Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • 1
    I doubt there's any law that will support this assertion. If part of the analysis asks whether the alleged infringer copied "too much," I don't see how borrowing 100 percent of the words can be legally indistinguishable from borrowing 0 percent of the words.
    – bdb484
    Commented Dec 13, 2023 at 14:18
  • @Jen The "amount" (the total length of the track) will be unchanged. And you seem to be highly diminishing the substantiality or song instrumentals: the vocals rarely occupy the bulk of it.
    – Greendrake
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 7:37
  • @Jen cite some case law re length/amount/substantiality (I may be convinced to delete this answer).
    – Greendrake
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 9:35
  • @Jen Thanks, I'll take a look. But I disagree that I "should" have done the research. Whilst it may have been apt, there is no such requirement here. Members are free to post answers on their own terms (pretty much like they are free to vote, and mods are free to delete). Nothing to be shocked about.
    – Greendrake
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 10:25
  • @Jen In Campbell, the parody only sampled the bassline from the original (as opposed to using the full instrumental as posed in the question). Harper was held not fair use, so it doesn't contradict the implication of my answer that using only the instrumental won't be fair use. Thus, the answer stands (unless someone cites cases proving it wrong to my satisfaction).
    – Greendrake
    Commented Dec 15, 2023 at 13:38