"Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:qg0Wj.3197$17.1020@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mason Barge wrote:
>>
>> "Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:I4LVj.274$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.
>
> I did. It's doubtful you afforded me the same courtesy.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> You seem to have missed the point entirely. If Taylor wrote a piece, his
> performance of it is a do***ent of his intentions. It could even be
> considered testimony, adding specificity to any claim as to the nature
of
> the intellectual property (the music's copyright). The contrary argument
> could be made that this odd pronunciation was a general performance
> characteristic of Taylor's and not a fixed feature of the copyrighted
> music, only the copyrighted recording. The legal tension is then between
> competing copyrights held by the same person. You are quite right, the
> copyright of the music will usually trump the copyright of the
> performance, thus the conventional pronunciation of "the" does not
invoke
> a violation, if the performance is otherwise legal. It would be
> interesting, though, to see if Taylor in such a situation could in
effect
> copyright the pronunciation of "the." Doubtful.
>
>> Taylor's performance is a derivative performance copyright and has
>> nothing to do with the copyright of the song.
>
> Which is irrelevant to the point I was making. If I might be a bit more
> clear, the question is to what degree a work is considered fixed for the
> purpose of copyright. In the case of music for public performance the
> degree of fixation is not all that great. This includes lyrics.
> Truncation, alteration, and elaboration of musical work are routine. Is
> variance from the published metronome marking a potential licensing
> violation? Other alterations are more constrained even to the extent of
> being barred. For example casting ****gy and Bess with an all white cast,
> which would be a violation of the licensing agreement for the work,
which
> stipulate the cast be black. (Curiously, this stricture does not seem to
> exist for the music.)
>
> The Other Mickey
>
I give up. You are talking about some concept of what copyright should be
according to your logic, not the law and practice that actually governs
it.
|
