James Earl Jones Reciting Justin Bieber Lyrics On TV... Copyright Infringement Or Not?

from the did-you-license-that-song? dept

Mon, Feb 21st 2011 12:56pm — Mike Masnick

Julian Sanchez points us to an amusing bit of TV where the great actor James Earl Jones recites some Justin Bieber lyrics while a guest on the Gayle King Show. So here's a simple question: is this copyright infringement? Did the Gayle King Show properly license the lyrics from the copyright holder? Perhaps it did, but we've seen music publishers get pretty worked up about various websites posting lyrics online and have heard stories about books not being able to be published because they quoted snippets of lyrics without a license. In fact, given how litigious publishers have been of late, you'd have to think that King's show almost certainly had to go out and "license" the lyrics for this little snippet. Of course, none of this makes any sense. It's silly to think that you should have to buy a license just to have James Earl Jones amusingly read lyrics from Justin Bieber... but, it is the state of today's copyright 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, gayle king, james earl jones, justin bieber, licensing, lyrics

34 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:06pm

Parodies, which clearly this is, have long been recognized as a fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cc (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re:
  Fair use is just an "affirmative defense", so they can sue if they want to.
  
  This is part of why I think fair use is simply not enough to protect innocents from frivolous legislation, and more fair use is a "band-aid" rather than a fix to the issue of copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:16pm
  
  Re:
  "Fair use is stealing." - The RIAA
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Except when we do it. -- RIAA
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "And me!" - Rupert Murdoch
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wvhillbilly, 25 Feb 2011 @ 7:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I wonder... How long before publishers, songwriters and the like are going to start copyrighting individual words and sue anyone who dares use even one of them? :-O
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  Some people around here have been complaining about "excessive" fair use. I'd like to hear their opinion on this case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:15am
  
  Re:
  Actually, one of the qualifiers on the parody protection is that the parody cannot usually get away with replicating significant portions of the original. James Earl Jones reading lyrics designed to sound like Justin Bieber would be protected parody - this might very well not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:20pm

Reminds me of Jesse Jackson reading Dr. Suess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen Goldmeier, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:22pm

Obviously Fair Use
Sure, there have been a lot of cases like the ones mentioned above, but I can't think of a single WINNING case. And being sued does not equal violating copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:59pm
  
  Re: Obviously Fair Use
  And being sued does not equal violating copyright.
  You'd think not and I'm sure if it came to it Mr. Jones and the show have the cash to make that stick.
  On the other hand if I were to read out the same lyrics in an "amusing" manner and post it on u-tube I'm sure you'd soon find out it was "violating copyright" to the tune of whatever I could manage to settle for rather than pay enormous legal fees I can't afford in an effort to prove I'm "innocent" (of no crime).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:38am
  
  Re: Obviously Fair Use
  Having to pay for a lawyer and waste your own time when you did nothing wrong is rubbish though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:36pm

Well as long as we're lining up lawsuits, isn't this a pretty much direct copy of Gordon Pinsent doing the same thing a few months ago?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih-2O_gdYZo

They stole that sketch idea! ah well, in the wise words of the Simpsons, "If we don't steal ideas, where are they going to come from?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kirk (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:45pm

He truly has gone over to the Dark Side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:59pm

What would Darth Vader say
An alternative video of the same reading is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIChsFrdf00
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:00pm

Even if this were considered a performance, it would be covered by statutory license provisions so it would not be infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:37pm
  
  Re:
  I was wondering the same thing, but I think this performance is derivative. Does statutory licensing cover derivative works like this one?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:49pm
  
  Re:
  I think I answered my own question: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html#a_2
  
  A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.
  So it seems that to use the work with a compulsory license, it's necessary to keep the same melody.
  
