Less than three seconds. So short is the metallic percussion peitschende sequence from the 1977 published Kraftwerk song "Metal on Metal", which is the Frankfurt hip-hop producer Moses, Pelham and in 1997 borrowed looping under the small-Sabrina Setlur hit "Only me," presented. Pelham asked for permission for this action, in the pop music "sampling" is mentioned, so the use of foreign sound recordings in their own music. He would prefer to do, because the Düsseldorf pioneers of electronic music, to one of the meistgesampleten groups include the history of music and without the last two Poprevolutionen hip-hop and techno hardly have been conceivable - power, therefore, more accurately, Ralf Hütter and Florian Schneider - Felt beklaut up and complained to the Federal Court in Karlsruhe.
There, the first civil Senate, was now in favor of the famous German band decided to take a decision in principle which will provide some turmoil. According to the ruling will not only copyrighted tunes, but also rhythm sequences, if they are based on sound recordings are recorded. A novelty. It attack, said the Senate, who are already in the rights of phonogram manufacturer, "a foreign sound recordings of the smallest Tonfetzen takes." This protection extends so on the copyright protection of works of art melodies and beyond. Phonogram producers will not be privileged because individual sounds, bass drums or just runs its own figures creative work, but because his entrepreneurial act, the market for the work on the recordings offer, as is worth protecting.
The reasoning of the Court refers to paragraph 85 of the Copyright Act. There will be for "setting the tone on the recordings necessary economic, organizational and technical performance of the recorded music producer" protected. And precisely because of those "record producers" in the current case, the band Kraftwerk, this performance for the full Phonograms prove there was "no part of the phonogram, is not a part of this effort eliminated and therefore not protected."
The question to what extent such legal decisions of the nature of pop art form will be taken into account, has in recent years has become increasingly complicated. Pop was finally in all its forms to jazz has always been a parasitic form of music. Especially the Nachkriegspop operated from the outset in foreign genres, draws its strength from the blues, the gospel, the reggae. With the latest hip-hop and punk served the then pop in its own history. But the development began much earlier. How radical, for example, the bebop of Charlie Parker the early forties was opening up the audience when he went to shallow material. Since then, he played quite well-behaved verse and a chorus Broadwayschnulze like "How High the Moon" to relax after the first round with such a breathtaking speed and finesse by switching to improvise harmony that he still can hardly follow.
The method of sampling does not so different. The difference lies in the technical possibilities. Who the music of another instrument on an original way to re-interpreted and transformed, proceed with a similar heritage, as when Picasso motifs of Delacroix or served with Brahms Hungarian dance music. Even person who holds a rhythm track on the computer zusammenbaut, ultimately composed a song, even though he set pieces from other songs used. Those who today works in a studio, which is the entire history of pop music as a kind of library available, from which he quotes and bonds can provide. But because the pop music the most accessible of all art forms is to tap into such adaptations to a mass audience. Because of pop but commonly referred to as entertainment product and not considered art is, it goes very quickly about money.
The procedure is as easy as ever. Those who are just about on two drum beats of Kraftwerk relate wants to can it in a few minutes from a CD into his own piece mount, where the two bars a coherent unit with the song form. Now it's complicated - which has significance Offset this piece now in the finished song? Added to that, in pop rhythms and sounds the same place as melodies and harmonies that have been based plagiarism procedures.
The widespread concern, however, the law makes the piece "cultural development" in the pop impossible, should nevertheless be unfounded. First, it is nobody behaved, for the use of samples for permission to ask, this is not only in the mainstream, which remains in many set pieces with material from foreign works, even long course. And secondly, where the pop repeatedly reinvented, where more and more gepuzzelt will never regard to copyrights taken. To developments such as the "bastard pop" or "mash up" of the nineties, when the music created collages, so instantly recognizable pieces of two or more performers often quite different from pop eras illegally mixed together, it is despite the restrictive conditions of a copyright protection come. And even when younger trend of "editing", with no remixes built, but only modified, optimized for the dancefloor, umarrangierte original versions of old recordings are created - even when editing scherte itself in the emergence nobody to legal niceties.
The Case vs. power. Pelham is also not entirely off the table. The Federal Court has the case for new trial and decision of the Hamburg Higher Regional prosecution. The reason: There had been failed to consider whether the Frankfurt music producer on the "right to free use" may invoke. Clause 24 para 1 of the Copyright Act finally meant that an independent movement, which "free use" of the work of another was created without the consent of the author used the work published and could be recovered. If so, then the court, "distance" of the new plant on borrowed tone was big enough, then Pelham could not possibly have violated the copyright. In two cases, however, is a free use. The first case is expected in the current confrontation no role to play: melodies are always protected. Interesting the second case: Is namely, the strange sounds and sounds are used, "qualified and authorized to own these yourself, there is a takeover of the performance of the recorded music producer no justification". The question that remains moment, is: Would it have been possible Pelham Moses, the short-sequence power even yourself?
