P
pacman9000
New member
try again bingoman
- Status
punkin
Univalve & Avatar Speaks
When you play covers at a club, the club is "usually" paying ASCAP fees. If they're not, you should be. Fair use, I'm betting against it.
This from the big book;
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
Did you note the words "clearly apply"?
FL-102, Revised July 2006
This excerpt from the Stanford website (I guess they know a little about law);
What is a work in the public domain?
A work in the public domain can be copied freely by anyone. Such works include those of the U.S. Government and works for which the copyright has expired. Generally, for works created after 1978, the copyright lasts for 70 years beyond the life of the author. Works created before but not published before 1978 have special rules. For works created and first published between 1950 and 1978 the copyright lasts for 95 years. For works created and first published before 1950, the copyright lasts for 28 years but could have been renewed for another 67 years.
When planning a project, start by identifying works in the public domain which can be re-purposed in the new work. Request permissions for materials not in the public domain early in the project. If there are images or sounds for which permission to copy cannot be obtained, it is easier to redesign the project at the beginning rather waiting until the project nears completion.
What is fair use?
Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson.
My own case and point...My daughter is a film student, she wanted to use a few snippets from the song "Dead Puppies" for a comedy project she was working on...no profit, no personal gain and was for "educational use only". She approached her teacher, the teacher hooked her up with the school's legal dept. and they said no, not without the express written consent from the author/writer and distributor. She made contact with both and then did finally get permission.
This from the big book;
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
Did you note the words "clearly apply"?
FL-102, Revised July 2006
This excerpt from the Stanford website (I guess they know a little about law);
What is a work in the public domain?
A work in the public domain can be copied freely by anyone. Such works include those of the U.S. Government and works for which the copyright has expired. Generally, for works created after 1978, the copyright lasts for 70 years beyond the life of the author. Works created before but not published before 1978 have special rules. For works created and first published between 1950 and 1978 the copyright lasts for 95 years. For works created and first published before 1950, the copyright lasts for 28 years but could have been renewed for another 67 years.
When planning a project, start by identifying works in the public domain which can be re-purposed in the new work. Request permissions for materials not in the public domain early in the project. If there are images or sounds for which permission to copy cannot be obtained, it is easier to redesign the project at the beginning rather waiting until the project nears completion.
What is fair use?
Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson.
My own case and point...My daughter is a film student, she wanted to use a few snippets from the song "Dead Puppies" for a comedy project she was working on...no profit, no personal gain and was for "educational use only". She approached her teacher, the teacher hooked her up with the school's legal dept. and they said no, not without the express written consent from the author/writer and distributor. She made contact with both and then did finally get permission.
B
boingoman
New member
pacman9000 said:
I notice you edited your post to be somewhere in the same galaxy as the truth. You are still a retard.
P
pacman9000
New member
boingoman said:
I edited nothing ya lieing sack of sh1t.
it's obvious from how much time you spend here losing arguments that gambling has not paid off for you old bingoman...stop being such an old troll.
would you like to make a counterpoint?
I'll answer that for you: no you wouldn't because you have none.
are you saying that when someone covers a song they still have to pay the label who owns the copyright of that sound recording?
you didn't even know that there is a distinction between the copyright of a song and a 'sound recording'...
"if you don't know, now u know, SUCKA!"
lol @ this loser
P
pacman9000
New member
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
^because the labels will win even if it should be 'fair use'
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
^because the labels will win even if it should be 'fair use'
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
P
pacman9000
New member
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
^because the labels will win even if it should be 'fair use'
what this effectively means, is that for a half second sample, you MUST pay THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, or everything you make off that record will be given to the label who owns the copyright to the sound recording you sampled a half-second from.
THE EVIL ENEMIES OF CREATIVITY EFFECTIVELY DESTROYED THE VIBRANT ARTFORM THAT ONCE WAS, MUSIC CREATED USING STRICTLY SAMPLES...WITH THESE BULLSH1T LAWS MADE ONLY TO HELP MAJOR LABELS AND GREEDY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS MAKE MORE PROFIT, AT THE EXPENSE OF CREATIVITY AND THE GREATEST, MOST ALIVE ARTFORM OF OUR TIME... A GREAT LOSS FOR MUSIC LOVERS EVERYWHERE
^because the labels will win even if it should be 'fair use'
what this effectively means, is that for a half second sample, you MUST pay THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, or everything you make off that record will be given to the label who owns the copyright to the sound recording you sampled a half-second from.
