| Anotace: | Celodenní akce - dopolední a odpolední workshop patří k sobě. Sociologické modely výkladu alkoholismu, makrospolečenské pozadí. Rozlišení abúzu alkoholu. Koncepce „problémů spojených s alkoholem“. Sociálně psychologické problémy léčby alkoholismu. Charakteristické znaky alkoholiček, specifická rizika alkoholismu u žen, alkohol v těhotenství. Žen, které pijí, přibývá. Počet alkoholiček ve srovnání s počtem alkoholiků je udáván v poměru l:6 až l:l. Proč je značné procento alkoholiček vzdělaných a vdaných? Proč převažuje pití u žen mezi 40 – 50 roky?
The messy history of tune copyright fits
Jeffrey Snyder does now not paintings for, seek advice from, own stocks in or get hold of investment from any agency or organization that would advantage from this text, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their instructional appointment.
View all companions
Earlier this month, a jury discovered Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams responsible of copyright infringement for their hit music “Blurred Lines,” and ordered the duo to pay $7.4 million to the estate of Marvin Gaye.
The verdict has resulted in a whirlwind of reaction and evaluation – most of it incredulous.
“I’m a little bit taken aback via it, quite frankly,” u . s . a . musician Keith Urban said, at the same time as songwriter Bonnie McKee advised People Magazine, “It strikes fear into the hearts of songwriters.” According to John Legend, the “verdict may want to set a scary precedent.”
But “Blurred Lines” is best the modern-day copyright case in an enterprise rife with suits and counter-suits. The Gaye property is not any stranger to the sport: within the early Nineteen Eighties, they settled a $15 million lawsuit via David Ritz, who claimed co-writing credit score for Gaye’s mega-hit “Sexual Healing.” And a 2012 article about a lawsuit Marvin Gaye III had leveled against Lenny Kravitz noted, “Gaye III has additionally long past as far as to sue eating places and radio stations for copyright infringement on songs.”
Even for Pharrell Williams, court cases are fashionable fare; he’s often served as each plaintiff and defendant, going up in opposition to Trajik, Peter Currin, Geggy Tah, Carla Boone, YouTube and Will.I.AM.
Music attorney Kenneth Abdo perhaps positioned it excellent when he said, “There is an vintage saying within the music industry…if you get successful, you may get a writ.”
On the surface, it might seem like copyright infringement is straightforward: either you lifted someone else’s work and known as it your personal, otherwise you didn’t.
Technically, a good way to be located guilty of infringement, things should be tested. First, there desires to be direct or indirect proof of access to the unique composition. If that’s been hooked up, “good sized similarity” among the unique and supposedly infringed-upon work desires to be determined.
It’s the second aspect that’s ripe for conflicting interpretation – and exploitation. After all, what makes some thing notably comparable?
But track copyright is muddled because ultimately it is decided through judges and juries who're “educated” by music specialists from each aspects, each of which insists that its interpretations – based on vague terms like “massive,” “feeling” and “comparable” – are correct.
So at the same time as maximum tune enthusiasts continue to be blissfully unaware of copyright regulation, behind the gold-file-covered walls there are throngs of attorneys running around the clock to shield their customers from “thieves” plundering their work, or from accusations with the aid of gold diggers searching out a quick dollar.
Outside the walls the general public most effective sees the “noble” lawyers who claim that they’re maintaining us from slipping into innovative anarchy. But it’s no twist of fate that the extra the success of a success track, the more shrill their “righteous” defense of creative liberty will become. In truth, those gimlet-eyed lawyers have been skilled to stumble on the smallest possible copyright infractions – and are primed to strategically pounce.
In 1992, the hip-hop organization Arrested Development launched their hit song “Tennessee.” It soon caught the attention of Prince’s legal professionals due to the fact the organization by no means got permission to apply a pattern of the word “Tennessee” from Prince’s track “Alphabet St.”
This was a time when hip-hop and rap artists started out to apply sampling keyboards to build songs using segments of copyrighted sound recordings. Today, major artists know better than lift whatever recognizable from other recordings with out the right license. But even now, more recent artists regularly won’t try to get clearance. They purpose that if they’re sued – properly, their track need to be successful, so they’ll be wealthy sufficient to settle out of courtroom.
