[mb-style] Later version vs. Derivative work

Frederic Da Vitoria davitofrg at gmail.com
Wed Jul 27 08:57:06 UTC 2011


2011/7/26, Ryan Torchia <anarchyriot at gmail.com>:
> 2011/7/26 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosarevok at gmail.com>
>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ryan Torchia <anarchyriot at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <
>> davitofrg at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 2011/7/26, Ryan Torchia <anarchyriot at gmail.com>:
>> >> > I'd kind of like to know how we define each of these terms, and what
>> >> > threshold we use to accept the relationship.  I could see something
>> like
>> >> > Philip Jeck's "Fanfares" or Eno's variations on the Canon in D minor
>> >> > being
>> >> > derivative works, but I'd never call them "versions" of their
>> >> > predecessors.
>> >> > Some other potential problems:
>> >> >
>> >> > "The Twist"* is a version of / is a derivative work of *"Let's Twist
>> >> > Again"
>> >> > "My Sweet Lord"* is a version of / is a derivative work of *"She's So
>> >> > Fine"
>> >> > "Drunk Girls" * is a version of / is a derivative work of* "White
>> >> > Light/White Heat"
>> >> > "Phantom of the Opera" * is a version of / is a derivative work of
>> >> > *"Echoes"
>> >> > "Love Stinks" * is a version of / is a derivative work of* "Wild
>> Thing"
>> >> > "A Whiter Shade of Pale" * is a version of / is a derivative work
>> >> > of*something by Bach, because they said so in that movie.
>> >> > Until naturally... [pick a rock song] * is a version of / is a
>> >> > derivative
>> >> > work of* [pick a blues song]
>> >>
>> >> Torc, you may have given here the best argument for Nicolás'
>> >> suggestion to set Derivative as a parent of Other version: the fact
>> >> that we will probably often be unable to choose if it is close enough
>> >> to be considered as another version.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually, I'm not concerned about that.  It'd be easier to base whether
>> it's
>> > another version off of things like writer credits.  I'm more concerned
>> about
>> > somebody adding a derivative relationship based on evidence like "it
>> sounds
>> > the same to me."
>>
>> It's as easy as including a guideline that says clear proof must be
>> provided. It might not always be "the author says so" (it will be in
>> most cases, but one of the uses I see for it, rap songs that are just
>> new lyrics over some classic 90's rap beat, tend to be uncredited) but
>> "it sounds the same" is not a proof, and except for specific cases
>> like the one I mentioned, I don't think even "look at these two
>> youtube links, it's the same" should work. But yeah, of course, the
>> limits are always "tricky".
>>
>>
> OK, there needs to be some authoritative source, but how much similarity is
> required to call it a derivative work?  What about something like "Ice Ice
> Baby" vs. "Under Pressure"?  (Or the examples I asked about earlier?)  I'm
> really interested in hearing various opinions about which of those people
> here would accept as "derivative works" and why, because eventually we're
> going to have to vote on submissions like that.

The only one where I have an opinion (because I dont' know the others)
is A Whiter Shade of Pale. If that the source of the film is credible
and that the Bach work was identified, which would also allow for some
sort of checking, then yes, it is a derived work.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list