The Logic Off Topic list

Thats the thing, it wasn't a sample of a Stones song, it was a string 
arrangement of a Stones song. I saw it on VH1 "One Hit Wonders" about 
bands who only had one #1 hit song. I think Alan Klein (the same 
aggressive attorney who was involved with the Beatles break-up and who 
John wrote the song Steel and Glass about) aggressively pursued this 
little band. Isn't that screwed...you work on music your whole life to 
get a hit song, and then you don't get anything. I can see, the Stones 
getting some small residual, but what about all the creativity of writing 
the actual song, which would have stood without the sample.

>I know the Verve song but somehow can't place which stones song it 
>was.  What song was it?

At 2:58 PM -0400 7/4/01, GAmoore@... wrote:
>Thats the thing, it wasn't a sample of a Stones song, it was a string
>arrangement of a Stones song. I saw it on VH1 "One Hit Wonders" about
>bands who only had one #1 hit song. I think Alan Klein (the same
>aggressive attorney who was involved with the Beatles break-up and who
>John wrote the song Steel and Glass about) aggressively pursued this
>little band. Isn't that screwed...you work on music your whole life to
>get a hit song, and then you don't get anything. I can see, the Stones
>getting some small residual, but what about all the creativity of writing
>the actual song, which would have stood without the sample.

Sure but I guess my point (if I had one) is I don't even know which 
stones tune it was so if the test for infringement is that there must 
be a recognizable phrase then there would not appear to be any 
infringement.  For example what if the phrase was a Mantovani 
embellishment that never even happened in the original?  Then while 
it might be said that they were infringing on Montovani it would not 
follow that they were infringing on the stones.

Gets me wondering.   Since and embellishment on a song by a third 
artist on a later recording is not really the song itself what for 
that matter is the protection for the third artist if his innovation 
makes the song a hit.

For example Prince copies a song off an album by totally unknown 
artist Ecnirp and does a very memorable keyboard solo which makes the 
song a hit for Prince which makes Ecnirp happy because he gets the 
royalties.  Then PeeWee Herman writes a Megahit around his verbatim 
ukulele performance of the prince solo.   In that case Peewee owes 
Ecnirp nothing.  And since Prince's solo was not a copy written part 
of the original PeeWee also owes him nothing,  furthermore he didn't 
use any of Prince's actual recording then PeeWee doesn't owe Prince 
anything for the performance either.

Is this correct?
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

>At 2:58 PM -0400 7/4/01, GAmoore@... wrote:

>
>For example Prince copies a song off an album by totally unknown
>artist Ecnirp and does a very memorable keyboard solo which makes the
>song a hit for Prince which makes Ecnirp happy because he gets the
>royalties.  Then PeeWee Herman writes a Megahit around his verbatim
>ukulele performance of the prince solo.   In that case Peewee owes
>Ecnirp nothing.  And since Prince's solo was not a copy written part
>of the original PeeWee also owes him nothing,  furthermore he didn't
>use any of Prince's actual recording then PeeWee doesn't owe Prince
>anything for the performance either.
>
>Is this correct?

Not entirely. As I would interpret it, PeeWee would owe Prince
because Prince created the solo . And  given Prince embelished
the original with his solo, he would also have some copyrights over
his performance of the original, even though a large part would
go to ecnirp. (How large is probably a matter of how good one's
negotiating team is).

And if the above is 'true', it is easy to see how
a legal rep would  find it easy to relate the PeeWee
performance back to the Ecnirp original.

S.

S. wrote:

>Not entirely. As I would interpret it, PeeWee would owe Prince
>because Prince created the solo . And  given Prince embelished
>the original with his solo, he would also have some copyrights over
>his performance of the original, even though a large part would
>go to ecnirp. (How large is probably a matter of how good one's
>negotiating team is).
>
>And if the above is 'true', it is easy to see how
>a legal rep would  find it easy to relate the PeeWee
>performance back to the Ecnirp original.

I think it's spelled "ecnirP," BTW.

Yeah, you've got to be really careful these days. Arrangements and 
solos are definitely copyrightable and any major label will certainly 
do so.

Here's an example:

A while back, I produced a new version of the tune "Santa Baby" for a 
commercial. The client (a large national concern) had secured the 
rights to the song, but *NOT* the rights to the arrangement they 
wanted to copy (Ertha Kitt, I believe). We couldn't use the very 
recognizable background male chorus part, and had to invent something 
new that was like it.

Here's another interesting gotcha:

Always watch out when you're using so-called public domain material. 
If you're not careful, you could use something that was added in a 
later arrangement, and still under copyright. For instance, I worked 
on a children's CD a few years ago, and they wanted to incorporate 
some well known PD material like "Polly Wolly Doodle" and "Turkey In 
the Straw." Those songs are obviously ancient, but over the years, 
they've had many, many sets of lyrics. Publishers would have writers 
come up with new sets of lyrics, and then they could copyright the 
songs once again. Especially in the case of these old slave songs, 
the new politically correct versions currently out would have fresh 
lyrics under copyright.

