posted
The issue of lyrics and Fair Use just recently came to my attention. You can find several places on the Internet which say "Fair Use doesn't apply to lyrics."
In summary, the Music Industry (TM) can (and probably will) create trouble for you even if you are well within your rights. And because of that publishers tend to avoid lyrics in novels like the plague.
Which probably led to the mistaken belief that lyrics aren't covered by Fair Use.
There is one valid issue with lyrics you should consider (even if blood-thirsty Music Industry lawyers don't concern you). Since songs/poetry can be rather short, even a small snippet of lyrics can comprise a significant chunk of the whole work. Thus you need to be vigilante to quote in the smallest chunks possible and to make sure your commentary makes up the vast majority of your content.
posted
I respect copyright for three principal reasons; one, the very real likelihood of costly litigation regardless of outcomes shys me away from using anyone's intellectual property; two, I refuse to retread someone else's creation on the general principle of originality, if I can't create an original then I've failed to create; and three, because I don't want anyone stealing my creation and using it less than artfully, diminishing its value.
Frankly, I see little value in copying someone else's lyrics or poetry. One, the copied content is probably a narrow popular culture reference that only a limited audience will appreciate and, two, translating the reference to its intended, copied meaning probably diminishes the impact of both the original and the reproduction anyway. I'd rather have the original Mona Lisa than a reprint poster.
However, using someone else's property under a reproduction license is not as difficult as it seems. Want to use part of a song's lyrics in a short story? Get permission. The Internet has made doing so easier than asking Mom for a fifty dollar loan. Copyright clearinghouses for prose, pictures, poetry, and lyrics license most available and worthy content. What they don't license probably isn't worth the trouble or it's not available and subject to costly litigation for unlicensed use.
Protections against infinging use of lyrics is not a mistaken belief. Underlying the Fair Use doctrine and its application in courts are three critical principles espoused in the U.S. by the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
1. So that the public's interests are served. 2. So that creative progress continues through rewarding creative contributions. 3. So that industry may use others' creations commercially.
posted
I see a point in copying lyrics; it has to do with what the law calls "transformative" usage. For example, you have a young Vietnam War draftee being driven to the induction center, and Edwin Starr's song "War" comes on the radio.
Corny, I know, but it illustrates transformative use. I am using a small snatch of the lyrics as a source of irony.
In fact *my* quotation of the lyric above is a transformative use. I'm using it for critical purposes, not enjoyment. But I also used the *minimum* amount of the lyric necessary to make my point. If I used much more of the lyric, or used it repeatedly throughout a work, I would consult a lawyer.
posted
Song lyrics commentary doesn't strike me as a generally suitable Hatrack writing workshop topic.
If, for example, I were to use lyrics from Don McLean's "American Pie" to illustrate a point about Carlo Collodi's The Adventures of Pinocchio, I wouldn't be directly commenting on the lyrics, but using them to illustrate a point about Pinocchio. Both texts dramatize young adult coming of age complications, "American Pie" reluctance to grow up and Pinocchio eagerness to grow up. There, I didn't even need to use lyrics to express what I intend and mean.
I could in prose compare and contrast the two texts without using any more than perhaps titles and character names in incidental usage. Incidental usage is also a copyright and trademark doctrine. One of its tests is whether a use diminishes an original's value. I could incidentally name McDonald's as a place characters clash, but not comment on McDonald's reputation or practices, and be safe without asking permission.
However, if I were commenting on "American Pie" in a Hatrack forum, I'd be commenting on music lyrics, not prose or poetry writing. Fair use's tests stipulate that a use be appropriate to the purpose; for example, critical commentary. Critical commentary about published lyrics is not as I understand a Hatrack purpose.
quote:Originally posted by MattLeo: I see a point in copying lyrics; it has to do with what the law calls "transformative" usage. For example, you have a young Vietnam War draftee being driven to the induction center, and Edwin Starr's song "War" comes on the radio.
Corny, I know, but it illustrates transformative use. I am using a small snatch of the lyrics as a source of irony.
In fact *my* quotation of the lyric above is a transformative use. I'm using it for critical purposes, not enjoyment. But I also used the *minimum* amount of the lyric necessary to make my point. If I used much more of the lyric, or used it repeatedly throughout a work, I would consult a lawyer.