  My bet here is that they had the express consent of the copyright owner for Jones' performance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Renault (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:29pm

Canadian Icon Gordon Pinsent reading Justing Bieber

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih-2O_gdYZo

He really is a Canadian Icon. He says so in the clip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:32pm

why do I keep thinking James Earl Jones died.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whatever, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:40pm

whatever
"it is the state of today's copyright law."
No.
This says less about the state of your copyright laws than it does about the people who attempt to abuse them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:42pm

Masnick sets up another strawman. This time it's pretending he didn't know the subject wasn't covered by performance rights licenses, satire, or fair use.

Must be a slow news day at piracy apologist headquarters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re:
  performance rights licenses
  
  He didn't keep the same melody, so it's clearly derivative, which isn't covered by performance rights licences.
  
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html#a_2
  
  A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.
  
  satire
  
  I don't think that word means what you think it means. Satire != parody.
  
  fair use
  
  Sadly, fair use can not keep you from getting sued, it can only help you win the suit. I think this should change, but it is what it is, for now.
  
  Must be a slow news day at piracy apologist headquarters.
  
  How does this have anything, at all, to do with piracy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Didn't you hear? Techdirt and all of it's "fanboi" commentators are piracy apologists. Because someone on the internet said so.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 21 Feb 2011 @ 6:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Dear god, the stupidity...
    
    No melody was involved there in JEJ's recitation.
    
    Parody is generally an original work used to mock.
    
    Knowing what is fair use can prevent you from being sued; if a person is concerned about whether or not they're infringing, a nice reading of title 17 will help guide the way.
    
    How does this have anything, at all, to do with piracy?
    
    It's more Masnick FUD about copyright. It's from Techdirt, one of the biggest piracy apologist sites on the web.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 6:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You got it right.
      
      Mike picks a situation that is not an issue for anyone, and tries to paint it as something.
      
      Mike, Beiber's song writers don't care, they get paid anyway.
      
      It must be a really bad week at Techdirt if it is only Monday and already you are putting out crap like this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:21pm
  
  Re:
  This time it's pretending he didn't know the subject wasn't covered by performance rights licenses, satire, or fair use.
  Must be a slow news day at piracy apologist headquarters.
  On the other hand that I can see at least 1/2 a dozen posts suggesting why this was covered by copyright suggests otherwise. The point of the article was not to suggest that it was in violation of copyright but to point out that it's faintly ludicrious that you should even have to consider copyright for something like this. The fact that several people immediately jump in to say it's covered in different ways makes it an interesting argument. Either way I'm pretty sure you don't really think it means what you say it does - at least I'd hope not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:24pm

Are stupid and funny, transformative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:45pm

It's a public performance of a musical work (the underlying lyrics). The networks all pay for PRO licenses, and thus it's non-infringing.

There is no requirement to keep it with the same melody, and the compulsory license is for a mechanical license (reproduction and distribution) which isn't applicable here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miff (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:18pm

Well, I'm never buying another Justin Bieber CD or MP3 again, now that I can get James Earl Jones reading the lyrics without melody for free because it's pretty much the same thing as the original artist's performances.

(Before someone says it, I wouldn't buy Bieber's music anyway because I don't think he sounds any good.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:18am

James Earl Jones
I believe there is a James Earl Jones clause in the current US copyright law stating that it is ok for him to recite anything he wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: James Earl Jones
  I believe there is a James Earl Jones clause in the current US copyright law stating that it is ok for him to recite anything he wants.
  Now there's an idea.... hmm you could have a "Commission for the Registration Of Cool Key-Speakers, Homeland Interrogation Tribunal" (CROCKSHIT) and anyone ratified with a cool voice gets to cover anything they want without fear of infringement - a simple and hardly out of place addition to the current "fair use" provisions :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 28 Feb 2011 @ 12:49am

I wonder... How long before publishers, songwriters and the like are going to start copyrighting individual words and sue anyone who dares use even one of them? :-O
Didn't FaceBook manage to trademark "Face" and "Book" used in conjuction with anything else? Think you may be a bit late......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jonathan, 6 Mar 2011 @ 4:34am

Oh, how ironic
How ironic that the video is blocked from viewing in my country "on copyright grounds"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]