I read Daniel Silverstone’s recent blog entry and misread the phrase, "So what’s the use of falling in love?" as "So what’s the use of failing in love?"
In theory (and in theory, theory and practice are the same) copyright extends to expression but not to ideas. This is useful line to draw but (a) comes with a constantly revised list of exceptions and clarifications and (b) merely makes the difference between idea and expression (more) contested.
In any case, the distinction is a problematic one. I’ve always been intrigued by the way that similar, even identical, forms of expression can convey radically different ideas. I’m interested in deriving works through minimal, even programmatic, modifications that convey very different ideas — things that are unambiguously on the wrong side of copyright but perhaps shouldn’t be.
Which brings be back to failing in love…
One little regex and I’ve applied this same mistake to Elvis Presley’s I Can’t Help Falling in Love With You and created a new work I’m calling I Can’t Help Failing in Love With You:
Wise men say only fools rush in
But I can’t help failing in love with you
Shall I stay
Would it be a sin
If I can’t help failing in love with youLike a river flows surely to the sea
Darling so it goes
Some things are meant to be
Take my hand, take my whole life too
For I can’t help failing in love with youLike a river flows surely to the sea
Darling so it goes
Some things are meant to be
Take my hand, take my whole life too
For I can’t help failing in love with you
For I can’t help failing in love with you
I think it’s fantastic how a series of one letter changes, in my estimation at least, turns a love song into the quasi-suicidal lament of a man begging for death.
Elvis and Co.’s lawyers know where to find me.