Songs and Death

[mjr]

That would look pretty fishy. Like I said, if it looked fishy the judge is going to see through it. But you do make a great point. That is why I advise sending it certified so the weight of the envelope is on there. Like I said 99.9% of the time certified envelope with a date stamp is going to work fine. You have to remember that this envelope is going to be your evidence, should you need it, so you want to do the best job you can to preserve the best evidence that you can.

I have no idea who created that website, snope.com but I can almost guarantee you it was not an attorney in the music industry. I don't believe something just because someone posts on a website.

You can't go wrong by registering. All I am saying is that you do not have to. I know that I will never convince you in a million years that you are wrong. I am just providing information for others.

Snopes is a website based on analyzing and researching urband legends. They're very reputable.

It's also easy to fake sending it certified. All you've gotta do is put an empty CD in a jewel case in the manilla envelope, close the clasp, and there you go!

I don't believe everything posted on a websites also, but I've found snopes.com as well as truthorfiction.com to be reliable sources on what's true and what's not.

Anyway, I'm not taking any chances. Ever heard the money story behind "The Lion Sleeps Tonight"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight

BTW...I don't think it'd take you a million years to convince me I'm wrong. I don't think "wrong" is the correct word, though. Show me case law. Show me a case where this happened, what the circumstances were, and what the result was. Easy.

Technically, I can't play a song that isn't mine in my own living room.

I also technically can't buy a CD, invite some friends over, and listen to it as a group.

I can't even technically sing "Happy Birthday" to someone on their birthday...

I could get sued for doing all three of those things.

 

[David M]

It's also easy to fake sending it certified. All you've gotta do is put an empty CD in a jewel case in the manilla envelope, close the clasp, and there you go!

Hopefully, if you really wanted to protect a copyright you would be smarter than that. The envelope would need to be sealed or it would be meaningless. I know you are smarter than that, but I get your point.

There was a very famous case that I remember from law school. Back in the 1950 a guy named Smith tried to "fake" copyright evidence by taking an old self address envelope and doing what you've talked about: he tried to put an Irvin Berlin song in an envelope he had mailed to himself and used some kind of adhesive to reseal the envelop. He also had a lady that testified that she had heard him sing the song ("You're Just in Love") several years before the Irvin Berlin song had come out.

The court agreed that the “poor man’s copyright” was valid (no court has ever questioned that). But an expert witness for Irvin Berlin testified that the envelope had been opened and resealed. They actually did a chemical test of the adhesive and proved that it was a different adhesive than what usually came on the type of envelop used. They also had several music expert witnesses testify. The music experts analyzed "You're Just in Love" and several other songs that the Plaintiff, Smith, had written himself. They testified that the level of musical composition of the Berlin song was far superior to any other song Smith had written and opined that they did not believe Smith could have possibly written the Berlin song.

Technically, I can't play a song that isn't mine in my own living room.

I also technically can't buy a CD, invite some friends over, and listen to it as a group.

I can't even technically sing "Happy Birthday" to someone on their birthday...

I could get sued for doing all three of those things.

Oh God, please don't tell me you really believe any of this.

For anyone who is interested, there is a really great book by Donald Passman that has a lot of information on Music law. Monte, if you really believe the above quote you should really check out the book.

 

[Jack Russell]

Good points on each side.

I think mjr is right about the possibility of fakery on the poor man's copyright.

If that was your only case, then I'd think a registered copyright would trump it. But we don't live inside a box. A trial would have testimony and character witnesses.

Anyway, I'd go after someone big time if they stole my song and made money off it. If you are in the right, witnesses will support you.

If someone stole it and made no money: Then I'd just laugh. haha. the joke is on both of us! And I'd just get a kick out of someone's elses version.

 

[Jack Russell]

Hopefully, if you really wanted to protect a copyright you would be smarter than that. The envelope would need to be sealed or it would be meaningless. I know you are smarter than that, but I get your point.

Well, with all due respect, I think you're missing his point.

If I mailed a manilla folder to myself, with a CD, but only clasped it without gluing it, then upon receiving it, replaced it with my "original" CD, and THEN glued it shut and clasped it...

Bingo!

 

[HapiCmpur]

Considering how much money most of us have spent on our instruments and recording equipment, it seems strange to me that we'd be arguing over how to save a paltry 45 bucks -- which is all it costs to register a copyright on any number of songs you choose.

