Disney sued for Copyright violation
Peanutjake
The Burbank media giant is being sued by a South African family that claims Disney owes them $1.6
million in damages for using a popular song written by their father in two of its "Lion King"
movies.
Lawyers representing descendants of Zulu migrant worker and musician Solomon Linda say Disney
violated the copyright on "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" when it featured the song in its animated
musicals about betrayal and redemption on the African plain.
Money that Disney makes in South Africa from its trademarks, including Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck,
could be seized by the courts if Disney loses the suit, the family's lawyer, Owen Dean, told
Reuters.
Disney spokeswoman Michelle Bergman said the company hadn't seen the lawsuit yet and couldn't
comment.
Linda's heirs estimate that the song, initially called "Mbube" (Lion), has earned about $15 million
in royalties since it was penned in 1939, but the family has received only $15,000.
The composer sold the worldwide copyright to a local firm, but under British laws in effect at the
time, those rights should have reverted to his heirs 25 years after his death in 1962, Dean said.
Linda's surviving three daughters and 10 grandchildren are entitled to a share of royalties from the
song, Dean said, which has been recorded by at least 150 musicians including the Tokens, whose
version hit No. 1 in the U.S. in 1961.
Disney's original 1994 movie "The Lion King" grossed more than $1 billion in ticket sales and video
sales and rentals.
Abby Sale
wrote:
>Linda's heirs estimate that the song, initially called "Mbube" (Lion), has earned about $15 million
>in royalties since it was penned in 1939, but the family has received only $15,000.
>
>The composer sold the worldwide copyright to a local firm, but under British laws in effect at the
>time, those rights should have reverted to his heirs 25 years after his death in 1962, Dean said.
>
>Linda's surviving three daughters and 10 grandchildren are entitled to a share of royalties from the
>song, Dean said, which has been recorded by at least 150 musicians including the Tokens, whose
>version hit No. 1 in the U.S. in 1961.
Interesting. Somebody swiped my Weavers LP with this and the _Greatest
Hits_ one doesn't give the year, just arr. Paul Campbell (Weavers) &
Folkways/BMI. But it must be about 1955. I remember it being the 1st
"folk song" I ever heard in a "coffee shop" (Tulas in Cambridge MA) in
1956. It was exciting, I can tell you. BTW, second song was "I ride an
Old Paint." Just as exciting.
It was a huge hit for the Weavers - did they pay the SA firm? Of course,
Linda had nothing to do with the English version (or the word 'Wimoweh.')
Sounds good. Haven't had a really good folksong lawsuit in years.
Unfortunately (for the sake of gossip, not unfortunately for people) the
"Scarborough Fair" suit was settled quietly out of court.
But if this one is worth millions over 60 plus years, it could be a lot
of fun. Then you also get into whether Linda ever had clear title, it
was based, as I gather, on Zulu folk material to begin with. Further,
although the singing style was generally called 'mbube' after his very
popular recording, he certainly didn't invent the style.
Modern reissues of the original record generally Linda and the one I have
(Rounder CD 5025, _Mbube Roots_ 1988) - excellent notes BTW, gives "c.
1939" but not to whom; maybe Gallo Records.
George Hawes
NO-SPA...@ft.newyorklife.com (Abby Sale) wrote:
> Sounds good. Haven't had a really good folksong lawsuit in years.
> Unfortunately (for the sake of gossip, not unfortunately for people) the
> "Scarborough Fair" suit was settled quietly out of court.
And in any case the Scarborough Fair lawsuite was aeons ago . .
(Though you could say it was only finally settled a couple of years
past, when Carthy and Simon finally decided to "kiss and make up"!)
But as you say, a fascinating case . . .
G.
--
George Hawes, Sawston, Cambridge
(email responses to my posts are unlikely to arrive - sorry!)
Chris Ryall
>For Walt Disney Co., it really is a jungle out there.
>The Burbank media giant is being sued by a South African family that
>claims Disney owes them $1.6 million in damages for using a popular
>song written by their father in two of its "Lion King" movies.
>Disney's original 1994 movie "The Lion King" grossed more than $1
>billion in ticket sales and video sales and rentals.
This would seem to be a simple petty cash matter if their claim is any
way valid.
--
Chris Ryall Wirral UK
Java Jive
parts, it's LONG - dialup users might prefer to load and then save to their
hard disk each part's page in turn, and then read them off-line) ...
http://www.3rdearmusic.com/forum/mbube2.html
At the risk of widening the discussion (which actually I'm not particualrly
interested in doing, but here goes anyway, because I feel this point needs
to be made), this story really shows up the MPAA/RIAA crap about "protecting
the rights of artists" against past and present music sharers. At one time
or other, they've tried to ban or tax all forms of home recording and
sharing technology, from home tape-recorders in the post-war era, through
the twin audio-cassette machines in the 80s, to the current downloading
fraternity. Throughout all this time, noone has ripped off artists more
than these same big media companies :-(
Sorry, rant mode is safely off now ...
