Question about music copyrights

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

Maybe CF could add a forum for legal matters and law questions. Anyway, I have a question regarding music copyrights.
I know it's legal for artists to use the same music as previous bands and redo the lyrics to them. The ApologetiX do this every day with their music and ministry. And I know there was a Supreme Court ruling that passed that gave them that right. But where does it get sticky? What are the parameters of this? Is it as long as the lyrics are completely different or what?

I was hearing about how Led Zeppelin was sued for using some of Muddy Waters' music. But was that because it was before the Supreme Court ruling or what?

 

[Sketcher]

Maybe CF could add a forum for legal matters and law questions. Anyway, I have a question regarding music copyrights.
I know it's legal for artists to use the same music as previous bands and redo the lyrics to them. The ApologetiX do this every day with their music and ministry. And I know there was a Supreme Court ruling that passed that gave them that right. But where does it get sticky? What are the parameters of this? Is it as long as the lyrics are completely different or what?

I was hearing about how Led Zeppelin was sued for using some of Muddy Waters' music. But was that because it was before the Supreme Court ruling or what?

Apologetix does parodies, and parodies are explicitly protected in US copyright law.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I would think Legal Zoom might be able to help you.


Are Song Arrangements Copyrighted?

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

Apologetix does parodies, and parodies are explicitly protected in US copyright law.

I wonder what defines a parody? Other than listing it as so.

So would I be safe if I just listed the music as a parody? Or is there certain requirements within the lyrics of such?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

be careful on the parody issue....


Why is parody considered fair use but satire isn’t? | Copyright Alliance

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

And I also wonder..If I don't charge for the 'parodies' that I make and just give it all out. Would I still be liable? And if someone wanted to sue me and it was granted, how much could they sue me for if I gave out the music to begin with and didn't earn anything from the recordings?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Maybe CF could add a forum for legal matters and law questions. Anyway, I have a question regarding music copyrights.
I know it's legal for artists to use the same music as previous bands and redo the lyrics to them. The ApologetiX do this every day with their music and ministry. And I know there was a Supreme Court ruling that passed that gave them that right. But where does it get sticky? What are the parameters of this? Is it as long as the lyrics are completely different or what?

I was hearing about how Led Zeppelin was sued for using some of Muddy Waters' music. But was that because it was before the Supreme Court ruling or what?

It's tricky. Check it out, but my understanding is that live performances have no copyright issues at all. If you record and play a performance, copyright law is invoked. You can sing along in church without a problem, but if you record the meeting and put it on youtube, you need the copyright issues resolved. It may be necessary to pay a royalty to the song writer(s) or owners of the copyright.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

And I also wonder..If I don't charge for the 'parodies' that I make and just give it all out. Would I still be liable? And if someone wanted to sue me and it was granted, how much could they sue me for if I gave out the music to begin with and didn't earn anything from the recordings?

WWWAD?


What Would Weird Al Do?

 

[Tra Phull]

George Harrison was found guilty of SUBCONSCIOUS PLAGIARISM for the melody of MY SWEET LORD

Had to pay 200,000 pounds

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

^This whole matter is very murky and tricky. I'm not a lawyer. But I'm going to continue on with what I'm doing. If someone wants to sue me one day then oh well. I'll cross that bridge if I get there. Right now I don't think I have anything to worry about. Lol

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

George Harrison was found guilty of SUBCONSCIOUS PLAGIARISM for the melody of MY SWEET LORD

Had to pay 200,000 pounds

George Harrison was a Beatle and probably had a huge target on his back.

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

I just thought, too, that I could probably reach out to the original artists of the songs and ask their permission as well. That in itself would be a witness to them cos they'd listen to the song. (I make Christian raps)

Come to think of it, I think I remember Weird Al doing that too. Unfortunately, I think every now and then he was turned down.

 

[RDKirk]

WWWAD?


What Would Weird Al Do?

While Weird Al could have gotten away with his work as a true parody, he actually asked permission of the artists he parodied, let them check his work before he performed it, and did not perform anything the original artist objected to.

That's why, for instance, he never parodied Prince. Prince would never give him permission.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

While Weird Al could have gotten away with his work as a true parody, he actually asked permission of the artists he parodied, let them check his work before he performed it, and did not perform anything the original artist objected to.

That's why, for instance, he never parodied Prince. Prince would never give him permission.

Yeah I realize that. But then what was the story with Coolio? Coolio was mad at the Gangster's paradise parody (Amish paradise). I think that time he failed to get permission but maybe that was after the supreme court decision. Since his career started pretty early like maybe around 1981-83.


