copyright: somebody finally said it

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Aug 18 - 09:43 AM

Lennon & McCartney.
In my youth I thought it was not so much who got top billing, or how the name sounded, but with the names given as the providers of the 'words & music'.
Unfortunately while this works with Gilbert (librettist) & Sullivan (composer), it doesn't work with Rodgers & Hammerstein. Oh well . . .

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Aug 18 - 03:57 PM

I've never really liked her.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: EBarnacle
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 12:14 PM

Lady Hillary and I were at a lecture last week. In it, the presenter stated that Sir Paul had asked Yolo Ono for permission to change the attribution for a song on which he had done most of the work from "John Lennon--Paul McCartney" to "Paul McCartney--John Lennon" on a album he was releasing. She very emphatically refused.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 11:36 AM

It's also the world's loss. The composer's been rewarded, so there should be an official way that the publisher can release the song to the Public Domain.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 09:13 AM

Mr Red, do you have any evidence to support your allegation about Paul McCartney?

It's true that a lot of PRS royalties don't get distributed, that's because a lot of musicians don't submit a claim. Which reminds me...

If a songwriter sells his song to a publisher he then loses all control over it. Presumably the songwriter was happy with the price he was paid, if the publisher then decides it's not commercial and doesn't release it that's their loss.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 10:47 AM

This is an account of one of the earliest copyright disputes over a folk song - 'The Wreck of the Old '97
Jim Carroll

Among the curious who came to gape at the wreckage was the telegraph operator at Franklin Junction, David Graves George. It was either George or a pair of Fries, Virginia textile workers named Charles Weston Lowell and Fred Jackson Lowey who took a song called “The Ship That Never Returned” and reworked it into “The Wreck of the Old 97.” The dispute between the two parties was to be the first major copyright battle in American recording history. The route from the wreck to the courtroom less a story of its own.
Long before it was first recorded, the song was widely known in southern Virginia and North Carolina. Sometime around 19l4, a loom fixer in Fries named Henry Whitter learned the song from a fellow mill worker named Frank Burnett who, it turn, had learned “Old ‘97” from Noell and Lowey. Whitter had ambitions of becoming a professional musician and in 1923 he made his way to New York to audition for the General Phonograph Company. The record industry was not quite ready for country music, but after Fiddlin' John Carson's success in Atlanta later that Year, the company called Whitter back. On December 12, 1923, he made the first recording of “The Wreck of the Southern Old 97,” twenty years after the event.
It was released early in 1924 and caught the attention of Vernon Dalhart. In August, 1924, he recorded it for the Victor Talking Machine Company. That record is said to have been the first million-selling country music record. Victor bought the rights to the song from Noel), Lowey and Whitter.
When David Graves George learned of Dalhart’s success, he sued Victor over the rights to the song. The ensuing trial from 1930 to 1933 involved hundreds of witnesses. Danville and Fries residents testified to the length of time the song had been sung in their respective communities. Robert W. Gordon, the first director of the Archive of Folk Song in the Library of Congress acted as an expert witness concerning the song's distribution in oral tradition. In the first trial, George was awarded $62,295, but a subsequent appeal reversed that decision in favour of Victor. The recording of “Old 97” on this album has a significant place in the story of that controversy. Kelly Harrell was another Fries millhand and a friend of Henry Whitter. Whitter tried to get Harrell to record with him, but he was reluctant until he heard Whitter's recording. Convinced he could do no worse, he auditioned for Victor. In August, 1925, Harrell and Whitter went to Asheville, North Carolina to record for Okeh. Harrell was specifically asked to record "Old 97" because his singing was far clearer than Whitter's. The 12-inch record released was unusual for its length and obviously meant as a challenge to the Dalhart recording. Harrell was later called as a witness in the Copyright trial.
Harrell's version less typical of the intriguing mix of fact and inaccuracy in most versions of the song. Some of these might be explained as the effect of oral tradition. “And the lie was a three- mile grade,” for example, originated as: “And at Lima there's a three mile grade. "Verses two and eight in Harrell's version are uncommon, and may have been collaboration by Harrell and Whitter. Joseph Broady, the engineer of 97 usually identified as “Steve Brady” in the song, was nicknamed Steve by his fellow railroaded after a New Yorker who won brief fame by surviving a fall from the Brooklyn Bridge.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: leeneia
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 08:44 AM

I know what you mean. Apparently there is no real way to make money by composing unless you can stage concerts and get the ticket revenue. Once you record something, the parasites are waiting.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 04:20 PM

Leeneia my pet hate is lyric sites (this one at least gives attribution). Lyrics of often modern copyright songs are being distributed by parasitic commercial webpages. The contributors get points the more they post, and their names attached. The artist associated with the song gets a credit, but often there is no space for, or mention of the actual writer whose copyright lyrical work is being stolen and circulated around the world (often with ridiculous errors).

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 12:35 PM

The copyright laws were written at a time when the composer or publisher had control over copies of the song. There were no copy machines, and transcribing a song by ear was an unusual talent. (It still is.) When a song was printed, it told the composer's name and the date of the copyright.

Then came copy machines, and anybody could copy a song, white out the copyright info, and put the song into circulation for free. Pretty soon, even if a person wanted to know its copyright status, they couldn't find it. I once really pursued the question of copyright of an old song, and it turned out that I would have to pay a researcher at the Library of Congress to search their records. Or I could travel to DC, get a hotel, and do it myself.

Once I thought it would be fun to make a YouTube of my own version of "Little Drummer Boy" for my family. Turned out that to get permission, I would have to telephone a certain employee at a certain agent in London. I didn't bother.

