Can someone explain to me how this works? There was a thread up that was locked by OSC due to copyright issues with posting song lyrics. But as long as you cite the source, what's the problem? No one is trying to sell them or claim them as their own (not here anyways).
I'm not trying to argue with it, I'm just wondering why it is a violation of copyright.
Thanks.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Now that it's been brought up, I can actually think of at least one reason. we are not posting the little copyright symbol and date and actual holder of copyright. We're posting only artist and title information (and sometimes not even always that), when it seems from the Napster fiasco that the record companies are the ones that own the songs in the vast majority of cases.
I got my hand smacked and had photos removed from my albums by Webshots as a result of having photos of projects I'd stitched in my album. The offending pictures? A Tigger bookmark and an Eeyore magnet. Both of them specifically stated "Copyright A.A. Milne and Disney" in the caption, but someone objected to them anyway. I received an email saying that "the copyright holder has filed a complaint", I was given a chance to respond, and then never heard anything back. I also never got my pictures restored, despite Webshots' claim in that automated email that if the copyright holder didn't respond to my rebuttal within 28 days they would be. So it's a good thing I keep these pics on my hard drive.
Since then, whenever I stitch a Disney piece (which doesn't happen often now because of this incident), I have a file that says "Image not available due to copyright restrictions" so that I have a placeholder in my album for those pieces.
So yeah, I can understand OSC's concern over the lyric games. I honestly expected that those threads would have been deleted at the same time, and I wasn't going to say or do anything to draw attention to them just in case he wasn't actively aware that they existed.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I know that an author cannot use lyrics in a novel without written prmission from the artist or record company.
Well, this site is pretty clear that you cannot use lyrics, ever. So i wonder how bands who do cover versions of songs get away with it?
quote: you CANNOT reproduce the music or lyrics you CANNOT distribute the music or lyrics either for free, for no profit, or for profit you CANNOT perform the music or lyrics in public you CANNOT play a recording of the music or lyrics in public--even if you own the CD you CANNOT make a derivative work or arrangement for public use in any form
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
All of those CANNOTs are subject to fair use exceptions. Never expect a copyright holder to give an accurate description of what uses are allowed of their work.
I'm not going to explain fair use here, because it's very, very tricky. But suffice it to say that the truth is somewhere between "You CANNOT do all these things" and "I can do anything I want with them."
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I have never heard of a band getting in trouble for playing a cover, ever.
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
Which is a good thing, considering how many young start up bands play a ton of covers.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The bands don't, unless they are cutting their own discs. However, dance clubs, bars, and other music venues are legally responsible for paying the copyright use fees on the music played by those bands within their establisment. And ASCAP/RAII/etc regularly hit those venues which don't pay music licensing fees with hefty legal suits.
[ April 25, 2005, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
BTW: Do not use currently copyrighted lyrics* in any story or article that you intend to sell to a commercial publisher. 1) If a story or article is dependent on the lyrics -- ala lyric line(s) -> story exposition based on lyric line(s) -> (possible repetitions of the process) -- then the professional first-reader** will just send it back; usually without an explanation that use of copyrighted lyrics is automatic grounds for rejection. 2) The licensing fees for commercial use of popular copyrighted lyrics in short stories and novels are usually MUCH higher than any publisher would pay most authors for their story. In the case of most authors, the licensing fee for a famous currently copyrighted lyric is usually several times the pre-publication author's advance payment for his/her novel.
* Unless you wrote the lyrics yourself. ** First-readers are usually assistants who cull through the slush pile (of unsolicited manuscripts) for items which might be of interest to an editor. In science fiction and similar small-audience magazines/ezines, a majority of the editors are their own first-readers.
[ April 25, 2005, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: And ASCAP/RAII/etc regularly hit those venues which don't pay music licensing fees with hefty legal suits.
...which is why many open mics and small establishments have rules that everything you sing must be either original or public domain.
[ April 25, 2005, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Goody: the presence or absence of the copyright symbol is pretty much inconsequential in the case of unlicensed use. There are few if any cases where the presence or absence of a copyright symbol would, absent a licensing agreement, make a different as to whether or not a usage is acceptable.
Its main impact is in the area of damages (by displaying a copyright symbol with the work properly licensed work, if a person copies that instance of the work, willing infringement is easier to prove).
While I think Disney should not have pursued the violation, you were in violation of their copyright, most likely (fair use is a tricky thing, so possibly not, but the display in particular likely resulted in infringement). In such small cases, though, the infringement is purely civil, which means many copyright holders allow considerable leeway (such as George Lucas with Star Wars -- he lets pretty much anyone use the universe who wants to provided they don't try to sell the product or make a pornographic film set there or the like).
