Jason Robert Brown vs. SheetMusic Trader
July 4, 2010 in Articles
Adam Savage of Mythbusters tweeted this blog entry of a exchange between composer/artist Jason Robert Brown and someone who was trading his music.
Very interesting discussion
You are browsing the archive for Law.
by admin
by admin
Record Companies Finally Win One
October 5, 2007 in News
After all the lawsuits they have started, they finally won one.
In a major win for record companies seeking to establish precedent for prosecuting those who trade copyrighted material on the Internet, a federal jury awarded six firms $222,000 in damages from a Minnesota woman who shared music online. Jammie Thomas, 30, was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of 24 songs that were part of the case. The complaint alleged that she had shared 1,702 copyright-violating songs online. The Associated Press quotes Richard Gabriel, lead attorney for the music companies: “This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK.”
What does this mean? Good question…….
by admin
The Sordid Tale Of Guardala
September 7, 2007 in Articles
It is sad that one of the great makers of mouthpieces and horns has messed up everything. From a Newsday Article:
“David Guardala is sort of the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of the saxophone world, according to federal prosecutors and some of those he is accused of swindling.
As of yesterday, Guardala was in a Frankfurt, Germany, jail fighting extradition to Long Island to face 12 counts of fraud. The charges were in an indictment unsealed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Central Islip.”
There is a little history in the article as well. He was the maker of Mouthpieces in the 80s and part of the 90s. His line of Saxophones was great (I used to own an Alto, serial number 766). Dave, what happened?
by admin
Best/Worst Of 2005
December 29, 2005 in Articles
I just picked up a copy of Tim Ries “The Rolling Stones Project”. I have to say, this is probably the best CD I’ve bought in 2005. I can’t think of another CD that I bought in 2005 that was better. Seriously, I think the industry needs to stop doing American Idol and other cheese things, and get back to producing good music.
On the Worst side, the RIAA lawsuits. Here is a great clip of a CNN interview with a person being sued and the RIAA head. Wow, talking about blinking. And here is another guy challenging the suits. I think if an album is good, and reasonably priced, people will buy it (HINT: Around $10). Also, a potential problem for the Recording Industry in the form of Spitzer. What? Price collusion? The RIAA? Never…..not in a hundred years…..
by admin
Orson Scott Card on Copyrights
September 16, 2003 in Articles
Author Orson Scott Card has a great article/column on his take of copyrights. Excellent views!
Some musicians are getting verbal about the RIAA suing people. This article seems to suggest that there is finally some realization that the record industry is screwing the artists. There is even mention of iTunes Store.
I still think more Artists should do internet distributing, like the Ataris have done. And I think Apple should allow people to easily add an album to the store. I know that Rory and I couldn’t find how to get the DVC Night Jazz Band CD on there….
by admin
Exposing the Happy Birthday story
June 29, 2003 in Articles
J. Byron writes “ Exposing the Happy Birthday story:
An editorial by J. Byron, May 2003, rev. June 2003
In this article, I attempt to answer three questions: 1 - What is that song Good Morning to All, and how does it relate to Happy Birthday to You? 2 - Is the melody to Happy Birthday to You public domain? 3 - Are the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You also public domain? There are many references to Happy Birthday on the Web. Most warn you of the copyright claim on it, and that the current owners rabidly defend it. Many of these "editorials" do not tell you about the song Good Morning to All - and the few that do, don't tell you about its undeniable legal status. Is this deliberate, or just ignorance of the facts? I don't know. Two such examples are an article at Attaché Magazine and the commonly cited article at snopes.com. In addition, some articles may unintentionally present inaccurate information. An article posted at lawyers.com incorrectly states that Good Morning to All was written in 1895 but unpublished. That assertion is untrue, and makes an important legal difference.“
Interesting take on copyright and other issues……
There is a 1935 copyright registration for Happy Birthday, but the melody Good Morning to All was formally published in 1893 as part of a collection, registered in October 1893, and is public domain by U. S. statute. (you just can't use the "Happy Birthday" lyrics in public without paying) However, one site listed in this editorial claims possession of some early publications that nullify the copyright to even the lyrics.
