Fair Use Avoidance in Music Cases

Edward Lee
{"title":"Fair Use Avoidance in Music Cases","authors":"Edward Lee","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3232783","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article provides the first empirical study of fair use in cases involving musical works. The major finding of the study is surprising: despite the relatively high number of music cases decided under the 1976 Copyright Act, no decisions have recognized non-parody fair use of a musical work to create another musical work, except for a 2017 decision involving the copying of a narration that itself contained no music (and therefore might not even constitute a musical work). Thus far, no decision has held that copying musical notes or elements is fair use. Moreover, very few music cases have even considered fair use. This Article attempts to explain this fair use avoidance and to evaluate its costs and benefits. Whether the lack of a clear precedent recognizing music fair use has harmed the creation of music is inconclusive. A potential problem of “copyright clutter” may arise, however, from the buildup of copyrights to older, unutilized, and underutilized musical works. This copyright clutter may subject short combinations of notes contained in older songs to copyright assertions, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of laches as a defense to copyright infringement. Such a prospect of copyright clutter makes the need for a clear fair use precedent for musical works more pressing.","PeriodicalId":80721,"journal":{"name":"Boston College law review. Boston College. Law School","volume":"59 1","pages":"1873-1931"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Boston College law review. Boston College. Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3232783","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This Article provides the first empirical study of fair use in cases involving musical works. The major finding of the study is surprising: despite the relatively high number of music cases decided under the 1976 Copyright Act, no decisions have recognized non-parody fair use of a musical work to create another musical work, except for a 2017 decision involving the copying of a narration that itself contained no music (and therefore might not even constitute a musical work). Thus far, no decision has held that copying musical notes or elements is fair use. Moreover, very few music cases have even considered fair use. This Article attempts to explain this fair use avoidance and to evaluate its costs and benefits. Whether the lack of a clear precedent recognizing music fair use has harmed the creation of music is inconclusive. A potential problem of “copyright clutter” may arise, however, from the buildup of copyrights to older, unutilized, and underutilized musical works. This copyright clutter may subject short combinations of notes contained in older songs to copyright assertions, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of laches as a defense to copyright infringement. Such a prospect of copyright clutter makes the need for a clear fair use precedent for musical works more pressing.
音乐案件中的合理使用回避
本文首次对涉及音乐作品的合理使用进行了实证研究。该研究的主要发现令人惊讶:尽管根据1976年版权法判决的音乐案件数量相对较多,但除了2017年涉及复制本身不包含音乐的叙述(因此甚至可能不构成音乐作品)的决定外,没有任何决定承认非模仿合理使用音乐作品来创作另一部音乐作品。到目前为止,还没有裁决认为复制音符或音乐元素是合理使用。此外,很少有音乐案例被认为是合理使用。本文试图解释这种合理使用规避,并评估其成本和收益。是否缺乏明确的先例承认音乐合理使用损害了音乐创作尚无定论。然而,“版权混乱”的潜在问题可能会出现,因为旧的、未使用的和未充分利用的音乐作品的版权积累。这种版权混乱可能会使老歌中包含的短音符组合受到版权主张的影响,特别是在美国最高法院拒绝将懈怠作为侵犯版权的辩护理由之后。这种版权混乱的前景使得对音乐作品合理使用的明确先例的需求更加迫切。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信