THE EVIL ENEMIES OF CREATIVITY EFFECTIVELY DESTROYED THE VIBRANT ARTFORM THAT ONCE WAS, MUSIC CREATED USING STRICTLY SAMPLES...WITH THESE BULLSH1T LAWS MADE ONLY TO HELP MAJOR LABELS AND GREEDY COPYRIGHT HOLDERS MAKE MORE PROFIT, AT THE EXPENSE OF CREATIVITY AND THE GREATEST, MOST ALIVE ARTFORM OF OUR TIME... A GREAT LOSS FOR MUSIC LOVERS EVERYWHERE
P
pacman9000
New member
Slice Your Throat Bingoman, Your Life Is Effectively Over.
B
boingoman
New member
pacman9000 said:
No. You said it's OK to record someone else's song, and that this is considered "fair use". That is incorrect. The rest of your drivel is, as usual, deranged brain farts.
punkin
Univalve & Avatar Speaks
pacman9000 said:
Um...not always. I have now more than once sent polite and respectful letters (just a suggestion), asked for permission to use entire and complete works owned and copyrighted materials and, I have been granted persmission without requirement to pay back even one cent. All that was required was a copy of my final work and prominent acknowledgement of their contribution.
I'm thinking that in this case, making nice, asking and possibly negotiating rather than begging for forgiveness (in a court of law) might be the way to go.
E
Emusic
New member
Positively wrong.pacman9000 said:
You need an agreement with the owner of the rights for the song.
Why do you think ABBA for many decades didnt let anyone use riffs from their songs and managed to acheive just that? Because noone could use it without their permission.
Madonna got a permission though last year.
TerraMortim
New member
pacman9000 said:
baahahahaha! yes!
legionserial
New member
pacman9000 said:
Why should it be right to do that? It's still the sum of parts that belong to someone else and you've used them without permission.
Someone steals a riff from one of my tunes, I'm gonna be a bit pissed about it. It may sound different because of the other parts involved, but part of it is still mine, and I I'll bet while the riff they stole of me is playing, it still sounds like the riff they stole off me. All that I'm going to be thinking is that some no talent fuck is trying to get credit for a bunch of stuff they didn't write and pass it off as theirs, without giving any credit or respect to the real writer by at least asking permission.
wheelema
Boner-obo
There is a concept in real estate appraisal known as 'highest and best use'. More and more I think the concept might have some value if applied to humanity. For example, your 'highest and best use' might arguably be 'compost'.TerraMortim said:
And THAT, you widdle itty bitty puppy, is how you slam someone!
Take notes.
P
pacman9000
New member
legionserial said:
purgatory, uk.
no wonder you're so bitter, your life is basically one step away from a living hell.
It's really unrealistic for you to be worrying about people stealing any musical content from you now, isn't it?
Many times people do get mad though, because the creation of the samplist is more intriguing, more aesthetically pleasing, and has more artistic merit then any of the originals that it sampled from.
It's easy to see why bitter old souls along with ignorant young wannabes have problems with samplists, they're jealous.
Also, most sampled songs sound warmer and the highs are smoother, and strings sound richer and fulller, because they are using samples of instruments first recorded on analog tape then transferred to vinyl...which always trumps the sound of pop records, some guy trying to record a band in pro-tools or some kid with his trinity synth...no matter what the sampled sounds always have more character, depth, and most importantly warmth and fuzziness...and if you ask me personally, I always prefer "warm fuzzies" to "cold pricklies (01010)" when you sample off of vinyl or tape you retain some of that analog warmth even in the digital domain, where as if you go straight to digital during your initial recording it will never have the same warm fuzziness as a vinyl sample.
Also, the Major Labels should be destroyed so that is the ultimate goal of this samplist, it's much bigger then just lobbying congress to address the antiquated copyright laws, and the kyke liar cohen should be the first to have his throat cut from ear to ear.
I also add musical elements using just a Nord Elektro in much of my music, but I would never give up sampling and use just instruments and synths recorded into digital, that is no way to create the classics which I create.
Last edited:
P
pacman9000
New member
wheelema said:There is a concept in real estate appraisal known as 'highest and best use'. More and more I think the concept might have some value if applied to humanity. For example, your 'highest and best use' might arguably be 'compost'.
And THAT, you widdle itty bitty puppy, is how you slam someone!