Good Morning to All [a.k.a. the birthday melody] included in:
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, pub. 1893
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, revised ed., pub. 1896
[and apparently other pre-1923 editions]
Words: Patty Hill (-1946) Music: Mildred Hill (-1916)
Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning, dear children,
Good morning to all.
The song Good Morning to All - from which Happy Birthday was allegedly derived - is free to use (words and music) by U. S. federal statute. (Published before 1923, and furthermore published before 1909) Take a look at Lolly Gasaway's PD chart, or Cornell University's expanded chart. That version of the birthday melody may suffice for some people - instrumentalists in particular. Also note that titles cannot be protected by copyright, and no unique or proper names are involved. Naming an instrumental CD track Good Morning to All a.k.a. Happy Birthday to You should be legal. (The law of other countries might affect the song's status outside the U. S.)
Allegedly, after the publication of Good Morning to All in the Hill's songbook Song Stories for the Kindergarten, Robert Coleman, and others, published the "birthday" lyrics with the Good Morning to All melody. In the 1930's, the "Happy Birthday" lyrics combined with the Hill's published melody showed up on stage and in singing telegrams. The Hill family allegedly won a 1934 lawsuit for infringement. In 1935 the Hill family registered the "Happy Birthday" copyright mentioned endlessly on the Web. (Which does not affect today's public domain status of Good Morning to All.) Two sources for Good Morning to All sheet music are PD Info (a small studio, that also sells sheet music reprints) and NetStoreUSA which offers Good Morning to All as part of a songbook. In addition, Google or Altavista might list other sources, or local music dealers might be able to order a copy. Mainely A Cappella currently boasts an mp3 sample of Good Morning to All as part of their On the Good Ship Lollipop CD. (There is also a very simple midi example on PD Info's "G" page.)
Is the melody to Good Morning to All the same as the Happy Birthday melody in a legal sense? Except for the splitting of the first note in the melody Good Morning to All to accommodate the two syllables in the word hap-py, musically Happy Birthday and Good Morning to All are identical. Precedence (regarding works derived from public domain material, and cases comparing two similar musical works) seems to suggest that the melody as used in "Happy Birthday" would not merit additional legal protection for one split note. (As separated from the lyrics themselves.) A contact I made via the Web, claimed that someone at Warner-Chappell acknowledged this much to him by phone. It would be the reader's own responsibility to verify that.
Strip away the public domain material from the Happy Birthday melody and what do you have? One note - actually half a note. (Mail in your copyright registration for the note f# for example, and see what you get back 
Does the split note transform the piece in some substantially creative way? Not in my view. The split note is a natural consequence of the lyric change, and that split note is not original in that there are many lyrics that would result in the same splits. It is my view that you cannot copyright the metric structure of a lyric (especially within a single measure) anymore than you can copyright a common chord progression. (Set both versions of the melody in tremelo and they look identical.) If in doubt, just use a dotted eighth note/sixteenth note pair, rather than two eighth notes. The Classical Archives has a midi of Happy Birthday, with variations, on their Encores page. Search for more midi examples using MusicRobot.
As asserted in this article, many people are unaware that the public domain status in the U. S. of the melody from Good Morning to All is not in question. Many of those who do know about the public domain status of Good Morning to All nevertheless believe that splitting the first note of the melody as was done for Happy Birthday would merit protection and attract Warner's attention. My limited understanding of the law suggests otherwise, and if my Web contact was correct, the copyright owner acknowledges the melody to Happy Birthday as public domain.
Whether or not changing the words "Good Morning" to "Happy Birthday" should be protected by copyright is a different matter. Although I could be uninformed, I do not know of any case brought by Warner in regard to Happy Birthday to You. They have however used cease and desist letters. An interesting case involving Warner, not related to Happy Birthday is Sanga Music v. EMI Blackwood Music. However, adding an original 8-line verse to a pre-existing song is more substantial than changing 2 words of a song! Of course, anyone is free to write their own lyrics to the music of Good Morning to All. Here is one example written by myself:
Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas Dear Fri-ends,
Mer-ry Christ-mas to All.
