Can You Copyright Silence? And Other Lawyer Stuff.
- Thread starter Cryogenic Filmworks
- Start date
They've got a point about listing Cage as a composer. Even jokes can cost you money.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
i'm not sure i can take that article seriously. what does one's personal opinion of "art", good or bad, have to do with the legal ramifications? also, this assertion...
is just plain ill-informed. if you want to use happy birthday, you're going to be writing a check to the Summy Company (until their copyright expires in 2030).
Silly sutff, this.
Silly sutff, this.
Personally, I think this type of argument is justification for banishing someone from the entire planet for life. But, I'll play this game for a minute.
In addition to the public domain argument is, perhaps, a corollary argument that silence is the absence of sound, hence it is nothing. Can "nothing", i.e. "no thing" - neither sound waves nor vibrations - be copyrighted? If there is "no thing" that exists, then what is there to copyright? How was the silence generated? However that may have happened, it would remain arguable that the silence on the "recording", i.e. the "work of art", is merely the silence created through whatever means was used by the "artist." It's arguable that silence generated by other means would not be the same silence.
Copyright applies to a "work of art or literature that conveys information or ideas." If silence is, indeed, the absence of sound, hence "nothing", where is the art? What components comprise it? (Apparently, none). Then what is there to copyright? Even if the "artist" claims it as a composition, how would he/she define/describe their "artistic silence"? If it is the absence of all sound and/or vibration, how can the absence of something - indeed, of ANYthing - be copyrighted?
If silence can be copyrighted, maybe I should fly over th the UK and digitally record, then copyright, all subsonic and ultrasonic frequencies. That way, whenever they appear even by accident, I'll be entitled to royalties. (Don't blow your dog whistle, or you'll owe me).
Silly sutff, this.
Personally, I think this type of argument is justification for banishing someone from the entire planet for life. But, I'll play this game for a minute.
In addition to the public domain argument is, perhaps, a corollary argument that silence is the absence of sound, hence it is nothing. Can "nothing", i.e. "no thing" - neither sound waves nor vibrations - be copyrighted? If there is "no thing" that exists, then what is there to copyright? How was the silence generated? However that may have happened, it would remain arguable that the silence on the "recording", i.e. the "work of art", is merely the silence created through whatever means was used by the "artist." It's arguable that silence generated by other means would not be the same silence.
Copyright applies to a "work of art or literature that conveys information or ideas." If silence is, indeed, the absence of sound, hence "nothing", where is the art? What components comprise it? (Apparently, none). Then what is there to copyright? Even if the "artist" claims it as a composition, how would he/she define/describe their "artistic silence"? If it is the absence of all sound and/or vibration, how can the absence of something - indeed, of ANYthing - be copyrighted?
If silence can be copyrighted, maybe I should fly over th the UK and digitally record, then copyright, all subsonic and ultrasonic frequencies. That way, whenever they appear even by accident, I'll be entitled to royalties. (Don't blow your dog whistle, or you'll owe me).
Super Trooper
Well-known member
Well, silence never sounds the same.
My recording of silence in my livingroom with an oktava mic w bbg is going to sound a lot different than someone recording "silence" in, say, an empty school room with a sanken mic and no windscreen.
There is no such thing as real silence, is there?
Granted, were probably splitting hairs here, and I hate these stupid debates, but it does "sound" like copyright infringement.
- Troop
My recording of silence in my livingroom with an oktava mic w bbg is going to sound a lot different than someone recording "silence" in, say, an empty school room with a sanken mic and no windscreen.
There is no such thing as real silence, is there?
Granted, were probably splitting hairs here, and I hate these stupid debates, but it does "sound" like copyright infringement.
- Troop
Last edited:
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
without hearing the recording, it's impossible to say if it were true silence or a recording of an empty space -- two different things. the latter of which, can express a tangible idea.
Super Trooper
Well-known member
But is it actually possible to record "true silence"?
I just can't wrap my mind around how that could exist.
rogar-Thinking(DBG
I just can't wrap my mind around how that could exist.
rogar-Thinking(DBG
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
right, that's what i mean. there would have to absolutely nothing there. a flatline. only then is it truly "nothing".Super Trooper said:But is it actually possible to record "true silence"?
I just can't wrap my mind around how that could exist.
I think its the conceptual aspect that is being exploited. They are trying to protect John Cage's intellectual property that is embodied by "4:33". The silence is a means to an artistic end. But its the IDEA, not the form, that makes that work great.
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
Here's a legal "silence" question - can you copyright an impulse reverb recording? It's silence, but a "particular" silence. Curious thought....
Duct Tape Films said:
Probably not. But you might be able to patent it.