Forum: Author Hangout

From the age thing, it is definitely after 1923, so it's NOT in the public domain.

It's also a case of, since it's a apocalyptic novel set in the John Ringo Black Tide Rising universe, the title of the story is also the title of the song - Dust in the Wind. That's intended also as a play on words, since the story is based in a location I've become familiar with over the last few years - Oklahoma.

And if there's one thing consistent about Oklahoma - other than on very rare occasions, there's always wind (the locals say that's because Texas blows and Kansas sucks), and if we haven't had rain for very long, there's lots of dust. (I was driving east of town recently where they're doing road construction - so much red dust was kicked up you actually couldn't see at all on the interstate, worse than a thick fog.)

From the age thing, it is definitely after 1923, so it's NOT in the public domain.

It's also a case of, since it's a apocalyptic novel set in the John Ringo Black Tide Rising universe, the title of the story is also the title of the song - Dust in the Wind. That's intended also as a play on words, since the story is based in a location I've become familiar with over the last few years - Oklahoma.

Therein lies another problem, not with your copyright, but with a register title. It's possible that the title "Dust in the Wind" is a protected title. However, in your case, you're not using it for the name of a similar product (another song with a similar melody), so you should be clear to use it. After all, you can't legally register a common phrase (like the words "a" or "the") just so you can sue anyone who ever writes anything at all!

I tracked down the copyright owner (a lot of work and dumb luck) who never responded so I took the lyrics out.

And therein lies a major problem - it should be simple for anyone to find the rights owners for any registered work. After all, if we're granting them a government license to control something, then everyone ought to know who has that control.

(I limit it to registered works because otherwise we'd need to track every single work in existence)

And therein lies a major problem - it should be simple for anyone to find the rights owners for any registered work.

It was a nightmare. I started with Google. Found something on Lionel Richie's wife and the song. Somehow I got hold of a lawyer or legal assistant who helped me. She had access to a database the industry uses to determine the copyright owner. And with songs, there are two copyright owners. One owns the right to perform the song. Another one owns the lyric copyright. In this case it was Alfred Publishing.

ETA: It's been a while, but I think Google told me the ASCAP repository was the way to find the copyright owner. So I put in the song name "Endless Love" and the performer "Lionel Richie." This was the result:

https://www.ascap.com/repertory#ace/search/title/endless%20love/performer/lionel%20richie

It lists 3 publishers (none of which is Alfred Publishing, btw) so I used the first one since it was Lionel Richie's wife. It wasn't her or her company and it wasn't any of the other two listed. As I said, I lucked out by finding someone who was actually able to help me.

And therein lies a major problem - it should be simple for anyone to find the rights owners for any registered work. After all, if we're granting them a government license to control something, then everyone ought to know who has that control.

Chances are, based on experiences with authors here on SOL and elsewhere, if no one responds to such an inquiry, it's likely because the author is indisposed (i.e. no longer able to decide such issues for themselves) or deceased, and the family didn't think their legacy important enough to bother with.

In short, in you put forth the effort to contact the rights holder, and can prove so if questioned, then you're entitled to use the material, provided you state somewhere in the document that you were unable to reach the copyright holder, and are willing to remove it if asked. That's the extent of the legal requirements (providing you don't go over the legal limit, otherwise the courts may decide you decided to take advantage of the situation).

This discussion comes up a LOT when dealing with font, image and other issues, and has stood the test of time. The key is, you can't simply assume you have the legal right, but you've tried to acquire the legal rights to the best of your ability (i.e. you couldn't just 'not find' them, but there was no way for you to contact them.

This typically happens when a bunch of people want to use a publicly accessible font, multiple people have tried contacting the legal owner, on repeated occasions, the font has been publicly available for some time, and no one has ever registered a complaint about its use. Even given all of that, everyone recommends adding the legal disclaimer as well.

Please, could you cite a legal source which supports your claim?

Once again, we're back to the proverbial "If you can't prove your statement beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. something beyond what will hold up in court) you have no right contributing to this forum.

I've reporting how most authors, designers and creative people respond to the problem. And since I don't happen to have a legal library at my disposal, not being a lawyer myself, I can't quote chapter and verse (which varies by country, state and county anyway).

But that's beyond the point. What matters isn't that you're blameless, but that you made the effort and the copyright holder was at fault for not responding to the initial request. The fact you're asking for anyone with information about the claim to step forward is generally seen by the courts as a 'good faith' effort and not an attempt to claim someone else's text as your own.

