Edelweiss copyright

[Opus the Penguin]

In the 1970s at a United Methodist Women's Conference, a song sheet was
handed out with lyrics to a song called "May the Lord, Mighty God". The
instructions indicated that the song should be sung to the tune of
"Edelweiss" from _The Sound of Music_. Furnished with this information,
the Methodist Women proceeded to break the law. This is their story. DUN
dun.

Wait. Sorry. This isn't a spinoff called Law & Order: UMWC. But many
internet sources maintain that this performance was illegal. Richard
Rodgers vigorously defended the copyright of "Edelweiss" and declined all
permission to produce the song with other words.

I'm wondering just how long is the arm of the law here. I'm pretty sure I
could write a *parody* of Edelweiss and be protected. But this was no
parody. It was an earnest if poetically second rate attempt to praise God
using a beloved tune. If they'd put the song in the Methodist Hymnal, or
if they'd recorded the song and sold copies, I'd agree that was illegal.
But if I write different words to a copyrighted tune and sing it with my
family in the car, am I really breaking the law? What about with two
dozen friends around a campfire?

Wiki says that the estates of Rodgers and Hammerstein continue to deny
permission for the use of alternative lyrics. It is nevertheless trivial
to find performances of "May the Lord, Mighty God" on YouTube. So either
the estates of R&H haven't pursued this matter with YouTube or YouTube
isn't as scared of R&H as they are of Sony and Time-Warner.

--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet

[Les Albert]

You have been bothered by this since the 1970s? Okay, tell the two
dozen friends around the campfire, and your family singing in the car
that they are not going to be sued by the estates of R & H. The
copyright act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive
right to authorize others to perform the work publicly, in the case of
literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes,
motion pictures and other audiovisual works. Singing around the
campfire, and singing in the car is not a public performance.

Les

[Howard .]

Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the 1970s at a United Methodist Women's Conference, a song sheet
> was handed out with lyrics to a song called "May the Lord, Mighty
> God". The instructions indicated that the song should be sung to the
> tune of "Edelweiss" from _The Sound of Music_. Furnished with this
> information, the Methodist Women proceeded to break the law. This is
> their story. DUN dun.
>
> Wait. Sorry. This isn't a spinoff called Law & Order: UMWC. But many
> internet sources maintain that this performance was illegal. Richard
> Rodgers vigorously defended the copyright of "Edelweiss" and declined
> all permission to produce the song with other words.
>
> I'm wondering just how long is the arm of the law here. I'm pretty
> sure I could write a *parody* of Edelweiss and be protected. But this
> was no parody. It was an earnest if poetically second rate attempt to
> praise God using a beloved tune. If they'd put the song in the
> Methodist Hymnal, or if they'd recorded the song and sold copies, I'd
> agree that was illegal. But if I write different words to a
> copyrighted tune and sing it with my family in the car, am I really
> breaking the law? What about with two dozen friends around a
> campfire?

From what I can tell, copyright doesn't apply in US law to a performance
within a "normal circle" of your family and friends. So you can sing "Lucy
in Disguise with Ivan" to your heart's content with your family and
friends.

I don't see any precise definition of what that means, though, when I poke
around online. In googlebooks, for example, Principles of Copyright Law by
Schecter and Thomas discusses it in a lot of detail, but I didn't see any
specific numbers listed in the cases they mentioned. For instance, I
didn't see anything that said you could have up to 20 family members who
were first cousins or closer and 16 friends, who you needed to know for at
least 2.5 years, saved you from death or disfigurement, or went on a really
cool camping trip with you to the Four Corners where you hung out, did a
bit of mountain biking, you know, just chilled and bonded.

I'm sure Aunt Bea singing "I Will Always Love You" in your parlor with an
audience of five is fine, but your ninth cousin Lakshmi singing "Yahaan Ke
Hum Sikander" before 5,000 people isn't. But I don't know where they draw
the line as far as numbers.

The venue also matters, so singing in your home is OK, singing in your
hotel room is OK, but Carnegie Hall often isn't, although the janitor there
who whistles a Piano Man/Working on the Chain Gang mashup while mopping
alone would be OK. There are complicated examples of when something is
private, public, or semi-private, but I'm not clear on exactly where the
line gets drawn in particular circumstances.

There are also issues with non-profit performances, educational
performances, and so on. You can read that book I mentioned until your
head spins, if you'd like.

[Les Albert]

I think you like to hear yourself talk (write). All you had to say is
that copyright prohibits *public* performances without authorization
from the copyright holder. The words are right there on the U.S. Gov.
copyright website.

