Problem With Someone Using Lyrics Without Author's Consent

[DonnaMarilyn]

The weirdest thing has happened, and I’m totally flummoxed.

 

A co-writer (musician/vocalist) and I collaborated on a nice little pop song in February, which I posted to a site I’m on. The lyric is in my personal forum on that site, and I’d written that the song had been completed. It's registered with my PRO, and with a music licensing agency, with a view to pitching.

 

Two nights ago, one of the forum members posted his music version of the song to my thread. I told him the lyric wasn’t available, and I’d already collaborated on the song. (He hadn't read my note that the song was done.)

When he asked, I said that I preferred not to have a second version of the same song. I asked him pleasantly not to continue working with the lyric.

 

Yesterday I saw that he had posted his version and my lyric on the forum, looking for collaborators to add instruments and vocals.

 

When I asked him politely to remove the song, explaining that I had an agreement with my co-writer, he flatly refused. He says he has every right to use my same lyric with music of his own. He claims that because my lyric is not for sale and was posted on a collaboration site, it is in the public domain, and free to be used by anyone, without permission.

 

Surely this cannot be so? I use the copyright symbol with my lyrics, and register them with my PRO. Now I've begun to add 'All rights reserved'.

 

He sent me a number of belligerent and sarcastic messages, one of which was quite ridiculous after the forum moderator removed his song thread at my request.

 

He wrote:

--------------------------

OK Donna, you made me do something I didn't think I would have to do. I will now go to the other music sites and I will post the song and I will NOT give you credit for the lyrics, I will claim that I wrote the lyrics.

 

Yes, then I will wait for you to try to get legal advice try to force me to remove the song. Your legal people will simply laugh at you because my song is simply on a music collaboration site and is not published. This is what I have to go through to get people to listen to my music. Sorry.

 

 

G.

-------------------------

 

Now, it's clear this guy is a few straws short of a bale - and has no idea that relationships - not music - make up about 85% of what's important in the music industry. But can anyone tell me something definitive about how much - if any - protection a piece of work is given by being copyrighted, PRO-registered, and with the statement 'All rights reserved'?

 

How can he claim that my - or any other such lyric - is in the public domain, free to be used without the author's consent?

 

In the meantime, he has posted the song at Kompoz, looking for collaborators (musicians and a vocalist). Last night no lyric was posted. This morning it was there (with my name).

 

Meanwhile, I've written to my PRO, asking for their take on this situation. Still waiting to hear from them. 

 

The guy is being obnoxious. He goes on about how good his music is, and that he's determined to make the song, even without my consent. For goodness sake, why can't he just write his own d*mn lyric? Or get someone else to write one.

 

(The irony is that after I 'd told him I didn't want a second version of the song, and asked him not to keep working with the lyric, I was toying with the idea of offering to write a new lyric to fit his music. [He's an older guy, and not that good a composer, and I felt sorry for him.] But the idea flew out the window when he posted his version anyway, and then became aggressive.)

 

I'm fighting really hard to maintain my 'Buddha nature'. I know it's pretty much all a storm in a teacup - and that I'll move on - but I find it disturbing that:

 

1) people like this guy feel they can simply take another's lyrics willy nilly, without consent, and

2) there's the remotest possibility that our works essentially have no protection at all in this kind of situation.

 

Well, sorry about the ramble. Was just wondering what someone else's perspective might be.

 

Donna

Edited April 15, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[MazingMaryRocks]

Hi Donna!

Makes me quite irritated to read about the situation you're in. But at the other hand, you can't be surprised anyone tries, your lyrics are awsome

Without having much experience, I must say this can't be right. Many of us uploads our lyrics on sites like this one (SS of course ). You gotta be able to start a legal process. No matter where you posted your lyrics they are not "just to pic" by whoever.

I'm looking forward to read thoughts of others that know more!

//MMR

[john]

Hi Donna

I am not a lawyer but your PRO should be able to give you something more definitive. Meanwhile I'll refer to a few sources.

http://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/public-domain-faq

Publicly available and public domain are not the same thing. My understanding is that to be considered public domain either copyright must have expired or it is an item where copyright does not apply, such as a title, or a short phrase, a concept or idea etc.

Free doesn't enter into it. Where free can have bearing is where a work can be considered published or not published.

Public display does not constitute a waiver or transfer of ownership rights.

Ownership of a copy does not constitute a transfer of ownership rights. What you do gets are rights regarding the copy, not the original work, even then those rights do not extend to alteration of the work of the creation of derivative works by any means.

"Two General Principles

• Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright."

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Either your work is considered published or it isn't, but either way copyright ownership is established on creation of a work, independent of whether it is registered or not. For your work to be used as described you would need to actively give permission to the entire world to be able to use it in that way, and even then you would retain moral rights. Not all countries would even allow that.

If what this guy asserted was true nothing that was free (99% of the internet) would be protected by copyright, that means none of what any publicly viewable website offers would be covered including newspapers, books, nothing at all.

From the Us gov doc above you will find

"Notice of Copyright

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial."

That I understand mainly has bearing on "innocent infringement" which this man's communication already proves it is not, it is merely ill-informed.

"Who Can Claim Copyright?

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is cre­ated in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who cre­ ated the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."

Out of interest, by removing your copyright notice, by altering it, I understand he is committing a crime (page 163)

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

[john]

Oh additionally, please PM me the details of this person. If they are a member here I will ban them.

I suggest you contact Kompoz website owner and notify them of what is happening. I would be surprised if they want them as a member either. Or any other music website owner including any OMD like Soundcloud or Reverbnation.

[LooknGlass]

What is the title of the lyrics/song in case I see it somewhere?

 

Also if you have used Kompoz and this is where the problem began. When posting your lyric, what license did you choose for the work in the menu, and did you click "Allow Spinoffs". If you accidentally chose "Public Domain" that could be whats up, and if "Allow Spinoffs" then (on site) they may be able to use your work without repercussions. I am just trying to eliminate all scenarios, in hopes of helping.

[john]

Thanks James. Sorry my head has all been testing and debugging our server without much success. Very frustrating!

If Donna has expressly indicated that it is public domain that could spell problems, though I know not all jurisdictions accept such... My understanding is that the author can give permission for the world to use it, but that doesn't mean they relinquish their rights as the copyright owner including the revoking of such privileges. If it is a Kompoz agreement an ents lawyer would need to look at it.

[DonnaMarilyn]

Thank you, Mary, John, and James for chiming in here. And John, thank you for the links and comprehensive information.

 

Meanwhile, the saga continues. The person is becoming increasingly aggressive, particularly after he was forced to remove the song from Kompoz last night. I'll post his recent messages to me below. 

 

James, the lyric was not posted in Kompoz. It was posted to musicianscollaboration.com, where I've had a lyrics/poems section for several years. None of my lyrics (or songs) has ever been listed as being 'public domain'. They all bear the copyright symbol, and are registered with a copyright organisation, as well as my PRO.

 

The person, whose name is Gary (and it's not snabbu ), went to my forum, saw the lyric (which was already in completed song form), and wrote music & and a melody for it without consulting me. He then posted the music to the lyric thread for my perusal. He told me had not noticed that the lyric was no longer available because the song had been completed. He asked if I would mind having a second version of the song. I said I did not want a second version. I wanted to go only with the one I have, and had already registered it and placed it with a music licensing agency. 

 

Next thing I knew he had placed his version of the song on the collaboration site plus on Kompoz, where he was looking for collaborators to add instruments and vocals. I asked him pleasantly to remove the song, as I'd given no consent to use the lyrics. That's when he began to be nasty.

 

Meanwhile, the song was removed from both sites after I sent notice of an infringement of copyright.

 

He claims that because my lyrics are open to the public, they are in the public domain. He is badly confusing 'public domain' with 'publicly available' (e.g as on Songstuff or any other music site). Lyrics or works that are 'publicly available' are still protected by copyright. 

 

Anyway, here are the latest messages from Mr Nice Guy.  Seems to me they display what should be an embarrassing lack of basic intelligence and logic,  and no understanding of the terminology, or of how the music business works.

 

(John, I'll send you the person's  name in a PM. I doubt he's a member, but just in case.)

 

1. 

 

Donna

This is what I'm going to do. I am pitching this version to artists, If you can't stand this version it doesn't matter, I am doing this anyway. I have the right to use your lyrics in ANY song I want as long as you are given credit for the lyrics. You cannot stop me from using your lyrics, that's the law. You can only come after me and sue me for any money I made from your lyrics without your permission. You cannot simply say, "sorry, these lyrics are not available". The fact is ALL your lyrics are public domain. I am going ahead and pitching this version of "Gimme Your Love". If recording artists want to record this then I will get back to you and ask you for permission. 
I think the lyrics are great and the music is great.



Gary

 

2.

Donna

you can have the song removed from Kompoz too, it doesn't matter I will still pitch the song!

have a nice day!



Gary

&

3.
Kompoz asked me to remove the song because the rules state that I cannot exchange files or content that is copyrighted except by parties involved in Kompoz collaborations and since you are not involved in this collaboration, then it is a violation of the rules.

OK I will remove it but, it's not because you own the copyright to the lyrics, it's because you are not involved in the collaboration on Kompoz.

-----------------------------------

 

In the meantime, I'm not responding to any of his messages. Still waiting to hear from my PRO. The issue is now with the appropriate department.