As composer Carl Wiser recalled, “It turned into our first document, we sincerely weren’t vets within the industry, we didn’t understand all the game play and the guidelines. So we didn’t ask for permission. I learned as a producer pretty fast the legal guidelines of sampling: it’s the wild, wild West accessible.”
This lesson in copyright regulation fee Arrested Development $one hundred,000.
But Prince’s legal professionals have been strategic in their pursuit. As Wiser defined, the attorneys best raised a fuss as soon as “the song moved up the chart the album got to #three at the pop charts. And once it went down, the very week it went to #4, we got a name from Prince’s illustration. They waited for that track to sell as many possible copies as they might wait for.”
Settling out of court docket like that is the standard final results of such disputes. In 1986, the road supervisor for the organization America heard Janet Jackson’s new music “Let’s Wait Awhile” even as riding. He pulled over to a smartphone sales space and known as the band asking in the event that they’d heard the music and the way it seemed like “Daisy Jane.” Months later he received a 10% “finder’s charge” after America and Jackson settled.
In 1997, while writing his mega-hit “Bitter Sweet Symphony,” Richard Ashcroft of the Verve negotiated the fee to apply a pattern from the Rolling Stones’ “The Last Time.”
Ashcroft’s praise for seeking to comply with the letter of the regulation? The Stones sued besides, claiming that the use of the sample became extra integral to the song than have been originally negotiated. In the end, The Verve became ordered handy over royalties and songwriting credit to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.
When requested if the Verve got a honest shake, Richards spoke back, “I’m out of whack here, this is severe attorney shit.”
This reaction is traditional of musicians who prefer to go away the regulation to their retained lawyers and file labels. In many instances, amusement legal professionals are like ambulance chasers: they’re the ones that convince composers that they’re owed cash for infringements they’d otherwise in no way notice.
Out of consideration for recognition – and because it’s cheaper – maximum musicians desire to settle nuisance cases to make them disappear.
After all, what’s $one hundred,000 when you’re raking in hundreds of thousands?
But it’s George Harrison’s 1976 case that draws the maximum parallels to “Blurred Lines” – for the “you’ve got to be kidding!” reaction within the press, the tremendous recognition of each parties involved and the huge sum of money at stake.
In 1962 the female-organization quartet The Chiffons recorded Ronald Mackand’s song “He’s So Fine.”
Eight years later, George Harrison launched the track “My Sweet Lord.” Mackand had handed away, but the publishing organisation that represented his widow, Bright Tunes Music, delivered Harrison to court, claiming that he had unlawfully copied “He’s So Fine.”
In Bright Tunes Music v. Harrison Music, the judge determined that although the accused, George Harrison, didn’t consciously replica parts of “He’s So Fine,” he had although heard the track – which proved get admission to to the authentic version.
Next the judge decided that “extensive similarity” existed. With both criteria accounted for, he slapped Harrison with a responsible verdict and ordered Harrison to fork over $1.6 million (greater than $6 million today) of the $2.1 million he’d earned from “My Sweet Lord.”
According to the decide:
Harrison’s subconscious knew it already had worked in a tune his aware thoughts did not take into account…I do not trust he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it's miles clear that “My Sweet Lord” is the very same track as “He’s So Fine” with exclusive phrases.
The music international turned into shaken to its compositional center (You mean you may be sued for what’s to your subconscious?).
“It made me so paranoid approximately writing,” Harrison recalled, “that I didn’t even want to touch the guitar or piano in case I touched somebody’s notice.”
In the wake of “Blurred Lines” the music international has once more likened the decision to the death of composing.
“We owe it to songwriters round the sector to make certain this verdict doesn’t stand,” said Pharrell’s lawyer Howard King, one in all Forbes’ Power one hundred Lawyers in Entertainment.
But in the long run, it’s all simply the shuffling of cash. Business as typical. Composers will compose and lawyers will sue.
Welcome to the track industry.
Write a piece of writing and be a part of a growing network of more than 139,four hundred teachers and researchers from 4,242 institutions.
Missouri Uniontown Antitrust Lawyers |
