Mason Barge wrote:
>
> "Mickey" <mickey_and_edith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:wP0Wj.3553$nl7.64@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Mason Barge wrote:
>>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> Funny thing, I've been dealing with copyright and licensing all my
>> professional career. Never had a problem. From where do you derive all
>> your vast knowledge?
>>
>> The Other Mickey
>>
>
> I wish you and your clients all success in your professions.
And I hope you have fun in junior hs.
>
> Bah, I can't help one last shot. Here's a good one: "The legal
> tension is then between competing copyrights held by the same person."
This may even be a simple enough a concept for you to grasp. Taylor
holds copyright for the song. He further may hold copyright for a
performance of the song, i.e., a recording. The tension is whether
elements present in the recording (e.g., THEE rather than THUH) are
explicitly protected by the recording's copyright or implicitly define
elements in the copyrighted music. In other words, is one banned from
singing THEE or required to sing THEE? Derivative copyrights protect
only the new elements, so the recording should prohibit the
unconventional pronunciation, but as such pronunciation is hardly
limited to James Taylor, a court would likely consider the violation
trivial (de minimis non curat lex).
>
> Has Blackwood Music gone into the record business?
>
>
If you mean EMI, 78 years ago.
The Other Mickey
|
