# Copyright laws
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [May 19, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155 "2003-05-19T01:54:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 18
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@JAPrufrock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JAPrufrock)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/1 "2003-05-19T01:54:39Z")
I’m in a rock band, and we’re in the process of recording an album. I found a recording of T. S. Eliot reading “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”, and I want to use a clip (around 10 seconds worth). What are the legalities of using this clip? Am I going to be sued by the Eliot estate if my record goes platinum…?
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/2 "2003-05-19T02:27:37Z")
Come on, you know better than that, **JA**. You need to find a lawyer to check on the status for you, and not rely on some well-meaning Message Board posters. The cost of having a lawyer check something like that for you is probably minimal.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2003, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/3 "2003-05-19T02:38:47Z")
IANAL, but c’mon, 99.9% of the time when somebody posts a version of this question on the board, the answer is _always_: of course you need permission. Whether you will be found out is a completely different question.
You don’t need a lawyer to look into the question of what needs to be done to legally license, sample, use, copy or otherwise adapt somebody else’s work. It’s merely a matter of researching who the rights owner is, starting from whoever made the recording.
I am making the assumption that you could not possibly be asking what would happen if you just appropriated the sample without asking. Questions about how to commit illegal acts are not allowed on this board…
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/4 "2003-05-19T13:25:31Z")
It ultimately depends on the date of the recording. “Love Song” was written in 1917, which means it’s in the public domain. If the recording was made prior to 1924, it would be in the public domain, too.
You should track down the date of the recording. If it’s still copyrighted, you always have the option of reciting the words yourself.
---
### Author:  [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/5 "2003-05-19T17:13:30Z")
The poem was first published in 1917, and Eliot’s recording of it was made in 1948. As far as U.S. copyright law is concerned, the poem itself is in the public domain. The recording? I defer to an expert on U.S. copyright law, Melville B. Nimmer, in his authoritative text _Nimmer on Copyright_ (1996):
> [@](#):
>
> Only those sound recordings that were “fixed” (_i.e._, first embodied in a phonorecord) on or after February 15, 1972,\* are eligible for statutory copyright. Sound recordings “fixed” prior to February 15, 1972, are ineligible for statutory copyright, but remain the subject of common law copyright or other state law protection. . .
>
> A single exception pertains to that rule. With respect to sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972, domestic claimants lack any statutory copyright protection. By contrast, a 1994 amendment to the current Act confers protection for such works on eligible foreign claimants. . . .
>
> In 1994, Congress incorporated, into the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, restoration of copyright for durationally eligible works from qualifying foreign countries. As part of such “restoration,” Congress conferred federal protection for the first time on sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972. Therefore, as of 1996, for example foreign sound recordings from 1921 and onwards were eligible for federal protection.
As of 2003, no copyright claimant has filed a notice with the U.S. Copyright Office to restore the copyright of the 1948 recording. But such a claimant could do so at any time, at which point you would either have to obtain a license from the copyright claimant, or cease distribution of your recording.
Note that we are discussing U.S. copyright law. If your recording is distributed in Canada or Britain, it would be subject to local copyright law, which in both countries tends to be more expansive than U.S. law.
- In 1971, Congress passed the Sound Recording Amendment to the copyright code, which extended federal copyright protection to sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972.
---
### Author:  [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/6 "2003-05-19T17:33:57Z")
P.S. “Common law copyright” existed only before a work was published. However, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 eliminated common law copyright in the United States. 17 U.S.C. § 301 (a).
---
### Author:  [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/7 "2003-05-19T17:48:04Z")
The recording itself is protected under European law, too. It’s called neighbouring rights. See the [Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992](http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31992L0100&model=guichett), articles 6 and further. Furthermore there is the [WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 20 December 1996](http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo034en.htm), which mandates similar rights. The U.S. has become a party to the latter treaty as of May 20th, 2002. ([link](http://www.wipo.int/treaties/documents/english/pdf/s-wppt.pdf)) Dunno whether the U.S. already has a similar right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if so.