Copyright is not about acknowledgement, though many people will allow usage of their copyrighted works given merely that acknowledgement. Copyright is about the rights to reproduce, display, modify, incorporate, derive from, and the like. Those rights are what are protected, not the right to have the copyright holder's name displayed next to the work.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Disney is hyper-protective of its copyright on Disney characters&drawings. They raised quite a stink when they demanded that a daycare center remove Disney characters used as wall decorations. And won their lawsuit, though at some cost to their reputation. Afterwards, Paramount? (I think, due to some sort of cross-licensing with WB) stepped in and replaced the removed Disney characters with LooneyToons characters, and gained FAR more than the monetary value of a license fee in free favorable publicity.
[ April 25, 2005, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, Disney is even more sensitive about the rights of teh Wniie the Pooh copyright, as they were/are involved in a legal battle over those rights with the real life Christopher Robin, who is the legal holder of those rights. He sold Disney the rights to them, but has since clained that Disney has defrauded him of millions under their contract, and last I heard he was suing for the complete return of all rights, forcing Disney to cease and desist using any and all images of Winnie the Pooh characters.
Since Diseny has millions wrapped up in this, they are overly causions with regards to it at this point.
Kwea
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Last I heard, Christopher Robin was dead. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Wow.. I guess I shouldn't sing in the shower then... might get sued. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I see this as a growing trend... that people cannot own anything, that we can only rent from corporations who own everything. I don't like it. Public domain is shrinking and freedoms along with it.
[ April 25, 2005, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yep, there are older stories making some use of copyrighted lyrics. Such heavy copyright encumberance is relatively recent. GeorgeRomero wasn't that far off the mark: the undead"corps"es are feeding on the human creators' brains.
[ April 25, 2005, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Disney won the Pooh case against AAMilnes' heirs; under some dubious rulings which give rise to doubts about judges' integrity and commitment to Justice.
[ April 25, 2005, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wow.. I guess I shouldn't sing in the shower then... might get sued.
Nope, performances have to be public to violate the law.
On a similar note, playing a song in public is allowed in certain situations. Unless you know for a fact you meet those exceptions, though, it's best to go by the rules that playing a song in public will violate the rules.
Interesting side note: playing a legally purchased recording of a song in public violates the songwriters' (lyrics and score) copyrights. It does not violate the musicians' copyright as long as no recording is made.
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
There's still a little something odd going on with the Disney "Pooh" copyright issue. At least I think so. If you try to buy a Winnie-the-Pooh page-a-day calendar at the Disney Store, the only one you will find is one where all the artwork is from the original storybooks, NOT the artwork created by Disney.
However, you can get a calendar with Disney's "Pooh" artwork, but the box lists a different publisher and is not a Disney marketed product. I suspect his is because Pooh has been around and has been very popular for children long before Disney became so copyright paranoid. I know that when I was a kid, Sears had a whole line of Pooh products with Disney artwork. I suspect there are some lingering Pooh licenses from that era still being held like gold by the licensees.
Anyone have any specific info on this?
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
What about karaoke? I have friends who compete in Karaoke things every year, and they are definitely performing copyrighted material.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Almost certainly a performance license.
Every college/university, for instance, has a (very expensive) performance license, which allows all the music at student parties, student group events, and the like.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Holy moly. The trouble and money you have to pay out just to have some fun.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What about rules regarding stories and such? For instance, what about reading most or all of a copyrighted story or poem in a church talk? It's not private use, but it's not commercial use, either (and who really wants to take on a church? another image ruiner there), but I'm sure it's some kind of violation, however unenforced.
Just a side note: I always put in my copyright statement, when I write a song or do an arrangement or anything like that that I claim a copyright on, that it may be copied and used for incidental, personal home or church use, or copied and used for educational use with no restrictions, as long as the copyright notice is reproduced and attatched.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am astounded at how many people just plain don't respect copyrights.
When I was selling more regularly on Ebay, I belonged to a group and the copyright abuses were amazing. I voiced my concerns several times but I was told to be quiet, as they didn't have any qualms about taking money from "big companies".
For some simple examples - making a purse from a pattern and selling it. Unless the pattern maker gives you permission to do so, you're guilty of copyright infringement. The embroidery business is always fighting copyright violations. Designs can be downloaded and emailed so quickly, it's very hard to manage their sale. I knew one embroidery designer, who found her designs on sale on Ebay. Someone had purchased them from her, then was copying them to CDs and selling them.
A quick search on Ebay will find you hundreds of items using either Disney fabric or Disney embroidery designs - which Disney explicitly prohibits. When you buy their fabric or their designs there are notices that say they are for personal use only and may not be used commercially. But people seem to think if they paid for the fabric or design, they get to use it anyway they want to. Not so.
I wish more places would crack down on abusers, honestly. To avoid problems with copyright, I made my own patterns - I cut all my bags from patterns I made myself out of muslin. I only used embroidery designs that were okayed for commercial use, in one case I got written permission from the designer to be sure. And yet, for every person like me there were hundreds willing to break the law for a profit,who for the most part got away with it. Very frustrating.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
There was/is a real life Christopher Robin?! Cool.
What thread was deleted? (I guess I won't be getting a link to it. )
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
kq: you might take a look at the Creative Commons licenses.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Interesting concept, although I probably wouldn't ever use it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)