"Peanutjake" <peanut...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:2koasbF...@uni-berlin.de...
Lyle Lofgren
> There's a very complete account of the background to this here (in several
> parts, it's LONG - dialup users might prefer to load and then save to their
> hard disk each part's page in turn, and then read them off-line) ...
> http://www.3rdearmusic.com/forum/mbube2.html
>
> At the risk of widening the discussion (which actually I'm not particualrly
> interested in doing, but here goes anyway, because I feel this point needs
> to be made), this story really shows up the MPAA/RIAA crap about "protecting
> the rights of artists" against past and present music sharers. At one time
> or other, they've tried to ban or tax all forms of home recording and
> sharing technology, from home tape-recorders in the post-war era, through
> the twin audio-cassette machines in the 80s, to the current downloading
> fraternity. Throughout all this time, noone has ripped off artists more
> than these same big media companies :-(
>
> Sorry, rant mode is safely off now ...
>
Never apologize for ranting--Rush Limbaugh doesn't. Unfortunately, the
original source gets the raw end of the economic deal, whether it's in
music or any other commodity. The cost of mining coal or iron ore is
miniscule compared with the price of the end product. The dairy farmer
receives very little for milk, and the cow gets even less.
Lyle
Paul Burke
> The composer sold the worldwide copyright to a local firm, but under British laws in effect at the
> time, those rights should have reverted to his heirs 25 years after his death in 1962, Dean said.
>
> Linda's surviving three daughters and 10 grandchildren are entitled to a share of royalties from the
> song, Dean said, which has been recorded by at least 150 musicians including the Tokens, whose
> version hit No. 1 in the U.S. in 1961.
>
I'm not trying to start a flame war, or even trolling, just trying to
get an explanation. Why does artistic copyright last so much longer than
other forms of intellectual property? For example, the inventor of the
integrated circuit, the LED, the fluorescent light etc. etc. had a far
bigger impact on human happiness (for better or worse) than the author
of The Lion Sleeps Tonight. But it is considered reasonable that the
song (book, painting, photograph) should bankroll the author's
descendants, yea, even unto the third generation (I think it's 70 years
after the author's death?) whereas an engineering, pharmaceutical,
chemical, anything else patent expires after 25 years, even if the
originator is still alive.
Yes, I agree that the Linda family are poor campared to Disney (or you
and me for that matter), but the law also applies to Michael Jackson's
heirs and assignees. And the families of many inventors, scientists and
engineers are often not particularly well off.
And accepted that many artistic works don't "mature" to the point that
they make money until "rediscovered" years after composition, but that's
true of other kinds of IP too.
Any thoughts?
Paul Burke
Erik Newman
>
> I'm not trying to start a flame war, or even trolling, just trying to
> get an explanation. Why does artistic copyright last so much longer than
> other forms of intellectual property? For example, the inventor of the
> integrated circuit, the LED, the fluorescent light etc. etc. had a far
> bigger impact on human happiness (for better or worse) than the author
> of The Lion Sleeps Tonight. But it is considered reasonable that the
> song (book, painting, photograph) should bankroll the author's
> descendants, yea, even unto the third generation (I think it's 70 years
> after the author's death?) whereas an engineering, pharmaceutical,
> chemical, anything else patent expires after 25 years, even if the
> originator is still alive.
Because there isn't really an inventor's association with a powerful
lobby like there is for the recording and movie industry. The funniest
part about this story is that the song probably would have been in
public domain now if it weren't for the copyright term extension laws
Disney buys from their friendly neighboorhood congressman (at least in
the US) every time Mickey comes close to becoming PD.
Java Jive
"Paul Burke" <pa...@scazon.com> wrote in message
news:2kv379F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Why does artistic copyright last so much longer than
> other forms of intellectual property?
[snip]
> But it is considered reasonable that the
> song (book, painting, photograph) should bankroll the author's
> descendants
There is where I think you're missing the point: the media companies who
lobbied for these copyright laws didn't and don't give a rhyming duck about
the artists' descendants, only the perpetuation of their own rip-off
profits.
They got away with it because:
a) They have very powerful political lobbies, particularly seemingly in
the US.
b) In the technological case there is a strong counter-argument that
overly restrictive copyrights prevent general technological progress, while
there is no such corresponding counter-argument in the artistic case.
BTW, I too like the chickens-coming-home-to-roost point made in Erik
Newman's reply to you.
