As an admirer of JPB and Jake Rivers, I have several songs that have pushed stories into my pea-sized brain. Is the any problem with me writing a story and including the lyrics and attributions of singer and songwriter in the prologue?
CAT the Old grump
Due to the copyright laws you have to get the approval of the lyricists involved prior to using the whole song if they aren't in the public domain due to expired copyright. When I sue song lyrics in a story, as I've done a number of times, I stay within the fair use rules of not exceeding 10% of the item. Thus by using one verse of a few lines from the song it's safe and legal.
I stay within the fair use rules of not exceeding 10% of the item.
US authors looking to use songs under US copyright need to ignore this.
Under US Law there are no fixed rules for how much of a work can be used under fair use. This is determined on a case by case basis.
Fair use depends on the nature of the work and the nature of the use to which it is put.
Commercial use will almost never be considered "fair" no matter how little of the work borrowed from is used. About the only exceptions to this are news and reviews.
With images in non-commercial use, use of the entire work has occasionally been deemed fair use.
Commercial use will almost never be considered "fair" no matter how little of the work borrowed from is used. About the only exceptions to this are news and reviews.
Not quite. Given the nature of epigraphs, a creative application of copyrighted material in setting the stage for the upcoming chapter is generally considered fair use, though trying to borrow it to make your work sound better than it is, isn't.
The reported 10% rule is simply a general guideline. As long as you keep your usage within that guideline authors (and their publishers) are unlikely to sue you over it, unless you copy significant aspects of the plot in your usage.
Again, it's tricky, but epigraphs are considered by most to be a 'special use' in itself, as you're highlighting now insightful the original author/artist is, rather than trying to 'pass off' their work as your own or steal the original works impact for yourself.
Not quite. Given the nature of epigraphs, a creative application of copyrighted material in setting the stage for the upcoming chapter is generally considered fair use
1. I don't think quotes originally given live by famous people are covered by copyright (requires the work to be fixed in a tangible form).
2. On the epigraph = fair use: Again under US law, there are NO fixed rules for fair use, it's all considered case by case, by the courts. If you can't point to case law to back it up, it not true. Even if the publishing industry generally treated it that way if someone in particular wanted to be obnoxious and sue over it, the publishing industry treating it as fair use is NOT something the court would consider in it's decision making process.
1. I don't think quotes originally given live by famous people are covered by copyright (requires the work to be fixed in a tangible form).
Things stated in large public forums are considered news, and are treated as such, with reporters listing what was said and heard by many.
So it is not OK to post the lyrics. I found the lyrics on several sites. I also see the lyrics posted on Youtube. I am not disputing what you say, and I will not use the entire lyric.
It just seems that noting that it is for inspiration, I see no harm. Of course, th lawyers have their say so they win.
I found the lyrics on several sites.
Some of those sites have copyright permission to post them. I've seen some YouTube clips with song lyrics, and I've also seen some pulled down when the copyright holder complains.
In Play Ball! I only quote one verse to comply with the copyright laws, and in Star Performance I only quote a few lines of each song used for the same reason. In both cases I used less than the allowed 10% under the Fair Use aspects of copyright.
So it is not OK to post the lyrics. I found the lyrics on several sites. I also see the lyrics posted on Youtube. I am not disputing what you say, and I will not use the entire lyric.
It depends. Lyrics are included in the 'fair-use' provision of copyright that covers using segments of a book in written reviews. Section 107 of the Copyright Act is fairly extensive. The best description of it is likely found here: fair use in copying material.
The biggest constraint, aside from your reasons for copying it, relates to how much of it you use. If you use a large segment of a work, you'll lose (in court) almost every time. Unfortunately, for song lyrics, only a few lines might equal a significant amount of the total song, so I'd limit to a single stanza or two.
Using this for an epigraph (a quote used at the start of a chapter to set the tone of the chapter) IS considered fair use. What's more, it's a reference more likely to get someone to read the original works than it is to grant riches on the one using it, so few authors/publishers will ever sue you over it.
