|
|
Post by JohnY on May 4, 2023 18:50:25 GMT
Ed Sheeran has said he'll quit making music for good if found guilty of plagiarism. Will we be that lucky? Ed Sheeran does not make the sort of music that I like, far from it. In spite of that I listened to the music that he and his accuser create. I am pleased that Ed Sheeran has won this case. It would be very difficult indeed to create music unique. All contemporary music is based on the thousands of years of music that came before. Would we have the counterpoint of Bach without Sumer Is Icumen In? Sure I am stretching a point, but it is true.
I do not intend to deliberately listen to Ed Sheeran but if I should accidentally hear him and like him, then I would listen again.
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on May 4, 2023 19:44:17 GMT
^^^ Bugger, he's not going to quit.  |
|
|
|
Post by willien on May 4, 2023 20:59:29 GMT
Went to Gateshead today. Thanks to satnav got to where I meant to go and got back out to simple roads again. Crossed the "Newcastle Brown" bridge both ways (no I was not lost). It seriously needs some TLC AKA rust treatment and paint.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on May 4, 2023 21:48:22 GMT
^^^ Bugger, he's not going to quit. Just ignore him. I've never heard him on Radio 4, Radio 3, Classic FM or Scala. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on May 5, 2023 6:22:33 GMT
^^^ Bugger, he's not going to quit. Just ignore him. I've never heard him on Radio 4, Radio 3, Classic FM or Scala. I am only aware of hearing him sing once, and it was bad enough that I've kept well clear. |
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on May 5, 2023 6:35:26 GMT
SWIFTS! SWIFTS!
Three of them circling overhead as I finished my morning stretches. Hoping that this year will be the year they nest in my boxes. I've had some amazing close encounters in the past as they've screamed past the front of the house, so close I could hear the zip.
|
|
|
|
Post by andytake2 on May 5, 2023 7:48:22 GMT
The whole Ed Sheeran thing is bugger all to do with music, it is to do with $hit featured 'investors' who have nothing better to do than buy up the rights to songs, sit on them til someone makes a record that sounds vaguely like them, and then try to make as much money as possible. Unfortunately this has led to more and more third cousins seventeen times removed of other artists think they can make a quick buck as well by the same means. The whole copyright sitting has led to things getting way out of control. If melodies and chord progressions were used and copyrighted once only, we'd all be listening to stuff from the 1920s. (I think the music copyright laws came in around 1910) More than that, it is so easy to find that melodies and chord progressions in modern music are so similar to other bits of music that the dickhead copyright investors would be salivating...if it weren't for the fact that said music being copied was written a couple of hundred years back. If we were able to ask Marvin Gaye whether the music he wrote was influenced by others, he'd probably look at us as if we were idiots and say 'of course it is, fool!' Can you imagine the rock & roll musicians of the fifties sixties and seventies NOT copying each other? Listening to music from especially the sixties means one has to wait a while before actually identifying the tune - there are so many that are chordally and melodically virtually identical that it isn't until a voice comes in that identification is absolute; and no harm came of that. ...Rant mode off  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on May 5, 2023 9:38:40 GMT
The whole Ed Sheeran thing is bugger all to do with music, it is to do with $hit featured 'investors' who have nothing better to do than buy up the rights to songs, sit on them til someone makes a record that sounds vaguely like them, and then try to make as much money as possible. Unfortunately this has led to more and more third cousins seventeen times removed of other artists think they can make a quick buck as well by the same means. The whole copyright sitting has led to things getting way out of control. If melodies and chord progressions were used and copyrighted once only, we'd all be listening to stuff from the 1920s. (I think the music copyright laws came in around 1910) More than that, it is so easy to find that melodies and chord progressions in modern music are so similar to other bits of music that the dickhead copyright investors would be salivating...if it weren't for the fact that said music being copied was written a couple of hundred years back. If we were able to ask Marvin Gaye whether the music he wrote was influenced by others, he'd probably look at us as if we were idiots and say 'of course it is, fool!' Can you imagine the rock & roll musicians of the fifties sixties and seventies NOT copying each other? Listening to music from especially the sixties means one has to wait a while before actually identifying the tune - there are so many that are chordally and melodically virtually identical that it isn't until a voice comes in that identification is absolute; and no harm came of that. ...Rant mode off Not so very long ago a judge allowed a copyright case in a photograph of a double decker bus on Westminster bridge with the houses of parliament in the background. That this situation occurs many dozens of times a day and must have been photographed millions of time the judge still agreed to the petition! I suggest said judge was wrong, you cannot copyright an event that occurs regularly and you certainly can't prevent anyone from taking photographs of it. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on May 5, 2023 18:38:47 GMT
Tee hee...
