Need I say more?
This entry was posted on Monday, February 24th, 2014 at 9:54 am and is filed under misc. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
funny. fair use never entered my mind. I just assumed they went for permission from whoever holds the rights. I guess Im too stuck in transaction mode.
IANAL, but I don’t think this would fall under fair use.
1. It uses a significant portion of the original (all the lyrics & chord changes – they just perform it in a new arrangement)
2. It is made for profit (“Get our 17 song album on iTunes”)
3. It’s not quoting GnR for satire or criticism.
4. It’s not using the original in a journalistic venue.
In their favor, you could argue that they have transformed it significantly enough to consider it a new work. And they’re not likely to cut into GnR’s market share.
Sorry- G’n’R? G&R?
I don’t believe this is an issue that involves fair use in the US. G&R is likely a “member” of a licensing organization such as ASCAP or BMI which licenses their music for performance on radio, on the internet and for live performances by other artists. Sweet Child O’ Mine has been performed by others as varied as Carrie Underwood, Green Day and The Black-Eyed Peas. The licensing organizations then compensate G&R based on algorithms that are supposed to reflect the frequency of performance of the song. .
G&R/GnR=Guns and Roses
This is a straightforward cover pursuant to compulsory licensing under section 115. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#115. Not fair use.
The cop replied, “Don’t you know that your left arm is missing from the elbow down. There are different types of criminal lawyers present that can be selected to fight your case. They have an extra sense in reading the minds of the people and in understanding the real problems of the couples.
The Legal Satyricon is run by Randazza Legal Group Staff. Posts written by Marc J. Randazza are signed – MJR.
Blog at WordPress.com.