Interesting fact, the wife of a friend I lost track of knew him from college, in San Luis Obispo, he was in her dorm.

 

[Tanj]

^This whole matter is very murky and tricky. I'm not a lawyer. But I'm going to continue on with what I'm doing. If someone wants to sue me one day then oh well. I'll cross that bridge if I get there. Right now I don't think I have anything to worry about. Lol

Well, it has a murky and tricky middle but there's clear demarkation out in the safe zone. At any rate, as you said, absent explicit permission/license, your parody claim is as good as your legal defense if sued. Just like with patents.

 

[Sketcher]

Yeah I realize that. But then what was the story with Coolio? Coolio was mad at the Gangster's paradise parody (Amish paradise). I think that time he failed to get permission but maybe that was after the supreme court decision. Since his career started pretty early like maybe around 1981-83.

Weird Al made it his practice to go above and beyond the law. Amish Paradise was still legal. Weird Al felt bad about it when he found out that Coolio was not OK with it when he thought he had been OK with it, and I believe he has been more diligent about getting permission ever since.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's tricky. Check it out, but my understanding is that live performances have no copyright issues at all. If you record and play a performance, copyright law is invoked. You can sing along in church without a problem, but if you record the meeting and put it on youtube, you need the copyright issues resolved. It may be necessary to pay a royalty to the song writer(s) or owners of the copyright.

That isn’t correct. There are still copyright issues at play in live performances, they’re just handled differently than with recordings. With a recording, the responsibility to arrange the various licenses falls to the band making the new recording (or their management). With performances, the responsibility shifts to the venue. If you have a bar and hire in bands (or play a radio for your customers), then you’re responsible for paying a licensing fee to a PRO like ASCAP or BMI. There are different formulas for determining those fees, but AFAIK, they’re usually based on typical occupancy and the money gets thrown into a pool that’s distributed among the represented artists. I imagine that at larger venues, like arenas, there are different processes, possibly including the cataloging of each song that gets played so that the royalties go straight to the artist rather than into a pool. But at least at the small end, the venues just pays the fee and the bands don’t have to worry about anything.

 

[iluvatar5150]

And I also wonder..If I don't charge for the 'parodies' that I make and just give it all out. Would I still be liable? And if someone wanted to sue me and it was granted, how much could they sue me for if I gave out the music to begin with and didn't earn anything from the recordings?

I haven’t looked into the parody rules in a long time, but typically, whether or not you charge for your music has no bearing on whether or not you’re supposed to pay royalties for distributing it.

 

[RDKirk]

That isn’t correct. There are still copyright issues at play in live performances, they’re just handled differently than with recordings. With a recording, the responsibility to arrange the various licenses falls to the band making the new recording (or their management). With performances, the responsibility shifts to the venue. If you have a bar and hire in bands (or play a radio for your customers), then you’re responsible for paying a licensing fee to a PRO like ASCAP or BMI. There are different formulas for determining those fees, but AFAIK, they’re usually based on typical occupancy and the money gets thrown into a pool that’s distributed among the represented artists. I imagine that at larger venues, like arenas, there are different processes, possibly including the cataloging of each song that gets played so that the royalties go straight to the artist rather than into a pool. But at least at the small end, the venues just pays the fee and the bands don’t have to worry about anything.

A work must be fixed to some medium in order to be copyrighted. Thus, any band that has produced music professionally will have at some point recorded their work and thus it is copyrighted.

The point about "live performances" is that if an artist has, say, done nothing but performances--and has never so much as written down the words or melody, has never done a demo tape, has never even done a YouTube video on a cell phone--then that work is not copyrighted. It must have been fixed in a medium at some point to be copyrighted.

So say a street musician totally improvises a song on the street corner, and another person records it and later performs it himself for a YouTube recording. That second musician will own the copyright on that work.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That isn’t correct. There are still copyright issues at play in live performances, they’re just handled differently than with recordings. With a recording, the responsibility to arrange the various licenses falls to the band making the new recording (or their management). With performances, the responsibility shifts to the venue. If you have a bar and hire in bands (or play a radio for your customers), then you’re responsible for paying a licensing fee to a PRO like ASCAP or BMI. There are different formulas for determining those fees, but AFAIK, they’re usually based on typical occupancy and the money gets thrown into a pool that’s distributed among the represented artists. I imagine that at larger venues, like arenas, there are different processes, possibly including the cataloging of each song that gets played so that the royalties go straight to the artist rather than into a pool. But at least at the small end, the venues just pays the fee and the bands don’t have to worry about anything.

OK, I've heard a few performers say that they do not pay royalties for live performers. if the venue pays, that makes sense.