Tag: music copyright

  • Why Taylor Swift Won

    Taylor Swift 092 by GabboT from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Taylor Swift 092 by GabboT from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    A few weeks ago, Jesse Braham sued singer Taylor Swift and her record label for $42 million for copyright infringement, alleging that she copied the lyrics from his song “Haters Gone Hate” in her song “Shake It Off.” Braham claimed to be the author of the phrases “Haters gone hate” and “Playas gone play,” which are similar to the lyrics in Swift songs. He claimed that Swift never could have written her song if it wasn’t for his. (Note: There are no other obvious similarities between these two pieces of music.)

    Last Friday, United States District Court Judge Gail Standish dismissed the case in a brilliant fashion, saying, “At present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court. But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them.”

    So why did Taylor Swift win this case, legally speaking? (Anyone who read the article about the lawsuit probably thought Braham had no basis for bringing the claim.) Under the U.S. Copyright Act, to get a copyright, you need an original work of authorship that is fixed in a tangible medium. Writing lyrics for a song on paper or creating an mp3 of a song would each qualify as a copyrightable work. Short phrases are typically not original enough to quality as an “original work of authorship.” That’s why Paris Hilton couldn’t get a copyright for “That’s hot.”

    If Braham had a copyright in “haters gone hate,” he could stop anyone from using the phrase unless they bought a license from him. As far as I know, he only went after Swift for infringement.

    Braham also wanted credit as an author of “Shake It Off.” I suspect he was hoping for a similar outcome as the Sam Smith/Tom Petty case over Smith’s song “Stay with Me” where Petty was credited as a co-author in the settlement.

    My question in this situation was, “What lawyer would take on case?” It’s a violation of the Rules of Professional Responsibility for a lawyer to file a lawsuit if their client doesn’t have a case. It turns out, Braham didn’t have a lawyer. He filed the lawsuit by himself. He also requested that the court waive the filing fees, saying that he had not had a job since 2006.

    If you believe that someone is violating you copyright, please contact an intellectual property attorney in your community. These cases have to be evaluated on the facts of each situation. If you want to chat with me about a specific question related to copyright law, you can contact me directly or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or LinkedIn.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Burning CDs and Copyright Law

    CD Reflections by spcbrass from Flicker (Creative Commons License)
    CD Reflections by spcbrass from Flicker (Creative Commons License)

    One of my favorite minimalists shared a post by Lindsay Schauer about the eight things you can live without on Twitter last week, and it kicked off a legal discussion and he asked me to comment. One of the things Lindsay said to get rid of is your CD collection – burn them to your hard drive and get rid of the physical CDs themselves. That makes a lot of sense. A single CD doesn’t take up much space but a collection of jewel cases does.

    I put my CDs in a CD binder and chucked the cases years ago, but can you legally copy a CD you own and keep that instead of the disk?  Probably.

    The copyright holder (likely the record label or the artist) controls when/where/how their work is copied, distributed, and performed. When you buy a CD, you only purchase the tangible object – not the intellectual property rights. Just like when you want to get rid of an old book you can give it away, throw it away, or sell it to a second hand store, the same is true for CDs. However, you can’t make a photocopy of the book so you can keep the original for yourself and give a copy to a friend. The same is true for CDs. (Yes, all those copies of CDs you burned from or for your friends are probably illegal.)

    CDs by borkur.net from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    CDs by borkur.net from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    If you legally purchased a CD, you can make a copy of it for “archival” purposes. This prevents you from having to buy a new one in the event the CD gets lost, damaged, broken, or used as a Frisbee, coaster, or for an art project. The same rule applies for making a copy of computer software that you’ve legally purchased.

    So can you take Lindsay’s advice and copy all your CDs to your hard drive and chuck the originals? Yes, if you legally purchased the albums. You can only make one copy for yourself. You can’t make copies for your friends.

    The purpose of the copyright law is to give artists rights in their work and allow them to profit from selling it. An archival copy is supposed to be a backup for the original, so some copyright holders may frown on people who make an archival copy of a CD and sell the original. (You’re starting to look like the guy who sells a book to a friend but keeps a photocopy of it for himself.) There’s an argument that you’re committing copyright infringement; however, the amount you’re making isn’t really cutting into their profits, and the artist might be happy that more people are being exposed to their music. If someone is concerned about their rights and maximizing profits, they might be less upset if you throw the CD away or repurpose it into a coaster so anyone else who wants the album has to buy it.

    The good news in copyright infringement cases is the only person who can come after you for copyright infringement is the copyright holder. If they don’t know what you’re doing or don’t care, they will never come after you.

    If you want to chat with me about this or any other topic, you can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Jonathan Coulton v. Glee – Legal Rip Off or Copyright Infringement?

    Jonathan Coulton by Dan Coulter from Flickr
    Jonathan Coulton by Dan Coulter from Flickr

    I’ve been reading up on the Jonathan Coulton/Glee controversy over Coulton’s arrangement of “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-a-Lot and all I can think is “What the fuck, Glee?!?”

    Sir Mix-a-Lot is the artist behind the original “Baby Got Back.” When indie singer-songwriter Jonathan Coulton wanted to record a cover of it, he did the ethical and legal thing and purchased a license to use the song. Whenever he sells a copy of his version, Sir Mix-a-Lot gets a royalty payment.

    The TV show Glee is about a high school glee club that does covers of popular songs. When they wanted to do a version of “Baby Got Back,” they got permission from Sir Mix-a-Lot to do it, but according to Coulton and his fans, they blatantly ripped off his arrangement without any attribution. It was likely completely legal for Glee to do this, but it was an asshat thing to do.

    Here’s how copyright works when it comes to music. When a musician writes a song (think sheet music), he gets the exclusive right to copy, distribute, display, perform, and make derivative works from it. Covers are derivative works, which is why Coulton needed a license to do his own arrangement of the song. He used the same lyrics with a few modifications, but the accompanying music is totally different.

    When the musician makes a sound recording of their song (think mp3, CD, etc.), he gets a separate copyright in that. In this case, Coulton may not have a copyright in the arrangement he wrote for “Baby Got Back,” but he does have a copyright in his sound recording of his arrangement of the song.

    When “Baby Got Back” aired on Glee, Jonathan Coulton and his fans recognized it as his arrangement instantly, and they rightfully asked, “What the fuck?” No one informed Coulton that they’d be using his arrangement and they didn’t give him credit for it on the show. The show reportedly responded that he should be happy for the free exposure. What exposure did they give him since they didn’t give him the attribution for his work?!

    Some people are now questioning whether Glee used some of Coulton’s sound recording on the show. Coulton may not have legal recourse for them using his arrangement of the song, but he would if they used his recording instead of recreating it themselves. We’ll see where the chips fall on this one.

    In the meantime, Coulton is doing something totally awesome in response to this situation. He released his version of “Baby Got Back” (in the style of Glee) and he’s donating the profits to The VH1 Save the Music Foundation and The It Gets Better Project. Go buy it! (I did!)

    So what’s the lesson from this: Always give an attribution when you use another artist’s work, even if you’re not legally obligated to do it.

    You can read more about this story on CNN, Wired, and Forbes. Apparently other artists are also coming forward and saying that Glee did the same thing to their arrangements as they allegedly did to Coulton.

    You can connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,