How many notes can you lift before it becomes plagiarism?

A word about parody: Parody is a fair use doctrine defense to copyright infringement, meaning if you are sued for copyright infringement and your work is found to be parody you will not be liable. However, parody is a relatively complicated and non-intuitive doctrine that has some specific requirements. Chief among these is the requirement that the work alleged to be infringed be the "target" of the parody. Courts also apply something called the "conjure up" test, meaning that you are allowed to take no more of the original than is necessary to conjure up the original. Finally, there is a judicial gloss applied to parody cases that says, essentially, if your parody is "immoral" (and there is no legal definition for this -- parody is an equitable doctrine within the discretion of the judge), you will not be able to avail yourself of the parody fair use defense. Two examples of the immorality judicial gloss: Saturday Night Live parodied the "I Love NY" campaign with a song called "I Love Sodom." In the law suit that followed, SNL's song was held legitimate parody and, therefore, fair use. However, at roughly the same time, radio DJ Rick Dees in Southern California did a parody of the jazz standard "When Sunny Gets Blue" called "When Sunny Sniffs Glue." Dees was held to infringe the original -- no parody defense available. The only significant difference between the facts of these two cases was the subject matter -- SNL's song was about the biblical city, whereas Dees' song was about glue sniffing. To show just how fickle courts can be with respect to application of parody doctrine when morality is involved, I recommend doing a Google search Walt Disney v. The Air Pirates, which is the case that originated the "conjure up" test.
 
mjbphotos said:
Did the restaurant chain (Ruby Tuesday) have to pay Jagger/Richards, too?
Click to expand...
The issue there would be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. There is no copyright protection available to song titles (or any other kind of title).
 
Greg_L said:
Something like this could be defined as "parody" and therefore would fall under "fair use" protection.
Click to expand...

Greg has pretty much nailed it. I'm no lawyer, but for what it's worth, I believe that you can parody anything without fear. Take a look at the most famous parody maker...Weird Al. He can parody anything, nearly note for note, with different lyrics obviously. He himself has stated that he doesn't need any permission from the original artists to make his parodies, but out of respect he always asks them anyways.
 
pegger said:
Greg has pretty much nailed it. I'm no lawyer, but for what it's worth, I believe that you can parody anything without fear. Take a look at the most famous parody maker...Weird Al. He can parody anything, nearly note for note, with different lyrics obviously. He himself has stated that he doesn't need any permission from the original artists to make his parodies, but out of respect he always asks them anyways.
Click to expand...
You can parody anything. However, see my post above regarding what constitutes a parody. Note, as well, that permission from the copyright owner is not necessary (nor recommended). Parody doctrine specifically contemplates permission being refused.

ResidentExpert said:
A buddy of mine who used to be heavy in the jingle business, said up to two bars. Not that there is a actual number, but it takes
a certain succession of notes to prove a stolen piece.
Click to expand...
Absolutely dead wrong. I don't have the time to explain how infringement is analyzed -- maybe later -- but it has nothing to do with "a certain succession of notes."

Btw, parodies need permission from the writer.
Click to expand...
Dead wrong. Please don't give legal advice if you're not a lawyer familiar with copyright law.

A cover doesnt. A cover needs a license thats it.
Click to expand...
Covers are subject to a compulsory license. That's statutory. Parody comes under fair use doctrine, an equitable doctrine that, while codified in the copyright statute, is still an equitable doctrine and analyzed as such.

A parody changes the existing song and is considered plagerism, if the artist cares to do something about it.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as "plagiarism" at law -- there is only infringement. And, again, you are dead wrong -- parody not only can but, necessarily, does introduce changes to the target song.
 
PTravel said:
A word about parody: Parody is a fair use doctrine defense to copyright infringement, meaning if you are sued for copyright infringement and your work is found to be parody you will not be liable. However, parody is a relatively complicated and non-intuitive doctrine that has some specific requirements. Chief among these is the requirement that the work alleged to be infringed be the "target" of the parody. Courts also apply something called the "conjure up" test, meaning that you are allowed to take no more of the original than is necessary to conjure up the original. Finally, there is a judicial gloss applied to parody cases that says, essentially, if your parody is "immoral" (and there is no legal definition for this -- parody is an equitable doctrine within the discretion of the judge), you will not be able to avail yourself of the parody fair use defense. Two examples of the immorality judicial gloss: Saturday Night Live parodied the "I Love NY" campaign with a song called "I Love Sodom." In the law suit that followed, SNL's song was held legitimate parody and, therefore, fair use. However, at roughly the same time, radio DJ Rick Dees in Southern California did a parody of the jazz standard "When Sunny Gets Blue" called "When Sunny Sniffs Glue." Dees was held to infringe the original -- no parody defense available. The only significant difference between the facts of these two cases was the subject matter -- SNL's song was about the biblical city, whereas Dees' song was about glue sniffing. To show just how fickle courts can be with respect to application of parody doctrine when morality is involved, I recommend doing a Google search Walt Disney v. The Air Pirates, which is the case that originated the "conjure up" test.
Click to expand...

