May 15, 2011 4:15 am at 4:15 am #596891
Maccabeats hit “Candlelight” got 5,231,786 hits on Youtube and they didnt get sued by the original composer? Why? Is it illegal or not to use others music without permission. Did they get permission?May 15, 2011 4:30 am at 4:30 am #766627
You cant have a copyright on a tune. As long as they replayed the music and didnt just copy and paste it its legal. Think about when you go to a wedding and they play the latest hits is it legal? The answer is yes.May 15, 2011 4:32 am at 4:32 am #766628
the only thing thats illegal is that they “stole” a goyish tuneMay 15, 2011 4:48 am at 4:48 am #766629
When musicians record other composers’ tunes, with very minor, hardly noticeable, changes, it’s legal? They cant be sued?May 15, 2011 5:12 am at 5:12 am #766630
They gave credit where it was due on the youtube video’s description. Also, you can just change one note in a song and it’s considered a different song now.May 15, 2011 5:35 am at 5:35 am #766631
The tune is clearly from a pop culture tune, and it would be illegal to use that tune without permission. So I assume that they got permission from the original artist.
BTW, I heard the original version by chance, and I think that the Maccabeats version is a lot better.May 15, 2011 5:35 am at 5:35 am #766632
How about if they dont give credit, like some Lipa music, which everyone recognizes from famous secular music?May 15, 2011 5:50 am at 5:50 am #766633
Did they even sell it? I’m not even sure if it’s put on their CD to make money (though I could be wrong). I imagine, if it is illegal to take someone’s tune while changing the words, it’s only illegal if you sell it and make money, not if you just put it on Youtube for everyone’s free enjoyment.May 15, 2011 6:42 am at 6:42 am #766634
They sell it on iTunes for moneyMay 15, 2011 6:59 am at 6:59 am #766635
What about performers like Lipa. Can they be sued?May 15, 2011 7:31 am at 7:31 am #766636
You cant have a copyright on a tune.
A song can be copyrighted and creating a new song with a tune from an existing song would be a derivative work and creation of derivative works is a right of the copyright holder.
Think about when you go to a wedding and they play the latest hits is it legal?
This is a different issue. performing rights only apple to public performances. A wedding is a private event.
Did they even sell it?
Yes, but that is irrelevent.May 15, 2011 10:17 am at 10:17 am #766637
This is actually an old case involving a former Beatle
Plagiarism DOES exist when it comes to the music (excluding lyrics)May 15, 2011 10:57 am at 10:57 am #766638
Why would anyone buy it when you can download it from youtube for FREE!!!May 15, 2011 11:35 am at 11:35 am #766639
They owe (and I’m sure have paid) royalty fees to the original composer, but it’s legal to copy the tune.May 15, 2011 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm #766640
There is a legal concept called “Fair Use”. This has gone to the Supreme Court and they ruled for “Fair Use”
You are allowed to take a copyrighted song and make new lyrics.
You can google the court case Fisher v. Dees as an expample. But there are many others as wellMay 15, 2011 2:44 pm at 2:44 pm #766641
IANAL, but I have heard that parody falls under Fair Use. For example, Weird Al Yankovic is an artist who has made a living by taking popular songs and putting new (and funny) lyrics to the tunes.
From what I’ve read, Yankovic is not required by law to get permission from the artists he parodies. He does so anyway, because he wants to maintain good relationships with the artists, but if were so inclined, he could parody a song with no copyright issues.
The WolfMay 15, 2011 3:16 pm at 3:16 pm #766642
Does this mean that any Jewish singer can take any non-Jewish tune and sell albums with it, without having to worry about legal issues?May 15, 2011 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm #766643
@ Wolf – what does IANAL stand for?
thanks!May 15, 2011 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm #766644
Does this mean that any Jewish singer can take any non-Jewish tune and sell albums with it, without having to worry about legal issues?
I think so, as long as proper credit is given (which is rare for the situation you mentioned, but I might be wrong about that) and royalties are paid (a negligible amount, considering the relatively small number of these songs sold).May 15, 2011 3:38 pm at 3:38 pm #766645
@ Wolf – what does IANAL stand for?
I Am Not A Lawyer.
The WolfMay 15, 2011 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #766646
@ Wolf – what does IANAL stand for?
I Am Not A Lawyer.
