![]() Are there any requirements surrounding the popularity of an artist? Say that there’s an underground artist as opposed to someone who’s number one on the charts. Juice WRLD’s “Lucid Dream” got huge, and then Yellowcard decided to sue him. This typically seems to happen once a song blows up. Kurt Cobain has been dead for how many years? But he’s still writing great songs apparently. They were like, “I don’t want to have any fucking trouble, so just put him on.” I don’t know what the split was but they were like, “I don’t want any trouble whatsoever, so we’re just going to give him a percentage of this song.” If you open Spotify right now and open the songwriting credits, it’s Lil Nas X, it’s Denzel and Dave Borough from Take A Daytrip, and its Kurt Cobain, as if they collaborated in a room. They could’ve probably have gotten away with that, but they didn’t even wanna take a chance, so Kurt Cobain was a co-writer on the song before it was even released. That little melody comes from a Nirvana song (“In Bloom”), those three notes. Think about the song “Panini” by Nas-X" class="text-word" target="_blank" >Lil Nas X. People are even preemptively doing this now. Whereas in the “Blurred Lines” case, they were given like $7 million dollars in damages too, which was reduced and then added to the copyright moving forward so any future revenue is split. Usually what happens though when the cases are settled, is that they’re settled by the person who is being sued, adding the person who’s making the claim, to the copyright so that they get some of the profits moving forward. ![]() Whereas a quick cease and desist, threatening a lawsuit can be settled pretty quickly and the amount of money will change. I would imagine that the amount of money spent on the “Blurred Lines” case would probably be hundreds and thousands of dollars right now, maybe even more. I’d be shooting in the dark by throwing numbers at you, but many of them are brought with the hopes of a quick settlement to keep the profile down and to keep the reputation in tact to not be considered a thief. Do you have any idea as to how much copyright cases are to pursue? I think after “Blurred Lines,” you’re just starting to see more people try. I don’t know that it actually affected the way that these things get adjudicated because before “Blurred Lines,” you could’ve convince somebody of anything and after “Blurred Lines,” you could convince somebody of anything. And because they’re looking for an easy payout. I don’t know if the “Blurred Lines” case changed the music industry, it just made people a little bit more trigger happy when it comes to claiming theft. And so, we can’t limit these kind of things. Nobody else would be able to make the blues ever again. Every blues song has the same structure, and imagine if the first person copy-wrote that structure and that chord progression. The chord progressions in the blues is the same. You leaned on some of the things we’ve leaned on.” Think about the blues. In past times, people would’ve been like, “Oh that’s cool. And I think that it’s a precedent setting, and definitely ramped up people when it comes to running to their lawyers. And I had a lively discussion with one of my closest friends, Peter Rosenthal of the in-house counsel for Downtown Music Publishing, and he thinks it’s just a blimp on the radar. HNHH: How do you think the “Blurred Lines” case has changed the music industry? This interview has been edited down for clarity and length. We’re following that up with even more insight, by giving our readers some of the Q&A that transpired with Peretz. But in the meantime, we talked Jeff Peretz about the details of the lawsuit as part of a larger piece that fully explains the ins and outs of copyright infringement cases within the context of the music industry. It’s unclear whether Yellowcard or Juice WRLD’s estate will emerge victorious in this case. And that’s the fine line that everybody needs to try and get their head around.”Īs he’s often called on to compare sheet music in copyright infringement cases, Jeff Peretz has identified the lack of experts and improperly decided cases as the main reason why artists feel comfortable suing for such things. “There’s a difference between homage and theft. Everyday ideas come from previous ideas,” musicologist Jeff Peretz says. “There’s no such thing as originality in music. But if it does, this case will be yet another recent example, in addition to the “Blurred Lines” case, of how convoluted copyright infringement cases have become from the fact that courts can’t distinguish between stealing someone’s work and being influenced by it. So in reality, Yellowcard’s claim of influence shouldn’t hold much merit. ![]() Throughout the entire history of sound, every artist has been influenced by someone, and every song has leaned on those influences in some way. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |