Years ago, Hank Green made a video about the 50s progression (which he re-dubbed the Ice Cream Changes), where he talks about how many songs, from 'Earth Angel," to Rebecca Black's "Friday," to "Every Breath You Take'," to some Slip Knot song all use the same chord progression.
An arguably bigger problem is that people who do want to build explicitly on copyrighted or patented material created by others-- and compensate them for doing it-- have to go begging to them in a negotiation process where the IP holder is free to just refuse. The example I am most familiar with is that there are some poets whose words you cannot legally set to music because the poet or their estate refuses to allow it.
Arguably given the non rivalrous nature of IP, this right to refuse isn't necessary to fulfill the legitimate purpose of making sure creators get paid, and it undermines cultural freedom substantially. Instead one could envision a sort of universal mechanical licensing regime, or a compulsory license along the lines of FRAND rules for standards essential patents.
On a lighter note, my favorite mashup of "inadvertently" similar pop songs is "Call me a Hole". You will never hear either Nine Inch Nails or Carly Rae Jepsen in quite the same way again.
I have admittedly not thought out all of the specifics, but since I don't think we're ever going to return to the days of freely using samples, part of me would like to see some centralized exchange where you can pay a statutory royalty rate.
I think there's something called a "compulsory license" which is required — and required to be granted — before cover versions of published, copyrighted music can be released.
Isn't there something like this for samples, already?
This is the “mechanical license”. Back in the days of player pianos, the Supreme Court found that a player piano roll of a song didn’t infringe the songwriter’s existing rights, so Congress passed a new law giving songwriters the rights to “mechanical reproductions” of the song as well - but made sure that the makers of the mechanical reproduction didn’t have to get permission, they just had to pay a statutory fee set by regulators for all songs. Once wax cylinders and phonographs and other recording media came along, the same law applied. Anyone who wants to record an existing song is allowed to as long as they pay the songwriter the statutory fee. But if you want to *modify* an existing song, either by sampling it, or using the melody in a different way, or whatever, *then* you need to get permission.
I think we should extend the terms of the mechanical license to all use of a song, not just recordings of a full cover of the original.
This is a great idea. Performance fees could be shared, by statute, for samples; while mechanical rights (along with shared songwriting credits, maybe) could be compelled for partial re-recordings like “Actually Romantic”. Artists would be free to produce this sort of thing as they like without shortchanging the copyright holders. Also, it would keep complaints and litigation out of sight and away from audiences.
Who wants to know "how the sausage is made", so to say, when all you want to do is just press play?
By the way, links to Spotify aren't useful for people without an account -- the Actually Romantic link plays starting in the middle. I find that YouTube is the best place to link for songs.
I love listening to the Dave Cheng podcast where he talks about the genesis of culinary dishes. He compares cooking to other popular forms of art in that chefs will “copy” one another or use inspirations from famous dishes to create something new.
It feels like we have been living in a copycat world in many different aspects of life for years. Video games, books, fashion, you name it.
Looks like there are some ongoing lawsuits about AI music generators, curious how that will affect the precedent. Telling an AI “make me a song like this one” and monetizing that seems like it should be a clear copyright violation, but you can’t necessarily show identical stolen elements in the way you can with more “traditional” copyright infringement.
AI copyright infringement feels like something a functional US Congress would have obviously passed a suite of new laws on if the technology had been invented any time before the year 2000. It just doesn’t map cleanly onto existing rules but it all feels so clearly like stealing.
Totally agree. Applying rules meant for humans to machines that can outpace humans by a thousand-fold feels like it will be the death-knell of copyright law (and if we're being truly dramatic, the end of art as a vocation)
One groggy morning, during an early hour in 2013, my clock radio woke me with the melody from Robin Thicke's “Blurred Lines”. For a moment, I genuinely thought I was listening to Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" — a former hit which had become, by that time, an obscure track gone from our collective pop music rotation for 30 years or more. It also happened to be my most favorite track from Marvin Gaye's whole catalog, so when I heard it on commercial radio that morning, it was such a novelty for me that I immediately mentioned it to my girlfriend, who was also waking up — only to be corrected, incredulously, by news that the track we were listening to was actually *current*. I was horrified.
Thicke's career wasn't quite over by 2018, but I was happy to never personally hear from the man again. The judgment which awarded the Marvin Gaye estate the royalties it deserved from this lazy musical theft seemed to dissolve Thicke's reputation — although, by that point, he'd also self-inflicted a number of other PR disasters, which helped obscure him further. In the end, the track sold nearly 15 million copies based on its merits, but also because of its stolen melody, its association with a music legend — and thanks also in part to the "earned advertising" created by virtue of the lawsuit.
