OTHER SECTION
It is clear that Gaye’s composition on paper is protected, but it is also clear that the style Gaye’s composition reflects is an idea that is not protected, pursuant to section 102 (b). Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) (2012). The question then becomes, whether Appellants attempted to reflect the style of Gaye’s piece, or whether they attempted to build on an already completed composition to create a derivative song that paralleled the original, pursuant to section 103. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 103 (2012).
6a. Copyright infringement via Derivative Works Creating a derivative work would mean that Appellants had in fact committed copyright infringement. Section 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976 defines a “derivative …show more content…
Copyright Infringement via Style, Genre, and Other Inspirational Ideas As discussed above, there is an alternative to viewing “Blurred Lines” as a derivative work; that alternative is viewing “Blurred Lines” as the result of using a particular tool to cultivate a finished product. The tool was Gaye’s rendition of African American ethnic music in the 70s, as stated by Pharrell Williams. Id. Instead of attempting to build on the Gaye’s song as a whole, Appellants extracted something more abstract: the style of the piece. Because style and genre are so abstract, and because they are not what mechanically makes a song, they must be categorized as ideas. Ideas, then, cannot be copyrighted pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, regardless of whether the composition itself is protected under copyright law. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) (2012). Copyright law protects only reproduction of the work, limitation of the work, adaptation of the work, distribution of the work, public performance of the work and public display of the work. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 (2012). It does not protect the context in which the work is set. Therefore, style, an idea, can be …show more content…
Therefore, the law is no longer protective, it is aggressively attacking the industry.
Conclusion
Clearly, “Blurred Lines” is in the same genre as “Gotta Get It Up.” There’s no way to dispute that. It’s obvious that the style of the pieces are almost identical. However, it cannot be said that “Blurred Lines” is a derivative of “Gotta Get it Up” because it is not reflective of “Gotta Get It Up” as a whole. Additionally, style is not protected under the Copyright Act of 1976. Furthermore, should it be covered under the act, the effect of affirming such a holding (from the lower court) would be detrimental to the music industry, and thus an unconscionable decision. Chin, Brian & David Nathan, "Reflections Of..." The Supremes [CD boxed-set liner notes] (New York: Motown Record Co./Universal Music,
It is clear that Gaye’s composition on paper is protected, but it is also clear that the style Gaye’s composition reflects is an idea that is not protected, pursuant to section 102 (b). Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) (2012). The question then becomes, whether Appellants attempted to reflect the style of Gaye’s piece, or whether they attempted to build on an already completed composition to create a derivative song that paralleled the original, pursuant to section 103. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 103 (2012).
6a. Copyright infringement via Derivative Works Creating a derivative work would mean that Appellants had in fact committed copyright infringement. Section 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976 defines a “derivative …show more content…
Copyright Infringement via Style, Genre, and Other Inspirational Ideas As discussed above, there is an alternative to viewing “Blurred Lines” as a derivative work; that alternative is viewing “Blurred Lines” as the result of using a particular tool to cultivate a finished product. The tool was Gaye’s rendition of African American ethnic music in the 70s, as stated by Pharrell Williams. Id. Instead of attempting to build on the Gaye’s song as a whole, Appellants extracted something more abstract: the style of the piece. Because style and genre are so abstract, and because they are not what mechanically makes a song, they must be categorized as ideas. Ideas, then, cannot be copyrighted pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, regardless of whether the composition itself is protected under copyright law. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) (2012). Copyright law protects only reproduction of the work, limitation of the work, adaptation of the work, distribution of the work, public performance of the work and public display of the work. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 (2012). It does not protect the context in which the work is set. Therefore, style, an idea, can be …show more content…
Therefore, the law is no longer protective, it is aggressively attacking the industry.
Conclusion
Clearly, “Blurred Lines” is in the same genre as “Gotta Get It Up.” There’s no way to dispute that. It’s obvious that the style of the pieces are almost identical. However, it cannot be said that “Blurred Lines” is a derivative of “Gotta Get it Up” because it is not reflective of “Gotta Get It Up” as a whole. Additionally, style is not protected under the Copyright Act of 1976. Furthermore, should it be covered under the act, the effect of affirming such a holding (from the lower court) would be detrimental to the music industry, and thus an unconscionable decision. Chin, Brian & David Nathan, "Reflections Of..." The Supremes [CD boxed-set liner notes] (New York: Motown Record Co./Universal Music,