 

Donna

Edited April 16, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[john]

My guess is you will need to continue to gather evidence, regularly google check for listings etc. The guy has admitted everything so there is no innocent usage. I would expect that an Entertainments lawyer would issue a cease and desist notice to him.

 

I would also follow up with kompoz and get their explanation, ie the reason they gave him I would also maybe make sure they understand he was asked not to use it (same goes for the other music collaboration site) but that he refused citing public domain and his intention to pitch the song. I would also ask if they know of him doing this to other people. If they answer yes that is good to know, if they answer know it is a way to put the idea in their heads without you making a statement to that effect.

 

Actually, maybe hang fire on that. Just take notes and issue take down notices and rely on your PRO and an Ents lawyer. Sometimes you can get free legal help if you are a member of a union or songwriting association.

[DonnaMarilyn]

Thanks, John. More good input. Meanwhile, I've found that the song is back up on Kompoz…BUT…my lyric is not included. And Gary has stated that for the collaboration he needs bass, drums, etc. and …LYRICS. The implication is that he's asking for someone to write a new lyric for the music.

 

He is, however, singing my lyric on the work tape melody guide. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it's just to indicate the melody.

 

Anyway, I'll keep a quiet eye on things in the meantime, and hope my PRO can give more clarification. If the grounds are provably strong enough, I'll arrange to have a cease-and-desist letter sent. 

 

I won't rest until this guy has well and truly backed off.

Edited April 16, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[DonnaMarilyn]

You're right, David. I was thinking earlier that this is an infringement of Tom's rights as well.

 

I've just sent an email to Kompoz. 

 

And I agree fully. The music sucks.  It's clear even to a non-musician like me.

 

Donna

Edited April 16, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[DonnaMarilyn]

David, I didn't see your added note until after I'd sent the email. But I'll keep that information in mind.

 

Meanwhile, NEWS FLASH! 

Kompoz has just responded as follows:

 

"Hi Donna

He was requested by myself to remove all reference to your lyric. I was unaware he sang the tune. I will request he only post the music sans any mention of your lyric. 

 

Please rest assured, Kompoz takes Copyright Infringement very seriously, though we cannot give legal advice, we do have our Terms & Conditions that we do enforce."

------------------------------------------------ 

 

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, eh? :)  Thank you for prodding me.

 

Something else interesting. 

 

Just after I'd emailed Kompoz I got a message from them to say Gary had deleted the song thread and the lyric because "he understood it was copyrighted". 

 

This too is a little victory, given that he was so adamant that it was NOT protected by copyright. 

[john]

Tom was the person you collaborated with? I would agree, his copyright would have been infringed too.

[DonnaMarilyn]

Yes he was, John. So, as you say, his copyright was infringed upon as well. 

 

Meanwhile, I've checked the original terms of Agreement of the original site (where Gary found the lyric). It states that all material (including 'text') submitted is copyrighted to the owner. Clearly Gary had never read the Agreement. So my lyric - and everyone else's there - is covered not only by copyright as indicated by the symbol, but is covered by the site's acknowledgement of copyright. 

 

In fact, I should have checked that earlier myself. What I've done just now is suggest (in red) to the site owner that he add a bit to the statement to make it even stronger, with something like: 

-----------------------------------------

Any text message, image, audio file, or other media/data posted to MusiciansCollaboration.com is copyright the submitter.

Lyrics submitted to the site are protected by copyright, and remain the sole possession of the author. Though publicly available on this site for collaboration purposes, they are not in the public domain. They may not be used without the author's proven consent.

-------------------------------------------

I feel this would make things clearer, and give lyricists an extra feeling of confidence when they post publicly to the site.

 

Meanwhile, the track that should have been removed from Kompoz last night is still on Gary's collaboration thread. 

Time to send another letter. Gary is clearly disrespecting Kompoz's instructions to remove the track. 

Edited April 17, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[john]

In such a circumstance, although they may prefer to leave it up to the member, it is up to Kompoz to remove any offending content.

I would strongly suspect that he has already uploaded it elsewhere. Out of interest, if you did sue him, because your song was registered he would be liable for court costs and legal fees. I believe that not only would he be instructed to pay commercial recompense, but he would most likely be liable for punitive damages. David would be better to advise on that.

A cease and desist letter should be sent ASAP, I am fairly sure. No word from the PRO yet?

[DonnaMarilyn]

I've sent the letter to Kompoz. 

 

I'm sure you're right about him having uploaded the song elsewhere, John. He'll keep doing it out of spite. You'd think having the song removed by two sites because of copyright infringement would be enough to indicate that indeed the lyric is under copyright, and not in the public domain, as he insisted.

