Eddie Vedder Sued For Changing Lyrics On A Song

from the what's-infringing-about-that? dept

Thu, Dec 31st 2009 9:14am — Mike Masnick

Usually when you see copyright infringement claims, it's for copying something that someone else held a copyright on, but THREsq points us to a case where Canadian songwriter, Gordon Peterson, is suing singer Eddie Vedder for supposedly changing lyrics in a version Vedder did of Peterson's song "Hard Sun." Assuming that the song was properly licensed (which is also in dispute, but that seems to be a separate issue), it's difficult to see what sort of copyright infringement claim there would then be for modifying the song. After all, the modifications wouldn't be covered by Peterson's copyright at all. But, alas, this is what you get with today's "ownership culture," where people just assume more ownership rights over something than they actually have under the law.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, eddie vedder, gordon peterson, lyrics

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 8:31am

Licensing
Well, it would depend on the terms of the agreement. I can't say that I agree with it, but if the license stated that the work had to be performed "as is" then there is a good chance Vedder is going to lose this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Luci, 31 Dec 2009 @ 5:23pm
  
  Re: Licensing
  That would be a contract dispute, not copyright infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 9:24am

Huh...
I wasn't aware anyone could understand what the hell Eddie Vedder was saying or singing to begin with....

Is there an anti-mushmouth clause in the licensing contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2009 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re: Huh...
  lol.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2014 @ 5:56pm
  
  Re: Huh...
  I could agree more! Good lucking with that one holding up in court. If Vedder says he said it verbatim, there'd be no dispute. You could play it over and over again, and you'd never know exactly what he said. I like pearl jam, but I think Eddie wings it sometimes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colg, 31 Dec 2009 @ 9:44am

aww geez

I guess is Steve Miller ever catches me singing
"Fly like a Beagle" I'm screwed.

Wait wait wait has anyone told Weird Al about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yakko Warner, 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:29am
  
  Re:
  Parodies are fine.
  
  PETA, however, might take issue with you throwing beagles out of high-rise windows to see how they fly...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Luci, 31 Dec 2009 @ 5:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wierd Al already did that with poodles. (See UHF)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Craig R (profile), 1 Jan 2010 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re: Wierd Al and copyright
  Wierd Al has three defences -- the first is the use of parody, which is specifically allowed for under copyright law.
  
  The second is that he *asks* before doing so.
  
  The third is that his company also pays a licensing fee.
  
  One idiot pair of singers tried to claim that he never got permission for the parody of one of their "hits."
  
  His lawyer's answer was very short and to the point: "They cashed the check."
  
  So far I am aware, the only performer to actually tell Yankovitc hhat they did *not* want him doing a parody was Prince. Which request he honored.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Almost Anonymous (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re: Wierd Al and copyright
    It seems like I recall that Al had asked for, and thought he had received, permission to do his parody of "Gangsta's Paradise", but after it was released Coolio refuted that he had given permission. Coolio also seemed to have no problem cashing the royalty checks, so I guess that's the final answer on permission.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - d, 11 May 2020 @ 5:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Wierd Al and copyright
      did Coolio get permission from Stevie Wonder to rip off Past Time Paradise? If Weird Al was going to ask anyone for permission, it should have been Stevie Wonder... It's my understanding that Stevie wasn't too thrilled about Coolio using his song... Could Coolio be more of a hypocrite on this?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Levine, 31 Dec 2009 @ 9:55am

An explanation
Although the article you link to doesn't explain it, the suit probably revolves around whether this is a derivative work. Generally speaking, performers can cover the work of other songwriters without permission, as long as they pay a license fee. To create a derivative work, however - as one would with a hip-hop song based on a sample or certain kinds of remixes - requires permission (and negotiation). I don't know where the line is between these. However, this isn't a result of "today's ownership culture," as this has been the law for quite some time.

