The Highest Form of Flattery

Imitation is the highest form of flattery, but clones kind of get it wrong because we are promoting individuality and being proud of being yourself     - Brian Molko 

And there you have it. All packed into one sentence composed of 25 words is the essence of creativity.  As Brian Molko describes it, individuality.  But, how much individuality and true creative content can one present in this day and age?  One writer of the Bible states that "there's nothing new under the sun."  If that is true, and this writer does not suggest otherwise, then why copyright?  Why do we even attempt to protect intellectual property if they will still be recycled sometime in the future.  I can not answer for others but, because it is my property.  Still, what recourse do we really have to protect this property? No answer?  Well, I'll tell you.  Most recently, the Copyright Act of 1976 provides guidelines and redress to the issue of copyright infringement.  Let's discuss recent cases of alleged copyright infringement and the cases, if applicable, that they carry with them.

Rap Artist Meek Mills and the WWF
Meek Mills have been the focus of trending social media news in the recent weeks.  Not just him, but his so-called "rap beef" with uber-popular rapper Drake.  This conflict started with a Twitter-based war of tweets and that escalated into "diss records" being recorded by both artists.  This issue with this is that the "diss record" response from artists Meek Mills contained elements, a sample,  owned and copyrighted by the WWF.  And, mainly because of the lackluster attempt by Meek Mills, the WWF expressed their displeasure of the element being used without authorization by Meek Mills.  The fact that Meek Mills released the record for free and did not stand to profit financially from the release is moot.  The WWF's copyright had still been infringed upon and the rapper could be held liable.  

"The Blurred Lines" Case
The family of Marvin Gaye sued singer Robin Thicke and rapper Pharrell Williams for infringing on the copyright of the late singer's song "Got To Give It Up."  The media's attention to this case was strong due to the fact that the suit was filed while the record was still #1 on the charts.  The defendants argued that it was just a "groove" that was special and relevant to the time that the record was originally recorded.  The jury disagreed and awarded the family of Gaye just over $7 million dollars.  In this case, I feel that the judgement was just and fair.  The general rule is, when in doubt GET CLEARANCE.  It's cheaper.  

Apple vs Samsung 
Apple alleged that Samsung "borrowed" some of their copyrighted features from their line of smartphone.  In itself, it is not so surprising.  However, these protections exist for a reason. And, as it was in this case, it is not fair for another to profit MILLIONS off of the back of another's ideas.  Apple sued and won initially over $1 billion dollars.  However, the award was cut almost in half after review.  Moral of the story, use your own brain.