Protecting Business Innovations Via Copyright Intellectual property rights (IPR) has a great impact on innovation development and society. In Science, Engineering, and Business, we seek to create wealth through innovation in products, designs, manufacturing processes, and business systems or models. However, innovation leaders often FAIL to benefit from their discoveries and inventions when they are unable to adequately protect those innovations. This course provides learners with an understanding of how copyright laws can be used to protect business innovation using a combination of lectures and case examples for discussion. The course focus on protecting innovations with copyright as one of several tools that can be used by companies and individuals to protect creative innovations. In additional to learning about how copyright works in theory, we will also discuss situations in which copyright might not be effective in protecting innovations, and will focus on the legal issues involved from a practical business perspective rather than from a purely legal viewpoint. This course is one part of a four course series focusing on protection of business innovations using copyright, patent, trademark and strategy, and these four courses may be taken in any order that is most beneficial to students interested in learning about protecting innovation. Watch Course Overview: https://youtu.be/81adg1ZnbS4
3.4 Derivative work examples
Loading...
From the course by The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Protecting Business Innovations via Copyright
7 ratings
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Protecting Business Innovations via Copyright
7 ratings
From the lesson
Derivative Work & Parody
This will explore other rights within Copyright Law. I will introduce derivative works and parody with lots of interesting examples like the Beach Boys, Weird Al and Annoying Orange. We encourage you to interact with the examples by going to YouTube or other suggested sites to view them as you go through the lecture videos.
Meet the Instructors
Theodore Henry King CLARKAssociate Professor
Information Systems, Business Statistics and Operations Management Department
Today we're going to be talking about derivative works. And I'm going to give you some examples of derivative works.
Two example that we will be talking about are "Surfin' USA", a song by the Beach Boys. And "Stairway to Heaven", a song by Led Zeppelin. We're going to talk about each example and then I'll give you some links to articles about other examples of derivative works. So you can learn more about this topic.
In each case, you don't have to click on a link or listen in to a song, or read something on Wikipedia. But you can and I give you that option here so that you can listen to the songs and see how similar they are, learn from that. Or you can just listen to the lecture, go through it and be done.
In terms of the two songs, the first of the two is "Surfin' USA" by the Beach Boys which was a derivative work of "Sweet Little Sixteen" by Chuck Berry. In fact, it was so much a derivative work that The Beach Boys heard Chuck Berry's song and said, wouldn't it be cool if we could take that song. And write something about surfing, which is popular in America and do something cool as a variation on it? And they did and it became a huge hit.
Now when they were contacted later after becoming very successful by Chuck Berry's manager. The manager of The Beach Boys' comment was, well of course, this was intended as a tribute to Chuck Berry.
No, we didn't get his permission. It did become a big hit, and the song listed only Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys as the sole composer. Chuck Berry's manager did not think much of this tribute. In fact the comment was made tribute usually means money. Where's my money, where's my tribute, because tribute used to be a term to refer to taxes or contributions to a king. Where is my tribute, so give me the cash. In fact he said not only was this a derivative work. But it was a derivative work in which there was no license, no payment of royalties, no cash. I'm going to court, I'm going to sue, that's what the manager said. The Beach Boys' manager said, ‘oh shoot,’ we're in trouble, we could lose and lose a lot of money. He said how about this, we will give you rights and royalties as the author of the song. You'll give us permission to perform it and sell albums and singles of the song to have it played on the radio. It's a Beach Boys song, but you'll be listed as the author and we'll pay royalties. As the author, every time the song is performed, every time it's published. If sheet music is sold, if a CD is sold, if it's played on the radio, you'll get the author's royalties. Now one of the lessons of this is, once you become famous, you may get sued for something you did which you thought was okay. And may be honoring somebody else or a tribute in some way. But once you've got a lot of money, you are an attractive target to sue.
In the second example, "Stairway to Heaven", Led Zeppelin faced something similar. In fact, Led Zeppelin had copied or it looks like they copied some of the chords from the song "Taurus" by Spirit. Spirit was a back-up band for Led Zeppelin performing with Led Zeppelin at the same time as "Stairway to Heaven" was written. So it's pretty clear there was some influence and the similarities are very strong. You can go to the link about Spirit Taurus versus Led Zeppelin on YouTube and see just how strikingly similar these two riffs are from the two songs. You can also go listen to the originals of the songs and Taurus' song is quite different overall than Led Zeppelin's song. The "Taurus" song doesn't sound like "Stairway to Heaven" through the whole song. But some of the chords are far too similar and look like a derivative work.
So this case went to court, but not right away. In fact, for more than 40 years, the original composer never objected. He didn't ask for any money, he didn't ask for any royalties, he didn't complain. He said he was honored to have inspired part of Led Zeppelin's song. And he thought Led Zeppelin's song was brilliant, a wonderful song. And so much of an improvement on his that he was just flattered to be in part of the creation of this great thing. He wasn't worried about the money, didn't ask for the money.
May have been multiple reasons for that, maybe he's just a nice guy, may he didn't think he could win. Whatever the reason for 40, almost 45 years, he didn't sue and then he died.
That doesn't mean you're going to get sued by a ghost. It doesn't mean that the author's going to come back from the grave and sue you.
But it does mean that the song is still valuable and has rights that can be sued upon 70 years after the original creator has died. In this case the song is still popular and the son who inherited his father's estate says, I want some money now.
Many people thought Led Zeppelin was going to lose because the songs were too similar. Some commenters on this, Led Zeppelin is in deep trouble, this is too close. But when they went to court, not only were they able to raise some questions about how similar they are or how general they are. They were able to raise some questions as to whether maybe Spirit in their song "Taurus" for that riff had copied or that set of chords had copied someone else from 20 years earlier. Maybe Spirit was not the original creator. And if they both had copied someone else, or Spirit had been influenced by someone else. Then only that other person could sue because these similarities were based on something common or something else. In addition the jury appears to have been influenced and possibly confused about a work made for hire defense. In this defense the argument was made Spirit was hired by Led Zeppelin as a back-up band. And was compensated with fame and recognition, the ability to perform with Led Zeppelin, that's a good thing. That's something worth something and that was compensation for helping them and working with them on joint collaboration. So maybe this song was a collaborative work or work made for hire. That defense probably didn't make the case for the jury but it might have confused people some, and had some influence. It was certainly cited and talked about in the case, and the general similarities to something else was talked about in the case. Whatever the reason the jury found in favor of Led Zeppelin.
You may be sued for copyright infringement even after the author is dead. But you don't know what the outcome will be, you cannot be sure.
In this case, the jury found for Led Zeppelin. And part of the reason might be that they weren't impressed with the son suing after 45 years, where his dad never sued.
Bottom line, it's hard to predict. You may win, you may lose, even on the same facts with a different jury, the outcome may be different. It's subjective, it's difficult to predict which means it's risky, so there's risk involved. Copyright also may be assigned or sold to someone else, it may be inherited. Maybe if copyright gets assigned from one company to another. Someone bought it, someone else buys it from them or the corporation gets acquired. A new manager says hey, we're going to get much more aggressive about suing people. You might get sued even though nothing has happened for 30, 40, 50 years.
Some cases have been won against the copyright infringer after 40 or 50 years, lawsuits after death are also possible.
Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education, partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.
© 2017 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.
