Help: parody legalities

Subject: parody legalities
From: Linda Allen
Date: 14 May 02 - 03:18 PM

Can anyone update me on the legalities of using popular tunes (still under copyright) for parodies? I know of some wonderful new words to "God Bless America" -- and there has been a lot of concern about copyright infringement. I understand that within recent years there was some legal protection put in place for parodies. Help! I'd like to sing that song around.Thanks!

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 02 - 03:22 PM

If you are making money from a tune that someone else wrote, you owe them money.

If you are doing just for fun, then you don't

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 14 May 02 - 03:52 PM

It may not just be an issue of paying copyright fees... I've heard that Stephen Sondheim's representatives have muzzled any further performances of Les Barker's "Send in the cones"....

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 02 - 03:57 PM

Herga,

Without meaning to sound rude...

Bollocks

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 May 02 - 04:10 PM

"God Bless America"

Who owns the copywrite on that song?

Or am I thinking of the wrong song?

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 14 May 02 - 04:11 PM

Nah, guest, that's just rude (though bollocks feature prominently in some of Les Barker's compositions, especially the one concerning dachshunds who can't climb stairs). If you have anything meaningful to contribute (particularly if it's relevant to my previous post, which was based on genuine information)please do.

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 02 - 05:00 PM

Apologies if I upset you, Herga.

Perhaps I should have said "I don't think that's true"

Quite how Stephen Sondheim (or his 'representives') will stop me performing this song at folk clubs baffles me.

Please elucidate.

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: GUEST,Mudjack at work
Date: 15 May 02 - 03:18 PM

Hi Linda,
If it was good enough for Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan I guess it wouldn't hurt to borrow a tune now and then. But if it takes off and sells a million copies, I'm sure you'll be the first to find out about any new judgements or laws that come into play. Do it.
Mudjack aka Jack "rainy camp"

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 15 May 02 - 03:29 PM

Guest

I agree that Mr Sondheim's representatives would have difficulty in finding out who was singing the song, let alone stopping them, but I heard that they sent a very unfriendly letter about the legalities to Les. I'm seeing the Mrs Ackroyd Band next weekend, (they are performing locally at Ickenham on Saturday), so I'll check this out.

Kitty

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 May 02 - 04:28 PM

If I sing Godless America, whom do I owe, if anybody?

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 May 02 - 04:30 PM

Somebody look on the Internet for the brouhaha about The Wind Done Gone. There was a lot of info about parody and legality, at least for the written word, in those articles. (For the noncognoscenti, The Wind Done Gone was the parody of Gone With The Wind, written from the slaves' point of view. There was an awful dustup about it.)

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 May 02 - 05:28 PM

There's probably a venerable legal distinction between using someone's tune for a totally new song versus writing a "parody" of an existing well known song. You can probably do the latter and make millions but in either case it would be wise to check and see what the copyright status is before doing anything commercial. It's also common courtesy to check, especially if the original artist is among the living.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 15 May 02 - 05:40 PM

On the subject of dust-ups, and seeing things from the slaves' point of view, it was also reported on the BBC this morning (and in the national press) that the phrases "nitty gritty" and "good egg" are banned by the Metropolitan and other police forces as being not politically correct. "Nitty gritty" apparently has associations with slave ships, and "good egg" is rhyming slang abbreviation for "egg and spoon". I think this is crying out for a bad taste parody (and possibly deserves a whole new thread), but I'm worried about the legalities.

Kitty

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 15 May 02 - 05:43 PM

We have recorded a few parodied songs...when possible, we ask permission, and on anything that has a copyright, we pay royalties.

The issue is one of legalities. Is it legal? No, not where I live. Can you potentially do it and get away with it? Yes.

Follow your own ethos from there.

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: MAG
Date: 16 May 02 - 01:47 AM

OK, I'll bite: what is egg and spoon? Over my innocent head, but wanting to know ...

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Callie
Date: 16 May 02 - 02:13 AM

Rhyming slang I think, mag. Think on't some more!

I think the point with parodies is that if you record someone's song and they believe that recording damages their reputation in whatever way (causes distaste, embarassment, is musically or lyrically not in keeping with the original) then that artist can seek an injunction and force withdrawl of the cd from circulation.

