"Mason Barge" <masonbarge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> "James Robinson" <wascana@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> "Mason Barge" <masonbarge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> "James Robinson" <wascana@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Mason Barge" <masonbarge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.)
I forgive you.
> 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.
Thanks for your explanation.
Since the question about Archie singing changed lyrics seems to have
enough staying power to have been repeated numerous times in the media, I
suspect there might be something to it.
|
