Legal Question - Borrowing a Line

slickslack

slickslack

New member
should there be any legal concern if you use a line from a famous song such as where Genesis(Lamb Lies Down...) album track borrows The Rolling Stones' line "its only rock and roll, but I like it" ?

i'm sure there are other examples but that one came to mind.
 
I think if you use a line against your own original music, it's not going to be an issue.
Mmmm...I know titles are not copyright-able, so that's like a line.
 
I think this speaks for itself here. Practically half her song is a famous one. And she is allowed to name it whatever she pleases.

 
In many instances, such as the Stones line quoted, the words are a common enough turn of phrase in the 1st instances.
An earlt Pygmy Beat song is almost entirely of phrases form different songs. I also wrote a lyrics that paraphrased about 50 Dylan songs.
I'm sure that I was naughty to some degree but there are many, many lyrics that are stock phrases, common usuage and popular catch phrases. They can't be owned except in the context of something greater.
 
It's language. You can't copyright language or the order in which words are used or whoever first wrote "I love you" in a song would be raking it in !
 
grimtraveller said:
It's language. You can't copyright language
Click to expand...

If a line is signature to a song, there might be room for argument. Such as the case demonstrated by Butt-Plug-Regina in Crows's post. For sure she had to license The Animal's song and claim it as a derivitive work. Unless, it's done as a parody which I doubt that is. (It's just plain stupid, but not a parody)
 
Chili said:
If a line is signature to a song, there might be room for argument.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the key. A good or shady lawyer can argue anything. Imagine Paul McCartney taking me to court because I wrote a song about someone who was estranged from their Mum and in the song I'm trying to persuade the person to call their Mum up and part of the lyric was "because she loves you and know that can't be bad/Not only that, she loves you and you know you should be glad !".
Actually, thinking about it, I could argue in Macca's favour ! Too much "Crown court" and "Perry Mason" I'm afraid. :D
 
do copyrights have to be renewed every 50 yrs.

EDIT: and the answer is no--if this is still the law and its true...

Sony Bono Act of 1998: This extended the length of the US. copyright law from lifespan of the author plus 50 years to the lifespan of the author plus 70 years. This change was brought on mainly because Mickey Mouse was reaching the end of his copyright length and Disney didn't want to lose one of their most notable figures (Lessig).
 
Last edited:
Hell - you can rip off entire melodies and lift huge lyrical swaths from the classics - it's not going to make one whit of difference, legal or not.
 
Copyright law is vague on this one. As noted above, titles and *short phrases* are not subject to copyright. If someone cares, and has deep enough pockets, they can challenge in court whether what you have used is a "short phrase" or not. In this case, it appears to be a whole sentence, which *is* subject to copyright. That's the legal reality. Now the real-world reality- It is damned unlikely that anybody cares enough to spend a ton of money going after you for the millions you don't have. If you hit #1 on the billboard, I think you might have a problem, and you really might lose in court. My guess is that the likelihood of your song going viral, you getting a new artist Grammy, and ASCAP/BMI and the Harry Fox agency going after you for copyright violation is about as good as the survival of a snowball in a blast furnace in Death Valley. Don't worry- Be Happy. (I stole that line- come and get me.)
 
so let's i've been fortunate enough to have my pants sued off but the whole sentence in question only made up 5% of the lyrics. i guess it would be up to the judge to sort out how much of the song's total revenue to grant to the plaintiff...?

its ok to pipedream.
 
Richard Monroe said:
Copyright law is vague on this one. As noted above, titles and *short phrases* are not subject to copyright. If someone cares, and has deep enough pockets, they can challenge in court whether what you have used is a "short phrase" or not. In this case, it appears to be a whole sentence, which *is* subject to copyright. That's the legal reality. Now the real-world reality- It is damned unlikely that anybody cares enough to spend a ton of money going after you for the millions you don't have. If you hit #1 on the billboard, I think you might have a problem, and you really might lose in court. My guess is that the likelihood of your song going viral, you getting a new artist Grammy, and ASCAP/BMI and the Harry Fox agency going after you for copyright violation is about as good as the survival of a snowball in a blast furnace in Death Valley. Don't worry- Be Happy. (I stole that line- come and get me.)
Click to expand...

Richard - you have a great way with words (meant sincerely!) - you succinctly explained the point I was trying to make.
 
IaNaLB... hasn't the precedent been in other such cases that the author of the original song gets co-writer credit and thus the equivalent cut of the money? (plus or minus legal costs/fees).

More examples!

Hopefully, Dave Matthews doesn't sue me!
 
Actually, with punitive penalties, you could be liable for the mechanical royalties ($.08 per copy, last time I checked), or $100,000, whichever is greater. As I said, the chances of that are about the same as my chances of having sex with Faith Hill.
 
That's the funny thing - everybody asks about copyrights and they have zero chance of success let alone being sued. I happen to have first hand experience in this regard....:D:D:D:D
 
There is one thing worth noting that doesn't apply to most people but... say you actually *do* have deep pockets, or you're a dependent of someone who does. If you happen to be heir to the Planter's Peanut fortune, or whatever (Paris Hilton comes to mind), etc., you have to be more careful. It's a pile of money that puts a target on your back. It doesn't matter why you have money. If you have enough of it, the suits could go after you in spite of the fact that your music career is a bust. Pretty much, if you are in the middle class or lower, you're not worth the trouble.
 
Richard Monroe said:
There is one thing worth noting that doesn't apply to most people but... say you actually *do* have deep pockets, or you're a dependent of someone who does. If you happen to be heir to the Planter's Peanut fortune, or whatever (Paris Hilton comes to mind), etc., you have to be more careful. It's a pile of money that puts a target on your back. It doesn't matter why you have money. If you have enough of it, the suits could go after you in spite of the fact that your music career is a bust. Pretty much, if you are in the middle class or lower, you're not worth the trouble.
Click to expand...

Agree - you either have to have money or be making money for anyone to take interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top