Copyright question re the Carter Family and Woodie Guthrie
thedarkman
original copies of the sheet music for Wildwood Flower, When The
World's On Fire and This Land Is Your Land.
Wildwood Flower was copyrighted by A.P Carter in 1930 and renewed in
1955; I found what I took to be another song recorded by Nana
Mouskouri which was copyrighted in 1962, but although there are a few
minor alterations in the melody and lyrics it is in essence the same
song. Furthermore, the original appears not to be the original either;
this was co-written by a guy who died in 1875, with a different name.
Can anyone explain how it was possible for Carter to in effect steal
this copyight and for someone else to steal it again two years after
his death?
it is also well known that Woody Guthrie used the melody of When The
World's On Fire for This Land Is Your Land. Although the songs are
written in different keys you have only to listen to them to realise
they are essentially the same.
I used to compose a bit myself but I haven't touched a guitar in over
ten years, and what exactly does "borrowed the melody" mean as is
often said of this? I always thought a song's essence was the melody.
Thanks
Steve Latham
"thedarkman" <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9bab65fe-fa9e-488d-a70d-
Cross-posts removed for obvious reasons.
>
> Can anyone explain how it was possible for Carter to in effect steal
> this copyight and for someone else to steal it again two years after
> his death?
The all-mighty dollar - or, pound, or euro. It allows corporations to
continue to control rights, and copyrights, long after the point where the
actual creator's copyright expires. But that might not be the reason in this
particular case.
>
> it is also well known that Woody Guthrie used the melody of When The
> World's On Fire for This Land Is Your Land. Although the songs are
> written in different keys you have only to listen to them to realise
> they are essentially the same.
So is Queen's "Under Pressure", and Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" but a jury
of people with no musical skills or knowledge allowed themselves to be
coerced into believing that a single grace note was a significant enough
change to avoid infringement.
>
> I used to compose a bit myself but I haven't touched a guitar in over
> ten years, and what exactly does "borrowed the melody" mean as is
> often said of this? I always thought a song's essence was the melody.
Well, there are actually two parts to songs - the melody, and the lyrics.
The prime example currently is "Happy Birthday To You".
The SONG was written as "Good Morning To You" (good morning to you, good
morning dear teacher, good morning to you). The melody and THOSE lyrics are
out of copyright. BUT, the lyrics for the HAPPY BIRTHDAY version are still
under copyright. If you notice, many restaurants sing "happy birthday songs"
that aren't the traditional - this is not because they are trying to be
unique - it's to avoid royalties issues. The other ones don't really know
any better (and would probably be defensible on those grounds because it's
not exactly common knowledge).
I believe that more recent cases have narrowed it down to "identifying"
characteristics so other musical elements could be included as well, but to
my knowledge, accompaniment patterns and chord progressions are still
exempt. In a sense, this means some things, like 12 bar blues, with a stock
chord progression and boogie accompaniment pattern for example can be
heavily borrowed. All that's left is the lyrics, and the melody. But since
many "melodies" are made up more of "phrases" or "riffs", it become harder
to "sing a tune" for this style, so ultimately, the lyrics become the most
identifiable characteristic.
Steve
nos...@isp.com
> I've been researching for a music database recently
> and have dug out original copies of the sheet music
> for Wildwood Flower, When The World's On Fire and
> This Land Is Your Land.
Whether this is so will depend on what you think you mean by "original
copies" (folks who know about this sort of Stuff being aware that
there may be any number of differing "original copies" of these and
like songs).
> Wildwood Flower . . .
. . . a melody for which almost certainly pre-dates the 1875 song to
which you refer below . . .
> . . . was copyrighted by A.P Carter in 1930 and renewed
> in 1955 . . . .
There is a commonly shared consensus among folk music experts
crediting Carter's version as the "original" in the sense of most
copied.
> I found what I took to be another song recorded
> by Nana Mouskouri . . .copyrighted in 1962, . . .
> although there are a few minor alterations in the
> melody and lyrics it is in essence the same song.
> Furthermore, the original appears not to be the
> original either; this was co-written by a guy who
> died in 1875, with a different name.
There are any number of different copyright protected
versions/performances of "Wildwood Flower" and variants thereon and
also of derivative work lyrics others added to the (themselves:
multiple) "Carter Family" version(s).
> Can anyone explain how it was possible for Carter
> to in effect steal this copyight and for someone
> else to steal it again two years after his death?
He didn't "steal" it except, of course, in the sense that, as They
say, "everyone 'steals' _folk_ _music_ from . . . well, . . . the folk
who first created it -- except, of course, when it may be assumed, but
mistakenly, that some unnamed 'folk' created the work and further
research confirms that this is not so in whole or in part re which,
cf., f'r'instance, the melody and most common lyrics to "Happy
Birthday" and the various "urban myths" associated therewith).
