Copyright Protection/Fashion Industry Vs. Music Biz

I recently was introduced to this interesting video about Copyright Law and how it applies to the Fashion Industry, or actually how it doesn't apply at all! (Thanks to Bruce Houghton of Hypebot (http://www.hypebot.com/) and Berklee Music for introducing this video of Johanna Blakeley to me.)

After working for three years in Intellectual Property Law, and how it applies to still photography, it is interesting to take a look at an industry like fashion, which operates and thrives on the absolute omission of any copyright protection. At first I was horrified at the presentation that Johanna Blakeley gave about her industry, but then was very piqued by the arguments that she was offering, ESPECIALLY in relation to music, and copyright law in regards to the music business.

A quick overview -- in the past the courts decided that the fashion industry was too utilitarian to be subject to copyright protection. (ie no one should be able to copyright a cuff, or a collar, or a button, etc. etc.) For clothing to function, it needs all of the above, and the omission of any of them would be ludicrous.

So what happens, is a society of complete creative openness. Fashionistas directly borrowing ideas from older fashions and brands, and re-marketing them, re-branding, and embellishing, and upgrading. This is very similar to the old music ideals of classical music from Baroque (1600's) all the way to the early Romantics (1820s). All the old composers borrowed freely from each other, improved on motifs, fugues, movements, styles. There were plenty of older pieces that I played while I was studying classical violin which stated (in the style of Paganini, or the style of Edvard Grieg, and so on and so forth.) One of my favorite newer composers (at least newer for classical), Fritz Kriesler (1875-1962) made numerous references like this - ie his Rondino (which is based on a theme of Beethoven), or his Variations on a Theme by Corelli (in the Style of Tartini.)

However, when you come up to the present state of music, there is a definite static field keeping musicians and composers from borrowing and updating musical ideas in such a fluid way. A great example that I constantly have thought about lately is the case of Joe Satriani Vs. Coldplay in regards to Coldplay's 2008 album, "Viva La Vida."



Long story short, Joe Satriani, (a guitar god in his own right) filed a lawsuit against the English Rock band Coldplay for their chart topping successful track, Viva La Vida, saying that his instrumental "If I Could Fly" was directly copied by their song. You can check out some interesting info about this at:

http://blogcritics.org/music/article/joe-satriani-vs-coldplay-a-tale/.

http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2008/12/coldplay_vs_joe_satriani_the_v_1.html

http://andyontheroad.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/joe-satriani-v-coldplay-settles/

Regardless of anyone's particular stance on this specific case - in an industry which would have more lax copyright protection, a situation like this would never occur. Johanna Blakley gives a pretty compelling argument for the removal of copyright protection, which could directly relate to music business.

Currently as a musician, composer, and music businessman, it is a hard pill to swallow to think of not having some sort of protection for my original ideas... but maybe this is a outdated canon which needs to be changed? The scary thought though that struck me at the very beginning of Johanna Blakley's presentation was: isn't the omission of any protection at all just going to lead to complete anarchy?

~Andrew Joslyn