Using another artist's work in music and art

#1

I’m not saying you CAN do this. I haven’t seen it done, but there is copyright law to support you. Of course you CAN “sample” copyrighted material and use it …up to a point…in a new work, but I think you have to pay the original artist and about 9600 middlemen like ASCAP and BMI and accountants and attorneys.

What I’m quibbling with is, this just doesn’t strike me as a valid analogy. For one thing, you’re going from aural art to visual art and they are not exactly parallel… neither as a medium nor in terms of how the artist’s “intellectual property rights” are protected.

But how about you construct another hypothetical musical ripoff that is consistent with your analogy and let me have a better look at it. In this fist analogy I am guessing the 2 minute pause is analogous to the spatial distance between the bull and the girl?

#2

I’ve never had to pay to take a gander at Portlandia (Its in Portland of all places)

http://dguides.com/images/portland/attractions/portlandia-statue.jpg

#3

I had to add the pause when my husband played the same card regarding the space. I argued this:

Can you take a song, say Stairway to Heaven, leave it in its original form then add your composition to it so it changes the meaning of the song, and not get smacked with copyright infringement (he dealt with many DMCA complaints)?

After arguing it was a false analogy, he finally answered the question with a “no”. You cannot take someone else’s work and add on to it, thus making your own composition.

The argument here is the same but with sculpture. The girl artist has used another artist’s work to make her own composition. Without the bull, it’s just a little girl with her hands on her hips. She is placed deliberately in front of the bull, representing her standing up to the bull and what it represents. That’s using someone else’s art.

#4

Ask Randy California

1 Like
#5

Can’t. He died in 1997.

#6

Still, his opinion is not hard to find on the webz.

#7

Still…can’t ask him.

/pedantic mode engaged

And yes, I know the story of Taurus.

#8

Thanks for admitting, then, that you’re just playing Twisty again.

#9

I’m not “playing Twisty again”. I’m arguing that you can’t use an artist’s work without permission and expect to not get your ass sued.

#10

I don’t think that your endless repetition of that assertion is gonna make it true, especially since there are things about the instant case that make it unusual and not in conformity with most others. And I’m not gonna repeat them.

#11

You don’t need to repeat them nor was the creation of this thread particularly necessary given the example provided made my point and was very much in line with the original post.

#12

No, it’s okay. There is debate about whose point the example “made” …and there was the Randy California thing as well. If I merge the two threads now it will make them both even more confusing.

#13

I just want to note that just because Randy California didn’t take any legal action against Led Zeppelin doesn’t mean he couldn’t have. In fact, when I looked into it Randy’s estate did sue.

#14

In June 2016, after a trial that included audio recordings of several versions of both songs but not the Spirit and Led Zeppelin recordings, and also featured testimony from Page and band mate Robert Plant explaining the songwriting process for “Stairway,” a jury ruled that Page and Plant had not copied “Taurus.” [9] The decision is under appeal because the judge did not permit the two sound recordings to be played and instead allowed only sheet music. Copyright law was expanded to include sound recordings in 1974.

There have been other dustups involving Jethro Tull, although Bach’s heirs never sued over Bouree.

#15

TLDR: Read the last two on the left and the one on the right, the rest contain internal references to the cartoonist’s own prior work.

image
image864×1132 274 KB

#16

image
image781×572 168 KB