This morning, I'm hearing the same sort of thing from Taylor Swift — that is, I'm hearing exactly the same thing you're hearing. I know "Where Is My Mind". I know that melody, that tempo. That arrangement. That performance. I know what it sounds like. A lot of us do. Although Swift may or may not be compelled to pay Black Francis the royalties he deserves for this lazy musical theft — a theft which seems more like a manufactured publicity occasion than an aesthetic choice to me — I doubt her reputation will suffer in the same way Thicke's did.
She's just got too much of a foundation beneath her for that.
…
I love revisiting the great tunes from years and decades past as much as anyone and, in a way, I'm impressed that Thicke and Swift, along with every other artist who's ever sampled a famous melody or beat, also thought enough of these legacy tracks to latch onto their notoriety — but I think I'm like a lot of other people who enjoy hearing music styles that are genuinely brand new. It seems pop culture, and pop music culture particularly, has been stuck in the same post-modern loop for the past 40 years. "…old music has become more valuable than new music", as you note. Permitting the free re-use of copyrighted art discourages innovation — plus it's also a theft of notoriety, as mentioned, in addition to being an aesthetic theft.
I agree that newer music is more risky to release, but not because of legal reasons — it's because genuinely innovative new music requires a lot of expensive publicity to present for audiences — audiences which may or may not like the innovation. It's a risk, but a risk which must be taken for the sake of creating new valuable copyrights for current artists. It's a risk that the music business must be financially encouraged to take, since the business, along with their private-equity stake holders, are motivated strictly by money…
I remember there was an acapella group I heard in college which had a mega-mashup that IIRC they called Pachelbel's Rock, because it was a collection of songs using the same chord progression as Pachelbel's Canon. It included Hey Jude, Basketcase, and like seven or eight other highly recognizable songs. It was glorious.
There's also this rant ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxC1fPE1QEE ) but the version I'm thinking of was done more straight, layering in the different songs with multiple voices.
Years ago, Hank Green made a video about the 50s progression (which he re-dubbed the Ice Cream Changes), where he talks about how many songs, from 'Earth Angel," to Rebecca Black's "Friday," to "Every Breath You Take'," to some Slip Knot song all use the same chord progression.
https://youtu.be/F4ALd-Top2A?si=4KT6dwdwqSpAkH1k
The Steven Universe theme song has the same progression as "Creep" by Radiohead.
I was surprised to learn recently that the Futurama theme has the same progression (or something) as Smells Like Teen Spirit.
I know the Futurama theme uses the drum track from The Winstons "Amen Brother", which is the most sampled track ever.
An arguably bigger problem is that people who do want to build explicitly on copyrighted or patented material created by others-- and compensate them for doing it-- have to go begging to them in a negotiation process where the IP holder is free to just refuse. The example I am most familiar with is that there are some poets whose words you cannot legally set to music because the poet or their estate refuses to allow it.
Arguably given the non rivalrous nature of IP, this right to refuse isn't necessary to fulfill the legitimate purpose of making sure creators get paid, and it undermines cultural freedom substantially. Instead one could envision a sort of universal mechanical licensing regime, or a compulsory license along the lines of FRAND rules for standards essential patents.
On a lighter note, my favorite mashup of "inadvertently" similar pop songs is "Call me a Hole". You will never hear either Nine Inch Nails or Carly Rae Jepsen in quite the same way again.
I have admittedly not thought out all of the specifics, but since I don't think we're ever going to return to the days of freely using samples, part of me would like to see some centralized exchange where you can pay a statutory royalty rate.
I think there's something called a "compulsory license" which is required — and required to be granted — before cover versions of published, copyrighted music can be released.
Isn't there something like this for samples, already?
I don't believe so. Though the idea has been talked about.
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=jtlp#:~:text=JOURNAL%20OF%20TECHNOLOGY%20LAW%20&%20POLICY,-Music%20sampling%20is&text=3%20Despite%20providing%20for%20new,achieving%20a%20balance%20of%20interests.
This is the “mechanical license”. Back in the days of player pianos, the Supreme Court found that a player piano roll of a song didn’t infringe the songwriter’s existing rights, so Congress passed a new law giving songwriters the rights to “mechanical reproductions” of the song as well - but made sure that the makers of the mechanical reproduction didn’t have to get permission, they just had to pay a statutory fee set by regulators for all songs. Once wax cylinders and phonographs and other recording media came along, the same law applied. Anyone who wants to record an existing song is allowed to as long as they pay the songwriter the statutory fee. But if you want to *modify* an existing song, either by sampling it, or using the melody in a different way, or whatever, *then* you need to get permission.
I think we should extend the terms of the mechanical license to all use of a song, not just recordings of a full cover of the original.
This is a great idea. Performance fees could be shared, by statute, for samples; while mechanical rights (along with shared songwriting credits, maybe) could be compelled for partial re-recordings like “Actually Romantic”. Artists would be free to produce this sort of thing as they like without shortchanging the copyright holders. Also, it would keep complaints and litigation out of sight and away from audiences.
