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.
The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
Moderator: Moderators
- Teh Dingo
- Be jealous.
- Posts: 24287
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:19 am
- Awards: YOU'RE EITHER PANTSLESS OR YOU'RE AGAINST US
- Location: Parts Unknown
- Contact:
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
You have quickly thought up such matchless phrase?
-
- Occasional
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:48 am
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
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.mellow weasel wrote: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.mrmeadows wrote: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.
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
-
- Occasional
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:48 am
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
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.mellow weasel wrote: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.mrmeadows wrote: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.
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.
-
- Deliriously Dedicated
- Posts: 7971
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 10:39 pm
- Location: Wherever I'm with you
- Contact:
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
What about "(This Song's Just) Six Words Long" and "Perform This Way"?offbeatbryce wrote:
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."
- anthontherun
- Be jealous.
- Posts: 17702
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 8:41 am
- Location: VA
- Contact:
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
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?
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
- Deliriously Dedicated
- Posts: 20491
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 4:24 pm
- Awards: Greatest Member of All Time
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
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?
If "Eat It" is not commentary on "Beat It", what is commentary?
I couldn't tell a dirt clod from a plate of caviar.
- mellow weasel
- Obsessed
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:22 pm
- Location: Lithuania (Europe)
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
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 wrote: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?
- TMBJon
- Deliriously Dedicated
- Posts: 20491
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 4:24 pm
- Awards: Greatest Member of All Time
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
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.mellow weasel wrote: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 couldn't tell a dirt clod from a plate of caviar.
-
- Occasional
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:48 am
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
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.Genius in Maine wrote:What about "(This Song's Just) Six Words Long" and "Perform This Way"?offbeatbryce wrote:
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."
-
- Occasional
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:48 am
Re: The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals
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;TMBJon wrote: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.mellow weasel wrote: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.