Take notes.
this kid is straight out the movie, "Revenge of the Nerds"
jejeje
P
pacman9000
New member
Those who disagree must be too stupid to even understand what I posted, regarding factors 3 and 4 of the fair use doctrine which give stipulations for much of my music which has samples in it to be considered fair use, that is:
If you do not take a significant amount (factor 3) of the original work you sample from, and the samplists creation does not have a negative impact on the market for the sampled materials (factor 4) then obviously it should be considered fair use and be totally legal and free from any copyright fees.
All it's really going to take is for someone (perhaps me) to win a case for fair use based on factors 3 and 4...and this will set a precedent, and will make it harder for major labels to just punk people into paying thousands for samples that shouldn't have to be paid for.
2-Live Crew already won a big court case which set a precedent for fair use of material when doing a parody of an original work.
Labels have tried their hardest to keep any other cases out of court, so that there is no chance of more precedents being set that, in any way, negate their huge advantage in copyright cases.
If you do not take a significant amount (factor 3) of the original work you sample from, and the samplists creation does not have a negative impact on the market for the sampled materials (factor 4) then obviously it should be considered fair use and be totally legal and free from any copyright fees.
All it's really going to take is for someone (perhaps me) to win a case for fair use based on factors 3 and 4...and this will set a precedent, and will make it harder for major labels to just punk people into paying thousands for samples that shouldn't have to be paid for.
2-Live Crew already won a big court case which set a precedent for fair use of material when doing a parody of an original work.
Labels have tried their hardest to keep any other cases out of court, so that there is no chance of more precedents being set that, in any way, negate their huge advantage in copyright cases.
P
pacman9000
New member
just click the link it's easier to read:
http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Crew/Crew.aspx
audio
2 Live Crew
Copyright Casebook
2Live Crew and the Case of the Pretty Woman
Finally, Fair Use
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is probably the seminal case for the modern application of the fair use doctrine. After years of neglect languishing in the back waters of intellectual property, the fair use doctrine received the spotlight from the Supreme Court in 1994. The lightning rod was 2 Live Crew (no stranger to Constitutional controversy) and their allegedly parodic use of the "Pretty Woman" song.
One of the critical factors that the court looked at was whether or not the 2 Live Crew version was likely to dilute the market for the original Orbison version. The court seemed to think that the buying audiences for each version were substantively different. - FACTOR 4 OF THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE
Do you think the following songs are targeted at different audiences?
2 Live Crew and
the Case of the Pretty Woman
In 1964, Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote a rock ballad called "Oh, Pretty Woman", about the same time that the Chiffons were swinging with "He's So Fine". In July of 1989, the rap group 2 Live Crew released the album "As Clean As They Wanna Be", containing a collection of their songs that don't contain the amount of profanity and obscenity normally associated with a 2 Live Crew album. One of these clean songs is "Pretty Woman". With this song, 2 Live Crew basically took the distinctive bass riff from the original Orbison song and changed the lyrics in true Crew style. Orbison and Dees are credited on the Crew album. Although the music is certainly identifiable as the original Orbison song, it is not unchanged. Also in true Crew style, the music contains interposed scraper noises, overlays of solos in different keys, and an altered drum beat.
Coincidentally, shortly after the 2 Live Crew version came out, the motion picture "Pretty Woman" was released. Interestingly, the soundtrack featured the Roy Orbison version of the song, but the movie took the 2 Live Crew version of the title. Consequently, the movie producers were required to license the Orbison version of the song, but since titles cannot be copyrighted, the producers would not be liable to either Orbison or 2 Live Crew for the use of the title "Pretty Woman" for the title of the movie.
Also of interest is the fact that the movie poster for the film itself became a source of sampling controversy. As may or may not be obvious from the picture in the header above, the face belongs to the star Julia Roberts, but the body belongs to a nameless body double. With the widespread use of Photoshop and other digital manipulators, photographs can longer be considered integrated unique works. In the above case, getting a release from Richard Gere and Julia Roberts may not be sufficient protection for commercial republication without the additional release from the body double.
The Case of Campbell
v. Acuff-Rose Music
In looking at 2 Live Crew's use of the "Pretty Woman" song, the Supreme Court successfully looked past the previous fair use decisions which basically stated that any commercial use was presumptively infringement.
"in truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before."
Emerson v. Davies,8 F.Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845)
As notable for its appearance in fair use cases as for its use of commas, the opinion set forth in Emerson was used as an anchor by the court to the return to the original precepts of the framers of the Constitution.
"look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supercede the objects, of the original work."
Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, 348 (No. 4,901) (CCD Mass. 1841)
Most importantly, the court went back and gave full weight to each of the individual factors of the fair use test as promulgated in the Copyright Act of 1976. Instead of dismissing the Crew's claim on the basis that they had used the appropriated material for commercial gain, the court looked at the other factors of permissible fair use and determined that parody was indeed protected fair use, even though the perpetrators gained financially .
Lyrics:
Oh, Pretty Woman" -
by Roy Orbison and William Dees
Pretty Woman, walking down the street, Pretty Woman, the kind I like to meet,
Pretty Woman, I don't believe you, you're not the truth,
No one could look as good as you
Mercy
Pretty Woman, won't you pardon me, Pretty Woman, I couldn't help but see,
Pretty Woman, that you look as lovely as can be , Are you lonely just like me?
Pretty Woman, stop a while, Pretty Woman, talk a while,
Pretty Woman, give your smile to me, Pretty Woman, yeah, yeah, yeah
Pretty Woman, look my way, Pretty Woman, say you'll stay with me
'Cause I need you, I'll treat you right, Come to me baby, Be mine tonight
Pretty Woman, don't walk on by, Pretty Woman, don't make me cry,
Pretty Woman, don't walk away, Hey, O.K.
If that's the way it must be, O.K., I guess I'll go home now it's late
There'll be tomorrow night, but wait!
What do I see
Is she walking back to me?
Yeah, she's walking back to me!
Oh, Pretty Woman.
lyrics:
"Pretty Woman" -
as Recorded by 2 Live Crew
Pretty Woman, walking down the street, Pretty Woman, girl you look so sweet,
Pretty Woman, you bring me down to that knee, Pretty Woman, you make me wanna beg please,
Oh, Pretty Woman
Big hairy woman, you need to shave that stuff, Big hairy woman, you know I bet it's tough
Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit, 'Cause you look like Cousin It
Big hairy woman
Bald headed woman, girl your hair won't grow, Bald headed woman, you got a teeny weeny afro
Bald headed woman, you know your hair could look nice, Bald headed woman, first you got to roll it with rice
Bald headed woman here, let me get this hunk of biz for ya, Ya know what I'm saying, you look better than Rice a Roni
Oh, Bald headed woman
Big hairy woman, come on in, And don't forget your bald headed friend
Hey Pretty Woman, let the boys
Jump in
Two timin' woman, girl you know it ain't right, Two timin' woman, you's out with my boy last night
Two timin' woman, that takes a load off my mind, Two timin' woman, now I know the baby ain't mine
Oh, Two timin' woman
Oh, Pretty Woman.
http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Crew/Crew.aspx
audio
2 Live Crew
Copyright Casebook
2Live Crew and the Case of the Pretty Woman
Finally, Fair Use
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is probably the seminal case for the modern application of the fair use doctrine. After years of neglect languishing in the back waters of intellectual property, the fair use doctrine received the spotlight from the Supreme Court in 1994. The lightning rod was 2 Live Crew (no stranger to Constitutional controversy) and their allegedly parodic use of the "Pretty Woman" song.
One of the critical factors that the court looked at was whether or not the 2 Live Crew version was likely to dilute the market for the original Orbison version. The court seemed to think that the buying audiences for each version were substantively different. - FACTOR 4 OF THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE
Do you think the following songs are targeted at different audiences?
2 Live Crew and
the Case of the Pretty Woman
In 1964, Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote a rock ballad called "Oh, Pretty Woman", about the same time that the Chiffons were swinging with "He's So Fine". In July of 1989, the rap group 2 Live Crew released the album "As Clean As They Wanna Be", containing a collection of their songs that don't contain the amount of profanity and obscenity normally associated with a 2 Live Crew album. One of these clean songs is "Pretty Woman". With this song, 2 Live Crew basically took the distinctive bass riff from the original Orbison song and changed the lyrics in true Crew style. Orbison and Dees are credited on the Crew album. Although the music is certainly identifiable as the original Orbison song, it is not unchanged. Also in true Crew style, the music contains interposed scraper noises, overlays of solos in different keys, and an altered drum beat.
Coincidentally, shortly after the 2 Live Crew version came out, the motion picture "Pretty Woman" was released. Interestingly, the soundtrack featured the Roy Orbison version of the song, but the movie took the 2 Live Crew version of the title. Consequently, the movie producers were required to license the Orbison version of the song, but since titles cannot be copyrighted, the producers would not be liable to either Orbison or 2 Live Crew for the use of the title "Pretty Woman" for the title of the movie.
