3 ms·
I think the line is pretty well defined. If a songwriter writes a song specifically for an artist, that doesn't indicate any less skill and definitely doesn't m
by antasvara 6y ago
I think the line is pretty well defined. If a songwriter writes a song specifically for an artist, that doesn't indicate any less skill and definitely doesn't mean the artist added anything meaningful. That song could have just as easily (as in the Elvis example) been recorded by another artist. That's akin to saying that I took inspiration from the Harry Potter books, so I should give JK Rowling a cut of my book deal.
As for remixes and covers, I'd say that if there was a change made that significantly altered or changed the song, it would be considered involvement. It seems that from the article, remixing or changing the song to the point where you would consider it substantially different is enough for a share of publishing revenues.
Bottom line is that while it's still subjective, most musicians and songwriters would have no trouble recognizing if someone else had a substantial impact on the final product.
- mc32 6y agoIt’d be like movie producers taking a cut from film scores or songs because they influenced the score or music.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoOr like Gene Roddenberry writing some cheap lyrics to the Star Trek theme so he'd get a 50% split of the publishing with composer Alexander Courage. The lyrics were never used. Because the lyrics were never supposed to be used.
- emodendroket 6y agoIn fact a number of hits were originally composed with a different artist in mind who declined.
- toss1 6y ago>>That's akin to saying that I took inspiration from the Harry Potter books, so I should give JK Rowling a cut of my book deal. Yup, just to be clear in that case, if you are writing about the characters JKR created, with their attributes, personas, and/or backstories, you are fully expected to license the characters and pay royalties to JKR. You are specifically utilizing her copyrighted works for profit, even if you don't use a single line of pre-existing dialogue. This is why we don't have a million non-Disney Mickey Mouse stories, media, videos, etc. - Disney owns the copyright on not only the specific prior works but also the characters. No question, influence and creative origin count, and should be compensated.
- vasco 6y agoMickey mouse went to the store. On the way there he slipped on a banana peel and fell. No royalty paid.
- egypturnash 6y agoStart making money off of that and Disney will come knocking.
- toss1 6y agoWow, what an unexpectedly inane and ignorant comment on HN. That is like saying: "I just drove by a cop at 3mph over the speed limit and he didn't even turn on his lights. No fine paid." (implying that therefore speed limit laws don't exist) The fact that many trivial violations go un-prosecuted never invalidates the law. Here's a key line just a few paragraphs into a Georgetown Law paper on the topic [1] >>Many entertainment corporation shave left fan fiction alone, but a few have attempted and are attempting to stamp out unauthorized use of their proprietary characters. It is very common. Your trivial "example" may come under fair use, but that says nothing about the actual facts of the matter. [1] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2936&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
- tshaddox 6y agoI think there are clear cases where someone did or didn’t write a song, but there are also very blurry areas in the middle (and these areas are where the debate actually matters). My impression is that it’s not uncommon for people at many stages in the audio engineering and music production to change things that may or may not be considered part of “writing the song.”