A registered copyright is like insurance on your investment. If you weigh that $45 against the amount of time and money you've invested in creating your songs, I believe you'll stop fretting over whether or not a sealed envelope will hold up in court.

 

[Folkie]

Back to the original idea of the thread. A lot of work (granted most examples I can think of are visual art and literature) became famous and valuable after the creator died. Put them in your will.

As to the copyright issue, remember "The Lion Sleeps Tonight"?

http://bobshannon.com/stories/Lion.html

BACKGROUND: This is the story of an African doo-wop song. Its original title was “Mbube,” (pronounced EEM-boo-beh) which means “Lion,” and it was sung with a haunting Zulu refrain that sounded, to English-speaking people, like “wimoweh.” “Mbube” was a big hit in what is now Swaziland; it sold nearly 100,000 copies in the 1940s by its originator, South African Solomon Linda. Linda had written it based on a boyhood experience chasing lions that were stalking the family's cattle, and recorded the tune in 1939 with his group the Evening Birds. It was so popular that Zulu choral music became known as “Mbube Music”. Then it passed into the broad field of “folk” music, albeit by an indirect route. The South African recording company sent it along with some other 78s to Decca Records in the U.S. Decca wasn't interested, but folk historian and musicologist Alan Lomax was. He took the records to Pete Seeger, of the American folk group the Weavers. Seeger was enchanted by “Mbube”, especially the refrain which sounded to him like “awimbooee” or “awimoweh” (it was actually “uyimbube” in Zulu). The Weavers (led by Gordon Jenkins' Orchestra) adapted it into a Top 15 hit in 1952, as “Wimoweh”. It was basically an instrumental with the group singing “wimoweh” over and over, with other vocal flourishes. The tune really took off in the Weavers' live version at Carnegie Hall in 1957. Linda was not credited as the writer; that honor went to “Paul Campbell”, a pseudonym for the group. However, when the Kingston Trio released their version in 1959 (on the From the Hungry i LP) the writer credit was listed as “traditional; adapted and arranged by Campbell-Linda.” Meanwhile, Linda died with only $25 in his bank account; his heirs are still pursuing royalties from the song that is perhaps one of the most well-known worldwide hits. The complete story, too long to be included here, was thoroughly documented in an amazing work of scholarship by Rian Malan, in Rolling Stone, May 25, 2000 ("In the Jungle"). Luckily, it can be read online at 3rd Ear Music

 

[Jack Russell]

Back to the original idea of the thread. A lot of work (granted most examples I can think of are visual art and literature) became famous and valuable after the creator died. Put them in your will.

Yes, that sounds simple, but it isn't so. To whom should one will their art/music to?

For me personally, the copyright issue isn't so important, but the preservation of the work is. It is a rather depressing day when someone in your family passes on and you are left with a large collection of stuff to deal with. If it is of any value you can donate it to charities--furniture, antiques, even clothes. etc. But, for art and music, it presents a special dilemma.

I've contacted my alma mater (Iowa State U.), and so far I've had only a deaf ear to my inquiries about how I'd donate an art collection.

The depressing idea of my work (or anyone's) being chucked into a landfill is disturbing. But I suppose that might be the end of it.

Fun topic isn't it!!!!

My brother is an artist, and his opinion is that he would donate his unsold work to his alma mater also. Don't know if he's contacted them about it, though.

So....this leads me to................





....my crazy idea.....on this subject............




























































How To Preserve a Dead Person's Art and Music for 'Eternity'
by Jack D. Russell
Small horny beast

1) First off all, if you haven't sold the work when you are alive, then it is a damn good chance that you won't have anyone interested in archiving it or selling for you right after you kick the bucket.

2) What do you really want out of the preservation? Immortality is what you want, so don't kid yourself.

3) Donating it to the school you went to will mean it sits in a warehouse somewhere for a few years, then it will be chucked. That ain't very immortal!

4) If you really want the work to last for the longest time and be the most valuable to future human beings, the best way to preserve it is

[drum roll please.....................]

Bury it deep in the ground in a concrete case in the most remote location you can find. This will ultimately result in two things:

1) It will be forgotten very soon.

2) Once found it will be a treasure, to the discoverers. The more remote, the longer it will take. Perhaps 20,000 years from now. Perhaps 100,000? How about a million years from now? If man is still alive, if woman can survive.....

THE END
Copyright2006
This has been a J.D.R. Presentation