Curious about copyrights

[anthrodisiac]

Also consider that copyright does not extend in perpetuity. After a period of time (varies depending on laws and some other wonky nonsense), the works are entered into the public domain, but my understanding is that's primarily for characters and worlds, not necessarily you can copy the whole book and sell it as your own (maybe you can actually, I'm not entirely sure). I think in the US it's 75 years (it used to be shorter, but Disney, ya know?).

Oh man, I looked it up, it's more convoluted than I thought. Also, 95 years, so 1931 and later is still a no-go. I don't want to read it all, but if you do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States

 

[RetroFan]

One of my favorite tactics when using songs is to strongly hint at what song it is without directly naming it.

For example in one of my stories set in 1963 a young guy has a crush on the pretty girl next door and says that every time he sees or thinks of her a song by Neil Sedaka released the previous year plays in his mind. Most readers will be able to determine that the song in question is 'Next Door to an Angel' which was a huge hit or Neil Sedaka in 1962, however it is not said outright.

 

[IWroteThis]

Also consider that copyright does not extend in perpetuity. After a period of time (varies depending on laws and some other wonky nonsense), the works are entered into the public domain, but my understanding is that's primarily for characters and worlds, not necessarily you can copy the whole book and sell it as your own (maybe you can actually, I'm not entirely sure). I think in the US it's 75 years (it used to be shorter, but Disney, ya know?).

Oh man, I looked it up, it's more convoluted than I thought. Also, 95 years, so 1931 and later is still a no-go. I don't want to read it all, but if you do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States

You can't claim it as your own, but you can (try to) sell copies of public domain works. If you add your own original illustrations, for example, you can get a copyright on the overall work, but the story itself will remain in the public domain.

If you rework it sufficiently, you can get a copyright on it as a derivative work, but the original remains public domain. That's why you can't use anything that Disney added to Snow White, but the original story is fair game.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Technically, a creative work quoting lyrics isn't deemed fair use (titles are fair game). In reality, technical breaches of copyright/intellectual property law aren't pursued when no money is being made - almost all online fanfic depends on this.

In the rare cases that lyricists or lawyers get in touch with Literotica to complain about lyrics in stories, it'll be because they think the story is bringing their phrasing into disrepute. Everyone else will be glad for the publicity, or know that legal action risks more unwanted publicity. And I'm sure that Lit's response will be an immediate "No problem, we've deleted that story, end of."

So the worst that's going to happen to an author is their story gets taken down. Even if there's a legal defence of parody or derivative work, I wouldn't expect Lit to argue with someone's well-funded legal team. Your story is going bye-byes.

IANAL and this is not legal advice, but you could always test it by writing a story including the entirety of a song's lyrics, where that song is owned by, say, Disney. 'The Bare Necessities', for example. The internet claims Disney has web crawlers looking for copyright infringment, 24/7...

 

[IWroteThis]

In the rare cases that lyricists or lawyers get in touch with Literotica to complain about lyrics in stories, it'll be because they think the story is bringing their phrasing into disrepute.

And that "disrepute" is why you now hear, "I once got busy in a BLEEEEEEP bathroom." It's just not the same…

Actually, I was today years old when I learned that a lot of people think it was a profanity bleep for "motherfucking" rather than a legal bleep for "Burger King".

 

[Dodola]

And that "disrepute" is why you now hear, "I once got busy in a BLEEEEEEP bathroom." It's just not the same…

Actually, I was today years old when I learned that a lot of people think it was a profanity bleep for "motherfucking" rather than a legal bleep for "Burger King".

A quick search revealed that it was edited on the MTV version only, due to MTV's strict policy against brand mentions, not because they were sued or asked to make the edit by Burger King.

 

[IWroteThis]

A quick search revealed that it was edited on the MTV version only, due to MTV's strict policy against brand mentions, not because they were sued or asked to make the edit by Burger King.

Search longer.

Yes, part of the reason was MTV policy, but it wasn't just MTV that played the censored version. And yes, it was just the threat of legal action rather than actual legal action, but it still played its part.

 

[Dodola]

Search longer.

Yes, part of the reason was MTV policy, but it wasn't just MTV that played the censored version. And yes, it was just the threat of legal action rather than actual legal action, but it still played its part.

I took your advice and did a second, longer search and came up with the exact same results. I found zero information that Burger King threatened the band with legal action or was involved in MTV's editing policies in any way.
I did find that Burger King trended on social media and their business increased after Shock G (the main character in the video) passed away, recently. There were tons of fan tributes.
Unless you provide a citation, I think we're done here?