It stands to reason I guess. Imagine if you wrote a song and someone changed the lyrics to suggest a meaning which you disagreed with on any grounds - moral, political, etc. There is a law to protect that song from being mucked about with and sold by that person.

Of course no-one's going to know if you sing it in a folk club - unless one out of the half dozen people in the room is the author of the original song.

And getting back to the original point of the thread, what's wrong with becoming a little more aware of the origins of phrases we take for granted? If "nitty gritty" is deemed offensive by some, why not respect that? The English language is teeming with words, not to mention those you can make up. I don't see what good could come by insisting on using hurtful words when others will do.

Callie

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Callie
Date: 16 May 02 - 02:13 AM

Rhyming slang I think, mag. Think on't some more!

I think the point with parodies is that if you record someone's song and they believe that recording damages their reputation in whatever way (causes distaste, embarassment, is musically or lyrically not in keeping with the original) then that artist can seek an injunction and force withdrawl of the cd from circulation.

It stands to reason I guess. Imagine if you wrote a song and someone changed the lyrics to suggest a meaning which you disagreed with on any grounds - moral, political, etc. There is a law to protect that song from being mucked about with and sold by that person.

Of course no-one's going to know if you sing it in a folk club - unless one out of the half dozen people in the room is the author of the original song.

And getting back to the original point of the thread, what's wrong with becoming a little more aware of the origins of phrases we take for granted? If "nitty gritty" is deemed offensive by some, why not respect that? The English language is teeming with words, not to mention those you can make up. I don't see what good could come by insisting on using hurtful words when others will do.

Callie

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Bob Bolton
Date: 16 May 02 - 03:32 AM

G'day Callie,

... But, are we really aware of the "origins" ... or are we being driven by someone's guess ... or a typical, and common piece of "Folk Etomology"? In the case of "nitty gritty" the Oxford can only cite it from the 20th century ... and has no definite provenance, thus it is 'origin unknown'. Has someone found a much older useage, linking it to slave ships ... or do they have an overactive imagination? How do we know?

If we drop good English because someone decides, on their own grounds, to consider it offensive, we cam we lose most of the language. For example, the second part of your personal e-mail address is a long established euphemism for 'homosexual' (dating back to the early part of the 19th century ... cited in analysis of Frank the Poet's Farewell to Tasmania, 1849)). It probably offends some touchy pedant ... will you change your e-mail ... and your letterhead paper ... and your web site ...?

On a broader front, there are a bundle of terms used by the English that are offensive terms in American - and vice versa (pretty suspect turn of phrase, if you ask me ...!). Do we all succumb to Bill Gates's "dumb down and shut up limited vocabulary" (MS Word now rejects "stupid" ... not surprisingly!) ... or do we have to stop talking to Americans because they take offense at plain English?

Legalities ... political correctness ... that ass called the law ... where does it start - or stop? (BTW: Ass went out of use a century or two back, replaced by an invented word "donkey": little brown animal ... because 'ass' was so offensive.)

Regards,

Bob Bolton

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 16 May 02 - 03:43 AM

In the UK (and probably most other countris) you need the written permission of the copyright holder to publish a parody.

Steve

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 16 May 02 - 03:56 AM

And the authoritative word on nitty-gritty.

On the other hand, it's not beyond the bounds of plausibility that some people are using "good egg" as rhyming slang, though at a remove: "good egg" is obviously the obverse of "bad egg", and means "honest reliable person", while "egg and spoon" (which is a new one one me, I have to confess) is not related to it. Very confusing: call a spade a spade, I say.

Steve

P.S. Apologies--I couldn't resist it! If you're not happy, I think I can make a good case thet the ironic use of slang expressions is not racist, unless it was intended to be.

