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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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?"
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 :-)
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......
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obviously Fair Use
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 ]
Re: Obviously Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would Darth Vader say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whatever
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 ]
Must be a slow news day at piracy apologist headquarters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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
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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
(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 ]
James Earl Jones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: James Earl Jones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, how ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]