At 10:50 AM -0600 7/5/01, Zeek Duff wrote:
>Hrmpf.  Anyway, you gotta draw the line somewhere, and it's
>always the session guys that get screwed.  You can create a bass 
>part or guitar
>solo that everyone agrees, sells the tune.  But, what do you get? 
>Session fees,
>and that's it.  Ah, reality.  :(


Hey, that's the *best* case scenario. Once peer-to-peer sharing 
completely takes hold, there won't be any session fees. ;-)

Lee Blaske

But who in their right mind would want to use anything Prince had done?!

-----Original Message-----
From: Spectro [mailto:spectro@...]
Sent: 05 July 2001 18:00
To: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Stones


>At 2:58 PM -0400 7/4/01, GAmoore@... wrote:

>
>For example Prince copies a song off an album by totally unknown
>artist Ecnirp and does a very memorable keyboard solo which makes the
>song a hit for Prince which makes Ecnirp happy because he gets the
>royalties.  Then PeeWee Herman writes a Megahit around his verbatim
>ukulele performance of the prince solo.   In that case Peewee owes
>Ecnirp nothing.  And since Prince's solo was not a copy written part
>of the original PeeWee also owes him nothing,  furthermore he didn't
>use any of Prince's actual recording then PeeWee doesn't owe Prince
>anything for the performance either.
>
>Is this correct?

Not entirely. As I would interpret it, PeeWee would owe Prince
because Prince created the solo . And  given Prince embelished
the original with his solo, he would also have some copyrights over
his performance of the original, even though a large part would
go to ecnirp. (How large is probably a matter of how good one's
negotiating team is).

And if the above is 'true', it is easy to see how
a legal rep would  find it easy to relate the PeeWee
performance back to the Ecnirp original.

S.



 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

What a coincidence. I took a songwriting class at UCLA in the 80's and instructor was the songwriter of that song - that being his claim to fame. 

I guess Phil is not much of a Prince fan, but I find him to be very innovative ... at least in the 1999 and Purple Rain days ... with the occasional gem mixed with the mountains of self-absorbed, trying-to-hard-to-be-sexy stuff he's turned out since then. 

someone wrote :
A while back, I produced a new version of the tune "Santa Baby" for a 
commercial. The client (a large national concern) had secured the 
rights to the song, but *NOT* the rights to the arrangement they 
wanted to copy (Ertha Kitt, I believe). We couldn't use the very 
recognizable background male chorus part, and had to invent something 
new that was like it.

Are you saying only the new lyrics are copyrighted or the entire song? What if you wrote new words to an old song re-copyrighted? Could you play/record it royalty free? From what you say, it would seem so. 

However, from my experience with the copyright law, the words and music are together. This makes for a dangerous situation. Lets say you write a great tune, and work with a lyricist who writes shit words, you copyright it. Later you write better lyrics. However, you can't simply deal the original lyric writer out. That person owns 50% of the song - not just the words.

For this reason, I think you need to have a contract (between co-writers) covering such circumstances. 

However, I am not a big expert and its quite possible I am wrong. Please put me in my place if I mispeak.


-------------------------
Those songs are obviously ancient, but over the years, 
they've had many, many sets of lyrics. Publishers would have writers 
come up with new sets of lyrics, and then they could copyright the 
songs once again. Especially in the case of these old slave songs, 
the new politically correct versions currently out would have fresh 
lyrics under copyright.

> However, from my experience with the copyright law, the words and music are together.

Depends on the situation. I did a cover of a Tears for Fears song a while ago. I ended up just using one theme (the marimba theme of the song "Change") (I didn't use a sample), writing a new song with it, also new vocals and a new text. We have separated the words and music.... but we needed approval.

As someone (can't remember who) pointed out correctly: it often depends of the strength of those who discuss the deal.

Bye,
Joeri

--
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

> As someone (can't remember who) pointed out correctly: it often 
depends of the strength of those who discuss the deal.

  I've always been told by lawyers, that in many cases of copyright 
infringements, it's a matter of intent. Is the material in question 
being use because of it's recognition. Is use of a phrase, musical, or 
lyrical, cause you to think of, or recognize the song that it is from. 
That is intent.

  Now sometimes the intent is not there, and the infringement is 
really an honest mistake, like "My Sweet Lord", still it was an 
obvious infringement. Copyright infringement is not always cut and 
dried.

df

--- In logic-ot@y..., david@f... wrote:
> 
> > As someone (can't remember who) pointed out correctly: it often 
> depends of the strength of those who discuss the deal.

It is *entirely* down to that. There is no way you can "prove" intent 
which is all that really matters, and to say that two tunes are in 
the same key, or share the same arpeggio movement, or have the same 
rhythm is not to say that there is an infringement of copyright. 
It doesn't stop people spending thousands of pounds on lawyers to do 
just that though, and very often the courts are hoodwinked into 
believing it. 
I have been on both sides of the line, asked to prove and disprove 
connections, and believe me, you can argue black is white when it 
comes to music analysis. 
The real stuff of music lies beyond that sort of measurement. 
Thank God.

RJ