Searching further, I found Katzmarek Publishing, a music publisher specializing in public domain music who claims that he and others have publications of "Happy Birthday" - with the lyrics, that are not covered by the 1935 copyright. (Of course there is no public comment by Warner on this.) Mr. Katzmarek told me via email that he believes Warner knows that their copyright on Happy Birthday to You could get ruled invalid in a court of law, and therefore the documentation he sells acts as sort of a legal shield.
He states on his Web page: "Happy Birthday Document (proving that it is public domain.) A 1935 copyright is invalid according to us, double your money back if we are wrong. (Many people have been ripped off by this dilemma)"
The Katzmarek reprints indicate that the words "Good Morning" were not substituted with the words "Happy Birthday" by the authors of Good Morning to All, they were substituted by other people. (Additional alternative substitutions were also published.) As I previously stated, except for the splitting of the first note in the melody Good Morning to All to accommodate the two syllables in the word hap-py, musically Happy Birthday and Good Morning to All are identical.
Starting in the 1920's, Robert Coleman published the "Happy Birthday" variant in compilations of his own. One such example that includes Happy Birthday to You is: The American Hymnal, Robert H. Coleman, 1933. A second example NOT by Coleman is: Children's Praise and Worship, Gospel Trumpet Company, 1928. [Children's Praise And Worship ed Andrew Byers, Bessie L Byrum & Anna E Koglin, registered 7Apr28, #A1068883, renewed 7Dec55, #R160405, Gospel Trumpet Co (PWH)] Several of Coleman's publications are archived at Bob Jones University and Southwestern Baptist. In addition, the Library of Congress might also have his publications archived.
It is Mr. Katzmarek's belief that because the "Happy Birthday" variant was published in these songbooks without copyright notice (and no author was stated) that it [any original authorship] became public domain upon publication under the 1909 copyright law. The 1909 Copyright Act required that a proper copyright notice be affixed to any published copies, and also required registration of the material. (Reportedly, some legal experts and producers agree, but Warner [the copyright holder] apparently disagrees.) It is curious that Warner doesn't challenge Katzmarek regarding his claims. A more recent case often cited is Bell v. Combined Registry Co., 536 F.2d 164 (7th Cir. 5/14/1976), cert. denied 429 U.S. 1001, 97 S.Ct. 530, 50 L.Ed.2d. 612 (December 6, 1976) although it deals with different issues than presented in the Happy Birthday situation.
An interesting earlier songbook noted by Mr. Katzmarek is: [the] Golden Book of Favorite Songs, Chicago, 1915. It includes the song Good Morning to All printed with the alternate title: "Happy Birthday to You" - however the "Happy Birthday" lyrics are not actually printed along the staff. (There could be even earlier publications of the lyrics in some library.)
In the 1930's, the "Happy Birthday" lyrics combined with the Hill's published melody showed up on stage and in singing telegrams. The Hill family allegedly won the 1934 lawsuit resulting in the 1935 copyright mentioned endlessly on the Web: "Happy Birthday to You was copyrighted in 1935 and renewed in 1963. The song was apparently written in 1893, but first copyrighted in 1935 after a lawsuit (reported in the New York Times of August 15, 1934, p.19 col. 6)" The federal statutes and one court's 1934 opinion seem to present a conflict in determining whether or not Happy Birthday to You is public domain:
The original music to Happy Birthday to You was published as Good Morning to All in 1893 and is securely public domain. The Hill sisters are credited with authoring Good Morning to All. However, according to The Book of World Famous Music by James Fuld, the 1858 song Happy Greetings to All is very similar to the Hill's song. Also in 1858, a similar tune Good Night to You All was published. Therefore, Good Morning to All might not have been a completely original song even in 1893 - which would be consistent with folk music. Other [unknown] people adapted the Happy Birthday lyrics to the song, a few publishers included it in their compilations (songbooks) and others started using it in plays and singing telegrams, while Good Morning to All was still under copyright protection. The song became popular. The Hill family sued for infringement and won. The next year, a copyright registration was filed for the Happy Birthday version of the song. That copyright is now owned by Warner-Chappell/Summy-Birchard. However, just because a copyright is registered doesn't mean it's valid. A copyright registration is only prima facia evidence. Just because someone threatens to sue doesn't mean they would win. One lower court's 1934 ruling couldn't be binding on the whole country, much less the world.
Under the U. S. law of 1909, the effective date of copyright is the date of first publication. The U. S. Copyright Office states: "The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. [The Hills did not create the Happy Birthday to You version.] Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright." There is proof that the song was published as Happy Birthday to You at least by 1915, which is prior to the public domain mark at 1923. Good Morning to All was not public domain in 1915, but it is now. Also, according to the 1909 Copyright Act, publication without notice forfeited the copyright for the publications in the 1920's. A copyright registration dated 20 years after publication is not valid under the 1909 Copyright Act. That would seem to indicate that the whole song is now in the public domain.
In summary and in answer to my three questions asked in this article, Good Morning to All is public domain and free to use, even for commercial use. The Happy Birthday to You melody is probably the same as the Good Morning to All melody in a legal sense. Happy Birthday to You (with the lyrics) might be public domain.
My own comments do not constitute legal advice in any way. I am not a lawyer. This is the result of my own personal study. I accept no liability resulting from the use or misuse of my article. This is not an endorsement of any link(s) in this editorial. For more information on what material is public domain in the United States, refer to Lolly Gasaway's PD chart. Read the copyright basics at the U. S. Copyright Office's Website, and freely access recent case law at Findlaw.com. The Nolo book The Public Domain is an informative resource, written by an attorney. Before using any tune commercially, it is best to check with a lawyer, or research group such as Public Domain Report or Music Reports, which may or may not agree with the opinions in this article.
“
by admin
Will The Real James Bond Please Stand Up
May 18, 2003 in Articles
For a long time, it was thought that John Berry wrote the famous “James Bond Theme”. However, it’s not true. Here is an interesting look into what happened, and how it got corrected.
by admin
Satin Doll Copyright Suit
October 14, 2002 in Articles
Did Ellington and Strayhorn get along? Well, the heirs of their estates are certainly are NOT. Seems that the rights to “Satin Doll” are at stake.
"Third-party plaintiffs, Famous Music Corporation and Mercer Ellington (collectively "the Ellington Estate"), filed a third-party complaint against third-party defendant, Gregory A. Morris, executor of the Billy Strayhorn estate ("the Strayhorn Estate") claiming copyright ownership of and entitlement to royalties from particular versions of the jazz classic, Satin Doll. This Court has ancillary jurisdiction over the third-party claim by virtue of the fact that federal jurisdiction exists over the original action, predicated under the federal copyright laws. Settlement has been reached on many of the other claims in this litigation, including those claims raised by Tempo Music, Inc. ("Tempo"), the plaintiff in the original action, against defendants/ third-party plaintiffs, Famous and Mercer Ellington. n1 What remains in dispute is whether Billy Strayhorn's estate has an interest in the harmony and revised melody of Satin Doll when used or performed without the lyrics. n2"
I wonder what these two guys would say if they were still alive? Would they be fighting in court? Would they even care about it?
by admin
Cage Tries to Copyright Silence
June 29, 2002 in News
Sometimes, reality is too funny. Here is an article saying that John Cage‘s representatives are trying to copyright silence. Oh my gosh.
What is next, the John Coltrane foundation going after players for using Coltrane’s licks? What is the deal?
In another related story, the Music Industry has been convicted of price fixing. Naw. You don’t say. The FTC has more information.
by admin
Music/Law/Copyright….The whole Shebang
April 18, 2002 in Articles
This website comprises hundreds of documents (texts, scores, audio and video files) associated with music copyright infringement cases in the United States from 1845 forward. All of these documents have been collected, edited, digitized, organized, analyzed, and commented upon by staff at Columbia Law Library and the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning.
Under the discussion section, there a write-up entitled “Notation Software and Determination of Melodic Similarity”. For all those music majors out there who are thinking about law school, this is definitely an alternative career waiting for you where you don’t have to throw away all the music.
by admin
Internet Radio and Retroactive Royalties
March 17, 2002 in Articles
Will this be the death blow to internet radio? The American Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (“CARP”) is proposing to lawmakers that internet radio stations pay royalties retroactive to 1998; royalties of .14¢ per song per listener for Internet-only webcasters, .07¢ per song per listener for broadcast radio simulcasts, and .02¢ per song per listener for non-commercial radio simulcasts.
Most stations are operating on zero financing. Do the math; .02¢ x 12 songs per hour and 100 listeners.
To fight this a website Saveinternetradio.org has been set up for people to support internet radio stations.
by admin
Harry Connick Jr. and His New Patent
March 5, 2002 in Articles
According to this New York Times article(registration required), Harry Connick Jr. is a proud owner of Patent 6,348,648.
A system and method for coordinated music composition and display among musicians is presented. The system and method enables a conductor, composer or band leader to interactively edit one or more score parts of a composition using a pen-based interface, mouse, alphanumeric keyboard, or a musical keyboard. Hand-written music editing, which is entered with the pen-based interface, may be flexibly converted to a digital music notation format.
Now, thats cool he is able to use this with his groups and stuff, but the real problem is the patent system. Now, if I took the time to get a group together, get them all, say Apple iBooks, and slapped Finale on them do I need to pay Harry Connick Jr. a fee? Not fair in my opinion.
I think something far more valuable would be to scan in sheet music into Adobe Acrobat. Then you could add annotations and institute a revision system. And, you would still get all the wiz-bang instant page turns, etc, etc. If Dave Eshelman at CSUH decided to scan all his music at school, which must be like 5,000 pieces or more, he could have master copies of all the parts, and if some band member (*cough drummer *cough) loses a part, he would have an extra copy, etc, etc….
by admin
Death Of Streaming Music?
February 22, 2002 in Articles
This article tells of a settlement in royalty rates.
"The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel said AM and FM radio stations should pay 0.07 cent per song, with Internet-only Webcasters paying 0.14 cent per song. The rates, retroactive to 1998, also charge a 9 percent "ephemeral license fee."
Why the higher rate for internet music? I don’t understand the thinking.
by admin
David Liebman Newsletter And Taxes
January 22, 2002 in Articles
If you don’t get David Liebman’s newsletter, go and subscribe to it. David Liebman is very interesting, and I enjoy his thoughts and prospectives on whatever he writes about.
In the last issue I received today, he had an interesting section. Here it is:
THE IRS and PRACTICE ROOM DEDUCTION: From a newsletter I get, this should be known to all musicians for their tax returns-a decision by the Tax Court of Appeals concerning the deduction of a room in a musician’s apartment used for practicing. ”Daily practice was an essential part of the musician’s business. Because she practiced in the room more hours than she worked at all other locations combined, it was her principal place of business and the deduction was allowed.”
Now, I’m wondering where one can find this “decision”? I have a friend who did my taxes last year and works for fairly large firm and finding information about deductions and such was like finding a needle in a haystack.
by admin
CD Copy Protection and Support
January 17, 2002 in Articles
Copy protected CDs. Yes, they are coming thanks to the Universal Music Group. To prepare for the backlash they are likely to receive, they have a support site up complete with FAQ section and how to get a refund if the CD doesn’t work.
I doubt they will be doing this to any jazz CDs anytime soon, but still, the whole premiss of this sucks. I found this section of the site interesting. If you play it in your computer it launches its own player? Ok…..
Loading ...
Recent Comments