The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals

[Teh Dingo]

These things are so rare and it's pretty funny two of these soundalike cases popped up at virtually the same time (This and the Tom Petty/Sam Smith one). But since they are so rare, it's pretty hard to see anything really changing in terms of soundalikes being brought to a legal head.

My gut feeling is it's such a legal, as well as PR, nightmare for anyone to try something with Al that it wouldn't be seen as worth it. There's always a chance, certainly, and the Rugburns and Velvet Revolver situations brought up in this topic are a bit worrisome, then again it's hard to imagine that being the kind of guy Al is, he wouldn't respond ASAP and try to work out a solution if there's even a peep concerning those

Even still, I think Al just sticking to artists he knows will get it and be ok (With or without a little financial compensation) is a better trade off from the no more label situation than say no more polka medleys.

[offbeatbryce]

Would be weird if Al was free-and-clear to do a straight parody of a song but would need to get permission (legally) to do a style parody. I think Jon is right about being covered by fair use for both.

But Al has said a few times that fair use only applies AS LONG AS he doesn't change a melody. Unless I misunderstood/misheard something.

believe it or not only two songs Al has made that change the lyrics with the same melodies are true fair use. "Nirvana" and "Billy Ray Cyrus." A copyright Lawyer I know told me that the rest of Al's work such as "Eat It" "Word Crimes" etc is a satire and is not fair use. It's satire because it does not critique the original song or artist like "Nirvana" and "Billy Ray Cyrus" parody does. So legally speaking if Al didn't ask to make his songs he would lose in court for every song except for "Nirvana"and "Billy Ray Cyrus." This is also documented in an article about Al and parody law. At the time when Al Sherman made "Hello Mother Hello Father" he had to get permission because it was copyrighted back them and he wasn't critiquing the original artist or song.

Style Parodies are very tricky because as far as I understand it, Al is taking maybe 4 songs (example Germs) and is mashing them together but he's also altering them enough. The opening Drum intro is actually in reverse from the original Nine Inch Nails song and the Guitar Riff is two notes where the original is 4.

Robin Thicke Blurred Lines vs Marvin Gaye is indeed copyright because the vocal patterns are the same. Falsetto/Headvoice with the rhythm being similar. If Al did a style parody of this song instead of Word Crimes he would have not had the same beat the whole time

[offbeatbryce]

Would be weird if Al was free-and-clear to do a straight parody of a song but would need to get permission (legally) to do a style parody. I think Jon is right about being covered by fair use for both.

But Al has said a few times that fair use only applies AS LONG AS he doesn't change a melody. Unless I misunderstood/misheard something.

That is correct to an extent. If Al took Fancy and made Handy but did it in a disco version it would be derivative which is not fair use. Courts and music artists argue that fair use should not even apply because changing the lyrics constitutes as derivative. I think the issue with Blurred Lines is because the style of the song closely sounds like Marvin Gaye's the whole time.

I disagree that Al's style parody's are fair use. He is changing the melody but also including original riffs from real songs. So he's using sampling as well.

[Genius in Maine]

believe it or not only two songs Al has made that change the lyrics with the same melodies are true fair use. "Nirvana" and "Billy Ray Cyrus."

What about "(This Song's Just) Six Words Long" and "Perform This Way"?

[anthontherun]

I briefly browsed this outline explaining the legal difference between parody and satire, and one part did stand out to me--a factor that comes into play for fair use is whether or not the parody/satire impacts the commercial viability of the original.

This may be its own discussion entirely, but it got me thinking--say that I'm considering downloading a song, but then Al parodies it and I decide, "That's good enough," and pass on getting the original. Does the fact that the original writer gets royalties from Al's parody void any argument about the original losing commercial value, or am I contributing to (ahem) Al blurring the lines of fair use?

[TMBJon]

It's ludicrous to suggest that only those two songs you mentioned count as a true parody, and the rest are merely satirical.
If "Eat It" is not commentary on "Beat It", what is commentary?

[mellow weasel]

It's ludicrous to suggest that only those two songs you mentioned count as a true parody, and the rest are merely satirical.
If "Eat It" is not commentary on "Beat It", what is commentary?

I've just read the lyrics of "Beat it" (I couldn't comprehend it when listening and only had a vague idea what it's about based on the video ) and as far as I can tell there isn't much commenting on it in "Eat it". Only the video of "Eat it" is an obvious parody of "Beat it" video.

[TMBJon]

I've just read the lyrics of "Beat it" (I couldn't comprehend it when listening and only had a vague idea what it's about based on the video ) and as far as I can tell there isn't much commenting on it in "Eat it". Only the video of "Eat it" is an obvious parody of "Beat it" video.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The song Eat It is directly commenting on the original by creating an equivalence between someone lecturing inner city kids to stop engaging in gang violence with someone lecturing their kids to eat more vegetables.

[offbeatbryce]

believe it or not only two songs Al has made that change the lyrics with the same melodies are true fair use. "Nirvana" and "Billy Ray Cyrus."

What about "(This Song's Just) Six Words Long" and "Perform This Way"?

I guess I forgot about Six Words Long Song. Yes that is Parody and fair use. Lady Gaga is tricky because it comments on her attire and her being crazy, not the song itself.

[offbeatbryce]

I've just read the lyrics of "Beat it" (I couldn't comprehend it when listening and only had a vague idea what it's about based on the video ) and as far as I can tell there isn't much commenting on it in "Eat it". Only the video of "Eat it" is an obvious parody of "Beat it" video.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The song Eat It is directly commenting on the original by creating an equivalence between someone lecturing inner city kids to stop engaging in gang violence with someone lecturing their kids to eat more vegetables.

Well explain that to a copyright lawyer then. There is a video on berklee college of music where a copyright/entertainment lawyer talks about Weird Al and says the difference is Al does satire and not parody. EDIT: Here is the video of her talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9x8v5G6L8Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;