"James Robinson" <wascana@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9AC69339495wascana212com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Mason Barge" <masonbarge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> "James Robinson" <wascana@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mason Barge" <masonbarge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Taylor" <lukebenward@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote ?
>>>>>
>>>>> We're told by changing the lyrics, it created problems with the
>>>>> song's publisher and cost "A.I." a lot of money.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, absolutely. In the Byzantine web of rights to music, an
>>>> artist has an absolute right to perform and record any song listed
>>>> by a public rights distribution agency but cannot change the words.
>>>
>>> What?
>>>
>>> There are loads of examples of artists changing words to songs when
>>> they cover them. Are you saying they were all illegal? Did the
>>> Association get sued for correcting the grammar in the Mamas and
>>> Papas song "Go Where You Wanna Go"?
>>>
>>> In this particular case, there are many examples on YouTube of Stand
>>> By Me and Beautiful Girls juxtaposed by artists, like Jabberwock,
>>> which is likely where Archie got the inspiration, and where the
>>> conflict might arise.
>>> He only used two words, "beautiful girls", but also the tune from
>>> one phrase of the Kingston song.
>>
>> You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. See my comment
>> below. Trying to state a principle of musical copyright law from your
>> perceptions is like trying to arrive at the Planck Constant using
>> common sense.
>
> I'm the first to acknowledge that I don't know much about musical
> copyright. Any expertise I have is with photo copyright. I was
> questioning your statement that an artist "cannot change the words,"
when
> it is a fairly common practice. You chose not to explain yourself.
>
I did write a post outlining what I think I know in this thread and did't
want to repeat it.
> However, since I assume that you would be more than willing to explain
> the details to those of us with little knowledge, I would be interested
> in how the following fits into musical copyright, and the implications:
>
> As sung by Archie"
>
> "... stand my me,
> and all you beautiful girls,
> oh, oh, oh, stand by me."
>
> Lyrics I could find for "Beautiful Girls":
>
> "When you say it's over,
> Damn all these beautiful girls,
> They only wanna do your dirt."
>
> ... and the words "beautiful girls" are at the same point in the musical
> phrase, though the meaning of the two lyrics is entirely different.
Well your sarcasm is forgiven, since I was unintentionally harsh. Please
forgive me for my tone. (I've spent a lifetime trying to explain to
clients, lawyers, and even judges why their preconceptions about law,
often
held with inexplicable certitude and even self-righteousness, are wrong.)
Basically, as I understand it, the right to perform a song is given under
a
standard license and doesn't include the right to change words. There is
a
"de minimis" exception for minor changes. A more specific license can
certainly be, and often is, specifically drafted to allow modification of
the words.
Personally -- and I'm not a copyright lawyer -- I don't see how simply
using
the phrase "beautiful girls" in that context would impact the copyright
for
a song called "Beautiful Girls" at all (unless perhaps he included a
snatch
of the tune). You can't copyright the phrase "beautiful girls".
I would question whether it is even im****tant enough to warrant action by
the holder of Stand by Me. In live musical performance (unlike written
poetry) there is extra leeway given for improvisation, especially when
something is added pertaining to the live audience. My uninformed guess
is
that AI would win a lawsuit on that point. But I'm definitely not doing
case research for a Usenet post, LOL.
|