So when Weird Al Yankovic did that Windows 95 song to the tune of a Rolling Stones number, then it would be infringement as the target of the parody was Microsoft, not the song itself?
 
jonny deep said:
So when Weird Al Yankovic did that Windows 95 song to the tune of a Rolling Stones number, then it would be infringement as the target of the parody was Microsoft, not the song itself?
Click to expand...

(A quick Google tells me it was neither Weird Al nor a Rolling Stones song, but the point remains.)
 
jonny deep said:
So when Weird Al Yankovic did that Windows 95 song to the tune of a Rolling Stones number, then it would be infringement as the target of the parody was Microsoft, not the song itself?
Click to expand...

jonny deep said:
(A quick Google tells me it was neither Weird Al nor a Rolling Stones song, but the point remains.)
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the Weird Al song so I can't comment. Do you have a link?
 
BTW, I should note that everything I've written addresses US law, only. The US is a signatory of the Berne Convention on copyright, so US laws have been harmonized to comply with Berne, so the laws of other signatory countries, e.g. the UK, should be similar. However, equitable doctrines, like parody and fair use, don't necessarily fall within Berne, so may not apply outside the US.
 
mjbphotos said:
Did the restaurant chain (Ruby Tuesday) have to pay Jagger/Richards, too?
Click to expand...

I didn't even know there was a restaurant chain called Ruby Tuesday and I have no idea if they had to pay Jagger/Richards.

PTravel said:
The issue there would be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. There is no copyright protection available to song titles (or any other kind of title).
Click to expand...

I guess that answers that. :thumbs up:
 
ResidentExpert said:
As I said knowing somebody who has been "looked at" for this, I can say that defintly your "dead wrong" is an attempt to empower your own views.
Click to expand...
You know someone who has been "looked at for this." I'm a licensed attorney who has been litigating this stuff since 1992. I don't need to "empower my views."

You are not a lawyer either, but you think you know.
Click to expand...
Want to bet? California State Bar No. 160552. Look me up. It's always a good idea to read through a thread before jumping in and making yourself look foolish.

If I write "HEY JUDE, DONT MAKE IT... DADADADADA DA DADADADA Shoop Dada

You know and I know, what song I borrowed, but there is no way they can prove it, especially if I use a different lyric
Click to expand...
And, once again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of copyright law. When I get to work and have time, I'll explain how infringement analysis is done as you clearly don't have a clue.

If you have ever watched a late night night talk show, somebody will sing a song, and the host will say, ok thats enough!!!! cause they dont want to get charged, you can use up to like two bars.
Click to expand...
Nope. They have licenses with BMI and ASCAP and report the song as used. Again, you haven't a clue what you're talking about it.

YOU CANT GO INTO IT, is that cause you CANT?
Click to expand...
No, it's because I have an actual job to go to -- I work as an IP lawyer. Care to make a little money wager, by the way? How about this: you pay me for an hour of my time and I'll write a little explanation here on HR.

A parody is using the EXACT MELODY, EXACT Arrangement, EXACT style, and you think by changing the lyric, it's ok?
Click to expand...
A parody is not using the exact melody, arrangement, or style, though it can be, and changing the lyric is the nature of parody.

From Tech Dirt
Justin wrote to me last night: "You're going to love this. Lady Gaga denied Weird Al the right to release his parody of BORN THIS WAY, only the second time in his career that he's been denied [ed: the other refusal came from Prince]. But he recorded the track at her request as a part of the approval process... the first time any artists has made that request. She summarily passed without comment. So instead of selling a couple hundred thousand or a million copies... he gave PERFORM THIS WAY away for free to his 2 million followers on Twitter."
Click to expand...
And your point is what? Oh, I know: "If it's on the internet it must be true."
 
PTravel said:
You know someone who has been "looked at for this." I'm a licensed attorney who has been litigating this stuff since 1992. I don't need to "empower my views."

Want to bet? California State Bar No. 160552. Look me up. It's always a good idea to read through a thread before jumping in and making yourself look foolish.

And, once again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance of copyright law. When I get to work and have time, I'll explain how infringement analysis is done as you clearly don't have a clue.

Nope. They have licenses with BMI and ASCAP and report the song as used. Again, you haven't a clue what you're talking about it.

No, it's because I have an actual job to go to -- I work as an IP lawyer. Care to make a little money wager, by the way? How about this: you pay me for an hour of my time and I'll write a little explanation here on HR.

A parody is not using the exact melody, arrangement, or style, though it can be, and changing the lyric is the nature of parody.

And your point is what? Oh, I know: "If it's on the internet it must be true."
Click to expand...


Hey - you neg repped me. I've never been neg repped before. That hurts, man :p!
 
ResidentExpert said:
If Lady Gaga can deny him, then it must not be legal for him to do it. Otherwise it wouldnt matter what she thought
Click to expand...

As you're using google. Try this.

One of the best-known examples is that of "Weird Al" Yankovic. His career of parodying other musical acts and their songs has outlasted many of the artists or bands he has parodied. Yankovic is not required under law to get permission to parody; as a personal rule, however, he does seek permission to parody a person's song before recording it. Several artists, such as rapper Chamillionaire and Seattle-based grunge band Nirvana stated that Yankovic's parodies of their respective songs were excellent, and many artists have considered being parodied by him to be a badge of honor.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top