 

[Dodola]

On thread topic, music copyright infringement lawsuits are rarely pursued these days because they're very, very hard to win. It has to pretty much be an obvious slam dunk before any attorney will agree to argue your case.

You can copyright an entire composition as a single work of art, but you can't copyright common chord progressions or drum beats. There are thousands of songs that use the same four chords in the same order, and same drum beats, with no copyright infringement.

I can make a video of myself playing guitar and singing Ella Langley's "Choosing Texas" on YouTube, with no permission, totally legal, as long as I created all of the content, use the word "cover" in the title, and the video is not monetized or used outside of YouTube, for profit.

Fans who attend concerts post live videos of their favorite bands every day. There are millions of them. No infringement if the video is not monetized or used for profit. It was a public performance.

Viewers can also make "fan" videos, creating their own videos to their favorite songs, totally legal, as long as it's labeled as a "fan" video, and the images and/or video content were created solely by the fan, and not monetized or used for profit.

Copyright infringement can be a scary concept for people who create art, but after having worked on some infringement cases myself over the years, I can confidently suggest that the chances of any legal problems for Lit authors who quote song lyrics in their stories, are zero.

This is still not legal advice, I'm not an attorney.

 

[IWroteThis]

I took your advice and did a second, longer search and came up with the exact same results. I found zero information that Burger King threatened the band with legal action or was involved in MTV's editing policies in any way.
I did find that Burger King trended on social media and their business increased after Shock G (the main character in the video) passed away, recently. There were tons of fan tributes.
Unless you provide a citation, I think we're done here?

View attachment 2703725

Again, as I said, it wasn't an actual lawsuit, so of course your search found no lawsuit.

There doesn't seem to be any hard documentation, like a threat letter that is publicly findable. Google's AI assures me that it happened, although I take that with a grain of salt. I've also found several references to Shock G making jokes about it, but not the actual words he said, as he didn't make them during interviews.

What there is hard evidence of is that it was censored in radio play, which has nothing to do with MTV policies.

 

[Dodola]

Again, as I said, it wasn't an actual lawsuit, so of course your search found no lawsuit.

My first search was "why did digital underground edit burger King from humpty dance?"
I didn't use the word "lawsuit" until my second search. It's really not important enough to argue over. I'm not even sure why I felt the need to challenge your comment, honestly. It's been a weird day.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Google's AI assures me that it happened,

OHZ NOHZ!!! The Giggly Bot Sez!!!

Jimminy Cricket the whole world must shiver .

 

[More_MoreMore]

I did a thing with a character named Alice and wove small bits from Elton John, Arlo Guthrie and Chic Corea into dialog. Things like another character stating,

'C'mon Alice, it's my turn to play.'

This is in line with what I am doing, quoting part of a song that is relevant to something happening in the story. It is almost always for humorous effect.

 

[More_MoreMore]

As noted though, Lit has entire challenges and contests based on songs. Titles, lyrics, artist's names, places mentioned in songs -- it's all here. Admin not only allows it, but promotes it.


So there!!!




(Anybody catch the double dash in the wild?)

That would certainly support what I have done. Thanks.

 

[FromManyOne]

I can make a video of myself playing guitar and singing Ella Langley's "Choosing Texas" on YouTube, with no permission, totally legal, as long as I created all of the content, use the word "cover" in the title, and the video is not monetized or used outside of YouTube, for profit.

In US law there is "forced licensing". Someone can record a song you hold copyright to and charge for performances or recording sales or streaming. You are forced to license it to them and get a percentage.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

On thread topic, music copyright infringement lawsuits are rarely pursued these days because they're very, very hard to win. It has to pretty much be an obvious slam dunk before any attorney will agree to argue your case.

You can copyright an entire composition as a single work of art, but you can't copyright common chord progressions or drum beats. There are thousands of songs that use the same four chords in the same order, and same drum beats, with no copyright infringement.

I can make a video of myself playing guitar and singing Ella Langley's "Choosing Texas" on YouTube, with no permission, totally legal, as long as I created all of the content, use the word "cover" in the title, and the video is not monetized or used outside of YouTube, for profit.

Fans who attend concerts post live videos of their favorite bands every day. There are millions of them. No infringement if the video is not monetized or used for profit. It was a public performance.

Viewers can also make "fan" videos, creating their own videos to their favorite songs, totally legal, as long as it's labeled as a "fan" video, and the images and/or video content were created solely by the fan, and not monetized or used for profit.

