James Robinson wrote:
> "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.
Here's a problem with arguments based on the notion that once a license
is obtained that the lyrics to a song are necessarily sacrosanct. The
notes of the melody and harmony are no less protected by copyright than
the lyrics. If changing a note or harmony required explicit permission
from the copyright holder, jazz would not be possible. Hell, simple
transposition would require permission. Scat singing or humming would
constitute a licensing violation. Since a song's rhythms are similarly
protected, swing would be illegal. Is inadvertently singing out of tune
a violation? How about a performer singing THUH (the) in a song where
James Taylor, who wrote the song, always sings THEE, Etc.
The Other Mickey
|
