Another song royalty question

Factual Questions
1

I’ve seen this gag on Letterman and other places:

A character or person would start to sing a well-known song. Another person will stop them after 3-4 seconds saying, “If you sing any more, we’ll have to pay royalties.”

Is there any truth to this?

2

If you wrote it, you’re suppose to get royalties everytime ia song is performed in public. If you write the score to a successful musical, you will receive “grand rights” and can get very, very, very, very wealthy.

3

But I think the question is… is there a limit below which singing only a part of a song is royalty-free??

:smiley:

4

http://www.csusa.org/face/music/myths.htm

5

http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/copyright/6.php

  • Myth #2: “I don’t need a license because I’m using only a small
    amount of the copyrighted work.”

    It is true that de minimis copying (copying a small amount) is not
    copyright infringement. Unfortunately, it is rarely possible to tell
    where de minimis copying ends and copyright infringement begins. There
    are no “bright line” rules.

    Copying a small amount of a copyrighted work is infringement if what
    is copied is a qualitatively substantial portion of the copied work. In
    one case, a magazine article that used 300 words from a 200,000-word
    autobiography written by President Gerald Ford was found to infringe the
    copyright on the autobiography. Even though the copied material was only
    a small part of the autobiography, the copied portions were among the most
    powerful passages in the autobiography. Copying any part of a copyrighted
    work is risky. If what you copy is truly a tiny and nonmemorable part of
    the work, you may get away with it (the work’s owner may not be able to
    tell that your work incorporates an excerpt from the owner’s work).
    However, you run the risk of having to defend your use in expensive
    litigation. If you are copying, it is better to get a permission or a
    license (unless fair use applies). You cannot escape liability for
    infringement by showing how much of the protected work you did not take.

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Academic_edu/CAF/law/ip-primer

To establish that the infringement of a copyright is de minimis , and therefore not actionable, the alleged infringer must demonstrate that the copying of the protected material is so trivial “as to fall below the quantitative threshold of substantial similarity, which is always a required element of actionable copying.” Ringgold , 126 F.3d at 74 (citing 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[A] at 13- 27). In determining whether or not the allegedly infringing work falls below the quantitative threshold of substantial similarity to the copyrighted work, courts often look to the amount of the copyrighted work that was copied, as well as, (in cases involving visual works), the observability of the copyrighted work in the allegedly infringing work. Ringgold , 126 F.3d at 75. Observability is determined by the length of time the copyrighted work appears in the allegedly infringing work, and its prominence in that work as revealed by the lighting and positioning of the copyrighted work. Ringgold , 126 F.3d at 75. Like the analysis of a fair use claim, an inquiry into the substantial similarity between a copyrighted work and the allegedly infringing work must be made on a case-by-case basis, as there are no bright-line rules for what constitutes substantial similarity. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. , 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994) (analysis of fair use claim must be made on case-by-case basis); Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp. , 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960)(test for infringement of a copyright is necessarily “vague” and determinations must be made " ad hoc ").

And see, Matthew C. Lucas, The De Minimis Dilemma:A Bedeviling Problem of Definitions and a New Proposal for a Notice Rule, Journal of Technolology Law & Policy (Fall 1999).

So the answer is yes. There is a de minimis defense. But the line is blurry; you still copy at your own risk.

6

In Anglo-Australian jurisprudence, there is a case where a short excerpt from a well-known song appeared in a movie news reel (this is in the 40s or 50s), and copyright infringement was found because the essence of the copyright-protected material was reproduced.

7

I have noticed something in a lot of TV shows. It’s common knowledge that the “Happy Birthday to You” song is copyrighted and one must pay royalties if they use it. Quite often they will cut to a birthday scene and it will be right before the candles are blown out. They will be singing only the last two words (notes) of song. The scene will start with everyone singing “tooo you” and then the b-day boy or girl with blow. I always thought that this was to avoid the royalty thing.

8

The music for “Happy Birthday” is not copyrighted – just the lyrics. So the music can be played in the background as someone brings out a cake, which is enough to indicate what is going on.