Problem With Someone Using Lyrics Without Author's Consent

[LooknGlass]

Can I register a lyric with my PRO without music?

[DonnaMarilyn]

I do that, James. I presume it's the same with other PROs. 

[LooknGlass]

I do that, James. I presume it's the same with other PROs. 

Thanks Donna, I'm gonna do that. I'm with BMI

[john]

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.

 

 

Good points. though there are several benefits to be had by registration, copyright ownership is still inherent on creation. Being registered does however have a variety of benefits. Similarly the need to make a declaration with the copyright symbol is no longer essential... but it is adviseable if only to clarify usage restrictions and possibly head off an "innocent" copyright breach.

[symphonious7]

Well I'm gonna sound dumb but... what's a PRO?  

[MazingMaryRocks]

Hi Symphonious7!

Maybe I am stupid for real, but to me it means "professional"

 

//MMR

[symphonious7]

Ohhhh I see! And hey Marie!  haha

[DonnaMarilyn]

Absolutely right, tunesmithth and HoboSage.  Mary, your PRO is STIM.

[MazingMaryRocks]

Haha, I knew it! STIM is my "professionals" lol!

 

//MMR

[trickybigc]

Hey Donna,

always sorry to hear about something like this. Leaves a huge horrible taste in the mouth. It would be great to get as much detail about this guy up on a forum like this. It would let us all steer well clear of him. Any names he goes by on other sites like this would be much appreciated by everybody i'm sure .

Hope you get it all sorted & the guy is blocked on as many websites as possible.

Alan

[DonnaMarilyn]

Alan, if this is the guy's usual modus operandi, he'll definitely hang himself with his own rope one day.

 

Meanwhile, I've just heard from my PRO. Interestingly, they also brought up the topic of a creator's 'moral rights' to her/his song. 

That right was definitely being infringed as well. 

 

Anyway, here's what Buma-Stemra (my PRO) has confirmed.

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

Based on the Dutch Copyright Act, a work is public domain seventy years after the death of the author. In this case your lyrics are not public domain.

Copyright is the exclusive right of the creator (or those to whom the right is transferred) of a work. Therefore, the right to adapt a work is reserved by the creator of the musical work in question. If someone wants to adapt a work they must first have the permission of the creator (composer and/or lyricist) or those to whom the right is transferred, such as a publisher. The creators (or those to whom the right is transferred) can place conditions at any time on the granting of permission, for example prior perusal and the payment of a fee. The creator is at liberty to refuse consent – for whatever reason – for the adaptation of his or her original work at any time.

Alongside commercial exploitation rights, there are also moral rights. Moral rights protect the personal bond between the creator and his or her work. For example, an author may object to his or her work being made available to the public under another name, to the work being modified, or to anything affecting the work that could damage his or her good name or reputation. The creator of the work retains the moral rights and these cannot be transferred to Buma/Stemra.

I trust to have informed you sufficiently. If you have further questions you can contact me via my contact details below.

Kind regards,
xxxxxxx
------------------------

The paragraph regarding 'moral rights' is spot on. No way I'd have transferred those to Gary.

I hope this thread has been useful to others here.

 

I'm going to ask if there's action I can take regarding the many similarities between my original lyric and the one that Gary is now using - with the same title 'Gimme Your Love' - on the Kompoz site. There probably isn't, but one can hope.  

 

Did anyone check out the link I posted above about the photographer and the band???

Here it is again.

http://petapixel.com...ographers-work/

Edited April 25, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[john]

Thanks for the update Donna. Pretty well the advice you got in the thread, so good to have it confirmed. I think even the moral rights were mentioned.

I think you will find it could be actionable. Normally an overlap could be defended by ignorance, ie "prove I heard your song first"... But in this case Gary has admitted multiple times that he heard your song and that intended to use it permission wise or not. True a big part will be how much has been used, nonetheless you could still cause problems for him. I don't know of a forum owner who would be happy having a plagiarist as a member, never mind allowing him to post the specific song. Sadly, for him, once you lose your trust that the member is posting original content it casts a shadow over all that they post.

[DonnaMarilyn]

I think you're right, John. There's simply too much overlap in the intent, the structure, and the similarity (even sameness) of certain lines. 

 

I've just written again to the PRO, providing both lyrics for comparison. I've asked if there might be official justification to request that the lyric be removed from any website. 

 

So, stay tuned once again.

 

Donna

[DonnaMarilyn]

Further to the saga: My PRO has responded, and states that I would be justified in requesting websites to remove Gary's new thread - with his new lyric (but which closely resembles mine in several ways) - under the principle of Notice and Take Down. (This deals with, among other things, unauthorised derivative works.)

I've just sent this request to Kompoz. I await their response with great interest.

 

Donna
 

Edited April 29, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[Bernd]

As the author you have all rights to decide what you allow and what not, with who you collaborate and with who not. There is no need for copyright signs or statements stating the obvious - it's the default. Registering a song with a PRO has nothing to do with copyright, it deals with the distribution of royalties, that's it.

 

What can be done in case of an infringement is a different question. Quite obviously the internet is in the public, so posting material on the internet is publishing. Hosts are required to follow a N&TD (notice and take down) policy to enable copyright holders to have illegitimate material removed. You'll find more under the keyword "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA).

 

Good luck!

Bernd

[john]

As the author you have all rights to decide what you allow and what not, with who you collaborate and with who not. There is no need for copyright signs or statements stating the obvious - it's the default. Registering a song with a PRO has nothing to do with copyright, it deals with the distribution of royalties, that's it.

 

What can be done in case of an infringement is a different question. Quite obviously the internet is in the public, so posting material on the internet is publishing. Hosts are required to follow a N&TD (notice and take down) policy to enable copyright holders to have illegitimate material removed. You'll find more under the keyword "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA).

 

Good luck!

Bernd

Donna is using the legal advice of her PRO, that is all, as a firmer footing than the advice she received here... Which largely agrees with what you yourself have said. The registration being discussed is not Donna's PRO registration, or her songs PRO registration, it was their registration with the US copyright service. They are not a PRO.

What constitutes publishing has a legal definition. In the USA that definition is tied to the notion of there being some form of financial transaction, even if that is one cent.

Conformance with DMCA is dependent on the location of the site and whether the country they are resident in accepts the Berne Convention. DMCA itself is a US copyright law. The Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 implements the same WIPO directives in Europe and is the equivalent to DMCA. The point is, in general a take down notice works in most countries but the corresponding legislation is not normally DMCA.

[DonnaMarilyn]

Thank you for commenting, Bernd, and for that additional information. The matter though has moved on from copyright infringement. The person's song (with my unauthorised lyric) was removed from the website several days ago.

 

The situation now involves the person's new lyric, which he has based very obviously on mine, thus making it - in my opinion, and apparently that of my PRO - an unauthorised derivative work. 

 

It's now up to Kompoz to determine which side of the fence to fall on.

 

Donna

Edited April 29, 2014 by DonnaMarilyn

[john]

I didn't mean to jump all over you Bernd, not at all, but in this kind of situation I thought you would want to be as informed as Donna is now and why she has involved her PRO at all. Your advice was pretty well bang on the money.

[john]

In which case both you and Nerndt are right. I am not an expert in copyright law. I certainly used to think that it was publishing in the US until someone told me it wasn't... I thought that was you! LOL

 

In the UK and Europe posting on Songstuff is considered publication. Who knew? lol

[john]

Good to see te law keeps up with new innovations like the web. Oh wait... the internet has been around HOW LONG?

 

lol