How many notes can you lift before it becomes plagiarism?

[BroKen_H]

And then the other major license breaker that I know of. Churches often play other people's songs and I know few that pay royalties. I do, however, seek permissions before playing others' songs at ours. I really doubt that a true Christian would sue over royalties for music played in worship service, but it is infringement none-the-less and as true Christians, we should obey the laws of the land...

 

[Chili]

And then the other major license breaker that I know of. Churches often play other people's songs and I know few that pay royalties. I do, however, seek permissions before playing others' songs at ours. I really doubt that a true Christian would sue over royalties for music played in worship service, but it is infringement none-the-less and as true Christians, we should obey the laws of the land...

I don't know, man. Church is big business. There is even a performing rights organization strictly for Christian music. CCL or something. And I doubt an almighty deity like god could stop a lawyer when he has a lawsuit in his sights.

 

[BroKen_H]

I don't know, man. Church is big business. There is even a performing rights organization strictly for Christian music. CCL or something. And I doubt an almighty deity like god could stop a lawyer when he has a lawsuit in his sights.

Did I mention TRUE Christians???

 

[PTravel]

And then the other major license breaker that I know of. Churches often play other people's songs and I know few that pay royalties. I do, however, seek permissions before playing others' songs at ours. I really doubt that a true Christian would sue over royalties for music played in worship service, but it is infringement none-the-less and as true Christians, we should obey the laws of the land...

Oh, please. I would hope that a "true Christian," and any other rights owner, would take action to stop illegal infringement. That the infringement is by a church doesn't, nor shouldn't, absolve the church of liability. Copyright law exists as an incentive to creation -- without it, authors, musicians, painters, sculptors and others who create original work would have no reason to do so. "I stole your work for church," has no place in the rationale for copyright protection.

I don't know, man. Church is big business. There is even a performing rights organization strictly for Christian music. CCL or something. And I doubt an almighty deity like god could stop a lawyer when he has a lawsuit in his sights.

Well, I did once kill opposing counsel. Was it God? Was it good lawyering? Who can say?

 

[BroKen_H]

PT, I would also hope that "True Christians" would do what is right according to the laws and not have to be sued. My comment was supposed to be tongue in cheek, not challenging. Note the use of bold on "lawyers"...it was meant as a joke. Also the normal thought is that the performance is not what you pay copyright on, anyway.

Blessings!

 

[BroKen_H]

PT, you may be able to answer this question though. Our understanding is that worship performance during service is a blanket pass on licence. Is this correct?
We pay licence on any lyrics we display (or pass out to the congregation by other means) through CCLI.

 

[PTravel]

PT, I would also hope that "True Christians" would do what is right according to the laws and not have to be sued. My comment was supposed to be tongue in cheek, not challenging. Note the use of bold on "lawyers"...it was meant as a joke. Also the normal thought is that the performance is not what you pay copyright on, anyway.

Blessings!

There are a number of seminal cases in which churches were sued for infringement because they photocopied sheet music of hymns. I appreciate that it was said tongue in cheek. We need a smiley for that because, unfortunately, I've run into too many Christians (presumably not true Christians) who don't seem recognize that this is a secular country with secular laws.

PT, you may be able to answer this question though. Our understanding is that worship performance during service is a blanket pass on licence. Is this correct?
We pay licence on any lyrics we display (or pass out to the congregation by other means) through CCLI.

Yes, that's correct -- there is an exemption in copyright law for performances in the context of worship. 17 USC § 110(3) provides:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright: . . . performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly;"

Now, note that this is very specific. It must be played "in the course of services." It also excludes dramatic literary or musical works as wells as "dramatico-musical works of a [non]religious nature," i.e. songs from musicals. That rules out anything from "Fiddler on the Roof," "Jesus Christ Superstar," and "Godspel" to name a few. It would permit, for example, performance of a modern arrangement of Handel's "Messiah."

It also only covers performance. As you note, any display of lyrics, or copying of sheet music, recording of CDs, etc. is not covered by this exemption.

My personal view is that this exemption violates the First Amendment, which states that, "Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion." The First Amendment is construed as prohibiting any legislation that (1) has a primary purpose of advancing religion (or non-religion), (2) that results in excessive entanglement of government with religion (and this statute requires a court to determine what constitutes a "worship service," and (3) shows a government preference for religion (or non-religion).

Perhaps, if a church ever performs one of my works in a worship service, I'll sue and test the constitutionality of this statute.

