Forum: Author Hangout

In actuality, it depends on the contract they signed with their label.

Such deals are usually pretty one-sided in the label's favor. Really established acts have more leeway.

Doing a parody of a whole song the way Weird Al does it still requires the legal permission to use the music. This is because the fair use parody justification is seen by the courts as only relating to the use of a small part of the material being parodied.

Thanks to Mushroom for specifics - a specific ruling in a specific case, cited.

Nope. this was settled long ago when Roy Orbison went after 2 Live Crew over his song Pretty Woman. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994), the SCOTUS stated quite clearly that parody is indeed "Fair Use".

Tom Petty's estate issued a cease and desist letter to Trump's campaign on the grounds that Tom Petty would never approve of the things he's doing.

The suit has no chance of succeeding as long as the Trump campaign paid the license fees.

There is mandatory licensing scheme in place for music.

Essentially, it literally all boils down to politics.

Exactly.

And as we all know, in politics, appearance matters more than reality. So the 'artist' makes as large a stink as possible, to the point where any fan of said 'artist' is likely to be aware that the politician in question does NOT have the endorsement of said 'artist'.

Which is the point of the legal action. Not that a C&D will prevent use of the music, but that it will make clear that the 'artist' doesn't like the PoS.

And odds are, those songs were picked by a 20 or 30-something board operator that is simply doing a gig and likes the song. Very rarely does the "talent" actually get involved in things like that.

Yea but you would think that someone would get involved since the songs are such a bad choice.

In 84 Reagan was running as a pro-military Ronbo yet playing a song about how the country let down the vets.

Who thought it was a good idea to play a song called Live and let Die when over 1,000 people were dying day after day.

Who thought it was a good idea to play a song called Live and let Die when over 1,000 people were dying day after day.

I'm pretty sure that at least a million people die every day.

Whether someone plays a James Bond theme doesn't influence that.

I think I remember something years ago about Michael Jackson owning rights to the Beatles songs.

Which, again, shows how the US Supreme Court will try to re-write laws instead of applying them as they are.

No, it shows you don't understand US law the way you think you do.

Yes, what is considered fair use in the US is much broader than it would be in other countries. This is a consequence of the 1st amendment to the US constitution, not the US Supreme Court re-writing copyright law on a whim.

The way the US constitution works, to the extent that Copyright law is in conflict with the 1st Amendment, it is copyright law that must bend, not the 1st Amendment.

In the realm of music, the US has mandatory licensing schemes in place. The license fees are paid to a central agency set up for that purpose.

In the case of parodies generally, long standing fair use analysis at the time was actually codified in the 1976 copyright act.

From the link that was posted by Mushroom:

This analysis was eventually codified in the Copyright Act of 1976 in § 107 as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Please note that while how much of a work is use is a factor:

1. there is no specific proportion/percentage specificed
2. The amount of the work use is neither the first nor the primary factor.

The lyrics can have a 1st Amendment application, but the music itself can't.

Don't count on it. Left-leaning SCOTUS justices have a tendency to make up fictional rights whenever needed to 'justify' the decision they want.

logic and plain English - 2 things I should never expect to see applied in US courts

Not true.

Basic tenet of logic -> "FOLLOW THE MONEY"

This basically almost always holds true in US courts, except in tort law.

The lyrics can have a 1st Amendment application, but the music itself can't.

Don't count on it. Left-leaning SCOTUS justices have a tendency to make up fictional rights whenever needed to 'justify' the decision they want.

Earnest is simply flat wrong on his interpretation of US copyright law.

And while SCOTUS Justices may well have the tendency to do what you suggest, in this case, they just don't have to. It's codified in the 1976 Copyright Act.

Wrong, the act makes the use of something exactly as is a copyright violation, thus the music is in copyright violation if you don't change it.

Fair use is codifed in the act and as written, yes, under some circumstances, it would allow for the use of the entire work as fair use.

Left-leaning SCOTUS justices have a tendency to make up fictional rights whenever needed to 'justify' the decision they want.

Of course. Right-leaning judges would never make up fictional rights to justify their decisions. (This is supposed to be sarcasm!)

Ok.

Right to Privacy.

Now you name one right that 'the right' has made up. (BTW, the left started eminent domain)

hint: the right generally argues to read the constitution as written, the left always wants to read things into the constitution, even though the constitution clearly sets out how to add in anything that the population really wants added, even if it's something as stupid as prohibition.

Now you name one right that 'the right' has made up.

You asked for at least one. I'll give you three. I personally disagree with some of these decisions. These rulings demonstrate that it is not only the court's left wing that creates rights.

1. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) - The conservative court ruled that corporate political spending is free speech and covered by the 1st amendment. The ruling created new constitutional rights for corporations, even though the Constitution nowhere mentions any rights for constitutions. In creating these new rights, the court held that money is speech and corporations are people.
2. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The conservative court ruled for the first time that the second amendment right to bear arms is an individual right. It created new rights for gun owners. In all previous cases, the court held that the right to bear arms belonged to state militias as a collective right.
3. Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, held for the first time that employees have a right NOT to pay a bargaining fee. Such fees were contained in contracts that, to become effective, must be ratified by both the union and the corporation. The court in previous rulings had held that since employees benefit from the collective bargaining agreement, they can be required to pay a bargaining fee.

1. Not quite. The corporation has long been considered a (basically immortal) person in law, although lacking voting power. But just as a curiosity - do you believe unions should be allowed to spend money on political campaigns? Unions are not individuals and more than a corporation is.

2. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - The people. Not the specific group of people that the government chooses. The people. As in that great unwashed mass of individuals. That's reading the constitution as written.

3. Ok, the right not to be stolen from by a union is never actually mentioned in the constitution, I'll give you that.

That's reading the constitution as written.

You left out part of the sentence.

Yes, I left out the part that those who believe the government should always be able to infringe upon rights frequently use to try to justify infringing the very right that the amendment says shall not be infringed.
I would wager that if any of the folks who wrote the constitution knew the kind of twisting of their words would be subjected to in order to limit freedoms, they would've been careful to just list the rights that shouldn't be infringed, and included nothing else.

the right not to be stolen from by a union

You have a right to view it as theft. But both the corporation that employed them and the union that represented them agreed to the provision. If it was theft, both sides were guilty.

Unions are not individuals and more than a corporation is.

Agreed. My opinion is that both unions and corporations should be prohibited from making political contributions (and my opinion is worth exactly nothing - but you asked for it.) The case I cited, however, was not about unions. It was about corporations being able to contribute money directly from the corporate treasury to political candidates and it is an example of the "right wing" on the Supreme Court granting rights where none existed before.

The case I cited, however, was not about unions. It was about corporations being able to contribute money directly from the corporate treasury to political candidates

No, that is NOT what Citizens United was about. Citizens United was about independent expenditures.

The Citizens United group made and wanted to release an unflattering documentary about Hillary Clinton. They did not give any money to the Republican party or to the campaign organization of the Republican candidate.

It wasn't even a campaign ad, it didn't say anything about who viewers should vote for.

The FEC ruled that this documentary qualified as an in-kind contribution and tried to impose penalties on Citizens United on that basis.

Supreme Court granting rights where none existed before.

I am not so sure this is accurate. Isn't it more reaffirming that corporations are entities with rights? If I, as an individual, have the right to contribute my money, why would a corporate individual NOT have the same right?

The corporation has long been considered a (basically immortal) person in law, although lacking voting power.

Okay. My point was not that Citizens United granted corporations the right to exist (as your response implies); I never claimed that. Citizens United granted, for the first time, the right for corporations to spend money from the corporate treasury in political campaigns.

union membership is [...] extortion

Explains why unions and the mafia were a natural fit.

right to bear arms

There is both a right to arm bears and to bare arms. (They can't make you wear a long sleeved shirt.)

"The Right to Arm Bears - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org ' wiki ' The_Right_to_Arm_Bears
The Right to Arm Bears is a collection of two science fiction novels and one novelette by American writer Gordon R. Dickson. They are set on the planet Dilbia, where humans and an alien race known as Hemnoids are trying to win the support of the native bear-like population.
‎Plot summary · ‎Spacial Delivery · ‎Spacepaw · ‎"The Law-Twister Shorty"

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The conservative court ruled for the first time that the second amendment right to bear arms is an individual right.

Not exactly. You should look up US v. Miller from the 1930s. Miller was charged with violating the NFA by possession of a short barreled shot gun.

Miller challenged his conviction on the basis of the second amendment.

The court ruled that short barreled shotguns were not military arms and thus not protected by the Second Amendment.

However, had the court not considered the right to keep and bare arms described in the Second Amendment to be an individual right, it would have never gotten that far because they simply wouldn't have allowed Miller to challenge his conviction on that basis.

Miller is the ONLY Second Amendment case decided by the US Supreme Court prior to Heller.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution established a right for people to bear arms

Almost, but not quite, exactly unlike true.

The amendment codified a natural right that the congress would not be allowed to infringe.

Remarkable how well the congress was able to infringe it nonetheless.

That just shows that the previous courts had made wrong decisions.

There were no prior court decisions on the 2A collective right vs individual right issue.

There is only one prior court case on 2A and it presupposes an individual right without discussing it.

All 3 of your claims are wrong:
1. The holding in Citizens United was that groups of individuals did not give up their right to free speech by organizing as a corporation instead of in another form. It recognized the rights of individuals, not corporations.
3. Corporations have nothing to do with this case. It applies only to public employee unions.

The fair use laws were never intended to cover the use of the whole of anything copyrighted, and the parody law is meant for it to be different to the original.

This is simply not true. That's not the way the US law is written.

If you don't make a single change to the notes of the music you're playing it exactly as it is, thus it can't be a parody

1. AFIK all the parody song cases have been over the lyrics, not the musical score (separate copyright/compulsory licensing). If you are aware of suit over the use of the musical score for a parody song, cite the specific case.

2. It can be for parody without being a parody of the work itself. Used for political parody for example.

ETA: The big song parody artist in the US is Weird Al. IIRC, it has come up and he pays the compulsory license fees on the musical scores, so no, no copyright violations there.

There is one other factor I forgot to mention.

The US has a compulsory license scheme for music.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/copyright-compulsory-license.html

This is why law suits against political campaigns for the use of music in the campaign are symbolic efforts doomed to legal failure. They also aren't anything new. Springsteen sued Regan over the use of Born in The USA.

Which, again, shows how the US Supreme Court will try to re-write laws instead of applying them as they are.

I'm no expert on what the laws are, but it is my impression that the courts generally rule on interpretation of the laws when the laws themselves are unclear. In the making of laws, two (or more) positions are taken during negotiations, and in trying to resolve their differences they come up with language that is less than clear. That means the courts have to decide what the unclear language means. The courts (or even on the same court, such as SCOTUS), there are disagreements, which is why there are so many split decisions.
What we need, of course, is for the experts on SOL to write the perfectly clear language that even I could understand - then we wouldn't need a court to interpret it.