Copyright / plagiarization question

[LiveMusic]

I have written a song but need to know if this is okay. I have cleverly ;) written the lyric to include this line that is in the origial song but before I do that I say the name of the song it came from. In other words, I say something like... I like that old song [i]Put Another Log On The Fire[/i] blah, blah (line I am referencing) blah, blah Is this okay?

[Gtoledo3]

Hootie and the Blowfish did a similar thing. Something like..."You always wondered what he(Bob Dylan) meant by..." and then they went on and quoted a Bob Dylan lyric. The result? Bob Dylan makes most the money off of that album. ;)

[Sylver]

No problems there that I can see. It's a direct quote. Just put quotes around the line in the written version.

[LiveMusic]

Bump... if anyone has an opinion...

[Sylver]

No one else answered because everyone knows I'm right. :D

[Anifa]

LiveMusic, [b]Here is an interesting read that discusses the "fair use act" [/b] (excerpt from the link provided below) [quote] What is fair use? Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson. New issues about fair use have arisen with the increased use of the Internet. At the time of publication, a bill is pending in Congress concerning whether fair use provisions will be extended to appropriate users/uses of copyrighted Internet materials. When is copying is allowed by fair use provisions of the law? There are no explicit, predefined, legal specifications of how much and when one can copy, but there are guidelines for fair use. Each case of copying must be evaluated according to four factors: The purpose and nature of the use--If the copy is used for teaching at a nonprofit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use. In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology," and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion. The nature of the copyrighted work--With multimedia material there are different standards and permissions for different media: a digitized photo from a National Geographic, a video clip from Jaws, and an audio selection from Peter Gabriel¼s CD would be treated differently--the selections are not treated as equivalent chunks of digital data. The nature and substantiality of the material used--In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use. The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work--In general, any use that supplants or diminishes the normal market for the original work is considered an infringement, but a use does not have to have an effect on the market to be an infringement. Although all of these factors will be considered, the fourth factor is the most important consideration in determining whether a particular use is "fair." Where a work is available for purchase or license from the copyright owner in the medium or format desired, copying of all or a substantial portion of the work in lieu of purchasing or licensing a sufficient number of "authorized" copies would be presumptively unfair. Where only a small portion of the work is to be copied and the work would not be used if purchase or licensing of a sufficient number of authorized copies were required, the intended use is more likely to be found to be fair. [/quote] [url=http://fairuse.stanford.edu/library/faq.html]Stanford University - Copyright Law: Frequently Asked Questions[/url] [b]Here is another interesting read that describes a few individual cases of fair use as opposed to copyright infringement[/b] (excerpt from the link provided below) [quote] 3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used of the Copyrighted Work The third factor analyzes the amount and substantiality of the copying in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The crucial determination is whether the quality and value of the material copied from the original copyrighted work is "reasonable" in relation to the purpose of copying. Regretfully, there is no black and white rule that sets forth an absolute ratio or quantity of words that may be used of the original work that would ensure a finding of fair use. Instead there have been circumstances where a court has found that the use of an entire work was fair use while under different circumstances the use of a small fraction of a work failed to qualify as a fair use. This factor not only evaluates the quantity that has been copied but also the quality and importance of the copied material. The courts when analyzing this factor evaluate whether the user of the original copyrighted material has taken any more of the original work than was necessary to achieve the purpose for which the material was copied from the original work. [/quote] [url=http://www.publaw.com/parody.html]Fair Use or Copyright Infringement[/url] May not be exactly what you're seeking, but very much along the same lines. Use the link below to read the full article.

[mplspaul]

[quote]Originally posted by GT3: [b]Hootie and the Blowfish did a similar thing. Something like..."You always wondered what he(Bob Dylan) meant by..." and then they went on and quoted a Bob Dylan lyric. The result? Bob Dylan makes most the money off of that album. ;) [/b][/quote]Hootie didn't just quote a LINE, they took an entire VERSE of Idiot Wind. That's what raised the eyebrows. The real lesson here is don't fuck with Dylan or his lawyers. Anyway, this is exactly what Hootie did in "Only Want to be with You." Put on a little Dylan sitting on a fence I say that line is great You ask me what it meant by "Said I shot a man named Gray Took his wife to Italy She inherited a million bucks And when she died it came to me I can't help it if I'm lucky" Only wanna be with you Ain't Bobby so cool Only wanna be with you Yeah I'm tangled up in blue Only wanna be with you

[Anifa]

[quote] I have written a song but need to know if this is okay. I have cleverly written the lyric to include this line that is in the origial song but before I do that I say the name of the song it came from. In other words, I say something like... I like that old song Put Another Log On The Fire blah, blah (line I am referencing) blah, blah [/quote]Depending on how touchy the original copyright owner is could decide a court battle. Especially when crediting the original song in the new one. It's best to get clearance before hand to avoid any issues later down the road. Otherwise, depending on the entire content of you song, it might be easier to find another way to write your words while keeping the same feel. You can rewrite a line in several different ways to get a point across without losing the vibe. For instance, keeping the same rhythm pattern and idea, here are some variables in what otherwise could be a copyright infringement: (original) Put Another Log On The Fire (variables) Place a block of wood on the fire Place another log on the blaze (a bit of difference in rhythm- but possibly workable) Another block of wood is yet to burn Then goes a block of wood into the fire Put a block of wood into the fire The combination of words are unlimited, and when you run out of ideas, put the thesaurus to good use.

[MojoHaiku]

Actually, a "fair use" analysis is inapt for this situation. The purpose of Section 107 of the Copyright Act (Fair Use) is essentially to carve out a safe harbor for certain kinds of uses -- i.e., criticism, news reporting, use in an educational setting, etc. The original question on this thread really goes to whether or not the poster's song, as a whole, is substantially similar enough to another work so as to constitute copyright infringement. Similarity consisting of only a single line is likely to fall far short of constituting infringement. Oh, and by the way -- despite Anifa's comments -- song titles themselves are not copyrightable, so no need to worry about making a reference to another song by name... Cheers, Jim

[nc]

Legally, I think this most resembles the use of a sample. Though that's a different type of copyright (SR) it seems to me the same thing, in regard to quotation. There was a pop/rock song ("Don't Call Us, We'll Call You"/can't remember the artist) in the 1970s that quoted a Beatle guitar lick (not sampled but replayed). I have no idea how they handled that but I'm sure you see the similarity. I think your best bet, if you're really worried about legal liability, is to contact the writer directly (not throught their money grubbing agent or publishers :D ) & get permisssion. On the other hand most cases like this are never noticed, simply because they're so obscure.

[Gtoledo3]

Yeah, Jerry Corbetta/Sugar Loaf quoted the intro lick to "I Feel Fine." That's a real interesting point. I know him, so I'll ask him next time I talk to him. I'll give him a call at the start of the week.

[Anifa]

[quote]Originally posted by MojoHaiku: [b]Actually, a "fair use" analysis is inapt for this situation. The purpose of Section 107 of the Copyright Act is essentially to carve out a safe harbor for certain kinds of uses -- i.e., criticism, news reporting, use in an educational setting, etc. The original question on this thread really goes to whether or not the poster's song, as a whole, is substantially similar enough to another work so as to constitute copyright infringement. Quoting a single line is likely to fall far short of constituting infringement. Oh, and by the way -- despite Anifa's comments -- song titles themselves are not copyrightable, so no need to worry about making a reference to another song by name... Cheers, Jim[/b][/quote]Jim, I merely provided a few articles relative to the Dylan vs. Hootie and the Blowfish lawsuit reference made above. These were not actually my comments and I supplied the sources where the articles are hosted. I edited the post to place the excerpts from the articles into quote lines so to distinguish that these are not my statements. IMO, upon reading the initial post on Dylan's settlement, I felt Hootie and the Blowfish should have been protected under the fair use act as the parody should come into play with the line [b]..."You always wondered what he(Bob Dylan) meant by..." [/b] In a sense, the previous line could be construed as a criticism. Actually, I'm not even familiar with the song in reference, but based on the first comment above; it led me to my response. After seeing the second post that said Hootie and the Blowfish used an entire verse; I see where there would've been a violation of the fair use privilege. As far as quoting titles, I don't see where you get that I implied that one can copyright a title; unless you read something additional into this comment I made: [quote] Depending on how touchy the original copyright owner is could decide a court battle. Especially when crediting the original song in the new one. [/quote]I KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT A TITLE, nor can you copyright a single phrase within a verse or paragraph. However, if one quotes the title of a song and then proceeds to quote a line extracted from within the song; there would be a very gray area borderlining infringement. Stating the title provides an absolute identification to the source of the quote; it's double jeopardy. A good entertainment attorney would have substantial evidence to make his case in having both the title of the song and an exact quote from within the song as bargaining material. I wouldn't be willing to press my luck without first consulting with the owners of the copyright; not when there are thousands of blood thirsty attorneys looking to break someones bank account. I couldn't find anything specific to the original topic located within the Copyright Office web site, however, I did find this link describing a lawsuit that transpired between Selle vs. BeeGees [url=http://www.musicanalyst.com/selle_v_gibb.htm]FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF PLAGIARISM[/url] which provides some feedback on the matter.

[Brittanylips]

[quote]Originally posted by LiveMusic: [b]I have written a song but need to know if this is okay. I have cleverly ;) written the lyric to include this line that is in the origial song but before I do that I say the name of the song it came from. In other words, I say something like... I like that old song [i]Put Another Log On The Fire[/i] blah, blah (line I am referencing) blah, blah Is this okay?[/b][/quote]It is Okay. Don't worry about it at all. The Doctrine of Fair Use, which allows the unauthorized use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances, has nothing to do with this. It neither applies, nor does it matter if it applies -- Quote all you like. -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[LiveMusic]

Other than the line I mention, my song has zero resemblance, lyrically and musically, to [i]Put Another Log On The Fire[/i]. I only mentioned the song name because I am using a line in that song as my hook ([i]"warn her when she's getting fat"[/i]) and I wanted to NOT plagiarize their song... thinking that if I named the song, it is obvious I am not stealing their line. If it's plagiarism, either I would have to get permission or I'd rewrite it. Although, rewriting might be a challenge. The entire song is set up around that hook.

[george costanza]

I'm confused---if you use a line from that song as a hook, how does it bear no resemblance lyrically? I think that the amount of time involved debating it here might be shortcut by, as suggested above, contacting the writer & getting permission....or just going ahead & doing it, fairly secure that they'll never know.

[LiveMusic]

[quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b]I'm confused---if you use a line from that song as a hook, how does it bear no resemblance lyrically?.[/b][/quote]You need to reread what I said.

[mplspaul]

Most of the answers above are good in a hypothetical/abstract way but I think the real answer to your particular situation is just do it 'cause who's gonna give a damn unless the song gets cut or you get a a publishing deal? And if you do get a publishing deal, your publisher can help you sort it out. Until then, I doubt that the writers or publisher are gonna come after a hobbyist who's making no royalties off the song anyway.

[LiveMusic]

[quote]Originally posted by mplspaul: [b]Most of the answers above are good in a hypothetical/abstract way but I think the real answer to your particular situation is just do it 'cause who's gonna give a damn unless the song gets cut or you get a a publishing deal? And if you do get a publishing deal, your publisher can help you sort it out. Until then, I doubt that the writers or publisher are gonna come after a hobbyist who's making no royalties off the song anyway.[/b][/quote]Yeah, that seems like a pretty good way to look at it. Thanks to all.

[Brittanylips]

I agree with mplspaul. As a practical matter, you have nothing to worry about. In fact, as a legal matter, you have nothing to worry about. In fact, you could do a LOT worse and still have nothing to worry about. -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[george costanza]

[quote]Originally posted by LiveMusic: [b] [quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b]I'm confused---if you use a line from that song as a hook, how does it bear no resemblance lyrically?.[/b][/quote]You need to reread what I said.[/b][/quote]Actually I reread your original post & later statements several tomes before I asked & again after. I understand; you quoted a song & included a reference to it's title, in an original song of your's. I still wonder that if you quote a lyric it you think it does [i]not[/i] have a resemblence. But I really don't think it's a big deal. & again, I think you could solve your worries in two ways: Contact the writer or just go ahead with the project knowing that these things are seldom noticed. Or you could keep languishing over the matter (to no resolution) here.

[Brittanylips]

Contacting the writer is asking for NEEDLESS hassle (the writer may tell you that you do not have his permission, without realizing that his permission does not matter). Even if it were noticed, and hopefully it will be, since that would mean that the song became a huge success, unless the quote were 1) substantial (and it doesn't sound it) AND 2) the person attempted to pass off the quote as a product of their own mind (and in this case they are not), they would not be liable for plagiarism. -PLB

[LiveMusic]

[quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b] [quote]Originally posted by LiveMusic: [b] [quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b]I'm confused---if you use a line from that song as a hook, how does it bear no resemblance lyrically?.[/b][/quote]You need to reread what I said.[/b][/quote]Actually I reread your original post & later statements several tomes before I asked & again after. I understand; you quoted a song & included a reference to it's title, in an original song of your's. I still wonder that if you quote a lyric it you think it does [i]not[/i] have a resemblence...[/b][/quote]George, my friend, I don't even know why I'm replying again... out of curiousity, I guess. It always amazes me when something is clear as a bell to me and not clear to someone else... like, what am I missing here? (Posting on the internet definitely can be a challenge to communicating.) Here is what I said... [i][b]Other than the line I mention[/b], my song has zero resemblance, lyrically and musically, to Put Another Log On The Fire.[/i] How is that not clear? That I said OTHER THAN THE LINE I MENTION, they have no resemblance. Thanks for your input. I don't mean to pick bones with you, just letting you know I wasn't smarting off to you... just answering your challenge to what I said.

[george costanza]

OH-TAY!

[Anifa]

[quote]Originally posted by mplspaul: [b]Most of the answers above are good in a hypothetical/abstract way but I think the real answer to your particular situation is just do it 'cause who's gonna give a damn unless the song gets cut or you get a a publishing deal? And if you do get a publishing deal, your publisher can help you sort it out. Until then, I doubt that the writers or publisher are gonna come after a hobbyist who's making no royalties off the song anyway.[/b][/quote]LiveMusic, This is the "BEST" response I seen in this thread, and very much true. Unless your song becomes a huge success; you can probably expect smooth sailing. Personally, I would drop the title of the song out if it were me. Keep the line, but don't associate it with the name of the original song. Even in a huge success, it'd probably never be noticed. Perhaps the original writer of the lyric might give it a twinge of thought, but I doubt he'd upset enough to file suit; if you blatantly tell him you took it from his song without asking, he might come unglued. If your song is a huge success, you'll have enough money to defend yourself.... so....... ??? Great answer MPLSPaul.

[nc]

Yes, I agree that's the greatest likelihood, Anifa, which is why I offered the idea near the beginning of the thread. [quote]Originally posted by NC-17: [b]On the other hand most cases like this are never noticed, simply because they're so obscure.[/b][/quote]Perhaps I was too concise... I know many prefer their thoughts wrapped in reams of words.

[Brittanylips]

[quote]Originally posted by Anifa: [b]Unless your song becomes a huge success; you can probably expect smooth sailing. Personally, I would drop the title of the song out if it were me. Keep the line, but don't associate it with the name of the original song. [/b][/quote]Or so it might seem if you had no knowledge of the law. EVEN IF the song becomes a huge success, he can expect smooth sailing, regardless of the title. Anifa, with all due respect, you consistently offer bad legal advice and present it as if you were an authority. What a shame it would be if you persuaded this guy to alter his song for legal reasons that are not real. While I am not an expert in copyright law, I have studied it at the Yale Law School, and am in regular contact with experts in the field. Since music is my profession, I have dealt with it in practice as well. As MojoHaiku, who also seems to have had some legal training, diplomatically suggested, perhaps it's better not to purport to give legal advice unless you have more knowledge of the law. - Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[MojoHaiku]

[quote]Originally posted by Brittanylips: As MojoHaiku, who also seems to have had some legal training...[/quote]Yup. Did my initial study of copyright law at Penn Law... ;)

[Brittanylips]

[quote]Originally posted by MojoHaiku: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Brittanylips: As MojoHaiku, who also seems to have had some legal training...[/quote]Yup. Did my initial study of copyright law at Penn Law... ;) [/b][/quote]Although my degrees were in other fields, I also attended classes in the law school. I guess they figured they'd help me save a few bucks on future legal bills. Hopefullly I made the right decision by focusing on copyright rather than criminal. :) So what is the next part of your sentence? -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[MojoHaiku]

[quote]Originally posted by Brittanylips: [b] So what is the next part of your sentence? [/b][/quote]Actually, I'm not sure there was one -- just an "Ellipsis to a Smile." Of course, in keeping with the content of this thread, I will have to sue the pants off anyone who decides to use that line as part of their next song. :)