The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Cafe Society

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-19-2017, 06:58 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Yoko extends copyright on Imagine lyrics by 37+ years

Song writing credit

It's not the money that bothers me -- we can afford to pay -- Nor the shear cynical opportunism -- God knows I would do the same.

It's just that I think most of the value of an iconic piece of art is what we give it. The audience, not the song writers. It's a song that belongs to the people, because the people created the value she is capitalizing.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-19-2017, 07:02 PM
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,466
If she gets more credit for her ideas I can't see it as a bad thing.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=828762

Last edited by bobot; 06-19-2017 at 07:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-19-2017, 07:03 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 28,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
It's just that I think most of the value of an iconic piece of art is what we give it. The audience, not the song writers. It's a song that belongs to the people, because the people created the value she is capitalizing.
Yeah, fuck Guernica.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-19-2017, 07:31 PM
jaycat jaycat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
. . . It's just that I think most of the value of an iconic piece of art is what we give it. The audience, not the song writers. It's a song that belongs to the people, because the people created the value she is capitalizing.
At what precise point does the song I wrote transition into being a song that "belongs to the people?" After how many sales?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-20-2017, 01:48 AM
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycat View Post
At what precise point does the song I wrote transition into being a song that "belongs to the people?" After how many sales?
About 14 years, in an ideal world. That's more than enough time to make as much money as you can off of it, without stifling the creative process which always takes from the old and makes the new out of it.

The only other system I support would be one where you have to pay to keep up the copyright, or keep a certain level of sales on a commercial product. Though that does give already rich people more power, which is the entire problem of capitalism in a nutshell--if everyone started out with equal money, capitalism would be a much, much better system.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-20-2017, 02:07 AM
Grrr! Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,973
As far as "the people" are concerned, people pretty much have free access to it already. I cat imagine (hey!) anyone paying for the privilege to hear said song.

At this point, the only people paying for it are movie producers and perhaps advertisers. And if that is indeed the case, it seems rather fitting for Yoko to re-up on the copyright.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-20-2017, 02:11 AM
Marci Al Marci Al is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
"It was in fact Paul who played the Salieri to John's Mozart." Hmpf!!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-20-2017, 07:50 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
If she gets more credit for her ideas I can't see it as a bad thing.
if it means fewer performances of the song, it's a great thing.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-20-2017, 08:25 AM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 40,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
About 14 years, in an ideal world. That's more than enough time to make as much money as you can off of it, without stifling the creative process which always takes from the old and makes the new out of it.
Please explain how stealing a work is creative. And your characterization of the "creative process" is clearly a sign that you don't do any creative work.

If you mean recording it yourself, you're certainly allowed to do that right now (and have ever since the song was released). BMI lists it as one of the 100 most performed songs of the 20th Century. You just have to pay, and in most venues, that's paid for by the venue.

If you mean making changes to the lyrics, you can do that, too.

Basically, you're saying, "I can't come up with anything original, so I want to be able to use another artist's work and profit from it."
__________________
"East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:36 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 28,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Please explain how stealing a work is creative. And your characterization of the "creative process" is clearly a sign that you don't do any creative work.

If you mean recording it yourself, you're certainly allowed to do that right now (and have ever since the song was released). BMI lists it as one of the 100 most performed songs of the 20th Century. You just have to pay, and in most venues, that's paid for by the venue.

If you mean making changes to the lyrics, you can do that, too.

Basically, you're saying, "I can't come up with anything original, so I want to be able to use another artist's work and profit from it."
No, dummy. Stuff they like belongs to the people. Of course, as I always say, people are idiots.

Notice that people never want to take responsibility for stuff they don't like. They only want the good half of the equation. Creators are obviously too stupid to understand this basic fact. Girls just want to have fun. I like that so I'm stealing it from Robert Hazard. It's been more than 14 years after all.

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:45 AM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 12,889
The law is what it is, and I can't fault Ono for exercising properly available rights.

There is a certain artistic irony, however, in extending the copyright on this particular song, given that it is about imagining "no possessions."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-20-2017, 11:47 AM
DooWahDiddy DooWahDiddy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
At this point, the only people paying for it are movie producers and perhaps advertisers.
What? Every time it gets played on the radio, in a supermarket, in a karaoke bar, in a restaurant, in an elevator, it generates royalties. I guarantee you there's truckloads of money still rolling in from that song.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-20-2017, 01:10 PM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 19,659
Since she should have been credited for the song from the beginning, this doesn't really extend the copyright protection. It merely acknowledges what it should have been from day 1. It's not like this is a loophole being exploited to extend copyright beyond its natural length (unless you feel that she doesn't deserve credit at all).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-20-2017, 01:58 PM
jz78817 jz78817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 9,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Please explain how stealing a work is creative. And your characterization of the "creative process" is clearly a sign that you don't do any creative work.

If you mean recording it yourself, you're certainly allowed to do that right now (and have ever since the song was released). BMI lists it as one of the 100 most performed songs of the 20th Century. You just have to pay, and in most venues, that's paid for by the venue.

If you mean making changes to the lyrics, you can do that, too.

