Question About Copyrights and Song Titles

[Metlakatla]

OK, I give. Sorry, but I don't have time to read much of your post -- I write for a living, and I've got several deadlines this afternoon. Fortunately, I don't use song lyrics in my work, but if I did, I think I'd stick with what the professionals say about the issue. As a fully-supporting professional writer, I also believe that it's only common courtesy to other professionals to request permission before using their work.

Sure, amateur writers can play sly little games with word groupings that aren't really lyrics as well as find all sorts of ways around the issue, but those who depend on their writing to pay the bills need to play it by the book concerning using the work of others. My advice remains the same for anyone who wants to write professionally.

It's an interesting subject, though, now that so many people are self-publishing. I don't think that most people really make any money at that. Probably the worst that could happen would be to receive a cease and desist letter.

ETA I met my first deadline of the day and read your post and am kind of lost concerning what you're trying to say, so why don't you show me what U.S. copyright law says about song lyrics. And parody is generally protected by fair use, so the situation you describe with the TWIT thing probably wouldn't have gone anywhere anyway.

[harry chickpea]

The thrust of my post was that those who hold rights overstate those rights, often in a threatening manner, in the hopes that people will roll over and die, and that others will see them roll over and die and be so afraid of dying that they won't even think about using the rights that they legally can. The rest of the post is merely supporting example and information.

As I agree with you about professional courtesy, and agree that each situation would be best individually examined, I don't see that we have any real conflict.

[Metlakatla]

Again, for anyone actually using this forum for publishing advice and is wondering about song lyrics, they aren't covered by "fair use." You can waste time by trying to play "beat the lawyers," which might work out for you if you have another source of income and have time to waste. It's best to simply follow copyright law as stated if you hope to write professionally. For me, it really is more of a matter of ethics, but that's probably because I depend on what I write to keep a roof over my head. It just seems sleazy to search through haystacks for that one needle that might offer a way around copyright law.

This really only effects those self published books and pieces that somehow gain real notice...traditional publishers know better. Most self published stuff languishes in obscurity, and no one ever really knows if it contains copyright violations. It could become a real problem for someone who self published something that contained copyrighted material and the book gained national attention. The writer could end up taking quite a loss. I know there's a couple of cases of that happening currently. Those who self publish normally don't hire lawyers first, and they don't have the industry expertise of a real publishing firm behind them.

[jessxwrites89]

I e-mailed one of my favorite bands about using song titles in my book and they granted me full rights to use song titles. I asked them if when I am done the book if they want a copy. I know their address (I wrote to them and they wrote back - they're not a famous band), so I might just send them a copy anyway.

[harry chickpea]

The copyright issue rears its head in other ways. The intent of deriving gain from the work of others is fairly obvious when there is a direct lift of a song lyric, and there isn't a terribly great social importance one way or the other. What has made me somewhat nuts however, is the issue of minor historical photos. I've spent thousands of dollars on researching and documenting an old trolley line that had only ever been marginally covered in articles. Along the way, I have picked up copies of just about every known photo taken of the trolley system.

The problem with these photos is that the copyright trail doesn't lead back to the creator, and FINDING the correct copyright owner is in many cases completely impossible. Some of the photos have been published (without attribution) in magazines. By some metrics, the magazine now holds a copyright - even if the photo was published unknown to the creator and there are other copies floating around in the scrapbooks of relatives. Some photos I found had been donated to an historical society that "suggested" a contribution before I used them. Other photos came from postcards and old stereoviews and have no clear ownership.

There is a whole class of historical publishing that operates in a questionable area. Look at any of the railroad books and other that Winston Link's work (a sad story in itself) creators and publishers operate at risk in merely attempting to document history. If the photographic field had an overlord as strong as ASCAP history would be reduced to pencil sketches and CGI recreations.

Ultimately, when I published my book on the trolley I did not include photos in the work but made them freely available separately. Hopefully, some one will rip them off, so that after I die they won't be lost to the scrap heap. Who knows, under current law, maybe they could then claim copyright and make money off them.

In the quest for maximizing corporate the profits of a few large corporations, the loss of public domain, the extension of questionable copyright claims, and greed pose a very real risk for the loss of verifiable historical records. We don't have to worry about extremist Muslims destroying history when we set the stage to do it ourselves.