Basic US Copyright Law Q&A and other stuff you really need to know

[AfaraWayland]

Originally Posted by jbach11

i have a question about publishing multiple works as one. I saw in a link that if all songs are cowritten by two people it qulifys. Could it still be registered as a single fee if all music was by one person and all lyrics were by a different person.
for example all music by bob and all lyrics by james

What exactly do you mean by "publishing?" Offering a work to the public or registering ownership?

I interpret that if (the author is or the authors are) the same for each work, the multiple works may be registered as a collection.

Don't take my word for it though, I've been wrong before. Your best bet is contacting an attorney if you are trying to do a by-the-book registration. You could even ask the via the copyright.gov site.

I will say that the registration doesn't distinguish between who wrote the lyrics and who wrote the music. If two writers are authors, each of them holds an equal share in the ownership of that work, regardless of who wrote the music, and who wrote the lyrics. This way one of them can't go off and sell the "lyrics" or "music" without the consent of the other author.

[zildjohn01]

Originally Posted by AfaraWayland

Using a PA form does not copyright the sound recording, but the dramatic work therein.

Let's say I submit my first rough mix of a song with a PA form. If anyone else were to record/perform my song and sell it, it would clearly be a derivative work, and I assume I could collect damages, right? So once I go record and mix it for real, is there any point in submitting the actual final recording for copyright again?

Or to rephrase, why copyright a digital recording when you could just copyright the "concept" of the song and be done with it?

Thanks in advance, and I hope all that made sense.

[AfaraWayland]

Originally Posted by zildjohn01

Let's say I submit my first rough mix of a song with a PA form. If anyone else were to record/perform my song and sell it, it would clearly be a derivative work, and I assume I could collect damages, right? So once I go record and mix it for real, is there any point in submitting the actual final recording for copyright again?

Or to rephrase, why copyright a digital recording when you could just copyright the "concept" of the song and be done with it?

Thanks in advance, and I hope all that made sense.

Well I've already been outed as not as knowledgeable about this as others, but here's my take on it.

My included quotations come from Rights Granted Under Copyright Law (BitLaw) and U.S. Copyright Office - Online Services (eCO: Electronic Copyright Office)

There are several issues I must address.

The first is that I just found out the Copyright Office now prefers the use of Form CO, or with the office's new online-based version of the form, eCO. This new form apparently replaces Forms TX, VA, PA, SE, and SR.

Second, Assuming you used a PA form you would have protection of the song performed that is withheld in the recording, not the actual sound recording of the performance.

You will not have a copyright to the recorded phonograph, or the digital copy or whatever(that recorded copy could be circulated without your approval legally,) but rather the infomation/performance within it would be protected. Thereby creating a conundrum, and defeating the purpose for protection. This brings back into question the separation of PA and SR.

I still feel that any registering of a song (prior to this new CO form) should have be done with an SR form. This places protection on both song and recording. I believe that the PA form was not intended for recorded music, SR was, so why use the form which limits your overall protection?

By using a PA form, you would have protection of the song, but not the recording of the song. You would create a situation where I could steal your recording (through dig download, say) and use your recording in my sampled beats, and perhaps theoretically sell your recording as copies of the recording, not the work held within...

If someone re-recorded your song (own instruments, etc..), they would have to clear a license from you to sell or publish it. If they did not clear a license, yet did it anyway, you'd have right to certain damages.

I say certain, because the burden would be on you to prove with what intent the thief had when infringing. Did he know before he infringed that the act was illegal? Did he do such act with malicious intent?

If the person plays dumb, you may only be able to collect for the money made in illegal sales. If you can prove he/she did it knowingly, without concern for the rights of others(yourself), you may be able to convince a jury/judge to grant you more for your "suffering."

Here's why I don't think the above case is a derivative:

A derivative is:
"The right to make a derivative work overlaps somewhat with the reproduction right. According to the Copyright Act, a derivative work is
a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.

A derivative work usually involves a type of transformation, such as the transformation of a novel into a motion picture. In the computer industry, a second version of a software program is generally considered a derivative work based upon the earlier version."

Copyright gives:
The Copyright Act grants five rights to a copyright owner, which are described in more detail below.
• the right to reproduce the copyrighted work;
• the right to prepare derivative works based upon the work;
• the right to distribute copies of the work to the public;
• the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
• the right to display the copyrighted work publicly.

Why is it necessary? Because a final mix is the culmination of the final version of the song with which you present yourself to the public.

This is another thing I don't understand with bands..why not put your best foot forward? not your ragged and unpresentable ingrown toe foot?

The key you should remember is that (it used to be) to protect a sound recording, in any medium of expression, you use the SR form (now replaced with the CO form). Now I think the CO form addresses this, and perhaps leaves out loop-holes.