Basically, you're saying, "I can't come up with anything original, so I want to be able to use another artist's work and profit from it."
I really like the version A Perfect Circle did. changed the meaning of the song without altering a single word in the lyrics.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-20-2017, 02:48 PM
Grrr! Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by DooWahDiddy View Post
What? Every time it gets played on the radio, in a supermarket, in a karaoke bar, in a restaurant, in an elevator, it generates royalties. I guarantee you there's truckloads of money still rolling in from that song.
Right. My main point is: Us common folk (the people), don't have to pay to listen to the song. The only people paying for it are business folk (Or "The Establishment" man...).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-20-2017, 03:00 PM
mbh mbh is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,683
Before copyright, artists were peasants who did what wealthy patrons told them to do.

Personally, I think art was better in those days, but most professional artists would disagree.

Without copyright, the radio would not play your and my favorite songs. It would play George Soros' and the Koch brothers' favorite songs.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-20-2017, 03:03 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 69,508
Yeah, you can argue that current copyright terms are too long, or based on irrational premises, but that's really a completely separate issue from Ono being given credit on this song. If she really was a co-author (a point on which there seems to be no informed disagreement), then she should have the same rights that the other co-author would, were he still alive.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:11 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Since she should have been credited for the song from the beginning, this doesn't really extend the copyright protection. It merely acknowledges what it should have been from day 1. It's not like this is a loophole being exploited to extend copyright beyond its natural length (unless you feel that she doesn't deserve credit at all).
But the estate of the late John Lenin fought it in court! ... oh wait, that didn't happen ...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-20-2017, 11:03 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 69,508
And Vladimir Lennon didn't fight it, either.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-21-2017, 06:30 AM
Jophiel Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbh View Post
Without copyright, the radio would not play your and my favorite songs. It would play George Soros' and the Koch brothers' favorite songs.
As is, they play Clear Channel's and Infinity's favorite songs but that's another matter.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:14 PM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
84 years old and she extends the copyright for 50 years.

Causing headaches for anybody that wants to perform this sentimental relic of the anti war movement.

I think that's why she got songwriting credit. Its yet another copyright strategy.

Last edited by aceplace57; 06-21-2017 at 12:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-21-2017, 01:09 PM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 19,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
I think that's why she got songwriting credit. Its yet another copyright strategy.
Except it won't extend the copyright at all

Quote:
While Israelite initially said that adding Ono to the credits would extend the period of time before the song enters the public domain, he later corrected himself and noted that because the song was published in 1971, the life of its copyright lasts 95 years after publication not the current law, instituted in 1978, which extends the copyright 70 years after the death of the last author. Adding Ono as a writer will not extend the life of its copyright.
http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/yok...ne-1202466645/
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-21-2017, 02:47 PM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Ok, ignorance fought.

Geez that's a long time. Imho 50 years is long enough to collect from old work.
Any heirs can earn their own $$$$.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-21-2017, 04:36 PM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
The OP sounds like a Huffington Post article. While not technically incorrect, it completely misrepresents the original article in a fashion that is designed to push a point.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-21-2017, 05:02 PM
Telperion Telperion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Except it won't extend the copyright at all
Besides, it's a bit hard to imagine that a lot of people were really longing for the song to enter public domain in 2051.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-21-2017, 07:41 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
The OP sounds like a Huffington Post article. While not technically incorrect, it completely misrepresents the original article in a fashion that is designed to push a point.
Well, perhaps I'll have to start reading Huffington Post then. Do they carry a lot of entertainment news?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-21-2017, 08:29 PM
Derleth Derleth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Please explain how stealing a work is creative.
Please explain how extracting rent is creative.

(And, no, I'm not talking about landlords.)

We have limited-term copyrights for a reason: Eventually, the free-loading ends. The free ride is over, and the corporation has to become productive, not just extractive. A single person being able to live for a lifetime off of one or two successful works is acceptable, given that having works that successful is akin to winning the lottery. Their heirs living off of, not just investments, but continued royalties is pointless. We're no longer rewarding creativity with a large admixture of luck, we're rewarding pure luck, completely untainted by any productive impulse.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-21-2017, 10:37 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 28,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Please explain how extracting rent is creative.

(And, no, I'm not talking about landlords.)

We have limited-term copyrights for a reason: Eventually, the free-loading ends. The free ride is over, and the corporation has to become productive, not just extractive. A single person being able to live for a lifetime off of one or two successful works is acceptable, given that having works that successful is akin to winning the lottery. Their heirs living off of, not just investments, but continued royalties is pointless. We're no longer rewarding creativity with a large admixture of luck, we're rewarding pure luck, completely untainted by any productive impulse.
We're back to just haggling about length. Almost nobody worth listening to claims that no copyrights should exist. (And I have my doubts about the "almost" but perhaps someone could provide the exception I've never found.) Copyright has already been longer than patents because the useful life of a creative work is on average longer than the useful life of a technological innovation and over time the life of the former keeps getting longer while the life of the latter keeps growing shorter. Creators certainly should be able to provide for their children and heirs just as the owner of any other business should.

The people who squawk about copyrights would do so if copyright were back at the 28+28 length it used to be. I've stated on this Board I thought that was a good length. The world has changed, though. The ability to upload every piece of creative work to the Internet makes copyright enforcement nearly meaningless at the same time it has made every piece of creative work forever valuable. Copyright needs to be completely rethought from scratch.

Cutting it's length isn't the answer. It's not in the top 100 of concerns.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.