Copyright - Understanding & Implications
Understanding Copyright
This unit could be offered at the start of Presenting as a Creator. The Guide is explicit in stating (p.34) that students will need to prepare original works (compositions OR improvisations), but may work from a stimulus. They can even submit a work that falls under the label "theme and variations". A further note states that arrangements or re-mixing is not permissible for this component (p.35). This page offers an introduction to what constitutes copyright and, more broadly, asks students to consider the implications of malpractice.
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Warm-Up Task
15 minutes
Divide the class into TWO groups. One group is permitted to use the Internet and the other is not. Both groups, however, are attempting to come up with a definition for copyright in music with one or more short paragraphs.
After 10 minutes, a spokesperson from each group reads (or shares) their definition and a subsequent discussion ensues.
Teacher only boxPossible Definition Generated by Students:
Intellectual or creative property is protected by the laws of most countries and music falls into this category. Breaches of this may include melodic duplication or the imitation of a harmonic pattern. We believe that rhythm or expressive techniques may not be included in the legal definition of music copyright. We also believe that there is a statute of limitations that may last up to 50 years in most Western countries.
Definition Generated by Students with Internet Access:
In music copyright law, there are two main rights for each song: one for the actual music and lyrics (called the "musical work") and one for the recording of the music (called the "sound recording"). These rights are created as soon as a song is made and meet certain criteria like being original and fixed in a tangible form.
For a song to be protected by copyright, it needs to be original, meaning it must be created independently and show some level of creativity. While some elements like rhythm and harmony might not be considered original enough, melody is usually protected. Contributions by producers and engineers to the recording process can also be protected.
However, things like musical style or general ideas are not covered by copyright. So, while copyright protects the specific arrangement of notes and lyrics in a song and its recording, it doesn't cover broader musical styles or themes.
Information was extracted from this site:
https://blog.reverbnation.com/music-law-101-what-does-copyright-law-protect/
There is scope here to discuss why certain musical features are protected by copyright and others are not.
Task 1: Applying Copyright
15 minutes
Imagine that you are a judge and need to decide as a group WHETHER the song “Dark Horse” by Katy Perry breached laws by infringing upon the music copyright of Flame’s "Joyful Noise" and WHAT DAMAGES would you award?
Here is some background information that may be pertinent in your discussions:
Aspects worth mentioning:
- pop songs in recent times have begun incorporating rap elements / featured artists - here Katy Perry features Juicy J
- Katy Perry and Marcus Gray, known as Flame, both started their music careers as Christian singers
- "Dark Horse" has sold more than 13 million copies worldwide and the video for the song was the first ever by a female artist to reach a billion views on both YouTube and Vevo.
- In total, the video has been watched more than 2.6 billion times since its release in 2014.
- Perry claims that she had never heard the song "Joyful Noise" so therefore could not have been influenced by it.
Here is another important statement in relation to music copyright:
"While there are no bright-line rules, some courts have held that rhythm and harmony are generally in the public domain and not “original,” while melody is often determined to be “original” and protected by copyright. And, courts have held that contributions by producers and engineers to the creation of sound recordings, including the processing of sounds and the balancing, equalization, and integrating of vocal and instrumental into a blended whole, can be protected by copyright. On the other hand, musical style (i.e., the style of reggae), themes, or ideas in the abstract are not protected by copyright".
taken from https://blog.reverbnation.com/music-law-101-what-does-copyright-law-protect/
First, listen to the opening portion of the song "Joyful Noise" (2008) by Marcus Gray (a.k.a. Flame):
Opening Portion of Flame's "Joyful Noise"Then, compare this with the opening portion of the song "Dark Horse" (2013) by Katy Perry:
Opening Portion of Perry's "Dark Horse"Consider aspects such as the hook, the beat, harmonic elements, expressive techniques, vocal line, style, texture and timbre. How similar do you feel Perry's work is in relation to Flames?
Here are the FULL recordings if necessary:
Katy Perry's "Dark Horse Ft. Juicy J" - FULL SONG Right Flame's "Joyful Noise Ft. Lecrae and John Reilly" - FULL SONG Teacher only boxAfter each group has had an opportunity to discuss the musical elements, instigate a discussion to determine their findings. You may wish to then display the following for further consideration:
Marvin Gray actually brought a lawsuit against Katy Perry for copyright infringement. Here are a couple of musical explanations for the initial outcome of that case and a comparison of the musical features:
Here are some news articles that you may wish to read for further details on the outcome:
Here are some other pieces that you may find interesting:
Although it does contain errors, a section from this journal article (pp.767-769) is interesting as well:
Breaking Up Melodic Monopolies
A wonderful TedTalk:
Given what you have learnt about this case, and the IB's strict policy on plagiarism (the same penalties apply for intentionally or unintentionally using the ideas, words or work of another person without proper, clear and explicit acknowledgement), do you think that the decision of the court was justified and then the subsequent retraction of that decision?
Photo by Christopher Sardegna on Unsplash
Here are some sample student responses to this:
Today’s lesson has increased my self-awareness in regards to plagiarism and its consequences. I do believe that Katy Perry’s Dark Horse is not, in any way, plagiarizing Joyful Noises by Flame. However, regardless of whether or not there were any malicious intentions, a lawsuit was filed against her and an entire fiasco had happened because of this.
Despite winning the case recently, this may have brought some damage to Katy’s reputation. This made me realize just how crucial it is to be original and never claim any other’s work, even if it is not intended. The consequences of plagiarism are often very damageable, while there may not be a lawsuit against you (in case this happens in your IB years), your grades and reputation will suffer. Hence, this made me understand that it is very important to cross-check with all my own written materials (extended essays, IA…) with a plagiarism check as one can never be too sure.
For me, I think anything unintentional should not be marked as plagiarism and a copyright infringement, however, human intentions are hard to judge, as such, judgment should be made based on other factors.
It is undeniable that both songs used the same 8-note progression. Katy Perry used the progression throughout much of her song. Both songs used the progression to create a beat and rhythm for the songs.
However, the focus of Dark Horse is not on the 8-note progression or the beat it generates, but on the chorus and the delightful melody and harmony. Katy uses the common 4 chord progression that pop songs abuse nowadays, using an F, C A minor and G chords.
I also think the copyright system for music is inherently flawed. To me, a claim over an 8-note progression seems absurd. I feel like it is perfectly alright to take inspiration and elements from other songs. This case to me is particularly different as the two songs are in different genres. I think, in a true copyright infringement case, we should be able to identify and say “this is copying” immediately.
Cases like this may limit creativity and the development of music in the future.
I personally agree with the court’s subsequent decision on not giving Katy Perry and her producers the penalty of plagiarising “FLAME”, as I think the melody is quite different between the two songs, the loop isn’t identical, the focus point of two songs are also different as one is melody-based, while the other one is mainly rap-based. Therefore i think the court’s decision is justified.
In relation to my own circumstances, I think no matter whether it is intentional or accidental, we must always check the copyright of the project we have finished, to prevent unnecessary plagiarism, causing undue trouble. We can go to different websites to check the similarity between our finished product or assignment, comparing it with the materials provided or posted on the internet.
Sometimes, we might need to quote or use data from online resources or websites, therefore we can provide the necessary citation to make sure we are quoting ethically and presumably legally as well.