Re:Not by AI
by telotortium on Thursday March 16, 2023 @12:29PM
(#35184248)
I think this is mostly referring to the Blurred Lines verdict. On the other hand, artists have a strong incentive to record their songwriting and recording process, so that they can head off any potential disputes about writing credits from people actually in the studio (this situation is statistically much more likely than somebody not involved suing after the song's release).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
> I think this is mostly referring to the Blurred Lines verdict.
Interesting. I was mostly referring to the "Shake It Off" and the "Thinking Out Loud" copyright cases.
Re:Not by AI
by telotortium on Thursday March 16, 2023 @03:00PM
(#35186678)
The "Shake It Off" case seems like it involves lyrical content, which had always been a primary concern of music copyright, even before "Blurred Lines". The "Thinking Out Loud" case seems to involve similar issues to the "Blurred Lines" case, but was filed long after[1]:
> While the Gaye family is not involved in the “Thinking Out Loud” lawsuits against Sheeran, the precedent set in their case looms over all new copyright infringement claims. Notably, the court took into account not just sheet music but studio arrangement too and ruled that “Blurred Lines” significantly aped the vibe of “Got to Give It Up,” something that had previously been beyond copyright protection.
[1]: https://rollingstoneindia.com/copyright-infringement-lawsuit....