 

[Chili]

Perhaps, if a church ever performs one of my works in a worship service, I'll sue and test the constitutionality of this statute.

Me!! Me!! Pick me. I can go to a church, play one of your songs then you can sue me and the church for like sayyyy, a case of beer or a donut. Then you can challenge the statute all the way to the supreme court (I'll fight back of course!!) where we can expose the truth about organized religion and how they are just a front for billionaire tax evasionists. (I made that word up. Kinda goes along with evangelists!!)

We should go after the Catholic church. I've been to the Vatican, they can afford it.

 

[PTravel]

Me!! Me!! Pick me. I can go to a church, play one of your songs then you can sue me and the church for like sayyyy, a case of beer or a donut. Then you can challenge the statute all the way to the supreme court (I'll fight back of course!!) where we can expose the truth about organized religion and how they are just a front for billionaire tax evasionists. (I made that word up. Kinda goes along with evangelists!!)

We should go after the Catholic church. I've been to the Vatican, they can afford it.

Maybe. What kind of beer?

 

[Chili]

Maybe. What kind of beer?

You know, it's the Catholic church, so Miller Lite.

 

[PTravel]

You know, it's the Catholic church, so Miller Lite.

Ugh. Not worth it.

 

[BroKen_H]

My personal view is that this exemption violates the First Amendment, which states that, "Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion." The First Amendment is construed as prohibiting any legislation that (1) has a primary purpose of advancing religion (or non-religion), (2) that results in excessive entanglement of government with religion (and this statute requires a court to determine what constitutes a "worship service," and (3) shows a government preference for religion (or non-religion).

Perhaps, if a church ever performs one of my works in a worship service, I'll sue and test the constitutionality of this statute.

I don't understand how allowing ANY church to have exemptions is establishing religion. How we construe or misconstrue what the original writers of the Constitution and its amendments is the problem. You see, some of us think that it meant that the government should not have a state run institutional church (as England did that they were rebelling against). Saying that Satanists can sing Satanist songs in their religious services and Christians can sing Christian songs in their religious services (as government and tax exempt entities) does not promote any specific religion. The interpretation implies that there are non religions. C'mon, even evolution is a religion. Christians say, "In the beginning God created..." Evolutionists say, "In the beginning a big explosion created..." They both take the same amount of faith. Faith is the basis of religion.

 

[jonny deep]

C'mon, even evolution is a religion. Christians say, "In the beginning God created..." Evolutionists say, "In the beginning a big explosion created..." They both take the same amount of faith. Faith is the basis of religion.

Yeah, that and all the evidence.

 

[Greg_L]

Me!! Me!! Pick me. I can go to a church, play one of your songs then you can sue me and the church for like sayyyy, a case of beer or a donut. Then you can challenge the statute all the way to the supreme court (I'll fight back of course!!) where we can expose the truth about organized religion and how they are just a front for billionaire tax evasionists. (I made that word up. Kinda goes along with evangelists!!)

We should go after the Catholic church. I've been to the Vatican, they can afford it.

Don't mess with the Catholics. Go after all the filthy rich Joel Osteen types.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

C'mon, even evolution is a religion.

Well this is unlikely to end well or with anyone's dignity intact.

Back on topic, CCLI and their ilk actually make me - as a Christian who attends church and plays in the band - pretty uncomfortable. "A worker is worth his wages" and all, but eventually it reaches a point where you're putting profit ahead of the Faith.

I feel like licensing Christian music for services should be a voluntarily thing unless your church has a lot of disposable income.

 

[PTravel]

I don't understand how allowing ANY church to have exemptions is establishing religion. How we construe or misconstrue what the original writers of the Constitution and its amendments is the problem. You see, some of us think that it meant that the government should not have a state run institutional church (as England did that they were rebelling against). Saying that Satanists can sing Satanist songs in their religious services and Christians can sing Christian songs in their religious services (as government and tax exempt entities) does not promote any specific religion. The interpretation implies that there are non religions. C'mon, even evolution is a religion. Christians say, "In the beginning God created..." Evolutionists say, "In the beginning a big explosion created..." They both take the same amount of faith. Faith is the basis of religion.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion. Religion <> science and science <> religion. Religions is predicated upon faith. Science is predicated upon observation, hypothesis, experimentation and validation. You might find interesting the recent detection of gravity waves that confirm (though not necessarily prove) the theory of the big bang and faster-than-light inflation of the universe.

