|
the whole notion of Intellectual Property is that it can be bought and sold, stolen and given, and most importantly, owned. The issue at hand is when does something become a "derivative" work, and not simply an [unauthorised] copy of the original. The reason why these things go to court in the first place is because they are subject to opinion.
It's a tricky situation in general, and Matt is right that whole system is screwed up. But we have to face the annoying double standard that visual artists like Shepard Fairey have generally been given more wiggle room than musicians like Vanilla Ice. Think of the Warhol images of Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, etc.*— those were derived from photographs, but incorporated into a larger work of art. However, this notion is much more difficult for us to consider with music, (perhaps as a result of 100 years of lobbying from the recording industry).
Everyone acknowledges that the Coldplay tune sounds a lot like the Satriani original, but the question for the courts to consider is whether or not it's a derivative work or a copy. Derivative work requires no penalty, but an unauthorised copy entitles the copyright holder to punitive damages.
The trouble with music as intellectual property, is that it has evolved to where most people consider published music as a commercial property, rather than a work of art — it's more like a magazine article than a painting. Rights, therefore, are more about potential earnings than originality. A grim reality.
|