Also of interest is the fact that the movie poster for the film itself became a source of sampling controversy. As may or may not be obvious from the picture in the header above, the face belongs to the star Julia Roberts, but the body belongs to a nameless body double. With the widespread use of Photoshop and other digital manipulators, photographs can longer be considered integrated unique works. In the above case, getting a release from Richard Gere and Julia Roberts may not be sufficient protection for commercial republication without the additional release from the body double.
The Case of Campbell
v. Acuff-Rose Music
In looking at 2 Live Crew's use of the "Pretty Woman" song, the Supreme Court successfully looked past the previous fair use decisions which basically stated that any commercial use was presumptively infringement.
"in truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before."
Emerson v. Davies,8 F.Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845)
As notable for its appearance in fair use cases as for its use of commas, the opinion set forth in Emerson was used as an anchor by the court to the return to the original precepts of the framers of the Constitution.
"look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supercede the objects, of the original work."
Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, 348 (No. 4,901) (CCD Mass. 1841)
Most importantly, the court went back and gave full weight to each of the individual factors of the fair use test as promulgated in the Copyright Act of 1976. Instead of dismissing the Crew's claim on the basis that they had used the appropriated material for commercial gain, the court looked at the other factors of permissible fair use and determined that parody was indeed protected fair use, even though the perpetrators gained financially .
Lyrics:
Oh, Pretty Woman" -
by Roy Orbison and William Dees
Pretty Woman, walking down the street, Pretty Woman, the kind I like to meet,
Pretty Woman, I don't believe you, you're not the truth,
No one could look as good as you
Mercy
Pretty Woman, won't you pardon me, Pretty Woman, I couldn't help but see,
Pretty Woman, that you look as lovely as can be , Are you lonely just like me?
Pretty Woman, stop a while, Pretty Woman, talk a while,
Pretty Woman, give your smile to me, Pretty Woman, yeah, yeah, yeah
Pretty Woman, look my way, Pretty Woman, say you'll stay with me
'Cause I need you, I'll treat you right, Come to me baby, Be mine tonight
Pretty Woman, don't walk on by, Pretty Woman, don't make me cry,
Pretty Woman, don't walk away, Hey, O.K.
If that's the way it must be, O.K., I guess I'll go home now it's late
There'll be tomorrow night, but wait!
What do I see
Is she walking back to me?
Yeah, she's walking back to me!
Oh, Pretty Woman.
lyrics:
"Pretty Woman" -
as Recorded by 2 Live Crew
Pretty Woman, walking down the street, Pretty Woman, girl you look so sweet,
Pretty Woman, you bring me down to that knee, Pretty Woman, you make me wanna beg please,
Oh, Pretty Woman
Big hairy woman, you need to shave that stuff, Big hairy woman, you know I bet it's tough
Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit, 'Cause you look like Cousin It
Big hairy woman
Bald headed woman, girl your hair won't grow, Bald headed woman, you got a teeny weeny afro
Bald headed woman, you know your hair could look nice, Bald headed woman, first you got to roll it with rice
Bald headed woman here, let me get this hunk of biz for ya, Ya know what I'm saying, you look better than Rice a Roni
Oh, Bald headed woman
Big hairy woman, come on in, And don't forget your bald headed friend
Hey Pretty Woman, let the boys
Jump in
Two timin' woman, girl you know it ain't right, Two timin' woman, you's out with my boy last night
Two timin' woman, that takes a load off my mind, Two timin' woman, now I know the baby ain't mine
Oh, Two timin' woman
Oh, Pretty Woman.
P
pacman9000
New member
bingoman, lesiononmyass, and wheelenema....class is dismissed for today children...(and one old man who lost at the game of life)
wheelema
Boner-obo
I love it when you try to get intellectual. It's like watching someone with Tourette's syndrome.
First, it's all FUCK, SHIT, DAMN, ASSHOLE, C*NT, COCKSUCKING FAG!
Then you try to present yourself in a rational light and your spelling improves.
If you work on some sort of schedule, post it here so I will know when I should tune in next.
Thanks!!
First, it's all FUCK, SHIT, DAMN, ASSHOLE, C*NT, COCKSUCKING FAG!
Then you try to present yourself in a rational light and your spelling improves.
If you work on some sort of schedule, post it here so I will know when I should tune in next.
Thanks!!
TerraMortim
New member
wheelema said:
you forgot MIDGET FUCKING SCAT EATER
- Status