The First Amendment prohibited the establishment of a state religion, but it was also intended to do much more. It was not limited to the proscribing the promotion of a specific religion, but to all religion. If you're interested, I can cite you to the case law in which the history of the First Amendment is discussed.

Edited to add:

I've had to explain this in so many places and so many times that I missed something critical in your post. You said, "I don't understand how allowing ANY church to have exemptions is establishing religion." The language of the First Amendment is different: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Founding Fathers were highly literate, well-educated and careful men -- they did not use language carelessly. They did not write, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" -- if they had, it would mean only what you say. Instead, they wrote that Congress can enact laws that respect AN establishment of religion -- "establishment of religion" is a noun, not a verb. An establishment of religion is a church -- any church.

 

[PTravel]

Well this is unlikely to end well or with anyone's dignity intact.

Yep. And that will be true, even if we just stick to discussing the law.

I feel like licensing Christian music for services should be a voluntarily thing unless your church has a lot of disposable income.

Under the current law, it is. My objection to the current law is that it applies, not only to Christian music, but to non-dramatic secular music. Why should, for example, the estate of Woody Guthrie be required to make a compelled and involuntary contribution of intellectual property rights to a church that might choose to perform "This Land is Your Land" as part of a worship service?

 

[Hagrid]

First, I am not an attorney and you should not take this as legal advice.

I work in the intellectual properties world and deal with copyright issues daily.

Here are few comments:

1. You can be sued for anything.
2. Typically, being sued is leverage or motivation to get you to settle a claim outside of court due to the high cost of litigation.
3. Generally speaking, the number of notes really doesn't matter. In court, it will be up to the jury to decide if your notes/riff or whatever infringed.
4. You can be found guilty of infringement, but the amount of damages you have to pay is typically based on what you made in profit from what was infringed.
5. If you didn't make any money, then there are no profits.
6. However, there are special circumstances. If the plaintiffs can prove willfulness, then you can be liable for plaintiffs attorney's fees and fines, up to $150,000.
7. Willfulness typically is proved when you knowingly and repeatedly continue to infringe on the copyright. Like, the owner notifies you to cease and desist using the infringed item and you continue to sell or profit from it. But it is hard to prove willfulness.
8. Copyright infringement is all about the money or reputation. If you use someone's IP (intellectual property) and you make lots of money, you will become a target. If you use someone's IP and if it can potentially hurt their reputation, then you will be asked to stop using the IP or face litigation.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[PTravel]

First, I am not an attorney and you should not take this as legal advice.

I work in the intellectual properties world and deal with copyright issues daily.

But, apparently, not as a lawyer.

Here are few comments:

1. You can be sued for anything.

Technically true.

2. Typically, being sued is leverage or motivation to get you to settle a claim outside of court due to the high cost of litigation.

Definitely not true. I sue infringers all the time. "Typically" my client will pick the weakest and least funded infringer and I'll take the matter to verdict to make an example of them. Then, future cease-and-desist letters to other infringers are very short, i.e. "Stop infringing. See attached judgment against the last infringer."

3. Generally speaking, the number of notes really doesn't matter. In court, it will be up to the jury to decide if your notes/riff or whatever infringed.

The number of notes does matter, as one of factors in deciding infringement is how substantial was the "taking." In court, it is up to the trier of fact to decide infringement, which may be a jury OR the judge. Moreover, many infringement cases are decided on summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues, a motion brought before the judge that says, essentially, the undisputed facts are sufficient for the judge to make a determination as a matter of law.

4. You can be found guilty of infringement, but the amount of damages you have to pay is typically based on what you made in profit from what was infringed.

Incorrect. Actual damages are EITHER infinger's profits less cost of sales OR copyright owner's lost sales. Statutory damages, which can be up to $30,000 per infringement for non-willful infringement, and up to $150,000 per infringement for willful infringement, require no proof of actual damages.

5. If you didn't make any money, then there are no profits.

Which does not mean you will not be held liable for substantial damages. See 17 USC Sec. 504.

6. However, there are special circumstances. If the plaintiffs can prove willfulness, then you can be liable for plaintiffs attorney's fees and fines, up to $150,000.

Not "fines," but a damage award which is paid to the plaintiff.

7. Willfulness typically is proved when you knowingly and repeatedly continue to infringe on the copyright.

Incorrect. Wilfullness requires only knowledge that the work you are copying is protected expression.

Like, the owner notifies you to cease and desist using the infringed item and you continue to sell or profit from it.

