|
|
Post by Vaios on Jan 16, 2018 0:14:08 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by CHAE WITH A C on Jan 16, 2018 0:39:49 GMT 1
It would be hard to claim rights on a song that he didn't write or have no production in. When you use a part of the work of another artist (significant enough to be recognised), he/she has rights on it. If you present the whole song as yours, and don't credit the original artist, there is a risk that the owners of rights of the work you used claim for a compensation or even ask the court to remove your song from the market. The core of the debate to determine if the borrowed part is significant enough, so there is a part of subjectivity. If it was copied legal actions would be happening right now, plus the songs are nothing alike anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by italix on Jan 16, 2018 17:50:17 GMT 1
When you use a part of the work of another artist (significant enough to be recognised), he/she has rights on it. If you present the whole song as yours, and don't credit the original artist, there is a risk that the owners of rights of the work you used claim for a compensation or even ask the court to remove your song from the market. The core of the debate to determine if the borrowed part is significant enough, so there is a part of subjectivity. If it was copied legal actions would be happening right now, plus the songs are nothing alike anyway. An action may occur tomorrow, or next month, or in several years. No one can predict that. I give you an example: Calogero has been prosecuted in 2014 for a song he had released in 2004 and got finally condemned in 2016. |
|
Aless
Retired Administrator
he/him
10,269
27,578
funk generation
|
Post by Aless on Jan 16, 2018 18:18:49 GMT 1
If it was copied legal actions would be happening right now, plus the songs are nothing alike anyway. An action may occur tomorrow, or next month, or in several years. No one can predict that. I give you an example: Calogero has been prosecuted in 2014 for a song he had released in 2004 and got finally condemned in 2016. It’s just a sentence. Your life doesn’t depend on a sentence. The sentence is made up of five common words of the Italian language. Patty Pravo is very happy with her song. Betta Lemme is very happy with her song. Be happy with both songs. |
|
|
|
Post by George J. on Jan 16, 2018 18:25:38 GMT 1
sometimes I wonder if some people have no other stuff to take care, instead of annoying every other forumer  |
|
|
|
Post by CHAE WITH A C on Jan 16, 2018 18:45:43 GMT 1
If it was copied legal actions would be happening right now, plus the songs are nothing alike anyway. An action may occur tomorrow, or next month, or in several years. No one can predict that. I give you an example: Calogero has been prosecuted in 2014 for a song he had released in 2004 and got finally condemned in 2016. It is one sentence the song has 0 similarities, the sentence is the same, it is a sentence, it has happen in other songs where sentences are similar or the same: example: Marina and the Diamonds - Radioactive and Imagine Dragons - Radioactive. Where in both songs they say "I'm radioactive". they are same sentence, with 0 legal actions because they are different songs, this is the same with Bambola. |
|
|
|
Post by italix on Jan 16, 2018 19:14:46 GMT 1
An action may occur tomorrow, or next month, or in several years. No one can predict that. I give you an example: Calogero has been prosecuted in 2014 for a song he had released in 2004 and got finally condemned in 2016. It is one sentence the song has 0 similarities, the sentence is the same, it is a sentence, it has happen in other songs where sentences are similar or the same: example: Marina and the Diamonds - Radioactive and Imagine Dragons - Radioactive. Where in both songs they say "I'm radioactive". they are same sentence, with 0 legal actions because they are different songs, this is the same with Bambola. This is not only a sentence but also the melody. The 10 first notes of the intro are the same that Patty Pravo sings at the beginning ("Tu mi fai girar, tu mi fai girar") and the intro is also similar to the intro of Patty Pravo's song. |
|
|
|
Post by CHAE WITH A C on Jan 16, 2018 19:21:00 GMT 1
It is one sentence the song has 0 similarities, the sentence is the same, it is a sentence, it has happen in other songs where sentences are similar or the same: example: Marina and the Diamonds - Radioactive and Imagine Dragons - Radioactive. Where in both songs they say "I'm radioactive". they are same sentence, with 0 legal actions because they are different songs, this is the same with Bambola. This is not only a sentence but also the melody. The 10 first notes of the intro are the same that Patty Pravo sings at the beginning ("Tu mi fai girar, tu mi fai girar") and the intro is also similar to the intro of Patty Pravo's song. They are nothing alike, different melodies, different pitches, different structures of the songs. |
|
|
|
Post by italix on Jan 16, 2018 20:01:34 GMT 1
This is not only a sentence but also the melody. The 10 first notes of the intro are the same that Patty Pravo sings at the beginning ("Tu mi fai girar, tu mi fai girar") and the intro is also similar to the intro of Patty Pravo's song. They are nothing alike, different melodies, different pitches, different structures of the songs. You definitely can't say that. There are similarities (common lyrics and notes), strong enough to be noticed at first listening (by me at least). Sampling one single second of a song is enough to be prosecuted if the original song is recognisable. The question is: would an average Italian listener notice these similarities as well? This is the kind of question that a judge would try to answer to. I don't know that answer and that's why I feel uncomfortable with this song. The only thing I am sure about is that I would call a lawyer if I owned rights on this song, at least to know what he thinks about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph on Jan 16, 2018 20:13:00 GMT 1
|
|
Really good entries from S&M too 
