuable and lucrative income streams. At its core, music publishing can be defined as the promotion, sale and administration of music catalogs and copyrights. (Strasser, 2010 p.18) However, historically - in the late nineteenth century, before musical recordings existed, publishing was based around the distribution and sales of printed sheet music for people to perform. (Rutter, 2011 p.92) Soon after though, the development of alternative entertainment such as radio and TV would also call for the duty of the music publisher to be widened to what it is today. (Strasser, 2010 p.18)

This paper discusses the copyright law in Canada connected with an ethical line in music sharing. Before embarking on the discussion, it is imperative to understand what copyright entails under the umbrella of intellectual property; the latter refers to intangible property, which is entirely a creation of the mind (Alexander & Penalver, 2012, p. 188). Copyright is the exclusive right granted to the original author of literary work. In this effect, it prevents other people from using an authorship without authorization by the original author. The latter grants license for the reproduction of copies of the work, its usage, as well as distribution in lieu of some fee, i.e. royalty. Merges (2011) explains that literary work encompasses a wide

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

Copyrighted works fall into two categories in the music world. The first is recorded performance, one first has to get permission from the recorded label to use a song. Next, the composition underlying a specific performance has to come straight from the artist. For “pass the mic,” the B. Boys got permission from the record label but not the artist, Newton therefore sued but lost. “The reason serves as a useful introduction to how to think about intellectual property”

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

In regards to his documentary film about blues music, Artist has several potential legal issues that he should be aware of. In his business endeavors, Artist will encounter situations where copyrights, contracts, negligence, trademarks, defamation, and freedom of expression will come into question. To ensure that he protects himself and his ideas, Artists should approach these situations in the best legal manner.