So basically, keep it to simply a couple lines and you're covered, but when in doubt, try reaching out to the author, though this is often times impossible. :(
Is the any problem with me writing a story
Yes, it's a problem.
I wanted to use 6 lines from the song "Endless Love" in my novel. When I researched it, I found out that I needed the copyright holder's permission. I actually tracked down the copyright holder (Alfred Publishing) but they did not give me permission so I simply mentioned the song that was playing.
btw, there are two copyright holders. One for the lyrics. One for performing the song.
Yes, it's a problem.
Songs are particularly problematic. More often than not, the lyrics and the musical score are under separate copyrights with separate owners.
Songs are particularly problematic. More often than not, the lyrics and the musical score are under separate copyrights with separate owners.
Though using them for an epigraph only impacts the lyrics, while including a recorded passage is opening a while can of worms (from multiple sources), and the MCIAA (?) is notorious for pursuing EVERY violation it uncovers.
In short, for whatever you quote in a work, you'd better have worked out your defense before you include it, and falling within the 10/20% rule is NOT a valid fair-use exception in itself.
In regards to the Fair Use or Fair Dealing aspect of copyright most countries set that as no more 10% of the whole document and no more than 10% of any single chapter. Note: there are other uses that are very specific and allow the use of more than that, but I doubt we need to be involved with them.
The other thing to take into account is the country the copyright is related to and the country the copyright violation is in as they have a direct bearing on the wording of the copyright violation. Some of the Sherlock Holmes stories are still under copyright in the USA because that's where they were first copyrighted while the bulk of them are in the public domain as they were first copyrighted in England and the copyright has expired. Another example is all of my stories are copyrighted under Australian law as that's where I live and write them, so that's the law I have to go by.
With song lyrics things get very confused as the lyricist has copyright on the words while the music is copyrighted to whoever wrote the music and a recording of the song is copyrighted to the performer. Or whoever is the current copyright owner of the above three items.
I'm waiting for some real weird copyright cases to arise due to the mixes involved in the above. Take a case where a song is written in England by a British song writer and performed by a US performer for a US label. While the performance comes under the US copyright law and the US label may buy the copyright of the song from the owner but the original work is still under the British copyright laws while the US company can apply the US copyright laws to people within the USA. Thus when the British copyright expires and people want to record the song outside of the USA is legal while making a recording within the USA is unlawful.
I'm waiting for some real weird copyright cases to arise due to the mixes involved in the above. Take a case where a song is written in England by a British song writer and performed by a US performer for a US label. While the performance comes under the US copyright law and the US label may buy the copyright of the song from the owner but the original work is still under the British copyright laws while the US company can apply the US copyright laws to people within the USA. Thus when the British copyright expires and people want to record the song outside of the USA is legal while making a recording within the USA is unlawful.
Under US law, the performance has it's own copyright separate and apart from the musical score and the lyrics.
The US label could stop others from distributing or publicly playing a recording of that performance, but without the copyright to either the score or the lyrics, they couldn't stop someone else from performing it live.
Under US law, the performance has it's own copyright separate and apart from the musical score and the lyrics.
I stated that in an earlier post in this thread. However, in my post you quote I covered the fact that many of the labels actually buy the song copyrights instead of just paying a fee to use so they can stop others from covering the song, and that leads to the situation I mention above. That's why Sony had control of so many copyrighted songs for so long - I'm not sure if they still own all they bought or have sold some off. The fact the label buys the copyright to stop the use by others creates the problem I mention in the quoted section.
The fact the label buys the copyright to stop the use by others creates the problem I mention in the quoted section.
Yes, but if they buy a British copyright, while it is possible to recopyright it under US law, that doesn't really restart the clock on expiration any more, though it would push the expiration in the US out about 20 years (life + 70 under the Berne convention vs life + 90 in the US).