Lyle Lofgren
> get an explanation. Why does artistic copyright last so much longer than
> other forms of intellectual property? For example, the inventor of the
> integrated circuit, the LED, the fluorescent light etc. etc. had a far
> bigger impact on human happiness (for better or worse) than the author
> of The Lion Sleeps Tonight. But it is considered reasonable that the
> song (book, painting, photograph) should bankroll the author's
> descendants, yea, even unto the third generation (I think it's 70 years
> after the author's death?) whereas an engineering, pharmaceutical,
> chemical, anything else patent expires after 25 years, even if the
> originator is still alive.
>
> Yes, I agree that the Linda family are poor campared to Disney (or you
> and me for that matter), but the law also applies to Michael Jackson's
> heirs and assignees. And the families of many inventors, scientists and
> engineers are often not particularly well off.
>
> And accepted that many artistic works don't "mature" to the point that
> they make money until "rediscovered" years after composition, but that's
> true of other kinds of IP too.
>
> Any thoughts?
One significant difference is that the patent holder has a monopoly on
production and sale of the patented item. I'm painfully aware of that
advantage every time I get a refill of my Lipitor prescription. The
artist who holds a copyright gets only a percentage cut.
However, most copyrights are held by corporations, not individuals,
the same as most patents. What's especially funny about this
particular case is that the laws that extended copyright protection
far beyond any reasonable period were passed due to influence by
Disney in the form of "heavy lobbying" of our congress, the best
legislators that money can buy. Disney was trying to maintain hold on
Walt's cartoons. It's a delicious irony that the laws they paid so
much for are being used against them.
Lyle
Erik Newman
>
> It's a delicious irony that the laws they paid so
> much for are being used against them.
Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of the movies they've made
in the last few decades are old stories that are in the public domain,
with not an original idea to be found.
Chris Rockcliffe
The recording and movie industry in the US has a power and influence in the
law, business, politics and religion - both Jewish and Christian - and now
journalism and broadcasting far in excess of its real value. No wondering
why though.
I never quite figured out whether Sonny Bono inadvertently created a
precedent in law for the industry by default/accident (the official line) -
or whether his case was chosen by design (backed up big time by the music
BIZ)? Like so many things in the US, it seems to be all shrouded in an ever
thickening legal and secretive fog.
I thought this had as much to do with corporate middlemen - 3rd party
Publishers' rights - as it has with the original creator's personal creative
*ownership*. The 20th century (recorded) music phenomenon which stems from
- and influenced by the ragtime to jazz age - seems to have developed a
longer than originally expected money generating lifespan.
I think such copyright is likely to be further extended to perhaps 100 years
after death and then 150 years and beyond next time round. That means that
the many works of a popular 20th century composer - like Irving Berlin say,
who lived to be 100 years old in any case - will likely still be generating
fees and income until well into the 22nd century.
Berlin was right when he coined the song title: *There's No Business Like
Showbusiness*.
CR
Peter Feldmann
Lofgren) wrote:
>
>One significant difference is that the patent holder has a monopoly on
>production and sale of the patented item. I'm painfully aware of that
>advantage every time I get a refill of my Lipitor prescription. The
>artist who holds a copyright gets only a percentage cut.
>
>However, most copyrights are held by corporations, not individuals,
>the same as most patents.
One thing's the same w/ copyrights and patents: they're only as
good as the money available to the holder to go to court to
enforce them.
If I got lucky enough to issue a CD with $1 Billion+ in sales,
it'd be just plain fun to be sued for $15 Million in back
royalties. Sign me up, Scotty!
--
Peter Feldmann
http://www.bluegrasswest.com
Bands, bookings, & etc. for old time and
neo-classic country music.
Lyle Lofgren
>
> If I got lucky enough to issue a CD with $1 Billion+ in sales,
> it'd be just plain fun to be sued for $15 Million in back
> royalties. Sign me up, Scotty!
That reminded me of one of the New Lost City Ramblers' song titles
that they would announce from stage but never quite get around to
performing: "I'd Give a Thousand Dollars Just To Be a Millionaire."
But back to my analogy about how much profit the cow gets from
producing milk: if you had $1 billion in gross sales, how much would
you, the artist, receive? Particularly if you had no previous hits, so
you had no leverage in signing a contract with the record company?
Lyle
Erik Newman
>
> But back to my analogy about how much profit the cow gets from
> producing milk: if you had $1 billion in gross sales, how much would
> you, the artist, receive? Particularly if you had no previous hits, so
> you had no leverage in signing a contract with the record company?
Maybe nothing:
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
Peter Feldmann
Lofgren) wrote:
>That reminded me of one of the New Lost City Ramblers' song titles
>that they would announce from stage but never quite get around to
>performing: "I'd Give a Thousand Dollars Just To Be a Millionaire."