I digital version of the sound recording is still a sound recording, and the first rough mix you sent in IS NOT THE SAME sound recording as your final mix.

[zildjohn01]

Originally Posted by AfaraWayland

Well I've already been outed as not as knowledgeable about this as others, but here's my take on it.

You're more knowledgeable than I am, I suck at legal docs.

Originally Posted by AfaraWayland

You would create a situation where I could steal your recording (through dig download, say) and use your recording in my sampled beats, ...

Didn't think of that, but doesn't seem like an issue for rock music. Am I correct in saying that if I register my final recording I can prosecute anyone who obtains it illegally, but if I only register my rough mix, I can only prosecute the entity who created the illegal derivative work?

Originally Posted by AfaraWayland

I say certain, because the burden would be on you to prove with what intent the thief had when infringing. Did he know before he infringed that the act was illegal? Did he do such act with malicious intent?

If the person plays dumb, you may only be able to collect for the money made in illegal sales. If you can prove he/she did it knowingly, without concern for the rights of others(yourself), you may be able to convince a jury/judge to grant you more for your "suffering."

Can you actually go to court and say "But I didn't know!!"? (On second though, I'm not too surprised )

Originally Posted by AfaraWayland

Here's why I don't think the above case is a derivative:

I think a recording of a song would be considered a derivative of the musical arrangement, if not the rough mix ("sound recording") containing the same content. That doesn't make sense to me. I'll look in to it further

Originally Posted by AfaraWayland

This is another thing I don't understand with bands..why not put your best foot forward? not your ragged and unpresentable ingrown toe foot?

My goal here was to, without paying twice, protect my song before I pass stuff around to friends or (especially) post anything in "Bash This Recording". I don't have many good ideas, and the ones I do get are MINE!!!

Originally Posted by AfaraWayland

I digital version of the sound recording is still a sound recording, and the first rough mix you sent in IS NOT THE SAME sound recording as your final mix.

What if I registered an almost-final mix? If I add a high shelf on my guitars and drop the limiter 1.5dB, would I have to re-register?

It's still not THE SAME, but it would be a derivative work closely based on the registered sound recording, which should be protected, correct? After all, I can't just go record an organ over a Trivium song and then sell it

[AfaraWayland]

Originally Posted by zildjohn01

Didn't think of that, but doesn't seem like an issue for rock music. Am I correct in saying that if I register my final recording I can prosecute anyone who obtains it illegally, but if I only register my rough mix, I can only prosecute the entity who created the illegal derivative work?

You can seek legal remedy against anyone who infringes upon any one of the six rights given to intellectual property owners by the Copyright Act (most recent versions apply). A work is protected by the act when it is first transfixed in a tangible medium of expression. Registration is required to seek damages in the case of an infringement, and since its really about the money anyway, people should register their songs/recordings as early as possible (keep in mind a final mix sound recording should be registered if anything.

Again a derivative work refers to taking one form of IP and transforming it to a different form, but in such a way that the original serves as a basis for the creation and interpretation of the copy. Ex. Taking a painting and making it a drawing or vice versa, a novel into a motion picture. Simply changing the medium won't make a derivative, but copying and re-interpreting a painting into a drawing, though the medium of expression changed, the original was used for reinterpretation, a work derived from the first.

A sound recording changing from cassette tape to CD is not a derivative, because it only changes the medium. The same recording is there, within the constrains of the medium of course. The recording was not recreated using different interpretations of the song arrangement during the transfer.

Therefore, what you are actually describing, I consider to be unauthorized reproduction and possible distribution, not an unauthorized derivative.

Can you actually go to court and say "But I didn't know!!"? (On second though, I'm not too surprised )

You can try it, but remember, Ignorance is no excuse when a law has been broken. You are still accountable one way or the other.

I think a recording of a song would be considered a derivative of the musical arrangement, if not the rough mix ("sound recording") containing the same content. That doesn't make sense to me. I'll look in to it further

A previously recorded song, having been published...?

If someone attempts to re-record your song without licensing it from you, they are infringing on several of the rights that you hold to the original. They are obviously copying/reproducing it without permission, possibly distributing it illegally, and if they change the words/arrangement to a point not past a distinguishable link between the original and the new derivative of the original, they have infringed on three of the six rights you own as a © holder.

If you register your rough mix, you will be "protecting" the song contained in the unregistered final mix, but not "protecting" the sound recording of the final mix.

My goal here was to, without paying twice, protect my song before I pass stuff around to friends or (especially) post anything in "Bash This Recording". I don't have many good ideas, and the ones I do get are MINE!!!

Again, I think the new form CO or eCO takes care of this. You pay once, but you register once. ONLY REGISTER YOUR FINAL MIX. Of what value to you is the rough mix? The song will be registered later with the final mix.