Anyway, A.P. Carter claimed a copyright for (his version of) "Wildwood
Flower" -- which, depending how one defines one's terms, is arguable
the "original" versions (for the melody and lyrics as Carter and,
later, the "Carter Family" performed that song, taken as a whole) and,
for the most part, others acquiesce in that claim.
> it is also well known that Woody Guthrie used
> the melody of When The World's On Fire for
> This Land Is Your Land.
Woody Guthrie appropriated many melodies and, sometimes (but rarely so
when compared with lyrics actually originally composed by him) lyrics,
too, from earlier folk and, sometimes, popular songs.
> Although the songs are written in different keys you
> have only to listen to them to realise they are essentially
> the same.
The more appropriate copyright law term than "essentially the same"
is "substantially similar".
> [W]hat exactly does "borrowed the melody"
> mean as is often said of this?
Your use of the term "exactly" in this context is more than a little
confusing. Presumably, "borrowed" (in "borrowed the melody") could
mean "heard and copied and reproduced or tried to reproduce" or any
variation thereof.
> I always thought a song's essence was the melody.
Anyone is free to think this for artistic/musicological purposes. For
copyright LAW purposes, however, distinctions are made between/among a
melody line and combined instrumentation arrangements based on a
melody and lyrics (in the first instance) and derivative copy lyrics
and live performances and performances recorded in some form of fixed
media from which the performance may be heard or seen and heard.
Pete Seeger -- himself no slouch in either/both the original creation
but also copying/appropriation/adoptation ("borrowed from"?) musical
activity -- tells a touching story about the sort of thing perhaps
referred to above:
Sometime after he composed, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone"
("borrowing" many of the lyrics from a Russian novel and the melody
from an amalgam of Woody Guthrie and folk tunes), Dave Garth, founder
of the Kingston Trio, heard it, and, thinking it was a "folk song" and
unaware that Seeger was the composer, produced a Kingston Trio
recording which became a gigantic/mass-heard/retailed hit the
copyright for which Garth or his group claimed (at first). Though
Seeger did not make an adverse claim, an intermediary told Garth about
Seeger's role (at a time when Seeger was economically constrained by
the McCarthyite "black list"); and Garth promptly called Seeger and
said his great affection for him (and also felt indebtedness to Seeger
because it was of course the latter who introduced Garth and his
generation to the 5-string banjo and related folk music) made him with
the group's consent want to assign the copyright to its "rightful"
owner, which Garth did, enabling, Seeger, he has said, to apply the
royalties from the song to pay for his kids' college tuition (and
substantially more).
There is also an amusing recording (made by folklorist, Alan Lomax) of
Huddie Ledbetter for the U.S. Library of Congress in which Leadbelly
reminisces about a song he claimed to have composed which (at least
according to him) his friend, W.C. Handy, heard him play and "later
wrote up" and called, "The St. Louis Blues" although Handy is of
course generally regarded as that (folk-influenced) song's composer.
Etc., etc. . . .
thedarkman
Extensive answers but not very enlightening. I know that people used
to sell songs; I would have no qualms about buying a song myself and
displaying the copyright on the sheet music but I would never put my
name to another writer's work - even if my reputation is valued only
at £14.
At the end of the day, Carter still put his name to a song that wasn't
his, and the writers of the Nana Mouskouri song followed suit. It is
easy to write a melody that somebody has already penned - there are
only a limited number of notes after all - but to do it consciously
and without attribution I think is all wrong.
nos...@isp.com
> * * * I would never put my name to another writer's
> work - even if my reputation is valued only at £14. At
> the end of the day, Carter still put his name to a song that
> wasn't his . . . .
This is not what Carter did viz-a-viz "Wildwood Flower" although he
was influenced by earlier tunes and (some) earlier lyrics by others
(to other songs. Your originally posted question presumed that what
he did was to "steal" another's song, not actually/genuinely to ask
whether that is what he did.
The (comparatively very well historically documented) reality is that,
for all PRACTICAL (and also legtimately "copyright" related) purposes,
A.P. Carter's (and the Carter Family's) "Wildwood Flower" was an
orignal creation of his/theirs.
> It is easy to write a melody that somebody has
> already penned - there are only a limited number
> of notes after all - but to do it consciously
> and without attribution I think is all wrong.
These sorts of statements reflect not just a lack of any sophisticated
appreciation but, it seems, outright ignorance of creative musical
processes and, most especially, of what has been referred to,
understandably, as the "folk [sic] music" process.
Possibly, however, these sorts of sentiments might have some
credibility if you were to demonstrate artistic originality at least
meaningfully comparable to the originality A.P. Carter (and, as I
earlier suggested, Pete Seeger or Woody Guthrie or Huddie Ledbetter)
demonstrated dramatically (DESPITE their each having been influenced
and also to some degree at one time or another having "borrowed" in
part melodies or some lyrics originated by others).
