If Pachelbel Were Still Alive Today, Would He Be Suing YouTube?
from the just-curious dept
We've joked about bored reporters scouring YouTube for any popular video to be the basis of a news story, but this NY Times article about a bunch of random semi-anonymous guitarists (including one very good one who the reporter tracked down) recording rock versions of Pachelbel's Canon (you know, "the wedding song") has one other interesting point that isn't mentioned in the article at all: imagine if Johann Pachelbel were still around and this song were under copyright? Instead of talking about the wonders of young guitarists across the world experimenting with new versions of the song and recording themselves doing so, we'd be hearing stories about copyright infringement and how these young musicians aren't paying performance royalties. Then we'd hear about how this needs to be stopped "for the sake of the artists" who are getting ripped off. Instead, we get to hear (and see) new music in action.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no need to blow up another bus full of lawyers
love the smell of irony in the early afternoon
1st
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
also, remember these 'rockstars' aren't copying the song as pachelbel "recorded" it. and from my understanding, there are laws that allow parody and such (remeber weird al and colio?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AND his grandparents.
its the american way!
nobody gets to listen or create music without paying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"In truth, literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any things, which in an abstract sense are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science, and art borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before." -- Supreme Court Justice David Souter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they do charge, then they should pay royalties if the song is under copywrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wedding Song
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wedding Song
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wedding Song
Funny how several of us identified entirely different-but-valid pieces as "the wedding song" though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm, not in the U.S.
Of course, someone who copies funtwo's recording of the song and redistributes it or uses it as a soundtrack for a soda commercial could be sued by funtwo. That's because there's no compulsory license to the recorded version of the song, just to the underlying composition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think of "the Wedding Song" as something Paul Stookey wrote. Mendelssohn wrote a Wedding March. Pachelbel's Canon is used more often now (in my experience) as a wedding processional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Wagner:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the right question
The question is not what would happen if Pachelbel were still alive. The question is: what would happen if Johann only died 69 years ago? Would his grandchildren, making a profit off their grandfather's creativity while doing nothing at all themselves, creatively, be suing YouTube?
The answer is a clear "yes". The question is not whether or not creative artists should be compensated for use of their works. The question is how many generations of non-creative non-artists should be compensated for their ancestors' or ancestor-in-interest's works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the right question
I am not an artist but it seems to me to be a huge case of special pleading for anyone to say that because of their profession, they should be able to make money off of a single work more than once. A carpenter, dockworker, or sales clerk doesn't get to be paid more than once for building a shelf, loading a crate, or making a sale. Why should an artist who makes reproducible art be able to?
I understand that art is difficult and time consuming, but so what? If it's that difficult and that rare a skill then you will be able to charge alot for the sale of your work. Hell, artists could even go back to the patron system, Which is how it used to be for the arts and sciences and largely still is for the sciences. After all, what is working for a university or getting a government grant but a patron system?
If all you are after when creating art is money then you should get another job. If you want to create art then create art. Just don't expect to be entitled to make money off of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jazz and many other genres *thrive* on someone else replaying a unique variation on an old tune. You're assuming Pachelbel would be as lawsuit-happy as Americans seem to be, who's to say he wouldn't be thrilled to hear his music performed on a new instrument, in a new way?
So, I guess Pachelbel would also be right steamed at the people who arrange his music for concert bands, and other uses too...since you can BET they've altered his music as much as anyone else.
I'm kind of sad to see something so rediculous on this site, it's usually a great read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, we're in agreement. The point of the post is how silly it is for the RIAA to get upset about things like this -- and they have. Plenty of music (not just jazz) is built on older music, which is why it's silly that the recording industry gets so upset about it. That was the point of the post. We agree with you.
I'm kind of sad to see something so rediculous on this site, it's usually a great read.
Why are you upset? We agree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the right question
Pachelbel's Canon has been the basis of many already famous songs including "Hook" by Blues Traveler and "Basket Case" by Green Day. Many people have heard Nirvana's rendition of "Where did you sleep last night" and enjoyed it (I like the original better, but they didn't do a bad job on it). I'd hate to imagine a world where some of the great blues songs couldn't be interpreted.....oh, wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the right question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charlie Potatoes - you don't know it all
Sorry, I couldn't help but respond cause you Charlie seemed to have a somewhat inflated sense of know-it-allness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wedding Music Notes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use?
However, when an artist "samples" an existing work for his/her own album, and the resulting work is of interest primarily because of the qualities of the sampled work, and the artist makes substantial money from this derivative work, then I think the original composer deserves a piece of cake. I don't want to rag on hip-hop and rap too much, because they are viable forms in their own right, but it does not take a lot of talent to lift whole chunks of previous hit records, put a new drum track under them, and intersperse them with "yeeeeaaahhh.....yeeeeaaahhh....come AWN, come AWN..." To me, that's just a non-talent ripping off talent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hello
[ link to this | view in chronology ]