 

I agree about a cease and desist letter. Still awaiting word from my PRO.

 

UPDATE: Meanwhile, the track has been removed.

Edited April 17, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[symphonious7]

You should have someone write their own lyrics to his music and start posting it everywhere and then when he's like "hey that's my music" be like "Oh no sir, you posted this on a collaboration website and therefore it is public domain"  But the lyrics to the song should be "Gary is a thief he's a big douchey thief and he wrote this super crapy melodyyyyyyyy"  LMAO  Not really of course, these are just the goofy things I think of in situations like these.  

[DonnaMarilyn]

To me that seems a reasonable suggestion, symphonious7.

 

Meanwhile, my PRO informs me the matter is with their legal department, and they'll get back to me next week. 

Though I think I've achieved about as much as they could tell me, it will be nice to have - I hope - some fixed clarification regarding this type of situation.

 

Also in the meantime, I've checked the Agreement policy of the original website (I should have done this first thing ), and indeed it states there that all material (including text - which I interpret to include lyrics, since it's a songwriting collaboration site) submitted to the site is copyrighted to the author. 

 

All reference to my lyric has been removed on Kompoz, and Gary also now has a new lyric in place. Of course, he's kept the structure identical to mine, and the chorus uses three of the original lines (though admittedly they're pretty generic). And the pre-chorus melody is essentially the same as my co-writer's. 

 

Ah well. I've made and won my point. I'll close the book on the matter. It's been an excellent learning experience, and a good opportunity to stand up for my (copy)rights.

 

Donna

Edited April 19, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[john]

Good news Donna. Keep us up to date on what your PRO says

[MikeRobinson]

Whew ... what a story.

 

Yet this is precisely why, before I post anything anywhere that I might "commercially care about," I register the US Copyright first, and wait a full calendar day before posting.  (Of course, I myself am a citizen of the USA, and your copyright-laws may vary.)

 

AFAIK, the biggest legal litmus-test is "the presumed-owner's intent."  The assumption (at least, under US law) is: "(1) You own it, unless you, in very specific and deliberate ways, clearly establish otherwise by means of an obviously-intentional act that you perform or a contract that you sign.  Yes, yes.  However: (2) Put a ©Sign© next to your staked-claim, anyway."

 

At minimum, "declare your proprietary claim and your proprietary intent," for all the world to see.  Stick a "Circle-C" on it, and make it obvious.  If you post an MP3-file or whatever, include a copyright-string in the metadata.  What that will most-certainly achieve, anywhere on the planet, is what Don Henley called "The End of the Innocence."  If someone goes after your rights, then they're scroo'd.  No one is gonna believe that "they didn't know."  And no one is gonna believe that "they didn't do it on-purpose."  An "innocent infringement defense" is gonna fall flat, and the owner of any legitimate web-site is gonna jump to your side.   ("No one is gonna believe that the offender is anything but 'an insufferable  ' ... "but, I digress.â„¢")

 

The $35.00 that the US Copyright Office charges to register the claim is easily worth the money.  ("Now, we're cookin' with gas!")

 

In the same manner, if you are quoting or using someone else's copyrighted work, under what you consider to be "fair use," then ... say that.  If you genuinely and in good faith believe the material to be "in the public domain" ... say that!  Even if a Judge someday walks up to you and says, "no, no, no, you're wrong," then at least you have a plausible and believable claim of innocence.  You said it, and it's quite clear that you did your homework ("due diligence") before saying so.  You might be wrong, but you could plausibly argue that you were knowledgeable and respectful of the law, that you consistently acted in good faith (as you [erroneously] perceived it), and that you timely acted to attempt to cure the potential breach once you were advised of it, and that, therefore, you were not guilty.

[DonnaMarilyn]

Absolutely, Mike. You've spelled things out very clearly.

 

Which is why I had done all of those things:

- had a copyright sign Â©

- registered the song 

- registered it with my PRO as well

- stated on my thread that the lyric was no longer available for collaboration

 

And when the guy asked if he could do a second version:

- I said 'No', that I did not want a second version 

 

However, he went ahead, even after being told by the site's owner that all material on the site was under copyright to the author, and could not be used without the author's permission. Even after his thread was removed from two sites, he insisted it wasn't because I owned the copyright.  

 

Unfortunately, there'll always be idiots like this around. Once I've heard from my PRO, I'm going to ask if there's action I can take regarding the similarities between my original lyric and the one the guy is now using. There probably isn't, but I'd love to drive the lesson home.

 

I was intrigued to read this story recently, involving a photogapher and a band that had used one of his copyrighted images. 

http://petapixel.com/2014/04/21/band-responds-worst-way-possible-stealing-photographers-work/

 

Never a dull moment.

 

Donna

Edited April 23, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn