The Grey Album: Copyright Law and Digital Sampling

2005 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Rimmer

In the field of digital sampling, disk jockeys have shown a recent enthusiasm for ‘mash-ups’ — new compositions created by combining the rhythm tracks of one song and the vocal track of another. Most famously of all, DJ Danger Mouse remixed the vocals from Jay-Z's The Black Album and the Beatles' White Album and called his creation The Grey Album. The Grey Album poses a number of difficult issues regarding copyright law and digital sampling. Does such a ‘mash-up’ go beyond the de minimis use of a copyright work? Is The Grey Album protected by the defence of fair use under copyright law because it provides a transformative use of copyright works? Can such remixes by compulsorily licensed? Does a ‘mash-up’ raise issues concerning the moral rights of attribution and integrity, which are recognised in Europe and Australia?

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Rimmer

The Kookaburra case was a tragic and controversial copyright dispute, highlighting the need for copyright law reform by the Australian Parliament. In this case, a copyright action was brought by Larrikin Records against Men at Work, alleging copyright infringement by Down Under of the Kookaburra song composed by Marion Sinclair. The dispute raised a host of doctrinal matters. There was disquiet over the length of the copyright term. There were fierce contests as to the copyright ownership of the Kookaburra song. The litigation raised questions about copyright infringement and substantiality — particularly in relation to musical works. The case highlighted frailties in Australia’s regime of copyright exceptions. The litigation should spur the Australian Law Reform Commission to make recommendations for law reform in its inquiry, Copyright and the Digital Economy. This paper provides a critical evaluation of the options of a defence for transformative use; a defence for fair use; and statutory licensing. The paper also examines the question of appropriate remedies in respect of copyright infringement. The conclusion considers the implications of the Kookaburra case for other forms of musical works — including digital sampling, mash-ups, and creative remixes. It finishes with an elegy for Greg Ham — paying tribute to the multi-instrumentalist for Men at Work.


2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Newman ◽  
Wallace Koehler

Author(s):  
Alex Perullo

This essay makes two points about digital collections. The first recognizes problems that emerge as archives present indigenous content online. In uploading indigenous songs, speeches, and documents, an archive allows that material to move from a local space with limited access to an international repository with many points of access. This chapter examines conflicts that can occur with this action, including those involving copyright law, fair use, and ethics. A second point of this chapter revolves around technology and repatriation. If repatriation means the return of material to a country of origin, then online archives never fully commit to this task. The material typically remains preserved on servers and in its original forms away from indigenous communities. Despite these ethical, legal, and technological concerns, archives should encourage the creation of digital collections as part of repatriation given the desire by many indigenous communities to preserve and promote their traditions.


2020 ◽  
pp. 111-124
Author(s):  
Lea Shaver

This chapter analyzes the nuances of the copyright law book, such as translating a book into another language for academic use, adapting a famous book to make it more multicultural, or cheaply photocopying a book to give away to low-income families. Copyright exceptions are sometimes quite specific and clearly defined, while others are open-ended and subject to broad interpretation. It talks about the doctrine of “fair use” in America. Contrary to popular belief, the fact that something is widely done is no assurance that it is legally recognized as fair use. The chapter also provides a hypothetical situation in order to illustrate how the fair use doctrine might apply to a potential non-profit publishing project to address book hunger.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Madison

More than 150 years into development of the doctrine of "fair use" in American copyright law, there is no end to legislative, judicial, and academic efforts to rationalize the doctrine. Its codification in the 1976 Copyright Act appears to have contributed to its fragmentation, rather than to its coherence. This Article suggests that fair use is neither badly conceived nor badly applied, but that it is too often badly understood. As did much of copyright law, fair use originated as a judicially-unacknowledged effort via the law to validate certain favored social practices and patterns. In the main, it has continued to be applied as such, though too often courts mask their implicit validation of these patterns in the now-conventional "case-by-case" application of the statutory fair use "factors" to the defendant's use of the copyrighted work in question. A more explicit acknowledgement of the role of these patterns in fair use analysis is consistent with fair use and copyright policy and tradition. Importantly, it helps to bridge the often-difficult conceptual gap between fair use claims asserted by individual defendants and the social implications of accepting or rejecting those claims. Finally, a pattern-oriented approach is normatively appropriate, when viewed in light of recent research by cognitive psychologists and other social scientists on patterns and creativity. In immediate terms, the approach should lead to a more consistent and predictable fair use jurisprudence. In the longer term, it should enhance the ability of copyright law to promote creative expression.


Author(s):  
Sabine Jacques

This chapter examines the relationship between parody and an author’s moral rights. It first traces the evolution of the concept of moral rights as a means of providing protection not only of the authors’ personal interests but also the public interest before discussing the reasons why moral rights might conflict with parodies. It considers two competing theories underlying the protection of authorial interests—the ‘monist’ theory and the ‘dualist’ theory—and their implications for the parody exception. It also explains how jurisdictions differ in the nature and scope of protection afforded to moral rights, noting that the parody exception in ‘copyright’ law does not extend to moral rights. The chapter goes on to explore the author’s paternity and integrity rights as well as their right against false attribution. It shows that, in the case of parodies, an overlap exists between the regimes applied to moral and economic rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document