There, the first civil Senate, was now in favor of the famous German band decided to take a decision in principle which will provide some turmoil. According to the ruling will not only copyrighted tunes, but also rhythm sequences, if they are based on sound recordings are recorded. A novelty. It attack, said the Senate, who are already in the rights of phonogram manufacturer, "a foreign sound recordings of the smallest Tonfetzen takes." This protection extends so on the copyright protection of works of art melodies and beyond. Phonogram producers will not be privileged because individual sounds, bass drums or just runs its own figures creative work, but because his entrepreneurial act, the market for the work on the recordings offer, as is worth protecting.
The reasoning of the Court refers to paragraph 85 of the Copyright Act. There will be for "setting the tone on the recordings necessary economic, organizational and technical performance of the recorded music producer" protected. And precisely because of those "record producers" in the current case, the band Kraftwerk, this performance for the full Phonograms prove there was "no part of the phonogram, is not a part of this effort eliminated and therefore not protected."
The question to what extent such legal decisions of the nature of pop art form will be taken into account, has in recent years has become increasingly complicated. Pop was finally in all its forms to jazz has always been a parasitic form of music. Especially the Nachkriegspop operated from the outset in foreign genres, draws its strength from the blues, the gospel, the reggae. With the latest hip-hop and punk served the then pop in its own history. But the development began much earlier. How radical, for example, the bebop of Charlie Parker the early forties was opening up the audience when he went to shallow material. Since then, he played quite well-behaved verse and a chorus Broadwayschnulze like "How High the Moon" to relax after the first round with such a breathtaking speed and finesse by switching to improvise harmony that he still can hardly follow.
The method of sampling does not so different. The difference lies in the technical possibilities. Who the music of another instrument on an original way to re-interpreted and transformed, proceed with a similar heritage, as when Picasso motifs of Delacroix or served with Brahms Hungarian dance music. Even person who holds a rhythm track on the computer zusammenbaut, ultimately composed a song, even though he set pieces from other songs used. Those who today works in a studio, which is the entire history of pop music as a kind of library available, from which he quotes and bonds can provide. But because the pop music the most accessible of all art forms is to tap into such adaptations to a mass audience. Because of pop but commonly referred to as entertainment product and not considered art is, it goes very quickly about money.
The procedure is as easy as ever. Those who are just about on two drum beats of Kraftwerk relate wants to can it in a few minutes from a CD into his own piece mount, where the two bars a coherent unit with the song form. Now it's complicated - which has significance Offset this piece now in the finished song? Added to that, in pop rhythms and sounds the same place as melodies and harmonies that have been based plagiarism procedures.
The widespread concern, however, the law makes the piece "cultural development" in the pop impossible, should nevertheless be unfounded. First, it is nobody behaved, for the use of samples for permission to ask, this is not only in the mainstream, which remains in many set pieces with material from foreign works, even long course. And secondly, where the pop repeatedly reinvented, where more and more gepuzzelt will never regard to copyrights taken. To developments such as the "bastard pop" or "mash up" of the nineties, when the music created collages, so instantly recognizable pieces of two or more performers often quite different from pop eras illegally mixed together, it is despite the restrictive conditions of a copyright protection come. And even when younger trend of "editing", with no remixes built, but only modified, optimized for the dancefloor, umarrangierte original versions of old recordings are created - even when editing scherte itself in the emergence nobody to legal niceties.
The Case vs. power. Pelham is also not entirely off the table. The Federal Court has the case for new trial and decision of the Hamburg Higher Regional prosecution. The reason: There had been failed to consider whether the Frankfurt music producer on the "right to free use" may invoke. Clause 24 para 1 of the Copyright Act finally meant that an independent movement, which "free use" of the work of another was created without the consent of the author used the work published and could be recovered. If so, then the court, "distance" of the new plant on borrowed tone was big enough, then Pelham could not possibly have violated the copyright. In two cases, however, is a free use. The first case is expected in the current confrontation no role to play: melodies are always protected. Interesting the second case: Is namely, the strange sounds and sounds are used, "qualified and authorized to own these yourself, there is a takeover of the performance of the recorded music producer no justification". The question that remains moment, is: Would it have been possible Pelham Moses, the short-sequence power even yourself?
No comments:
Post a Comment