The problem with using that line in your novel is not that it would actually be illegal. The problem is that music industry lawyers have demonstrated a propensity to sue you anyway.
Even if you're in the right, you're probably better off avoiding the situation.
quote:Originally posted by MattLeo: I see a point in copying lyrics; it has to do with what the law calls "transformative" usage. For example, you have a young Vietnam War draftee being driven to the induction center, and Edwin Starr's song "War" comes on the radio.
Corny, I know, but it illustrates transformative use. I am using a small snatch of the lyrics as a source of irony.
In fact *my* quotation of the lyric above is a transformative use. I'm using it for critical purposes, not enjoyment. But I also used the *minimum* amount of the lyric necessary to make my point. If I used much more of the lyric, or used it repeatedly throughout a work, I would consult a lawyer.
The transformative use doctrine MattLeo relies upon above relies upon tests of the Fair Use doctrine: character and purpose of the use and the product using the copy--prose discussion--social and literary commentary, incidental use, minimal portion, within the community of creative writers purview, and true to the character and purpose of the original, without diminishing the original's value. It's also, in my estimation, an appropriate use for Hatrack discussions. Though my opinion should by no means be considered as a license granting unfettered lyrics use here or anywhere.
However, using that lyrics portion in an actual narrative, I recommend asking permission. As a publisher, I would insist. A license might cost about $50.00.
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: However, if I were commenting on "American Pie" in a Hatrack forum, I'd be commenting on music lyrics, not prose or poetry writing. Fair use's tests stipulate that a use be appropriate to the purpose; for example, critical commentary. Critical commentary about published lyrics is not as I understand a Hatrack purpose.
I'm surprised that you see a large difference between music lyrics and poetry. Here's an interesting quote from Wikipedia's entry on American Pie.
McLean has generally avoided responding to direct questions about the song lyrics, such as saying, "They're beyond analysis. They're poetry."Posts: 222 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RyanB: I'm surprised that you see a large difference between music lyrics and poetry.
I expect it's like the difference between a language and a dialect: a "language" is a dialect with an army and navy.
Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't make an appreciable distinction between poetry and lyrics. However, I do distinguish their cultures. A large part of poetry culture's promotion that the culture relies upon comes from citing it in other forms, mediums, and venues. Music culture, on the other hand, zealously guards against citing.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: Critical commentary about published lyrics is not as I understand a Hatrack purpose.
Well, RyanB was using lyrics to show how quickly country western songs can establish a setting, something that could be very useful to writers in general.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I apologize for being such a stickler about any quoting of lyrics on this forum. OSC does not need to worry about paying lyric owners or their lawyers for such things. And I don't want him to have to on my watch.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury: And I apologize for being such a stickler about any quoting of lyrics on this forum. OSC does not need to worry about paying lyric owners or their lawyers for such things. And I don't want him to have to on my watch.
No problem. I wasn't aware the music industry was that active in pursuing novels, nor of the resulting stance publishers have taken. It was a good learning experience for me.
Posts: 222 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury:
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: Critical commentary about published lyrics is not as I understand a Hatrack purpose.
Well, RyanB was using lyrics to show how quickly country western songs can establish a setting, something that could be very useful to writers in general.
I see. Popular Country and Western music as a uniquely U.S. American voice understands setting's importance for authenticating a narrative. Still, I might emulate a song lyrics' economical ability to develop a setting but I wouldn't use the words verbatim.
A short story that comes to mind with a lyrical Country and Western rhythm that also artfully, economically establishes setting is Mark Richard's "Her Favorite Story" from the collection The Ice at the Bottom of the World. Other stories I've read from the collection also have a Country and Western rhythm. Mark Richard might be labeled a mellifluous writer, the way Jack Kerouac is labeled an improvisational jazz writer.
Also, most song lyrics are published at online venues so that an interested party can look them up but not copy them for publication without permission. So a discussion about how lyrics develop setting can reference them without needing to copy and publish them. I assume the posted lyrics are licensed, though. Music reviews that cite lyrics, however, are also probably used with permission. Most of the music reviews I read that cite lyrics, anymore, also include permission notices.
posted
My last (finished) story was held up while I struggled writing some lyrics to replace the lyrics of a real song---over just this worry. What I dared to get away with in Internet Fan Fiction just won't do for something I'm submitting to a paying market---and in-copyright lyrics just might make the difference between an editor buying it or rejecting it.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I ask a question about fair use? In my WIP, a novel I'm intending to self publish, I want a character to quote Maurice Sendack.