It is not willful infringement if you have a non-infringement opinion from a lawyer competent in the field. In that case, it doesn't matter whether you've received a dozen cease-and-desist letters and continue to profit from sales.

But it is hard to prove willfulness.

No, it is not IF the infringement is actually willful.

8. Copyright infringement is all about the money or reputation.

Copyright is a property right. In the US, the legal remedy for ALL injuries to property rights is monetary. Copyright infringement in the US has absolutely nothing to do with reputation -- the US has very, very limited recognition of moral rights.

If you use someone's IP (intellectual property) and you make lots of money, you will become a target. If you use someone's IP and if it can potentially hurt their reputation, then you will be asked to stop using the IP or face litigation.

And, again, incorrect. As I've already said, I frequently sue small infringers because my client wants to make an example of them. This is what I tell my clients: Never bring an infringement action on principle, and never consider an infringement action a profit center. A relatively uncomplicated infringement suit costs between $200,000 and $400,000 to prosecute, and frequently goes much, much higher. The calculus for bringing an infringement action is very simple: if the specific intellectual property right is valued at more than the cost of the action (and "value" means both present and future value), then it is worth suing for. Otherwise, it is not.

Also, note that a well-drafted cease-and-desist letter NEVER threatens litigation. The reason for that is because a threat of imminent litigation creates standing in the recipient for a declaratory judgment action, i.e. a suit in which the accused infringer is the plaintiff and the relief sought is a declaration that the plaintiff's activities don't infringe any rights of the defendant copyright owner. A cease-and-desist letter accomplishes one of two purposes: (1) Hopefully, it will cause the infringer to stop the infringement, and (2) if it fails to do that, it is evidence (not proof) of intentional infringement.

Hope that helps a little.

Incorrect information about something as critical to musicians as copyright doesn't help anyone.

 

[Hagrid]

But, apparently, not as a lawyer.

Technically true.

Definitely not true. I sue infringers all the time. "Typically" my client will pick the weakest and least funded infringer and I'll take the matter to verdict to make an example of them. Then, future cease-and-desist letters to other infringers are very short, i.e. "Stop infringing. See attached judgment against the last infringer."

The number of notes does matter, as one of factors in deciding infringement is how substantial was the "taking." In court, it is up to the trier of fact to decide infringement, which may be a jury OR the judge. Moreover, many infringement cases are decided on summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues, a motion brought before the judge that says, essentially, the undisputed facts are sufficient for the judge to make a determination as a matter of law.

Incorrect. Actual damages are EITHER infinger's profits less cost of sales OR copyright owner's lost sales. Statutory damages, which can be up to $30,000 per infringement for non-willful infringement, and up to $150,000 per infringement for willful infringement, require no proof of actual damages.

Which does not mean you will not be held liable for substantial damages. See 17 USC Sec. 504.

Not "fines," but a damage award which is paid to the plaintiff.

Incorrect. Wilfullness requires only knowledge that the work you are copying is protected expression.

It is not willful infringement if you have a non-infringement opinion from a lawyer competent in the field. In that case, it doesn't matter whether you've received a dozen cease-and-desist letters and continue to profit from sales.

No, it is not IF the infringement is actually willful.

Copyright is a property right. In the US, the legal remedy for ALL injuries to property rights is monetary. Copyright infringement in the US has absolutely nothing to do with reputation -- the US has very, very limited recognition of moral rights.

And, again, incorrect. As I've already said, I frequently sue small infringers because my client wants to make an example of them. This is what I tell my clients: Never bring an infringement action on principle, and never consider an infringement action a profit center. A relatively uncomplicated infringement suit costs between $200,000 and $400,000 to prosecute, and frequently goes much, much higher. The calculus for bringing an infringement action is very simple: if the specific intellectual property right is valued at more than the cost of the action (and "value" means both present and future value), then it is worth suing for. Otherwise, it is not.

Also, note that a well-drafted cease-and-desist letter NEVER threatens litigation. The reason for that is because a threat of imminent litigation creates standing in the recipient for a declaratory judgment action, i.e. a suit in which the accused infringer is the plaintiff and the relief sought is a declaration that the plaintiff's activities don't infringe any rights of the defendant copyright owner. A cease-and-desist letter accomplishes one of two purposes: (1) Hopefully, it will cause the infringer to stop the infringement, and (2) if it fails to do that, it is evidence (not proof) of intentional infringement.

Incorrect information about something as critical to musicians as copyright doesn't help anyone.

Well, I guess you showed me... That will teach me to never post here again...