They also threatened to sing: "I'm So Miserable Without You,
It's Almost Like Having You Here".
>But back to my analogy about how much profit the cow gets from
>producing milk: if you had $1 billion in gross sales, how much would
>you, the artist, receive? Particularly if you had no previous hits, so
>you had no leverage in signing a contract with the record company?
Drawing on my somewhat limited experience (I have received
royalty checks - good enough to pay for a meal at a fairly good
restaurant), that would depend on the contract negotiated
between artist and publisher / record co. "Mechanical"
royalties (so called since they were first used on rolls for
player pianos) bring in about 8.5 cents per 3 minute song issued
on record/CD/tape to the owner of the copyright.
Even supposing the artist received nothing, he/she would be in a
rather good negotiating position for the next hit....
Dominic Cronin
Lofgren) wrote:
>
>One significant difference is that the patent holder has a monopoly on
>production and sale of the patented item. I'm painfully aware of that
>advantage every time I get a refill of my Lipitor prescription. The
>artist who holds a copyright gets only a percentage cut.
>
Aren't patentees usually required to grant licences?
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
Brian Rost
>
> Aren't patentees usually required to grant licences?
>
Nope, not in the USA anyway
--
Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.
**********************************************************************
LukeHiNite
They also threatened to sing: "I'm So Miserable Without You,
It's Almost Like Having You Here".
"It's So Lonesome In The Saddle (Since My Horse Died)"
"If George Washington Slept In All
The Places They Say He Did...No
Winder He's The Father Of Our Country"
and
"Our Cow Gave No Milk So We Had
To Sell Him"
pvc
George Hawes
Brian Rost <fr...@flintstone.com> wrote:
> Dominic Cronin wrote:
> >
> > Aren't patentees usually required to grant licences?
> >
>
> Nope, not in the USA anyway
Nor in the UK . . . Ownership of a patent can be used to block
development of an idea/concept/product.
David Sanderson
> They also threatened to sing: "I'm So Miserable Without You,
> It's Almost Like Having You Here".
> "Our Cow Gave No Milk So We Had
> To Sell Him"
> pvc
The cow line is actually from a song they recorded, the title of which
escapes me at the moment: "I married me a wife on the eighth of June, ta
ristle tay ristle tay row row row...." etc. There are deadpan comments
interspersed, including the one about the confused cow.
--
David Sanderson
East Waterford, Maine
Peter Feldmann
<dwsande...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>The cow line is actually from a song they recorded, the title of which
>escapes me at the moment: "I married me a wife on the eighth of June, ta
>ristle tay ristle tay row row row...." etc. There are deadpan comments
>interspersed, including the one about the confused cow.
"The Nick Nack Song" - from Ridgell's Fountaiun Citians,
perhaps?
I believe it may have been the farmer that was confused, rather
than the "cow"...
Jon Pankake
She Was Good to the Whole Battalion but Rotten to the Corps
She Used to Kiss My Lips, But Now It's All Over
I Used to go With a Pegleg Girl But Then She Broke It Off
Get Off the Stove, Grandma, You're Too Old to Ride the Range
Joe Cline
Around Here
Lord, Send Me a Blond, I'm Tired of Squeezing Blackheads
Joe Cline
Charlotte
David Sanderson
The same - I've never heard the original, and have always wanted to.
John Beland
Stewart Robert Hinsley
writes
>
>I'm not trying to start a flame war, or even trolling, just trying to
>get an explanation. Why does artistic copyright last so much longer than
>other forms of intellectual property? For example, the inventor of the
>integrated circuit, the LED, the fluorescent light etc. etc. had a far
>bigger impact on human happiness (for better or worse) than the author
>of The Lion Sleeps Tonight. But it is considered reasonable that the
>song (book, painting, photograph) should bankroll the author's
>descendants, yea, even unto the third generation (I think it's 70 years
>after the author's death?) whereas an engineering, pharmaceutical,
>chemical, anything else patent expires after 25 years, even if the
>originator is still alive.
>
copyright on an individual photograph. Or a patent on a musical
instrument (I'd guess there's patents on synths at least) with a
copyright on a single tune.
Presumably the people who drew up the terms thought that longer
copyright periods were required to motivate artists and authors than
patent durations were reqired to motivate inventors.
Note that the patent is intended to motivate the inventor to disclose
the invention, not to create it - it was assumed that he could make
money from unpatented inventions by keeping the details secret. That
can't be the case for books, images, music, etc.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
LukeHiNite
The same - I've never heard the original, and have always wanted to.
--
David Sanderson
There's only two known copies in think.
One went to Bussard, naturally, but not
before it was remastered for one of the
Yazoo "Times Ain't..."
pvc
susquehanna hat record co.
box 541 rochdale NY 11434