4 ms·

> "if the artist being sued for infringement could have possibly had access to the music they're accused of copying—even if it was something they listened to on

> "if the artist being sued for infringement could have possibly had access to the music they're accused of copying—even if it was something they listened to once—they can be accused of "subconsciously" infringing on the original content." Now, they just need to release an album called "Every Song Ever" and start having that played on the radio so that they can argue that every musician can claim in court that the version they were subconsciously inspired by the Every Song Ever version.

usrusr 7y ago
Not before that radio show is over which might take a while. On a more serious note, if that project was ever taken at face value, that is as a collection of music and not as a piece of mathematical performance art exploring the theoretical boundaries of copyright, they'd get into quite some trouble: somewhere on that drive there's a copy of Strawberry Fields, perhaps even the Happy Birthday song, and we all know what that means.
- smhenderson 7y ago
  perhaps even the Happy Birthday song Not to be pedantic but at least this one was finally put to rest in 2018, in the US that is. And it's EU copyright expired in 2017 [0]. Copyright law is crazy but every once in a while a legal case comes along and injects just a tiny bit of sanity back into an otherwise insane system... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyrigh...
- tebruno99 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure that 2 works independently created that are the same, both own the copyright. An infringer has to have had access to the work he/she is being accused of infringing. In Katie Perry's case it was claimed because the Youtube video of the accuser was viewed 3M times on Youtube she could not say she never had access. An algorithm can't have access, so imo both parties would own the copyright (if an algorithm can own a copyright)

usrusr 7y ago

Not before that radio show is over which might take a while. On a more serious note, if that project was ever taken at face value, that is as a collection of music and not as a piece of mathematical performance art exploring the theoretical boundaries of copyright, they'd get into quite some trouble: somewhere on that drive there's a copy of Strawberry Fields, perhaps even the Happy Birthday song, and we all know what that means.

smhenderson 7y ago
perhaps even the Happy Birthday song Not to be pedantic but at least this one was finally put to rest in 2018, in the US that is. And it's EU copyright expired in 2017 [0]. Copyright law is crazy but every once in a while a legal case comes along and injects just a tiny bit of sanity back into an otherwise insane system... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyrigh...
tebruno99 7y ago
I'm pretty sure that 2 works independently created that are the same, both own the copyright. An infringer has to have had access to the work he/she is being accused of infringing. In Katie Perry's case it was claimed because the Youtube video of the accuser was viewed 3M times on Youtube she could not say she never had access. An algorithm can't have access, so imo both parties would own the copyright (if an algorithm can own a copyright)