If, however, it gives you some sort of emotional comfort to
characterize what A.P. Cartder did re. the "classic" folk tune,
"Wildwood Flower" - then: so be it . . .
thedarkman
>
> If, however, it gives you some sort of emotional comfort to
> characterize what A.P. Cartder did re. the "classic" folk tune,
> "Wildwood Flower" - then: so be it . . .
I'm flattered to be considered unsophisticated. I have now listened to
the original Wildwood Flower, I'll Twine Mid the Ringlets, which can
be found at http://www.pdmusic.org/webster.html
If this sounds like it was intended to sound by the bloke who actually
wrote it, then Wildwood Flower is the same song. The Sinking Of The
Reuben James is the same song too, melodically, unless your musical
ear is better than mine - as it probably is but QED.
What Carter did was theft, he said in effect, this is my song, I wrote
it, and here is the proof. He didn't copyright the arrangement, he
didn't just copyright the words and music, he or his publisher wrote
on them Words and Music by AP Carter, not simply Copyright AP Carter.
The fact that he altered both very slightly is neither here nor
there. It's a bit like me writing a book about a bloke called Harold
Potts and changing a few words of one of the Rowling novels then
presenting it to the public as an original work.
George Harrison's song My Sweet Lord was found to have been taken from
He's So Fine, I hesitate to say plagiarised because that implies
ripped off, and I'm sure that when he composed the melody Harrison
thought he was coming up with an original work rather than dragging
up something from his subconscious that he had heard before - and
that's assuming he did.
Donald Swann based The Gasman Cometh on Dashing Away With A Smoothing
Iron but he was quite candid about that in his memoirs and no doubt in
1953 when he produced it, but Carter presented other people's work as
his own. Even though this was not something that could not really be
kept secret and even though he and his family did make enormous
contributions to music, it is still reprehensible.
And as for the much vaunted Mr Guthrie, when he wrote The Sinking Of
The Reuben James he might just as well have published a flyer with the
words and a note "To be sung to the tune of Wildwood Flower". Ditto
many of his other songs.
Svenne
<A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And as for the much vaunted Mr Guthrie, when he wrote The Sinking Of
>The Reuben James he might just as well have published a flyer with the
>words and a note "To be sung to the tune of Wildwood Flower". Ditto
>many of his other songs.
Woody Guthrie often didn't know himself where his melodies came from
and was sometimes surprised when one of his compositions was pointed
out to him as being very similar to older folk tunes.
Not that it mattered much. Guthrie himself held copyright laws in
contempt and said of the songs he performed on a radio show he had in
the 1930's:
"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085,
for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our
permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a
dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote
it, that’s all we wanted to do."
I listened to the midi of Joseph Webster's "I'll Twine 'Mid the
Ringlets" at www.pdmusic.org/webster.html and read the text and there
is absolutely no doubt at all that Websters song is identical to the
song "Wildwood Flower" performed by the Carter Family. I really don't
see how AP Carter could claim it as his own.
Here's an old film clip of the Carter Family singing "Wildwood
Flower." If anybody can spot any difference between this song and
Webster's they have more sensitive ears than me:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewnfWoSQz3o&feature=related
Svenne
nor...@myard.demon.co.uk
>
> If this sounds like it was intended to sound by the bloke who actually
> wrote it, then Wildwood Flower is the same song. The Sinking Of The
> Reuben James is the same song too, melodically, unless your musical
> ear is better than mine - as it probably is but QED.
>
> What Carter did was theft, he said in effect, this is my song, I wrote
> it, and here is the proof. He didn't copyright the arrangement, he
> didn't just copyright the words and music, he or his publisher wrote
> on them Words and Music by AP Carter, not simply Copyright AP Carter.
>
> The fact that he altered both very slightly is neither here nor
> there. It's a bit like me writing a book about a bloke called Harold
> Potts and changing a few words of one of the Rowling novels then
> presenting it to the public as an original work.
I think you don't understand the nature of copyright. In the UK at least,
it comes into existence immediately on creation of any new and original
work. It does not need to be claimed or registered in any way, nor can it
be renewed, nor is it affected by any words used to 'claim it'. The degree
of protection to which it is entitled will be determined, if necessary, by
the courts. That protection only extends, however, to what is new and
original in the work under consideration. So, any new recorded performance
of a song creates a new copyright, but only in respect of that performance.
The words and music of a song will have different coprights. Modifications
of the words or music also attract copyright protection, assuming they are
not absolutely trivial, but only to the extent that they are original, and
there is no requirement for any merit in consideration of whether they are.