So, once again, either offer your own legal opinion, or go to hell, as I won't back down just because you don't like me personally! < insert eggplant emoji here>

In short, in you put forth the effort to contact the rights holder, and can prove so if questioned, then you're entitled to use the material, provided you state somewhere in the document that you were unable to reach the copyright holder, and are willing to remove it if asked.

I don't believe that's true.

That's why I asked for a legal source.

Here's a source, but not a legal one. http://dearrichblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/cant-find-copyright-owner-what-do-you.html

If one has tried and failed to locate the copyright holder of an image or if they no longer are in business or are unknown to the author (myself), is it sufficient to use a disclaimer such as "All reasonable attempts have been made to contact the copyright holders of all images," and perhaps "You are invited to contact ____ if your image was used without identification or acknowledgment." We recently watched an excellent Vidal Sassoon documentary and at the end was a similar statement – something to the effect of "For those photographers whose images we used without permission, we tried to find you and couldn't and thank you for your wonderful contributions."

Orphan works. What you're dealing with is an "orphan work" --- one that is still protected under copyright but whose owner is missing in action and there's nobody to contact for permission. (There was an attempt to legislate rights for orphan works a few years ago but sadly that failed.) A disclaimer like this won't relieve you of a claim for infringement but it could go a long way towards limiting your damages if (1) somebody appears out of the woodwork to chase you, and (2) you can demonstrate you made a reasonable good faith to search for the owner. A typical good faith search would include an Internet search and a search of the Copyright Office records.

Under German law, copyright infrigements are irrespective of default. You either hold the copyright or have permission from the holder, or you don't. The rights owner is under no obligation to reply to requests regarding his copyright.

If I'm not mistaken, in most instances, a copyright judge will ask you to pay your share of your earnings for the use, unless they deem willful misconduct, in which case they'll throw in penalties above any financial gains. That's what protects someone from freely distributing published works for free, but in many cases (certainly not all) a judge is likely to deem a serious attempt to contact the original works owner as a 'non-malicious copyright violation'.

Again, an 'orphan works' defense is not a legal defense, but it might go a long way to protect you.

And, once again, sorry for dumping on you back there. While I wasn't stating my legal point of view correctly, your objection simply sounded what we've fought about repeatedly in the past, so I went with my 'gut reaction' rather than treating your objection seriously. (Brings to mind a tale of 'complaining about wolves').

That's why I asked for a legal source.

Here's a source, but not a legal one.

Thank you, Switch. I wasn't arguing copyright law, but an 'orphan work' exemption. It's not legal protection, but it's a decent safeguard to keep in mind.

Obviously, the best solution is to simply NOT use someone else's work.

By the way, I've had editors copy authors to validate that the quotes I've used were the actual words they used (common attributes are often misquoted, or they purposely modify the quotes to make them sound better), and I've never had one ask that we do not use the quote.

For longer quotes, the hassle over trying to locate the author in question is enough of a deterrent to prevent one from even attempting to use it!

It certainly isn't true in regards to German copyright law and I also highly doubt it's true for US copyright law. That's why I asked for a legal source.

Yeah, despite sounding like many of your other specious arguments, you do have a valid claim there, but that's my 'back-up argument'. In most cases, I won't use a work if I can't guarantee that I'm in the clear, but ... I've found a couple of 'perfect' fonts for a project, which others have been searching for the original designer for years.

In short, in you put forth the effort to contact the rights holder, and can prove so if questioned, then you're entitled to use the material, provided you state somewhere in the document that you were unable to reach the copyright holder, and are willing to remove it if asked.

I don't believe that's true.

Actually, in the cases I'm referencing, it's more proof that there no one to come after you, rather than absolute protection from copyright protection. Still, I contend that, if a copyright holder registers a protest, that a judge is more likely to go easy on you if you TRIED to locate the legal rights holder, especially if you ask, in your work, for the rights holder to come forward.

However, in every case, I still wouldn't go over the 10%/one-or-two stanza rule, in any case.

As far as that's concerned, even though you're entitled to use a couple lines from a literary work, I like to go out of my way to authenticate the work in question (many are incorrectly attributed) and to reference the actual work, so that rather than detracting from the original, I help to highlight the authors/artists work.

How that holds up in court is another matter.

Nice, isn't it?

Hee-hee, consider it payback for originally allowing and heavily promoting Mein Kopf (or "Mein Kompf" in English, don't ask me to explain the difference in spelling German words in English).

Can you copy parodies?

The person who first notes the new lyrics can copyright the lyrics with a notation as to the music needed. However, many of these military parody songs are listed in records etc. as being by Anonymous and a lot of them are sung to music which is already in the public domain.