Is YouTube a good way to music protect copy rights?

[Topcheese]

I've never heard of that in my life. It must be Swedish.

"The sample of "Super Freak" that forms the basis of the song [U Can't Touch This] led Rick James and other performers on the original record to file a lawsuit for infringement of copyright.

I first should state that I'm no legal expert, and although he had great legs to dance with, he didn't have any to stand on with this case.

Of course you just can't sample/borrow without at the very least giving attribution, but all musicians since time immortal borrow from the same scales/system.

As long as I tweak it enough to make it my own, yes "borrowing" is actually what we all do from the start.
Chances are it's been done before, and going back to the Hammer song, "Super Freak" was pretty much the song, and without it you had nothing. Not hard to call that one.

[ATN69]

When I went to music academy in Sweden (100 years ago ) we learned that it's legal to borrow 4 bars of other peoples music.

I've never heard of that in my life. It must be Swedish.

"The sample of "Super Freak" that forms the basis of the song [U Can't Touch This] led Rick James and other performers on the original record to file a lawsuit for infringement of copyright. The suit was settled out of court when Hammer agreed to credit James as a songwriter, effectively granting James millions of dollars in royalties."

Two-bar pattern. I don't know what this word "borrow" does there. When something has been established as copyrighted, taking it as your own when it isn't will tend to denote "stealing". Now, in 'classical' music one can take a theme and write variations on a theme by _ but it's a given that this will involve new writing.

I been reading up and, yeah the 4 bar pattern thing seems to be a myth. Funny thing is that it was actually told to the whole class by our tutor. This was back in the 80's. If you seriously think about it, there are millions of musicians in this world and the odds that me or you happen to create a few seconds of music that someone else already made is actually quite high. I could probably sue a bunch of people right this minute if we should go strictly by the law, and I could probably get sued by a bunch of people as well. You simply don't know every single piece of music that have been created out there by none famous people like myself. In the end of the day it's the court that has to decide if it is a copy right breach or fair use, or something else.

[Hink]

as I do often when these threads come up (along with others), we think nothing of spending hundreds of dollars on GAS yet when such questions come up people come here looking for legal advice. Bottom line, if it's such a concern than pick up your phone and book 1/2 an hour with a real lawyer. Here you're gonna get a lot of answers and maybe even the right answer but deciding which is which? If your music has value to you than a couple hundred bux on a lawyer will pay off nicely over time.

[jancivil]

When I went to music academy in Sweden (100 years ago ) we learned that it's legal to borrow 4 bars of other peoples music.

I've never heard of that in my life. It must be Swedish.

"The sample of "Super Freak" that forms the basis of the song [U Can't Touch This] led Rick James and other performers on the original record to file a lawsuit for infringement of copyright. The suit was settled out of court when Hammer agreed to credit James as a songwriter, effectively granting James millions of dollars in royalties."

If you seriously think about it, there are millions of musicians in this world and the odds that me or you happen to create a few seconds of music that someone else already made is actually quite high.

Even as I usually make weird shit (relative to what is mentioned here) there are undoubtedly licks that have been landed on before.

I could probably sue a bunch of people right this minute if we should go strictly by the law, and I could probably get sued by a bunch of people as well. You simply don't know every single piece of music that have been created out there by none famous people like myself. In the end of the day it's the court that has to decide if it is a copy right breach or fair use, or something else.

It is totally down to the judge. The Stairway to Heaven story has the judge who finally decided to go forward with the suit saying there wasn't enough resemblance to say it's the same song, then he looked at the form, and noticed that not only is the chord progression more or less the same, it repeats with a small bridge between the reps. I presume he means that 'A F E' (or Do Le Sol) between the chords G Am / (Te Do Do) and starting again. And Spirit was doing that very thing with Zeppelin on the same bill just before Plant/Page wrote Stairway. I think they're screwed. It's absolutely a rip-off of that bit, and I concur with that judge because of the connecting bit. But the chord progression itself is an old thing which thousands of people have done.

[jancivil]

But wait, hold the line