Which was really the point of the talk, imo. He wasn't giving (much) specific legal advice. He was explaining the current (as of the date of the talk) state of the law. If the law (and the precedents set in the courts) are in flux, how is a concise answer even possible? His points about undermining the value of a copyright shouldn't be ignored either. If you've done no damage (you haven't usurped money or driven value from the original to your "homage") then a suit for damages is pointless. If you HAVE, then things are really slippery at the moment until settled more firmly. Beware.

It's also worth remembering that there are essentially two types of copyright pertaining to recorded music. Mechanical rights are about the actual recording. This is mostly what he demonstrated.

Publishing rights are about, essentially, what happens before a song is recorded to hard media (including computer hard-drives). Lyrics, melody, etc. This is mostly what he talked about in the Marvin Gaye scenario. They weren't accused of using even bits of the recording of that song, but copying one or more of the creative decisions made in the creation of the song. That's the "scary" one for music and musicians in general.

It's exceeding easy to NOT COPY recordings--not even a single lick or note. It's a more open question when "creative decisions" can be construed to infringe. Sometimes it's blatant and obvious. Other times it may be coincidental. And other times, it's just the nature of music that there are only so many choices available in progression or in intervals. As long as juries understand this, then I think they can be trusted to judge rightly.

Last edited by Tangmo; 05/28/19 04:10 AM.
BIAB 2021 Audiophile. Windows 10 64bit. Songwriter, lyricist, composer(?) loving all styles. Some pre-BIAB music from Farfetched Tangmo Band's first CD. https://alonetone.com/tangmo/playlists/close-to-the-ground