So, Carter has not copyrighted anything except what he has added, and it
follows that he has stolen nothing.
nos...@isp.com
> I have now listened to the original Wildwood Flower
> . . . If this sounds like it was intended to sound
> . . . then Wildwood Flower is the same song. The
> Sinking Of The Reuben James is the same song
> too,melodically, . . . .
This comment, betraying, as it does, serious lack of knowledge about
the genesis of these songs, illustrates the inutility of continuing
this conversation. Suffice to say that Woody Guthrie and the Almanac
Singers - the collaboration that produced and was notable for first
performing The [Sinking of] The Reuben James - usually at their
peformances of that sone introduced it by saying that they took the
melody from Wildwood Flower. Not suprisingly, therefore . . .
>And as for the much vaunted Mr Guthrie, when he wrote The
>Sinking Of The Reuben James he might just as well have
> published a flyer with the words and a note "To be sung to
> the tune of Wildwood Flower".
. . . he and the Almanace Singers did exactly this, as did other
members of that group - whether Lampell, or Seeger, or Hayes, et al.,
-- when they peformed separately.
But since it no longer (if it ever was) clear what point you're trying
to make and yet you appear to want to make on the (lack of) basis of
knowledge of the music and its origins to which you've been referring,
there is no point further discussion at least as between us . . .
thedarkman
> "thedarkman" <A_Ba...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:2b700415-6fca-4c33...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> So, Carter has not copyrighted anything except what he has added, and it
> follows that he has stolen nothing.
The sheet music held by the British Library states as follows:
WILDWOOD FLOWER Words and Music by A.P. Carter, published by Southern
Music Publishing Co., Inc of New York. 60c.
Copyright 1930 and 1955 by Peer International Corporation of New York
- same address
Am I missing something?
fredi...@googlemail.com
>
> So, Carter has not copyrighted anything except what he has added, and it
> follows that he has stolen nothing.
Well that is one interpretation, but, where a copyright has been
asserted, filed and claimed and royalties paid to it one might argue
another interpretation is due. And or but, the theft of copyright is a
commercial decision, is there any money left in taking acase to court
even if you can win why bother if the end result is a whacking great
bill and a dribble over man years at best which may or may not cost
more money to get.
For the less bright amongst you, that simply means, a song which is
used once over a life of 10 weeks grosses 5 grand and then has no more
or very little mileage left in it why bother asserting copyright at a
cost of 15grand through the court cept for principle or spite.....Now
my book, the bible would be worth taking a copyright case to court on
but, well there are alot of nuts out there who also think they wrote
it so its likely to cost me alot of dough to defend my copyright.
richard
The original copyright issued was only granted for a set number of
years and that was fairly limited back in the last century or so. Not
until recently did the length of issue extend beyond the death of the
author. So it is quite possible that one version was copyrighted at
one time, and years later, another version was also copyrighted.
I ran across a similar oddity that involves the "Beatles" and their
rendition of "Sloop John B". I found out that there is an earlier
recording under the name of "Wreck of the John B". The words and music
are nearly identical. John Lennon was quick to put his name on the
"lyrics by" title even though he may not have been the true author.
Ishtar
==============================================
George Harrison got into trouble for "unconsciously" plagiarising the
tune of "He's So Fine" for Harrison's "My Sweet Lord."
http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm
Ishtar
> I ran across a similar oddity that involves the "Beatles" and their
> rendition of "Sloop John B". I found out that there is an earlier
> recording under the name of "Wreck of the John B". The words and music
> are nearly identical. John Lennon was quick to put his name on the
>
> - Show quoted text -
=====================================
Lonnie Donegan's variation, "I Want to go Home," was quite pleasant.
Norman Wells
Nope. It's just a claim and a warning. It has no legal significance except
as that. It doesn't mean they necessarily have any assertable rights, nor
is it any indication of how extensive those rights might be. Those would
all be matters for a court to decide if ever they sought to assert their
'rights' against anyone whom they thought was infringing them.
Papadillos
durations vary by country: 50 years in Canada last time I looked; 75 or so
in Europe, 90 or so in the USA (measured from death of author or date of
publication if a "work for hire"). And once a copyright expired in the USA,
an extension of the duration by law did not reactivate it. By contrast, in
the EU it did, although apparently pre-published and -printed or
-manufactured works (during the gap) could not infringe.
Lots of people put copyright notices on everything, just to scare off
people. Unfortunately it can be very hard to find out if something is really
still in copyright. And big money is behind the ridiculous extension to 90+
years (think of the "Happy Birthday" song, owned by Warner Brothers last
time I looked; written by a couple of teachers and on the point of expiring
when its copyright was extended by Congress in exchange for big campaign
contributions).
On 05/05/2008 09:31, in article fvmgm2$q5s$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk,