Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:50:08.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Translating the Sound of Music: Forensic Musicology and Visual Evidence in Music Copyright Infringement Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

Michael Mopas  and
Amelia Curran
Michael Mopas
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology & AnthropologyCarleton UniversityOttawa, Ontario, Canadamichael_mopas@carleton.ca
Amelia Curran
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology & AnthropologyCarleton UniversityOttawa, Ontario, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In music copyright infringement cases, forensic musicologists are often called to testify as to whether or not two songs are ‘substantially similar.’ While it is standard practice to rely on experts to dissect the works in question, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. Until the 1950s, it was not the scientific analysis of the pieces, but the impressions they left on the ‘untrained ears’ of everyday listeners that was used to determine copyright infringement. This paper presents an overview of American music copyright infringement cases to document this shift in how the question of substantial similarity has been approached. We argue that the courts’ inability to objectify what listeners hear created the need for experts who could translate music into legal evidence that could be visually witnessed. This practice of judging plagiarism according to how songs look on paper may account for why the courts have viewed musical sampling as copyright violations.

Résumé

Les musicologues sont souvent appelés à donner un témoignage d’expert dans les affaires de plagiat de musique, où on leur demande si, à leur avis, deux chansons différentes sont « substantiellement similaires ». Bien que le recours à des experts pour analyser des œuvres ne soit pas nouveau, il reste que le phénomène est relativement récent. En effet, jusque dans les années 1950, l’on déterminait s’il y avait eu violation ou non de droit d’auteur par l’impression générale que produisait un morceau sur les auditeurs profanes plutôt que par analyse scientifique. Cet article présente un survol des affaires de plagiat musical aux États-Unis pour retracer le virage de la méthode d’évaluation de la similarité substantielle. L’auteur avance que l’incapacité des tribunaux de décrire objectivement l’expérience auditive des auditeurs s’est soldée par un recours à des experts capables de traduire la musique en preuve juridique visuelle. La pratique de juger le plagiat de chansons par leur apparence visuelle expliquerait pourquoi l’échantillonnage musical serait considéré, par les tribunaux, comme une violation de droit d’auteur.

Keywords

music copyright infringementcopyrightforensicstranslationlaw and the sensesplagiat musicaldroit d’auteurmusicologuetraductionle droit et les sens
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , April 2016 , pp. 25 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Arewa, O. 2006. From J.C. Bach to hip hop: Musical borrowing, copyright and cultural context. North Carolina Law Review 84 (2): 547–645.Google Scholar
Cole, S. 1998. Witnessing identification: Latent fingerprinting evidence and expert knowledge. Social Studies of Science 28 (5–6): 687–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. 2002. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, C., and Laroche, G.. 2014. Out of tune: Why copyright law needs music lessons. In Intellectual property for the 21st century: Interdisciplinary approaches, ed. Doagoo, B. C., Goudreau, M., Saginur, M., and Scassa, T., 43–71. Toronto: Irwin Publishing.Google Scholar
Daston, L. 1988. Classical Probability in the Age of Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ericson, R., Baranek, P., and Chan, J.. 1991. Representing Order: Crime, Law and Justice in the News Media. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, R. 1991. Music analysis for expert testimony in music copyright infringement litigation. PhD diss., University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. 1990. Toward a jurisprudence of benefits: The norms of copyright and the problem of private censorship. University of Chicago Law Review 57 (3): 1009–49.Google Scholar
Hibbitts, B. 1994. Making sense of metaphors: Visuality, aurality, and the reconfiguration of American legal discourse. Cardozo Law Review 16 (2): 229–356.Google Scholar
Jaszi, P. 1991. Toward a theory of copyright: The metamorphoses of authorship. Duke Law Journal 455 (2): 455–502.Google Scholar
Keyes, M. 2004. Musical musings: The case for rethinking music copyright protection. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 10:407–44.Google Scholar
Litman, J. 1990. The public domain. Emory Law Journal 39:965–1023.Google Scholar
McLeod, K., and DiCola, P.. 2011. Creative License: The law and culture of digital sampling. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, M. 2013. The Science of Deception: Psychology and commerce in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sartorio, K., Caron, S., and Abramovitch, S. H.. 2013. Canada and the United States: Differences in copyright law. https://www.gowlings.com/KnowledgeCentre/article.asp?pubID=2231. Last accessed: January 21, 2016.Google Scholar
Taruskin, R. 1992. Tradition and Authority. Early Music 20 (2): 311–25.Google Scholar
Théberge, P. 2004. Technology, Creative Practice and Copyright. In Music and Copyright, ed. Frith, S. and Marshall, L., 139–56. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valverde, M. 2003. Law’s Dream of a Common Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Allen v. Walt Disney, 41 F. Supp. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)Google Scholar
Arnstein v. Broadcast Music, 137 F. 2d 410 (2d. Cir. 1943)Google Scholar
Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2nd 464 (2d. Cir. 1946)Google Scholar
Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2nd 421 (9th Cir. 1987)Google Scholar
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 383 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2004)Google Scholar
Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)Google Scholar
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994)Google Scholar
Carew v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, 43 F. Supp. 199 (S.D. Cal. 1942)Google Scholar
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)Google Scholar
Gaste v. Morris Kaiserman, 863 F.2d 1061 (2d Cir. 1988)Google Scholar
Haas v. Feist, 234 F. 105 (S.D.N.Y. 1916)Google Scholar
Hein v. Harris, 175 F. 875 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1910), aff’d 183 Fed. 107 (2d. Cir. 1923)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jollie v. Jaques, 13 F. Cas. 910 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1850)(No. 7437)Google Scholar
Jones v. Supreme Music, 101 F. Supp. 989 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)Google Scholar
Northern Music v. King Record Distribution, 105 F. Supp. 393 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)Google Scholar
Satriani v. Martin et al. [Coldplay], No. 08–7987, complaint filed (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008)Google Scholar
Tisi v. Patrick, 97 F.Supp. 2nd 539, 548–49 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)Google Scholar
Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42Google Scholar
The United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810Google Scholar
Allen v. Walt Disney, 41 F. Supp. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 1941)Google Scholar
Arnstein v. Broadcast Music, 137 F. 2d 410 (2d. Cir. 1943)Google Scholar
Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2nd 464 (2d. Cir. 1946)Google Scholar
Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2nd 421 (9th Cir. 1987)Google Scholar
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 383 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2004)Google Scholar
Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)Google Scholar
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994)Google Scholar
Carew v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, 43 F. Supp. 199 (S.D. Cal. 1942)Google Scholar
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)Google Scholar
Gaste v. Morris Kaiserman, 863 F.2d 1061 (2d Cir. 1988)Google Scholar
Haas v. Feist, 234 F. 105 (S.D.N.Y. 1916)Google Scholar
Hein v. Harris, 175 F. 875 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1910), aff’d 183 Fed. 107 (2d. Cir. 1923)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jollie v. Jaques, 13 F. Cas. 910 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1850)(No. 7437)Google Scholar
Jones v. Supreme Music, 101 F. Supp. 989 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)Google Scholar
Northern Music v. King Record Distribution, 105 F. Supp. 393 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)Google Scholar
Satriani v. Martin et al. [Coldplay], No. 08–7987, complaint filed (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008)Google Scholar
Tisi v. Patrick, 97 F.Supp. 2nd 539, 548–49 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)Google Scholar
Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42Google Scholar
The United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810Google Scholar