Copyright infringement can be a scary concept for people who create art, but after having worked on some infringement cases myself over the years, I can confidently suggest that the chances of any legal problems for Lit authors who quote song lyrics in their stories, are zero.

This is still not legal advice, I'm not an attorney.

It's still technically infringement. The issue is that under US law copyright infringement is a civil, rather than criminal issue. There is no jail time for violating copyright.
Damages focus on economics.
How much money you made from the infringement is at issue (and as you noted if it's not monetized the answer is $0).
And Actual Damages, how much you cost the copyright owner. How much money did they lose because 10,000 people clicked your cover instead of Ella's? That's like $20 from YouTube.

Then there is the bad PR to think about, it's not in the label's best interest to attack fans. Although they still do some silly stuff.

Bottom line from a Lit perspective, if Laurel allows it, the worst that is likely ever to happen is the copyright owner will send Lit a Cease and Desist letter and your story comes down.
Has that ever happened? I suspect only Laurel knows.

 

[Dodola]

It's still technically infringement. The issue is that under US law copyright infringement is a civil, rather than criminal issue. There is no jail time for violating copyright.

It's technically only infringement if a party wins that judgement in civil court, as opposed to criminal, where an act itself violates a law. Without a judgement, it's an accusation, not evidence of wrong doing.

YouTube is unique, with it's own licensing agreements that protect amateur content creators, but cover bands don't get sued for playing at the local bar.
It would be a very tall order to prove someone clicked on my cover of Ella's song  instead of her original, which is a hypothetical anyway, since cover songs are protected on YouTube.

 

[IWroteThis]

OHZ NOHZ!!! The Giggly Bot Sez!!!

Jimminy Cricket the whole world must shiver .

If you have to be dishonest and cut off the rest of the quote to make your point…

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's technically only infringement if a party wins that judgement in civil court, as opposed to criminal, where an act itself violates a law. Without a judgement, it's an accusation, not evidence of wrong doing.

YouTube is unique, with it's own licensing agreements that protect amateur content creators, but cover bands don't get sued for playing at the local bar.
It would be a very tall order to prove someone clicked on my cover of Ella's song  instead of her original, which is a hypothetical anyway, since cover songs are protected on YouTube.

Cover bands don't get sued for playing at the local bar because it's covered by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. The venue is paying a license fee, which covers the performers in their venue.
YouTube has the scale to negotiate its own deal.

Those payments also cover the right to play pre-recorded music.

 

[Britva415]

What there is hard evidence of is that it was censored in radio play, which has nothing to do with MTV policies.

There are also (other?) radio stations which play the uncensored version.

 

[Dodola]

Cover bands don't get sued for playing at the local bar because it's covered by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. The venue is paying a license fee, which covers the performers in their venue.
YouTube has the scale to negotiate its own deal.

Those payments also cover the right to play pre-recorded music.

All true, but you and I know that not every little hole in the wall bar that let's local musicians play in the corner on Friday nights is paying those licensing fees. Many of them struggle to pay for their liquor licenses, and no artist or publishing company goes after them.
Music infringement suits are rare, is the main point.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

The point is we're talking about a lyric bit or two in a Naughty Nookie story.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

All true, but you and I know that not every little hole in the wall bar that let's local musicians play in the corner on Friday nights is paying those licensing fees. Many of them struggle to pay for their liquor licenses, and no artist or publishing company goes after them.
Music infringement suits are rare, is the main point.

Most copyright infringement suits are rare.
As I said earlier, my philosophy on lyrics in a story is let it fly, and if they fire off a cease and desist so be it.

That said, just because you don't get the letter doesn't mean you aren't breaking the law.
If you drive 75 in a 55 on the way home you were speeding, you were breaking the law, you simply didn't get caught.

 

[Dodola]

Most copyright infringement suits are rare.
As I said earlier, my philosophy on lyrics in a story is let it fly, and if they fire off a cease and desist so be it.

That said, just because you don't get the letter doesn't mean you aren't breaking the law.
If you drive 75 in a 55 on the way home you were speeding, you were breaking the law, you simply didn't get caught.

If I gave the impression that I excuse our condone copyright infringement in any way, let me clear that up. I'm in quite the opposite camp.

 

[FromManyOne]

It's still technically infringement. The issue is that under US law copyright infringement is a civil, rather than criminal issue. There is no jail time for violating copyright.

I appear to be the "well, actually" person in this topic. There is in fact criminal copyright violation under US law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_copyright_law_in_the_United_States

Not frequently prosecuted, but I can see a very religious-politician-type prosecutor going after Literotica to punish the sexiness.