Lomax Jukebox Going Digital Is Great News... But Let's Not Forget That He Claimed Copyright On Cultural Works That Weren't His
from the copyfraud dept
The NY Times recently reported on the excellent news that "technology has caught up to the imagination of Alan Lomax." In case you don't know, Lomax was something of a global folk music archivist and "ethnomusicologist." He traveled the world, recording local folk music in huge collections. He did this for decades, and apparently wanted to create a giant jukebox so people could hear everything he recorded. And, now, ten years after he died, the collection -- including more than 5,000 hours of recordings -- is going online. It's kicking off with 17,000 tracks, and much more is still being digitized.The article talks about how he had a "utopian" vision in making this music available:
“Alan was doubly utopian, in that he was imagining something like the Internet based on the fact he had all this data and a set of parameters he thought of as predictive,” John Szwed, a Columbia University music professor and the author of “Alan Lomax: The Man Who Recorded the World,” a biography published in 2010, told The Times. “But he was also saying that the whole world can have all this data too, and it can be done in such a way that you can take it home.”Now, to be clear, all of this is great, but I do wonder about some of the copyright questions here. Last year, we wrote about the bizarre and convoluted story of how Lomax is credited as a songwriter on a Jay-Z song. Apparently, when he recorded these random folk songs around the globe, he claimed copyrights on the works. This is, of course, questionable. At best, he might have a claim on a copyright to the sound recording only, though even that might be questioned, as his creative input into the recording likely would not be enough to qualify for copyright. The copyright, if any exists, would likely belong to the singers (and possibly whoever wrote the songs, though it's likely that many were simply passed down over time).
And yet, Lomax put a copyright claim on the works, including a recording he did of the traditional work song, "Rosie," recorded by Lomax at Parchman Farm, sung by convicts there. That song became the basis of a song by the Animals -- who didn't use the actual recording. Grand Funk Railroad then covered the song (again, not using the actual recording, but starting from scratch). However, Lomax was still credited as a songwriter, despite having nothing to do with it. KRS-One then sampled a guitar riff (having absolutely nothing to do with the original "Rosie") in a song... which Jay-Z then sampled in his song, "Takeover." Lomax's singular contribution was recording "Rosie," a traditional song which almost certainly was public domain. Even if Lomax could claim a copyright on his recording (still questionable), he had no songwriting credit... yet that's what it morphed into... and then stuck on songs going forward.
Perhaps the copyfraud achieved here created songwriting royalties that are now allowing the financing of this great digital jukebox... but it still makes me wonder just what the copyright setup will be of this jukebox. The folks behind it suggest that they'll be quite permissive, especially for non-profit usage, but it still makes you wonder about whether or not even that level of control is warranted.
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
Filed Under: alan lomax, copyright, culture, digital jukebox, folklorist, permission, recordings
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Loma and copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Loma and copyright
If he's been credited by others as the songwriter for a song that he recorded and then "arranged" in a book of songs, it sounds like *someone* along the way screwed up and misunderstood the copyright on said book.
If it's that complicated and easy to screw up - and then go unchecked after many iterations and permutations of the original work, then it sounds like there's something wrong with the system here.
It also sounds like you've perhaps tracked down some of these facts and hidden them in your book there... I suppose it would be pretty crass to go download the book to see what you had to say about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Loma and copyright
Why?
Answer: COPYRIGHT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Loma and copyright
'Copyright' is stealing (not infringing; different concept altogether: in this case outright THEFT) from the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Loma and copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He deserves the _correct_ kind of credit
(Or: Credit for reputation =/= credit at the bank.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tangled web
I agree with the other commenters that it's hard to say what Lomax's intentions were, but... there's something wrong with a system that leads to that sort of result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tangled web
http://www.whosampled.com/search/samples/?q=jay%20z%20takeover
Also the people who sampled that music may have to credit the ten others from whom Jay-Z took samples from not counting the other people that those guys have sampled too.
My head hurts just to think about it, this would be like paradise for copyright trolling.
Have the troll lawyers already caught on to the fact that there is software out there that can take a music and compared it to thousands of other melodies to find similarities?
Oh this will be like shooting fish in a barrel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tangled web
Other songs sampled in Jay-Z's Takeover:
Five to One Five to One by The Doors (1968)
Fame Fame by David Bowie (1975)
Sound of Da Police Sound of Da Police by KRS-One (1993)
Cash Money Is an Army (Radio) Cash Money Is an Army (Radio) by B.G. (1998)
The Watcher The Watcher by Dr. Dre (1999)
Oochie Wally Oochie Wally by QB Finest, Bravehearts and Nas (2000)
Sample chain found! songs that sampled Jay-Z's Takeover:
Ether Ether by Nas (2001)
The Rape Over The Rape Over by Mos Def (2004)
I Just Wanna Rhyme I Just Wanna Rhyme by Pumpkinhead (2005)
I'm a Hustla I'm a Hustla by Cassidy (2005)
300 Bars and Runnin' 300 Bars and Runnin' by The Game (2006)
Where's Da G's Where's Da G's by Dizzee Rascal feat. UGK (2007)
Sledgehammer Sledgehammer by Motive (2008)
I Don't Give a Mother F*** I Don't Give a Mother F*** by Deez Nuts (2010)
Source:
http://www.whosampled.com/sample/view/51574/Jay-Z-Takeover_Jay-Z%20feat.%20Memphi s%20Bleek,%20Sauce%20Money%20and%20Wais%20P-Celebration/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheep be prepared!
When sheep panics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old-school process, too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we should make distinctions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zombie lies about copyright -- Again!
Neither Alan Lomax nor his father ever filed claims for copyright on individual songs. It was their book publisher Macmillan who did this -- by 1950 the copyright devolved back to Alan. It was a large music publisher, who looted their entire catalog during the 1950s, filing copyright on the songs using false names, such as "Paul Campbell" (among others) as author. Alan Lomax sued them, winning a partial settlement in which he was allowed a portion of the author's half of the earnings (contrary to his wishes) as collector and arranger. He would have preferred to have had a segment from the publishers' credit. Thus, Lomax is being excoriated today for winning a settlement in a lawsuit with a large corporation, which still owns the copyrights and is still raking in mechanical and other fees (50% of the royalties).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]