"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:I4LVj.274$l97.58@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
At least read the post before you start spouting off.
And one place you are misunderstanding a very basic principle. A singer
whose performance is different from James Taylor's is less likely, not
more
likely, to encounter copyright problems. Taylor's performance is a
derivative performance copyright and has nothing to do with the copyright
of
the song.
|