"And the walls became the world all around."
It's a perfect quote for the moment, and the story, but what is my legal obligation in order to use the quote?
Do I need permission to use seven words, if I say who wrote it, and where it is found? I'm very wary of plagiarism and rights, but it's seven words so I wonder if the rules are different.
Anyway, people who are smarter than me, what should I do?
Posts: 1201 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shimiqua -- It seems to me that unless this is some kind of centerpiece of the story or your story riffs a lot on Where the Wild Things Are, it probably amounts to what lawyers call "de minimus" -- too trivial to worry about.
But I am not a lawyer and you shouldn't take my advice on the law. I *am* a writer, however, and my advice as a writer is: find your own words.
Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
British copyright law terminology is different in a few ways from U.S. terminology. Most important is the Fair Use doctrine is exclusive to the U.S. and Israel. The Fair Trade doctrine is the British Commonwealth equivalent. Protections afforded by the Fair Use doctrine in the U.S. do not apply comparatively under the Fair Trade doctrine. Academic use in the Commonwealth, for example, still requires express use permission.
If you were using that quote for academic purposes, you still wouldn't be able to use it without permission, nor get a license of any kind to use it from a copyright clearinghouse. Its use permissions and all of Sendak's works are exclusively licensed by the copyright holder.
Harper & Row, a U.S. publisher, originally published Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak in 1963. At the time, publishers conventionally bought, owned, and registered copyrights outright. Harper likely owns the copyright. After 1972, when the registration term for a second term renewal was increased, required to benefit from changes in copyright law, many authors often registered their own copyrights prior to expiration of the first term of twenty-eight years. After 1992, works registered after 1966 were no longer required to renew. The copyright term on the novel is now likely life plus seventy-five years of the author, under current U.S. laws. Sendak died in 2012. So, yes, the work and all its parts are still under copyright.
Who owns the copyright is who permission to use is gotten from. In this case, is that Sendak's estate or the publisher? I don't know. It doesn't matter. Harper, a subsidiary of HarperCollins, is the parent company of Harper & Row, is who manages their use permissions. A simple HarperCollins Children's online use request form is at:
For using seven words I imagine the licensing fee for the use couldn't cost more than $100 USD, and probably could be much less or free.
Get a license and enjoy peace of mind, certain that no litigation will ensue.
Edited to add: A quick search of the U.S. Copyright Office copyright registration records turned up Sendak as the copyright holder. If HarperCollins doesn't license uses, then they will be able to put you in touch with who does.
posted
Thanks guys. I'll probably change it. And no, I don't riff on WTWTA, although I LOVE that book, it's just a moment when a character who is swallowed by words comes up for air and speaks for them.
I'll probably end up changing it.
Posts: 1201 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
shimiqua, those seven words, IMNSHO, would qualify as "allusion" and allusions are bread and bone of writing. Allusions allow the writer to insert a sort of "inside joke" that readers who recognize the allusion will enjoy and yet readers who don't recognize it will be fine.
extrinsic, $100USD for an allusion? Really?
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
$100 maximum. I've been on every side of the copyright use process, except being sued for infringement. Licensing of a dozen words in one use cost a contributor to a publication I worked for $50. Another publication license using four hundred words cost the contributor nothing but the red tape.
Fiction alluding to fiction is a complex issue in copyright law.
Is a license an absolute requirenment? No. But I believe asking permission ahead of time is always safer and more economical than to beg forgivenenss and pay afterward.
Even a literary allusion a copyright holder might take exception to could result in costly litigation. A recently decided case I followed involved doing just that with eight words. Both claimant and respondent had legal standing supporting their positions. The court held that the Fair Use doctrine the writer relied upon prevailed. Combined cost of litigation ran into six figures, though. The writer had to pay for representation as the case went along, but recovered legal fees after all was said and done. If the writer had lost, he'd have had to pay the opposition's legal fees too.
posted
If ASCAP gets into the act, that could be a reproduction fee for each and every copy of the book, too.
Posts: 782 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
