Preview

ECONOMICS. LAW. SOCIETY

Advanced search

Copyright Infringement During the Creation of a Musical Work on the Example of the Case of Williams v. Bridgeport Music

https://doi.org/10.21686/2411-118X-2022-1-76-81

Abstract

Along with the active development of technology, various methods for preparing plagiarism are also being improved, however, problems associated with its identification often arise. In the article, using the example of the court decision in the case of Williams v. Bridgeport Music, the problem of the ratio of borrowing and creative work is raised. It happens that just in the presence of a coincidence of notes, they claim that plagiarism has been discovered. This is fundamentally wrong, because to some extent the subjective side of the deed, the motives and methods of creating the work are not taken into account. Such hasty conclusions can lead to many abuses and violations. It is necessary to see the difference between simple technical copying with a change in tempo and key in order to divert suspicion from oneself, from other motives relating specifically to the creative process, otherwise the development of music will be retarded. It was concluded that it is necessary for the court to proceed from the circumstances of the case and the attitude of the author of the controversial work to his work, and not only rely on the expertise. The novelty of the work lies in the fact that there is still a dispute about the qualification of borrowings, and there are no studies with an analysis of Russian, foreign, and international law, doctrine and judicial practice, including those with a focus on international private law.

About the Author

A. I. German
Open Joint Stock Company "TSUM Trading House"
Russian Federation

Lawyer of an Open Joint Stock Company "TSUM Trading House"

2 Petrovka Str., 1, 2 Building, Moscow, 125009



References

1. Беляцкин С. А. Новое авторское право в его основных принципах. 1912. – URL: https://allpravo.ru/library/doc1972p/instrum1973/.

2. Нестеров А. В. Плагиат в научной сфере // Право интеллектуальной собственности. – 2014. – № 1. – URL: https://publications.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/folder/gamvs5bgqi/direct/133920658.

3. Павлова Е. А. Право на переработку и производное произведение // Вестник гражданского права. – 2019. – № 4.

4. Depoorter B., Parisi F. Fair use and copyright protection: a price theory explanation. 2006. – URL: https://web.archive.org/web/http://www.gmu.edu/departments/law//faculty.pdf

5. Leval P. N. Toward a Fair Use Standard // Harvard Law Review. – 1990. – Vol. 103. – № 5. – URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1341457

6. Manuelian M. Der. The Role of the Expert Witness in Music Copyright Infringement Cases. 57 Fordham L. Rev. 127. – 1988.

7. Marcus Gray v. Katy Perry. № 2:15-cv-05642-CAS-JC. 16.07.2018. – URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4492124/286/marcus-gray-v-katy-perry/.

8. Nimmer M., Nimmer D. Nimmer on Copyright. – 1985.

9. Williams v. Bridgeport Music. Case № 15-56880. D.C. № 2:13-cv-06004- JAK-AGR. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 07.11.2018. – URL: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.law.gwu.edu/dist/a/4/files/2018/12/BridgeportAmendOp-vf76ys.pdf

10. Williams v. Bridgeport Music. Complaint for declaratory relief. Case № CV13-06004. 15.08.2013. – URL: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.law.gwu.edu/dist/a/4/files/2018/12/Williams-v.-Gaye_COMPLAINT.pdf.


Review

For citations:


German A.I. Copyright Infringement During the Creation of a Musical Work on the Example of the Case of Williams v. Bridgeport Music. ECONOMICS. LAW. SOCIETY. 2022;7(1):76-81. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21686/2411-118X-2022-1-76-81

Views: 198


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2411-118X (Print)