Negativland's Guilty: U2

1427 Words6 Pages
In 1991, a band that uses fragments of samples from other bands and sounds, was sued by a famous rock band called U2. U2 claims that Negativland copied u2’s “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for instead of sampling it. Negativland and their record label, SST records, were found guilty. I overturn the lower court’s decision.

I believe the lower court’s ruling should be overturned because I do not believe that Negativland
Violated the copyright law by sampling from U2.

Negativland made their album look like a U2 album to steal sales from U2’s new album “Achtung Baby.” In his article “U2’s double trouble”, Washington Post Staff Writer Richard Harrington asserts that “U2 fans might confuse Negativland’s “U2” with “Achtung Baby”Harrington
…show more content…
In other words, Negativland’s work is was intended to make fun of U2’s “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For”. The only way an artist can use someone’s copyrighted work without paying royalties is if they make a parody of it. Since Negativland’s “U2” song was a parody of U2’s “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For”, Negativland’s “U2” song is legal.
I agree that Negativland’s “Parody” is legal because of the artist Weird Al Yankovic. Yankovic takes instrumentals from popular songs, and changes the lyrics to make fun of it. Yankovic has never been sued for his work because they are parodies. Since Negativland made a parody of U2’s “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For, Negativland should not be sued.

Art should be for enjoyment instead of profit. In Negativland’s “In fair use debate, art must come first”, Negativland believes that “The law must come to terms with the difference between artistic intent and economic intent”(159). Negativland’s point is that artists do not have much creative freedom because the copyright law allows artists to profit off lawsuits.Artists will feel more inclined to create new music because they will not have to worry about being
…show more content…
In Walter Olson’s “How Copyright Law Makes Sample-Based Music Impossibly Expensive...If You Want To Do It Legally”, Olson reports that there is an increasing number of copyrights out now, and artists must make sure their song is clear of copyrights to publish it. If it is not, they have to pay an expensive sample clearance fee. Olson asserted that ”Capitol records would lose 20 million dollars on a record that sold 2.5 million units”(3).In other words, it is nearly impossible to find all copyrights, and make a profit off the artwork after paying for copyright clearance fees.Artists should not have to pay expensive copyright clearance
Open Document