I admit I've been throwing out "protected" when I should actually say "registered#". Read this carefully, you have full protection according to the Copyright Act as soon as you transfix your work in some medium of expression. Paper, tape recorder, whatever as long as it is tangible. YOU can ONLY seek damages (money) for infringement if you have registered the work prior to the alleged infringement.

Registration is required to seek money, it is not required for federal protection of copyright.

What if I registered an almost-final mix? If I add a high shelf on my guitars and drop the limiter 1.5dB, would I have to re-register?

if you wanted to protect the sound recording, as I understand it. The new system might account for this situation, but I do not know.

It indeed may not be the same to us, but does it satisfy federal requirements for a derivative work? That is the question.

It's still not THE SAME, but it would be a derivative work closely based on the registered sound recording, which should be protected, correct? After all, I can't just go record an organ over a Trivium song and then sell it

Yes you can, IF you clear licensing for BOTH the sound recording and the song. This would not be too far from the sampling done in the RAP/RnB world. But, you'd would need permission, not just a flat rate paid to harry fox. Also if you over-layed the organ in such a way as to make the song indistinguishable from the original work, according to a jury and judge, you could sell your "improved" version as your own. But then it wouldn't be a recognizable song that would sell.

[zildjohn01]

Originally Posted by AfaraWayland

A sound recording changing from cassette tape to CD is not a derivative, because it only changes the medium. The same recording is there...

Okay, I get it now.

Originally Posted by AfaraWayland

Read this carefully, you have full protection according to the Copyright Act as soon as you transfix your work in some medium of expression. Paper, tape recorder, whatever as long as it is tangible. YOU can ONLY seek damages (money) for infringement if you have registered the work prior to the alleged infringement.

Registration is required to seek money, it is not required for federal protection of copyright.

This is what I kept forgetting.

Thanks for explaining all that, I think I understand a little bit more of what's going on now.

[AfaraWayland]

Sorry for the tone, and thanks for your participation.

[fortyseven]

I see that this is a fairly old thread but I have a question I'd like to ask concerning fair use and parody. The reason i ask this is that I had an argument with a guy on another site where I post some of my music. On this site there was someone who was taking well known instrumental tracks and singing over them. He then claimed that he had written the songs. When I objected saying that it was some sort of infringement, I was told that what he was doing falls under fair use and can be considered a parody, therefore making it legal. This seems to be a grey area and a fine line seperates blatantly copying someone elses work as ur own and claiming it to be a parody. I know that 2 Live Crew were taken to court a few years ago because of their version of Roy Orbisons 'pretty woman'. At the end of the day they managed to convince the court that it was a parody and they won the case! If this is so then it seems that I can just copy other peoples songs and call it parody if anyone complains. What does the law say?

I have another question. You stated earlier that a copyright has to be registered with the US Copyright office. What if ur from another country? Would one register in that country? If so, would that then be valid in another country other than the one in which it was registered?

[AfaraWayland]

I have another question. You stated earlier that a copyright has to be registered with the US Copyright office. What if ur from another country? Would one register in that country? If so, would that then be valid in another country other than the one in which it was registered?

the short answer is I don't know. My guess is that protection for the US would not guarantee protection in foreign countries that do not recognize it.

A song should be registered where you intend to use it. That may mean registering it in the country you live in, or several countries, again I am not familiar with non US copyright -type laws.

You could check the US office website to see where US registered protection applies.

[AfaraWayland]

Originally Posted by fortyseven

I see that this is a fairly old thread but I have a question I'd like to ask concerning fair use and parody. The reason i ask this is that I had an argument with a guy on another site where I post some of my music. On this site there was someone who was taking well known instrumental tracks and singing over them. He then claimed that he had written the songs. When I objected saying that it was some sort of infringement, I was told that what he was doing falls under fair use and can be considered a parody, therefore making it legal.

I guess it depends fair use, in particular, parody is decided on case-by-case basis. But here are some things to know, from section 107 of act 1976:

"In essence, the traditional concept of fair use excused reasonable unauthorized appropriations from a first work, when the use to which the second author put the appropriated material in some way advanced the public benefit, without substantially impairing the present or potential economic value of the first work.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for the purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made the work in any particular case a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,

2. the nature of the copyrighted work.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole,

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

to Parody it seems, means to satirize the original work. Unless thats what this fellow is trying to do by writing lyrics to otherwise instrumental songs, he is infringing of the right of copyright holders to prepare derivative works.

I'm my non-prof view, what he is doing is making derivatives.

If this is so then it seems that I can just copy other peoples songs and call it parody if anyone complains. What does the law say?

Thats not true. And fortunately, people who think that way are often surprised.