News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists. Parent comment

Re:Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens ... by falcolas on Friday March 20, 2015 @10:13AM (#9237804)
Given that remixing potentially falls under the "transformative" portion of fair use copyright exemptions, this doesn't seem like it's set in stone, legally.

Of course, I imagine that most artists work out contracts with the copyright owners and simply pay the royalties simply because it's less expensive than a protracted copyright lawsuit. This doesn't make it a legal standard, however.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens ... by Steuard on Friday March 20, 2015 @10:42AM (#9237972)
The US and many other countries have laws establishing the idea of a "compulsory license", which is (legally) required any time you cover someone else's song: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license
[ Parent | on HN ]