The only case in the US that would come close to what you suggested (re-starting the clock on expiration) was over the Anne Frank Diaries a few years back. Her still living father sued over a re-publication, on the claim that he was a co-author.
Yes, but if they buy a British copyright, while it is possible to recopyright it under US law, that doesn't really restart the clock on expiration any more, though it would push the expiration in the US out about 20 years (life + 70 under the Berne convention vs life + 90 in the US).
2 problems with your paragraph, British copyright like the copyright of most countries exists the moment it's created because you do not buy copyright like you do in the USA. However, you can buy the existing copyright from the copyright holder if they agree to sell you the full rights. If a US company buys the full rights and then purchases a US copyright that does not cancel the original copyright and the original copyright is the one recognized by most of the other countries as it was first. Thus while the changes to the US copyright can push the time out as per the US laws that does not affect the material falling into the public domain outside of the USA and there's nothing the US copyright owner can do about when it happens outside of the USA. This has already been proven with Sherlock Holmes copyrights and is why one series of movies was made in Canada instead of in the USA because the works were all public domain outside of the USA.
As to the Anne Frank diaries the issue there resolves around the inclusion of not published material made it a new document with a new copyright.
There's a book out where a scholar copied a lot of Shakespeare's works with a lot of annotations and notes by the scholar. While the great bulk of the material in the book is public domain that publication is a totally new work and has it's own copyright due to the new material in it.
That's why Sony had control of so many copyrighted songs for so long - I'm not sure if they still own all they bought or have sold some off.
A few highly successful artists have managed to buy theirs back.
A lot of US book publishers have done something similar. If you weren't an already successful author with a best seller track record, you had to transfer the copyright to the publisher to get published.
OK, This is all confusing. I am going to cit a song as my inspiration and use no more than the title, LAWYERS AND MOST LAWS ARE ASSES.
That being said, as a creative person, I will abide by their copyright.
CAT the Oldgrump
And really grumpy now
Thank you for the responses.
British copyright like the copyright of most countries exists the moment it's created because you do not buy copyright like you do in the USA.
Works the same way in the US as far as creating the copyright goes. However once it exists It can be bought and sold.
If a US company buys the full rights and then purchases a US copyright
It doesn't work that way in the US, nor did I in any way suggest that it does.
The US used to (pre 1976) require registration for a copyright to exist at all, and the clock on expiration started at registration. Post 1976 the existence of a copyright is automatic like it is everywhere else, but registration didn't go away. There are a few extras that a registered work gets (statutory damages mostly.
A foreign authored work could and still can be registered in the US, gaining a US copyright. But, post 1976, that doesn't start the copyright term over like it did pre 1976.
US laws that does not affect the material falling into the public domain outside of the USA and there's nothing the US copyright owner can do about when it happens outside of the USA.
True, but they can prevent someone else republishing inside the US until the US copyright expires. That's all I really ever claimed.
A foreign authored work could and still can be registered in the US, gaining a US copyright. But, post 1976, that doesn't start the copyright term over like it did pre 1976.
The only case I know of that really tested the dual national copyright aspect is the ones for the Sherlock Holmes stories. When Doyle went to the USA for a trip a US publisher printed a special book of some of his works. While most were already copyrighted in England a few were new stories published for the first time in that US book. Years later when a court case arose of the conflict of the copyrights the US courts upheld the British copyrights applied to the stories first published in England and the only stories with a valid US copyright were the new stories written for and published in that special edition book. Thus some of the stories in the book went into the public domain when the English copyright expired but the US copyright still applied to the few new stories in the book because the US court held the US laws did not override the original copyright laws.
The only case I know of that really tested the dual national copyright aspect is the ones for the Sherlock Holmes stories.
That would have been back in the days when without registration, there was no copyright under US law. The 1976 copyright act changed US copyright law so significantly that those old cases over his works wouldn't be valid anymore.