I could be wrong, and I have no particular view on this issue - I haven't heard the original song and I don't remember Vedder's version. But that's probably the basis for the suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2009 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re: An explanation
  TFA,
  
  The suit states, "Vedder altered certain key lyrics of 'Hard Sun'... eroding the integrity of the composition."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bobee, 31 Dec 2009 @ 9:58am

answer
Way to be a dick Gordo. Eddy records your song and you screw him cause he interprets it differently? What an ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CCR, 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:07am

Don't go out tonight,
It's bound to take your life.
There's a bathroom on the right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Journey, 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:19am
  
  So I come, to you,
  with broken arms...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - NIN, 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:24am
    
    Re:
    What have I become
    My Swedish friend
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jimmy Hendrix, 31 Dec 2009 @ 12:01pm
      
      Re: Re:
      Scuse me while I kiss this guy
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Almost Anonymous (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re:
        ... wrapped up like a douche,
        another runner in the night...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Levine, 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:16am

Weird Al
Parodies are considered fair use under the precedent set when 2 Live Crew was sued for its parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). So feel free to fly beaglly - legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geof, 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:19am

Moral rights
From the article:
Vedder altered certain key lyrics of 'Hard Sun'... eroding the integrity of the composition.

This is clearly a reference to moral rights. According to the Bern Convention,
Independently of their copyright or economic rights authors should enjoy the rights of paternity and integrity to their works, and the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of their work that would be prejudicial to their honour or reputation."

Peterson is Canadian, and moral rights are enshrined in Canadian copyright law. Although US has ratified the Bern Convention, it has failed to live up to its obligations by enacting protection for moral rights. I say this not because I think it should, but because it gives lie to claims that international obligations require maximalist copyright laws elsewhere. (I am not a lawyer.)

The consensus of the Canadian fair copyright group of which I am a member appears to be that while the moral right of attribution should be protected, the right of integrity is questionable at best and may pose an unwarranted barrier to freedom of expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Luci, 31 Dec 2009 @ 5:32pm
  
  Re: Moral rights
  Do the US courts bother with morality issues? There are no moral police, far as I'm aware. Your morality and mine could differ greatly!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eponymous Coward, 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:24am

The underlying article makes reference to the "integrity" of the song. This suggests Peterson may be making a moral rights claim, which is permitted under Canadian law, and is consistent with Article 6bis of the Berne Convention of 1886 (revised).

Aside from Sec. 106A of U.S. law, however, which applies to a narrow set of works of visual art, U.S. copyright law doesn't protect moral rights. This (and, of course, fair use) is one of the few areas where U.S. law is less strict than international norms. It is therefore curious that the artist would elect to proceed in a U.S. court. He may ask the court to apply Canadian law (a reach, at best).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:27am

weird AL Dan Bull
Better watch out!!!!!! Seriously since when have you needed a licence to sing a song. I dont think you do in the UK. If you do theremeny karioki places out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe, 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:46am

imo, if Vedder changed the lyrics, it's now a derivative work, and no 'erosion' of integrity.

the Uni licensing issue, well, who knows... don't know why their lawyers would drop the ball...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 10:59am

So what if I change a guitar part because I am not skilled enough to play it....

Or if in covering something like "yellow ledbetter" you guess wrong at what he was mumbling about?

What if you miss notes completely and sing off key or the version you release sucks...have you then ruined the integrity?

Are there precedents already set in Canada for interpreting the Bern Convention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn (profile), 31 Dec 2009 @ 11:16am

of COURSE he change some lyrics.. it was written in CANADIAN. It was recorded in AMERICAN. Duh if he used the Canadian words the Americans would have been confused. Canadians are we to liberal with the letter u and they think little ham patties are bacon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 31 Dec 2009 @ 12:07pm

the most amusing part
the ny post doesn't quote the lyrics in question, which would be the obvious thing to do so readers can compare them for themselves. but i bet they were afraid of copyright restrictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pr, 1 Jan 2010 @ 8:04am

"It would be against the law"
I've heard directors of community theaters saying "it would be against the law ..." if they were to take the profanity/obscenity/senseless violence/you name it out of the show. As if the FBI would show up and arrest the actor on the spot if he failed to say ******* on cue. I suppose he could be incarcerated for flubbing the line as well.

I doubt that's correct, but it's commonly believed.

And while we're on the subject

East bound and down
Loaded up and trucking
We're gonna do
what they say can't be done

We got it on with a goat

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1sicls1 (profile), 4 Jan 2010 @ 8:25pm

i used to date his cuz heather fox man i still wish i was hitting that i could see him and ask him WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]