4 ms·
Not according to the US court system. American case law defines chord progressions as insufficiently creative for copyright purposes. Usually rhythms are too. T
by hannasanarion 7y ago
Not according to the US court system. American case law defines chord progressions as insufficiently creative for copyright purposes. Usually rhythms are too. The only copyrightable parts of a composition in precedential cases of most US courts are the melody and lyrics.
And apparently arpeggios, because the US District Court of California ruled in Flame vs Katy Perry that arpeggios are "melodic enough" for copyright protection.
- ehnto 7y agoMelodies are insufficient on their own in my opinion, the court rules differently I guess. Melodies are just as likely to be formulaic, and are built using similar foundational knowledge as a chord progression (only a subset of notes works in a given progression for example, and conventions lead you toward certain notes of that subset). A combination of chords, melody, rhythm are I think the only reasonable measure that a song has been copied.