As for recordings, through the vinyl era, a performer controlled his music because he had control of the LP's. Then the manufacturers of radios and tape recorders made it possible to copy music without paying for it, and there went the profits from recordings.

Technology has gutted the music business.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Mr Red
Date: 02 Aug 18 - 03:16 AM

Paul McCartney was behind one of the biggest copyright heists of all time.

He (his clever actors in his name & revenue) covertly bought rafts of songs endlessly, until he got to 50% of the UK copyrighted songlist. At that point he claimed all unclaimed royalties. Folk songs, singer songwriter songs, unclassified songs, undocumented airings etc.

The PRS had a metric, BBC et al documented everything broadcast and PRS calculated it from there. They changed their metrics at some stage, probably as a reaction to adverse publicity among the cognoscenti over the scam. A few big bands then decided to collect their own royalties, citing the 18 month delay from PRS.

I well remember a radio prog lamenting some budding songwriter who was complaining they had sold their song and it never saw the light of day thereafter. And a bit of a dig into the situation. Then I heard about PMcC's antics.

And (assuming we cared about his music) do we believe (eg) Robbie Williams writes all his own stuff? It's a jungle out there.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 08:26 AM

scary -

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 08:02 AM

This is one of the weirdest copyright stories I've ever read.

How I gave away my face for free

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: GUEST,paperback
Date: 06 Feb 18 - 06:17 PM

The Sir Paul MacCartneys of this world.

He done his duty show a little respect.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Feb 18 - 05:32 PM

interesting mg......i suppose the law is there for a reason, and it will always be the assholes who resort to the law. god knows when a corporation steals from you all the professional bodies are conscientiously useless.

they're only really there for the Paul MacCartneys of this world.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Andy7
Date: 03 Feb 18 - 04:51 PM

One of my own compositions includes the line, "When I was a lad".

The copyright of the whole song obviously belongs to me. But the copyright of that well-used phrase? Hardly!

So how much of a song has to be 'copied', I wonder, before it's considered to be plagiarism?

It's probably impossible to arrive at a definitive answer; so it will always be a matter of judgement.

If I published a song that started, "Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away", I'd be an obvious plagiarist.

But how about if my song started, "Once, I was carefree"?
"Yesterday, I was carefree"?
"Yesterday, I had no troubles"?
"Yesterday, troubles were far from me"?

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: leeneia
Date: 03 Feb 18 - 04:30 PM

There are no laws to punish someone who claims a copyright they are not entitled to. I once saw somebody claim copyright to one of the psalms from the Bible.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: mg
Date: 02 Feb 18 - 05:38 PM

i did what i thought was right and i still had a nasty problem with a nasty woman on my last cd. i had talked with a family member, i had paid for the license, and she came after me threatening lawyers etc. i guess she was the official contact and not her nephew. that was not easily ascertained nor did he tell me that. go through an agency if you can. fortunately i had only run off 50 copies with no case, so it was not terribly expensive. but i missed passing them out and selling them at fisher poets last year and had to throw the whole batch away. she was a fiend from hell. i do not think she had a legal leg to stand on though because this was done through the agency.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Feb 18 - 09:23 AM

things have to go wrong before you need worry. basically no one can afford to do battle with people who can afford to employ lawyers.

just do what you want and hope no one gives a damn.

i remember Peggy Seeger said to me when she published one of my songs in New City Songster, now your song is protected - no one can steal it.
I said, Peggy - I can't give the damn things away.

When you have a hit record. They pay you pretty much what they want - unless you're one of the big hitters like McCartney or Elton John.
Even The Beatles were paid sod all for years., until they got enough clout to demand a better deal.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: GUEST,Rossey
Date: 02 Feb 18 - 08:51 AM

Ged Fox.. In the case of the UK and song ownership, Modern copyright is for 70 years after the death of the author/composer. If a work has more than one author/composer - then it is for 70 years after the last person involved died. If you have made a significant change to a trad. work - added lyrics or tune, then you can claim the arrangement of the work Trad Arr by. Or if really changed, claim the whole work as original. Modern copyright exists from when the work first appears in a fixed dated form, which is why it is usually the standard to put (C) - then e.g. 1962.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: Ged Fox
Date: 02 Feb 18 - 08:15 AM

And pre-1923 is no guarantee of public domain status in UK. A friend of mine recently set "The Highwayman" (1906) to music. She acknowledged, and paid royalties on, the copyright due to the heirs of Alfred Noyes, the poem's author, who died in 1958.

Subject: RE: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: leeneia
Date: 30 Jan 18 - 04:35 PM

Here's the page:

https://law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/

Subject: copyright: somebody finally said it
From: leeneia
Date: 30 Jan 18 - 04:34 PM

I've been researching copyright law for my classical music club. I found this useful statement by the Law School of Duke University. It really cuts through the confusion surrounding U.S. copyrights.
=======
"The only works that are clearly in the US public domain now are those published before 1923. But what about works published after that date? Does that mean that they’re still under copyright? Well, maybe.

Citizens of the United States have to live with a frustrating lack of clarity about what older works they can use. Did the author comply with registration or renewal requirements when those were mandatory? The records are fragmentary and confused, the copyright holders hard to find.

Perhaps some post-1923 works by the authors above are in the public domain. Perhaps they are still copyrighted. We have to live in a fog of uncertainty, uncertainty that benefits no one."
====================
I've suspected something like this for a long time. It's good to see it verified. Next I'll put in the link.