Les

[Snidely]

Les Albert used thar keyboard to writen:

Ah, how sweet. And a succinct interpretation of practical case law,
too.
/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Greg Goss]

"Howard ." <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:

>I'm sure Aunt Bea singing "I Will Always Love You" in your parlor with an
>audience of five is fine, but your ninth cousin Lakshmi singing "Yahaan Ke
>Hum Sikander" before 5,000 people isn't. But I don't know where they draw
>the line as far as numbers.
>
>The venue also matters, so singing in your home is OK, singing in your
>hotel room is OK, but Carnegie Hall often isn't, although the janitor there
>who whistles a Piano Man/Working on the Chain Gang mashup while mopping
>alone would be OK. There are complicated examples of when something is
>private, public, or semi-private, but I'm not clear on exactly where the
>line gets drawn in particular circumstances.

I've assumed that the karaoke computer keeps track of licensing fees.
I've wondered what liabilities might ensue if I request the original,
then actually sing the Bob Rivers parody.

Bob Rivers is allowed to create the parody, but me singing it in a
nearly empty bar (sometimes as few as ten people) is a public
performance. Will the karaoke contractor company get sued? Should it
be?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Opus the Penguin]

Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:

> I think you like to hear yourself talk (write).

I thought it was funny.

[Peter Boulding]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 02:39:12 +0000 (UTC), "Howard ." <howr...@htmail.com>

wrote in <XnsA706DC499F2A...@46.165.242.75>:

>So you can sing "Lucy
>in Disguise with Ivan" to your heart's content with your family and
>friends.

A girl with colitis goes by.


--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music

[hymie!]

In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>, who said:
> "Howard ." <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've assumed that the karaoke computer keeps track of licensing fees.

> [...]

> but me singing it in a
> nearly empty bar (sometimes as few as ten people) is a public
> performance. Will the karaoke contractor company get sued? Should it
> be?

I am part of an organization that holds an annual event in a hotel with
a piano sitting in a hallway. The Org insists that the piano be locked,
because (according to the Org) if an attendee sits at the piano and
plays a song, it's a Public Performance, and the Org can be sued.

No idea how true that is, but the piano stays locked.

--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net

[Howard .]

They absolutely can be sued. Whether the suit would go anywhere is a
different question. But major companies can be notoriously litigious
about rights issues without any grounds, which is why Warner was able to
rake in millions for performances of Happy Birthday to You even though
their copyright claims were bogus. At least in this case, they paid a
$14 million price for overstepping their rights.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-music-pays-14-million-
863120

http://tinyurl.com/hx2jzk9

[Lesmond]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:05:22 -0000 (UTC), Opus the Penguin wrote:

>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you like to hear yourself talk (write).
>
>I thought it was funny.

So did I.

--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks

[Howard .]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

> I've assumed that the karaoke computer keeps track of licensing fees.
> I've wondered what liabilities might ensue if I request the original,
> then actually sing the Bob Rivers parody.
>
> Bob Rivers is allowed to create the parody, but me singing it in a
> nearly empty bar (sometimes as few as ten people) is a public
> performance. Will the karaoke contractor company get sued? Should it
> be?

I was under the impression that karaoke in bars was handled the same way as
playing recorded music -- smaller venues don't have to report every single
song that gets played. Instead, ASCAP and the other companies have some
kind of formula for splitting up the fees they get from small businesses,
so Stevie Wonder gets a bigger cut of karaoke royalties than someone with a
minor hit, even if there's actually a mysterious drop in covers of
Superstition in one quarter of the year.

[Bob]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5, hymie! wrote:

> In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>, who said:
> > "Howard ." <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've assumed that the karaoke computer keeps track of licensing fees.
> > [...]
> > but me singing it in a
> > nearly empty bar (sometimes as few as ten people) is a public
> > performance. Will the karaoke contractor company get sued? Should it
> > be?
>
> I am part of an organization that holds an annual event in a hotel with
> a piano sitting in a hallway. The Org insists that the piano be locked,
> because (according to the Org) if an attendee sits at the piano and
> plays a song, it's a Public Performance, and the Org can be sued.

How's the organiz'n supposed to figure you'll play a copyrighted (by someone else) song?

[Les Albert]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:37:05 -0800 (PST), Bob <rob...@bestweb.net>
wrote:

The bigger question is, how is the copyright owner know that his/her
song has been played at such an event?

Les

[Les Albert]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:44:35 -0800, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
wrote:

Too much wine with posting. Should read: ... how does the copyright
owner know ...

Les

[hymie!]

In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,

By locking the piano, the Org doesn't have to figure it out. You can't
play anything, including copyrighted songs.

--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net

[hymie!]

In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,

Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>, who said:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:37:05 -0800 (PST), Bob <rob...@bestweb.net>
> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5, hymie! wrote:
>
>>> I am part of an organization that holds an annual event in a hotel with
>>> a piano sitting in a hallway. The Org insists that the piano be locked,
>>> because (according to the Org) if an attendee sits at the piano and
>>> plays a song, it's a Public Performance, and the Org can be sued.
>

> The bigger question is, how does the copyright owner know that his/her

> song has been played at such an event?