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 May 02 - 04:02 AM

Hi, Linda - I don't know about the legalities of parodies in general. However, I do know a bit about "God Bless America." Click here for information. Now, since the song was written in 1918, you would think that the copyright would have expired (songs from 1923 and earlier are generally in public domain - later songs will have to wait longer, thanks to Sonny Bono). However, Irving Berlin withheld the song until Kate Smith recorded it in 1938. That may make 1938 the copyright date (you'll note a 1938 copyright on the sheet music at the site I linked to).
Irving Berlin assigned the royalties for the song to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America.
The Irving Berlin people seem to be even more strict than the Rodgers & Hammerstein organization about protecting copyrights. You'll rarely find Irving Berlin songs in fakebooks, and I understand that's because it's so difficult to get the rights.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: GUEST,MCP
Date: 16 May 02 - 04:33 AM

Correct about Irving Berlin Joe. In Alec Wilder's book American Popular Song The Great Innovators 1900-1950 where he anayzes the works of Kern, Berlin, Gershwin, Rogers, Porter, Arlen, Youmans/Schwartz, Lane/Martin/Duke and 12 other songwriters, only Berlin's chapter is free from musical examples. The footnote states "Mr. Berlin has not granted the author permission to use any musical excerpts from his songs. In consequence, all the examples illustrating specific musical analyses have had to be deleted from the text of this chapter"

Mick

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 16 May 02 - 05:31 AM

Les (Barker) also got into trouble when he wanted to release a single with Fairport (I think) of his wonderfull 'Quasi B Goode' even though all the proceeds were to go to charitee, Chuck Berry's people refused permission

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Watson
Date: 16 May 02 - 05:44 AM

Bill Caddick wrote the words to the words to the wonderful song John O' Dreams setting them to a tune by Tchaikovsky .
When Les Barker wrote the parody "Custard Creams", Bill recorded it for Les's CD "Tubular Dogs", Bill didn't benefit financially at all - it was Tchaikovsky's music and Les's lyrics.
It doesn't stop there though - last week I heard Bill sing another version Les had sent him - "Ron O' Dreams" about John's lesser known brother!

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 May 02 - 09:01 AM

Joe: the problem with copyright Dates is that the composer's copyright (if composer is known) lasts for 70 years from his death. The sheet music publisher's copyright (assuming he has obtained permission from the composer, if the music is still copyright)lasts for 25 years from publication (and the depositing of necessary copies).
Thus if a composer has been dead for 70+ years, the tune is fair game, but, you still can't photocopy the sheet music if it was produced within the last 25 years. The publisher has a valid copyright on the layout.
If you wish to photocopy vast swathes of sheet music (e.g. Messiah) for a paying public performance, the composer will not object, But make sure you photcopy it from a copy with a copyright date pre 1977.
Hope this clarifies.

Nigel

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: PeteBoom
Date: 16 May 02 - 09:55 AM

Parodies are "derivative works." You must get permission from the rights holders to release a derivative work. (Laws vary between countries on how you do this. Remember the tempest in a teapot over Weird Al Yankovich's parody "Living in an Amish Paradise"?)

Permission must be obtained to publish a derivative work - performance rights are a bit different, and are normally handled by the venue you are performing in.

Cheers -

Pete

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: jeffp
Date: 16 May 02 - 10:13 AM

According to the Library of Congress,

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

(italics mine)

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 May 02 - 01:29 PM

To the best of my knowledge, the 1964 US Court of Appeals decision(upheld by the US Supreme Court Decision) still stands, at least in the US. Judge Irving Kaufman, in his decision in the case of a group of Music Publishers vs. Mad Magazine, commented "...While the social interest in encouraging the broad-gauged burlesques of Mad Magazine is not readily apparent, we believe that parody and satire are worthy of substantial freedom--both as entertainment and as a form of social and literary criticism..."

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: GUEST,Callie
Date: 16 May 02 - 08:14 PM

Bob - I'm absolutely intrigued!!! Can you send me a private e-mail and tell me what you mean??!?! Is a "hotmail" a homosexual??!?!

I'm not supporting a dumbing down of the language but I'm also against the philosophy that freedom of speech includes the right to use hurtful language towards minority groups. And it starts and stops according to where each one of draws the line I guess. But I do think defending principles of freedom of speech by exercising one's right in engaging in racial vilification is really putrid. I know that's not what you're saying Bob, I'm just illustrating the opposite extreme.

Is this a thread creep? Apologies if it is - we could all disagree on such things til the cows come home (that's black AND white cows, AND black and white cows!!)

