Quote:
Originally Posted by phillip
Copyright violation doesn't have to be intentional wrongdoing. It can be subconscious. Look up Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs.
I wasn't trying to be comprehensive, just trying to make a quick point.
I don't think my class is a problem. I have a very experienced professor at a top 25 law school.
Edit - From that case:
"What happened? I conclude that the composer,12 in
seeking musical materials to clothe his thoughts, was
working with various possibilities. As he tried this
possibility and that, there came to the surface of his
mind a particular combination that pleased him as
being one he felt would be appealing to a prospective
listener; in other words, that this combination of
sounds would work. Why? Because his subconscious
knew it already had worked in a song his conscious
mind did not remember. Having arrived at this
pleasing combination of sounds, the recording was
made, the lead sheet prepared for copyright and the
song became an enormous success. Did Harrison
deliberately use the music of He’s So Fine? I do not
believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear
that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He’s So
Fine with different words,13 and Harrison had access
to He’s So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement
of copyright, and is no less so even though
subconsciously accomplished."
|
Do you have a citation for it? I'll take a look at it over the next few days. It seems to me that this interpretation has been disfavored if not outright overturned.
I believe the CA courts have adopted the far more strict definition provided earlier, though I'll need to see the citation first.