|
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on May 5, 2023 19:41:20 GMT
Obviously a fine upstanding citizen.
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on May 5, 2023 19:58:29 GMT
Obviously a fine upstanding citizen. Surely it's a perspective corrected pic of a Clanger, but we're looking at it from the wrong side? |
|
|
|
Post by lesleysm2 on May 5, 2023 21:49:24 GMT
Back in 2011 we took our newly acquired kitten to the vet for her first shots etc
Vet says she has a heart murmur and more importantly she is FIV+ and suggests we have her PTS there and then because of the latter
Says "You won't have her as long as you like"
Dave says "You never have them as long as you like"
Vet says "Well sometimes the heart murmur isn't a problem and they grow out of them but the FIV well...if she makes it to 5 she'll have done really well"
Today that kitten, my Bonnie girl is 12!
|
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on May 6, 2023 11:56:48 GMT
If we had heart emojis here, that would get one.
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on May 6, 2023 15:22:05 GMT
Not so very long ago a judge allowed a copyright case in a photograph of a double decker bus on Westminster bridge with the houses of parliament in the background. That this situation occurs many dozens of times a day and must have been photographed millions of time the judge still agreed to the petition! I suggest said judge was wrong, you cannot copyright an event that occurs regularly and you certainly can't prevent anyone from taking photographs of it. The case that, I think, that you are referring to was much more complex than you describe. We discussed it extensively back in the AP days!
Some of the factors were:
1.In each image the background had been converted to mono, leaving just the bus in colour. Also in each image the bus was a Routemaster.
2. In each image the sky had had all detail removed and was 'blank' 3. In each image certain elements, the same elements, had been removed. 4. The author of the 'offending' image had seen and was aware of the original and had created his image for the same purpose - as a promotional image for souvenirs, leading to the possibility of 'passing off' (I think that it's called)
There was a lively discussion within and without the forum and there was certainly an arguable case that the judge got it wrong. If I remember correctly the judge leant towards the image having been imitated for commercial gain - point 4.
All of the above is from my (failing) memory so please don't shoot me if I've remembered a bit incorrectly. My main point is that there was much more to the case than you implied.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on May 6, 2023 16:16:54 GMT
Not so very long ago a judge allowed a copyright case in a photograph of a double decker bus on Westminster bridge with the houses of parliament in the background. That this situation occurs many dozens of times a day and must have been photographed millions of time the judge still agreed to the petition! I suggest said judge was wrong, you cannot copyright an event that occurs regularly and you certainly can't prevent anyone from taking photographs of it. The case that, I think, that you are referring to was much more complex than you describe. We discussed it extensively back in the AP days!
Some of the factors were:
1.In each image the background had been converted to mono, leaving just the bus in colour. Also in each image the bus was a Routemaster.
2. In each image the sky had had all detail removed and was 'blank' 3. In each image certain elements, the same elements, had been removed. 4. The author of the 'offending' image had seen and was aware of the original and had created his image for the same purpose - as a promotional image for souvenirs, leading to the possibility of 'passing off' (I think that it's called)
There was a lively discussion within and without the forum and there was certainly an arguable case that the judge got it wrong. If I remember correctly the judge leant towards the image having been imitated for commercial gain - point 4.
All of the above is from my (failing) memory so please don't shoot me if I've remembered a bit incorrectly. My main point is that there was much more to the case than you implied.
Mick
I remember it as a colour-popping case - red bus on mono background. The bus was on Westminster bridge with houses of parliament in the background. Someone claimed copyright over the idea based on an existing body of work. It was years ago - but probably less than 10 because it was treatment of a digital image. |
|