The big rights agencies (ASCAP and BMI) send people to big events
listening for music being played. Restaurants, bars, supermarkets...

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/04/bar-owners-beware-not-paying-for-tunes-can-be-costly/

>>In 2008, ASCAP sent a private investigator to visit Roscoe’s and
>>write down some of the music he heard being performed there. (OK, so,
>>how do you get THAT job?). The investigator went in one night and saw
>>the band play four John Coltrane songs, and heard the DJ play four songs
>>from a group called Hiroshima. The investigator testified that the band
>>announced the names of the songs they played during their “Coltrane”
>>set and that he jotted the names of the Hiroshima songs from the CD
>>jewel case next to the DJ station. All eight songs are licensed through
>>ASCAP. And that’s all the evidence it took for ASCAP to win.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tampa-bay-businesses-are-sued-for-playing-copyrighted-music-without-paying/2282346

>>On a Friday night in November 2014, the band at Tadpole's bar and
>>restaurant in Brandon played hits such as Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville,
>>Hank Williams Jr.'s Blues Man and Brantley Gilbert's Dirt Road Anthem.
>>
>>Not everyone in the audience was there to enjoy the music.
>>
>>Among them was a "music researcher" hired by Broadcast Music Inc.,
>>or BMI, to document the performance.
>>
>>BMI is one of three major music-licensing companies that collect annual
>>fees from restaurants and bars that play music, then pay songwriters and
>>producers. Even if a song comes on a TV in the bar, the business needs
>>a license to publicly broadcast it.

--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net

[Howard .]

hymie! <hy...@lactose.homelinux.net> wrote

> http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tampa-bay-businesses-are-sued-
for-playing-copyrighted-music-without-paying/2282346

>>>BMI is one of three major music-licensing companies that collect
>>>annual fees from restaurants and bars that play music, then pay
>>>songwriters and producers. Even if a song comes on a TV in the bar,
>>>the business needs a license to publicly broadcast it.

The rules aren't quite as stringent as that --

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2015/07/articles/does-a-local-business-
need-licenses-from-ascap-bmi-and-sesac-to-play-my-radio-or-tv-station-
on-their-premises/

http://tinyurl.com/h592gv7

You can go royalty-free if you have one TV in a room as long as it is
less than 55 inches, and you don't have more than four TVs total in the
business, and they only play broadcast or cable channels -- no DVDs, for
instance. Also, the bar can't charge admission.

You can see how a bar could break those rules pretty easily, though,
maybe when some busboy moves a second TV into the room while cleaning up
right before closing time.

[Snidely]

Just this Monday, hymie! puzzled about:

What do they do about kazoo players and tributes to Rockappella?

/dps "And where IS Carmen?"

--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm

[Kerr Mudd-John]

Ask John Peel


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[hymie!]

In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,

*sigh* They do their best to claim that neither the Org nor the facility
rented by (and thus tangentially under the control of) Org was involved
in said musical production. Easier claim to make when a person brings
a kazoo in his pocket Harder claim to make when a person finds a piano
sitting in a hotel hallway.

Remember, these are lawyers. It's not about being 100% secure. It's about
being 100% non-culpable.

--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hy...@lactose.homelinux.net

[bill van]

In article <op.yuxh1...@dell3100.dlink.com>,

Do ye ken John Peel?
--
bill

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:45:18 -0000, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

Nae, but I used to listen to his radio show a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peel

[Snidely]

hymie! was thinking very hard :

Oh, you didn't tell us the Org was lawyers.

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

[Bob]

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 1:33:31 PM UTC-5, hymie! wrote:
> In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Bob <rob...@bestweb.net>, who said:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5, hymie! wrote:
> >
> >> In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> >> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>, who said:
> >> > "Howard ." <howr...@htmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I've assumed that the karaoke computer keeps track of licensing fees.
> >> > [...]
> >> > but me singing it in a
> >> > nearly empty bar (sometimes as few as ten people) is a public
> >> > performance. Will the karaoke contractor company get sued? Should it
> >> > be?
> >>
> >> I am part of an organization that holds an annual event in a hotel with
> >> a piano sitting in a hallway. The Org insists that the piano be locked,
> >> because (according to the Org) if an attendee sits at the piano and
> >> plays a song, it's a Public Performance, and the Org can be sued.
> >
> > How's the organiz'n supposed to figure you'll play a copyrighted (by someone else) song?
>
> By locking the piano, the Org doesn't have to figure it out. You can't
> play anything, including copyrighted songs.

I mean, how are they to blame if they don't lock it? They're not the ones playing it.

[Whiskers]

I wonder if the piano lock is the sort that takes the standard piano key
that I'm sure many pianists have on their key-rings? Not that a bona
fide pianist would unlock a piano without permission, of course.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~