The Wolf <blockquote/>
I didn’t know that you need to be a lawyer to know what IANAL stands for. ?May 15, 2011 5:25 pm at 5:25 pm #766647
From what I’ve read, Yankovic is not required by law to get permission from the artists he parodies.
The song “It’s Still Billy Joel To Me” would be covered by fair use because the subject is Billy Joel’s songs but almost all of his other songs wouldn’t because the origional work is not the target of his parody.May 15, 2011 5:40 pm at 5:40 pm #766648
Wolf, there is a differece legally between parody, which is ok. And satire which is infringement.May 15, 2011 7:22 pm at 7:22 pm #766649
A federal judge has tentatively ruled that California senatorial candidate Chuck DeVore violated rocker Don Henley’s copyrights on two songs when he used them as the basis for campaign commercials posted on YouTube. In addition, the judge said that DeVore’s infringement was likely willful.
This decision, outlined in a 32-page tentative order, potentially holds major ramifications for politicians throughout the nation. (Judges are free to change their minds after issuing a tentative ruling, but it’s rare; the two sides were in court today arguing over the tentative ruling). Over the past few months, several musicians have pressed copyright claims against politicians including John McCain, Charlie Crist, and Joe Walsh.
The case against DeVore was the first to get to judgment.
In response to the lawsuit by Henley (pictured), DeVore claimed that the First Amendment protected political speech and he had a fair use right to Henley’s work. In court papers, DeVore claimed that in using two of Henley’s songs — and rewriting the lyrics — he was parodying Hollywood’s affection for liberals. Using a copyrighted song as part of a parody (poking fun at the original work) is allowed more often than using a copyright in a satire (when you’re poking fun at something else).
U.S. District Court Judge James Selna framed the major legal conundrum this way:
“This case raises the somewhat novel issue of whether…criticism of the author of an original work falls on either the parody or satire side of the line. In other words, is work which appropriates from the original to criticize the original’s author — but does not directly criticize the content of original — validly classified as ‘parody’?”
In looking for an answer, Judge Selna cited a number of recent disputes, including a lawsuit brought by J.D. Salinger to stop a sequel to The Catcher in the Rye and another case where an individual was sued for writing a song, “I Need a Jew,” with a tune and lyrics similar to the Disney classic “When You Wish Upon a Star.” In those cases, judges split, one finding the “Rye” sequel wasn’t a parody and the other ruling that the song making fun of Walt Disney’s purported anti-Semitism was.
Judge Selna noted, “The act of ridiculing and lampooning public figures is a rich part of our First Amendment tradition” and “in many cases, the most effective tool of ridiculing a public figure…is through that person’s own creations.”
On the other hand, Selna takes great pains to analyze the character and lyrics of each of DeVore’s songs to determine whether he took too much liberty in what he borrowed from Henley’s underlying composition.
He found that the song “All She Wants to Do Is Tax” (based on Henley’s “All She Wants to Do Is Dance”) is pure satire because it fails to take aim at the original or its author, and thus it lacks justification to borrow. He found that “After the Hope of November Is Gone” (based on Henley’s “The Boys of Summer”) lampoons Henley as an Obama supporter and would thus be justified in appropriating some of Henley’s song. However, the judge finds the song goes far beyond what’s necessary to hold the singer up to ridicule.
Neither song is fair use, the judge rules.
A claim against DeVore for violations of the Lanham Act — whether he implied a false endorsement on the part of Henley — was dismissed.
Before the verdict, DeVore attorney Chris Arledge predicted a ruling favoring Henley would chill free speech by politicians throughout the nation, by reclassifying political speech as “commercial speech” open to legal inspection.May 15, 2011 7:31 pm at 7:31 pm #766650
I don’t feel it is proper to name names asking if this one or that one got permission to use a tune before recording. How would anyone here know if they did or not, so in a sense you are starting L”H on that person. There are many performers who do this and no one but them and their “people” know whether in fact they took the legal route. This includes all the very well known performers who are the top echelon in Kosher Jewish Music today. One of which took a German march and put it to a tune that is still played at some weddings but was banned at many years ago.
Many people who do NOT listen to secular music have no idea and have no reason to know that the music was adapted to Jewish lyrics. Tunes are fun and upbeat and therefore they are recycled into various forms. The only time I personally had a problem was with this German march and with a Spanish song that everyone was dancing to but did not understand the lyrics to. It happened to be about the “oldest profession int he world” which is not a very nice thing for women to do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.