Who wants to know "how the sausage is made", so to say, when all you want to do is just press play?
By the way, links to Spotify aren't useful for people without an account -- the Actually Romantic link plays starting in the middle. I find that YouTube is the best place to link for songs.
Will keep that in mind!
Fact.
I love listening to the Dave Cheng podcast where he talks about the genesis of culinary dishes. He compares cooking to other popular forms of art in that chefs will “copy” one another or use inspirations from famous dishes to create something new.
It feels like we have been living in a copycat world in many different aspects of life for years. Video games, books, fashion, you name it.
More like centuries! Back in the 15th century everyone was ripping off this same popular song for their settings of the Latin mass: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'homme_arm%C3%A9
Looks like there are some ongoing lawsuits about AI music generators, curious how that will affect the precedent. Telling an AI “make me a song like this one” and monetizing that seems like it should be a clear copyright violation, but you can’t necessarily show identical stolen elements in the way you can with more “traditional” copyright infringement.
AI copyright infringement feels like something a functional US Congress would have obviously passed a suite of new laws on if the technology had been invented any time before the year 2000. It just doesn’t map cleanly onto existing rules but it all feels so clearly like stealing.
Unfortunately, the 1996 law didn’t even properly anticipate Napster or Spotify, so we took decades to get that legal battle sorted.
Totally agree. Applying rules meant for humans to machines that can outpace humans by a thousand-fold feels like it will be the death-knell of copyright law (and if we're being truly dramatic, the end of art as a vocation)
YES!
One groggy morning, during an early hour in 2013, my clock radio woke me with the melody from Robin Thicke's “Blurred Lines”. For a moment, I genuinely thought I was listening to Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" — a former hit which had become, by that time, an obscure track gone from our collective pop music rotation for 30 years or more. It also happened to be my most favorite track from Marvin Gaye's whole catalog, so when I heard it on commercial radio that morning, it was such a novelty for me that I immediately mentioned it to my girlfriend, who was also waking up — only to be corrected, incredulously, by news that the track we were listening to was actually *current*. I was horrified.
Thicke's career wasn't quite over by 2018, but I was happy to never personally hear from the man again. The judgment which awarded the Marvin Gaye estate the royalties it deserved from this lazy musical theft seemed to dissolve Thicke's reputation — although, by that point, he'd also self-inflicted a number of other PR disasters, which helped obscure him further. In the end, the track sold nearly 15 million copies based on its merits, but also because of its stolen melody, its association with a music legend — and thanks also in part to the "earned advertising" created by virtue of the lawsuit.
This morning, I'm hearing the same sort of thing from Taylor Swift — that is, I'm hearing exactly the same thing you're hearing. I know "Where Is My Mind". I know that melody, that tempo. That arrangement. That performance. I know what it sounds like. A lot of us do. Although Swift may or may not be compelled to pay Black Francis the royalties he deserves for this lazy musical theft — a theft which seems more like a manufactured publicity occasion than an aesthetic choice to me — I doubt her reputation will suffer in the same way Thicke's did.
She's just got too much of a foundation beneath her for that.
…
I love revisiting the great tunes from years and decades past as much as anyone and, in a way, I'm impressed that Thicke and Swift, along with every other artist who's ever sampled a famous melody or beat, also thought enough of these legacy tracks to latch onto their notoriety — but I think I'm like a lot of other people who enjoy hearing music styles that are genuinely brand new. It seems pop culture, and pop music culture particularly, has been stuck in the same post-modern loop for the past 40 years. "…old music has become more valuable than new music", as you note. Permitting the free re-use of copyrighted art discourages innovation — plus it's also a theft of notoriety, as mentioned, in addition to being an aesthetic theft.
I agree that newer music is more risky to release, but not because of legal reasons — it's because genuinely innovative new music requires a lot of expensive publicity to present for audiences — audiences which may or may not like the innovation. It's a risk, but a risk which must be taken for the sake of creating new valuable copyrights for current artists. It's a risk that the music business must be financially encouraged to take, since the business, along with their private-equity stake holders, are motivated strictly by money…
I remember there was an acapella group I heard in college which had a mega-mashup that IIRC they called Pachelbel's Rock, because it was a collection of songs using the same chord progression as Pachelbel's Canon. It included Hey Jude, Basketcase, and like seven or eight other highly recognizable songs. It was glorious.
There's also this rant ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxC1fPE1QEE ) but the version I'm thinking of was done more straight, layering in the different songs with multiple voices.
It goes back even further than that. There was Queens lawsuit with Vanilla Ice and Gilbert O'Sullivan lawsuit against Biz Markie.
I imagine a future where all rights claims resolve onto the same set of hymnals, Allan Bloom redeemed.