I’m always telling producers to make friends with musicians and get into the obscure but critical legal sweet spot of “Interpolations” — definitely the future of hip hop unless the publishing climate loosens up in the US.

I mentioned that as a writer, I always cite sources of quotes and ideas. I was thinking that at some point we can probably have the technology to mark songs to show where certain parts have come from. Then I realized we already do — mashups. People are lifting stuff all the time, putting it together in new forms, and proudly citing where they got the original material. So I think we are heading that way anyway, and as long as the original creators are also cited, it’s probably acceptable for most.

If I wrote fiction, I would either be blatant enough about copying someone else’s work that people would know I was using it as a point of reference, or I would intentionally try to avoid duplicating someone else’s work so I wouldn’t be accused of plagiarism. That being said, there are only so many storylines to go around. A lot of novels, TV shows, etc., are pretty formulaic, so a lot of writing is similar to what has already been done. Unless you are actually duplicating dialogue and character description, I think doing similar stories is okay. “Girl meets boy. They have troubles. They get back together.”

As far as music is concerned, yes a lot of work out there is similar to a lot of other work out there. In some cases the artists are trying to do something similar and in other cases they are so influenced by other music that what comes out is similar. I don’t think songwriters should intentionally write the same song, but it does happen. Should the copiers be penalized if someone realizes the songs are similar? Maybe the original songwriters should be able to share in whatever royalties result from the copies.

Getting back to being a writer. If I write something, I want credit for it. I don’t want someone to lift my words and claim to have written it themselves. I’ve given people permission to reproduce my writing, but I ask that it not be modified and that my name be on it.

These days, when it is hard to get paid for one’s music, writing, etc., you’d at least like to get some recognition for it.

So I’m not sure I want everything to end up in court, but if someone notices that what he/she created was then copied by someone else and no credit was given, I think it is reasonable for the first person to point out to the public the similarities.

Because if it’s a legal concern that is artificially limiting artists’ ability to create art, I think the law should be changed rather than our behaviors.

I do agree that if money is the motive you can almost guarantee that the integrity of the act is questionable. But if the aim is truly to create a work of art or music that is different, better or transformed I think that should be approached differently.

Obviously, the law doesn’t concern itself much with motives. That’s why the creation of a ‘transformative work’ is considered fair use under current copyright law. It’s about the resulting piece of art.

A blatant copy is a blatant copy – but a new work that has resulted from the transformation of a work that came before is something that should be celebrated.

However, the question of whether credit needs to be given (legally speaking) for transformative use of copyrighted material remains to be answered.

There’s a high-profile case right now related to those famous Obama ‘Hope’ posters. The guy who made those posters is being sued because the Obama portrait is actually a significantly altered copy of a photograph taken by someone else.

In that case I believe credit is exactly what’s at issue – I don’t believe there will be much question as to whether the piece is ‘transformative.’

I think that whether or not credit should be given is as much a matter of conscience as it is a matter of law. A significantly altered melody or chord progression may be all but unrecognizable as a copy of the original. Should credit be given? If so, what would that look like?

“So-and-so’s melody was to some degree the inspiration for the second half of the third line of the chorus underneath the main vocal melody.”

I’m making light of it a little bit, but my point is that there are many, many different degrees of ‘copying’ – from entire works to little pieces, textures, feelings or grooves. I think each needs to be treated within the context of the new work.

Art should be full of integrity…but if it’s the bottom line someone is after…integrity goes out the window.

I for one will never view Coldplay the same way again.
Janet Hansen
Scout66.com