Callie

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Linda Allen
Date: 16 May 02 - 11:44 PM

Wow! Thanks everybody for the collective wisdom of Mudcatters! Now one further question, just to keep the conversation going. What constitutes publishing? If a parody is sent out over email or published in a newsletter...I mean, only the new words, with the suggestion that it be sung to "God Bless America" -- does that constitute publishing? Is that more problematic than singing it for some event (which may or may not be paid?)?

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Bob Bolton
Date: 16 May 02 - 11:59 PM

G'day Callie,

" ... Is a "hotmail" a homosexual??!?! "

Not exactly 'Possum'! (You didn't know what Barry Humphrey's "Dame Edna" was on about when she started off: "Hello possums ... !"

Check with Miguel to see if he has a copy of John Meredith's Frank The Poet and look up the notes on frank's Farewell to Tasmania, for something on that usage. If Miguel doesn't have a copy, I'll dig out mine and scan in the text. However, my point is that you will always be able to find someone who professes to offended by the most innocent of words.

I have no time for racial vilification ... but, personally, I suspect that the person who spuriously associated a mid-20th century expression with the tragic experience of Africans kidnapped into slavery a century or more, before actually exhibits elements of racial vilification ... using "PC" banning of unrelated phrase to maintain just the sort of slanders that are preserved in narrow stereotypes of African-Americans. ("You can't go saying 'nitty-gritty ... it'll remind them of where they came from ...") Spare me!

The specific observations on 'nitty-gritty' confirmed my visceral feelings. I don't intend to let my English be devalued to the level of some fool's ill-informed, but nevertheless dirty, mind.

Regard(les)s,

Bob Bolton

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Bob Bolton
Date: 17 May 02 - 12:16 AM

G'day again,

I must apologise for the sort of blinding annoyance I feel when confronted by people trying to twist their evil designs out of good English!

I should have made my meaning a little clearer than: "The specific observations on 'nitty-gritty' ..." and said: The observations, on the term 'nitty-gritty', on the site linked, above, by Steve Parkes ...

Keep the faith,

Bob Bolton

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 May 02 - 06:42 AM

Linda: listing a piece as "To the tune of" is not the same as "Publishing" someone else's music. It is merely a pointer that the scansion will fit. Similarly, singing it to a group of friends is quite okay. It is when it is "published", either by selling the words and music, or by performing the words and music for a paying audience (and that includes a lot more than you might expect) that you are infringing copyright.

Nigel

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: GUEST,Pete Peterson
Date: 17 May 02 - 11:14 AM

So in addition to sending the Rosenbergs to fry Irving Kaufman did something GOOD in this life? I sit amazed. I knew Mad Magazine had been sued by the authors of lyrics and tunes to which they wrote parodies, and that they won, but I hadn't known who wrote the opinion.

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 18 May 02 - 07:20 PM

Re Les Barker and bollocks - yes it was, at least as far as "Send in the cones" was concerned. I asked him aboutit earlier this evening and he said that the Sondheim management gave him permission to record it (so I apologise for getting it wrong). Les also said that the success rate in getting permission is about 30%.

Kitty

PS Mrs Ackroyd Band were great fun too!

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: GUEST,SeanN
Date: 20 May 02 - 10:47 AM

It is important to make the distinction between parody that is derivative (as someone noted above) of another's creative work, which if violated, constitutes copyright infringement, and parody which is original, where offense is taking by the subject/victim of the parody, which suggests libel.

I think we've pretty well sussed out the copyright infringement question, which is easier. If it is a derivative of another song, it is a copyright issue. If the parody isn't derivative of a previous copyrighted work and the subject takes offense and sues, it will be for libel.

Here is an example of the latter:

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20020520monday.html

Subject: RE: Help: parody legalities
From: Peter Berryman
Date: 20 May 02 - 09:45 PM

In the Pretty Woman case of 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that parody was not copyright infringement, HOWEVER it very carefully and specifically defined "parody." The main thrust is that a parody must be poking fun at the song it is a parody of in some way, and not just be using the song's form and popularity to poke fun at something else.

By this definition, many songs which are called parodies are not true parodies. But I have a feeling there are many which fall somewhere close to the line, and doubt that the Pretty Woman case is the last time this issue ends up in court.

Peter B