New tune, trad words and vice versa

Subject: RE: New tune, trad words and vice versa
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:24 PM

I too sometimes use trad tunes with my own lyrics in the form of parodies, and I believe that confers on me the copyright to that arrangement of tune and lyrics.

I'm open to correction tho'.

Richard Bridge would know, and I'll check with him when I can.

New tune to trad lyrics would seem to be equally safe, but why? The tunes are usually very good, and I think I would prefer to limit myself to arranging the original to suit my style.

Don T.

Subject: RE: New tune, trad words and vice versa
From: Brían
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:18 PM

...He toured until the money ran out.

Brían

Subject: RE: New tune, trad words and vice versa
From: Leadfingers
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:10 PM

English Country Blues Band arranged a lot of traditional English lyrics to Traditional American tunes and (I think) still hold copyright on them as arrangements !
Equally so , The Kipper Family 'wrote' parodies f traditional songs which they hold copyright on !!
If the lyrics are 'Trad' then the composer of the tune would have the copyright to the tune , and to THAT arrangement of the song !

Now some one will shoot me down in flames , but thats how I would see the situation !

Subject: RE: New tune, trad words and vice versa
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:05 PM

No. What is the joke about the folk musician who won the lottery?

Tell, tell! Drop the other shoe!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: New tune, trad words and vice versa
From: Brían
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:41 PM

I recall Johnny Cunningham mentioning in a concert that he had recorded a tune on one of his albums under the mistaken belief that it was traditional. To settle the dispute over the copyright, the composer required him to mention the author before peforming the tune. Unfortunately, the amount of money the royalties would raise is rarely enough to go to court over. I'm sure we've all heard the joke about the folk musician who won the lottery...

Brían

Subject: RE: New tune, trad words and vice versa
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:31 PM

I don't know why this question was ignored when it was posted 10 months ago.

As I understand it, an author/composer doesn't lose his rights to a song (book, picture, or any other copyrighted material) because of what other people do with his work without his permission. He can only lose it by his own actions, for example, if he publishes it without a copyright notice.

If you use someone else's copyrighted material, say, in the mistaken belief that it is in the public domain, you owe royalties to the copyright owner. It doesn't matter that you might have heard it from some third party who failed to correctly attribute it.

If it seems unfair to you that you might get stuck paying royalties that you hadn't planned on, consider this: It would be much more unfair if the author lost the ability to collect royalties through no fault of his own.

Subject: New tune, trad words and vice versa
From: Pete_Standing
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:43 AM

I have wondered that if people compose new tunes to trad. songs (Rusby and N. Kerr quickly spring to mind), should they lose the right to the tune? My reason for wondering this is that if people pick up on what they hear rather going to source material, the altered material could become commonplace and considered traditional rather than attributed. I appreciate that part of the evolving tradition was that people altered words, tunes etc either in error or by design, but they didn't prosper from it. And what about tunes in sessions? A contemporary tune gets played and copied and turns up elsewhere, the author or source being lost on the way.