Hence even if T.S. Eliot is public domain, the recording would be protected under EU law and possibly under U.S. law as well.
---
### Author:  [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/8 "2003-05-19T18:32:52Z")
Well, duh. I see **Walloon** explained perfectly well that the recording is protected as well by U.S. copyright. I would blaim the slow board, but in fact I should have read his post more carefully.
---
### Author:  [@JAPrufrock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JAPrufrock)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/9 "2003-05-20T10:49:38Z")
Sorry…I don’t mean to sound dumb, but you guys have lost me. Walloon’s explanation made sense, and I thought I would be fine with using it, and then he throws in the Sound Recording Amendment, and I’m not sure where that leaves me. I actually thought that because I was only using about a 10 second clip, that copyright laws would exempt me (ok, maybe I was just hoping…) At this time, the recordings will only be sold in the U.S. If we were to get European distribution, I suppose we could attempt to get permission at that time; in a worst-case scenario, we could always remove that sound clip (although I think it’ll sound great)
---
### Author:  [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/10 "2003-05-20T12:21:09Z")
**JAPufrock** , the previous posts are rather technical since we try to state things in the proper legal manner, which unfortunately is not very legible for the layman.
From what I gather from **Walloon** ’s post, copyright not only applies to a poem itself, but also to the recording of the poem itself. In other words, the recording is considered to be an original copyrightable work on its own, regardless of the status of the poem. If you record a poem that is still under copyright, **both** the author and you as performer will ‘have copyright’ on the recording. If you record a public domain poem, only you as performer will have rights on the recording.
Hence even if the poem of T.S. Eliot itself is in the public domain, the recording of the poem is probably protected by copyright. According to **Walloon** ’s post, the criterium is whether the recording was ‘fixed’ (i.e. recorded) on or after February 15, 1972. If so, copyright applies. Disclaimer: I am only rephrasing the info by Walloon: I do not know whether such an act exists and whether it only applies to recordings after the aforementioned date.
This at least is what I gather from Walloon’s post, combined with my understanding of (mainly European) IP law. Hopefully Walloon will stop by to confirm or correct this.
You would only be allowed to use the fragment in case an exception to copyright (such as fair use) would apply. But AFAIK there is no exception for quoting sound recordings: although fair use might allow small quotations of text in other texts, this does not apply (at least not with the same latitude) to sound recordings. However, for this latter bit you would need advice from a U.S. IP lawyer, not me.
Conclusion: you are not allowed to use the fragment in any way without consent by the copyright holder.
If you are really bent on using the fragment, you should ask official advice and be prepared to pay for it. As **Exapno** said, you know that there is a good chance this is not allowed, or otherwise why would you ask? If you want to explore the limits of what is allowed, you will need to pay for the advice because a more thorough investigation, with knowledge of all the relevant facts, is called for. Here on SDMB you will not get more than general advice on general questions.
Disclaimer: I am not a U.S. lawyer, I am not allowed to practice law in the U.S. The above information is solely my personal opinion, which is not based in any way on a proper investigation of the details of your case. I am not your lawyer. You have to consult a qualified U.S. lawyer to obtain reliable advice.
---
### Author:  [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/11 "2003-05-20T13:27:20Z")
Reading the thread more closely again (difficult with current response times), it looks as if the other posters claim that the recording dates from 1948 and would thus predate 1972. But according to Walloon, if I understand him correctly, this only means that _currently_ the recording is not protected. Apparently the ‘owner’ of the right to the recording can at any time ask for restoring of the copyright. Hence you would be allowed to legally use it \*at the present time[i/], but there is a chance that the ‘owner’ would _in the future_ ask to restore the copyright and could from then on prohibit further use.
At least that is what I read into the other posts, but your interpretation is as good as mine. As I said, I am no expert in U.S. law, in particular not in U.S. IP law. Furthermore, I have not checked any of those facts. Hence I do not know when the poem was published, whether it is in fact in the public domain, whether the recording is from 1948 and whether it currently would not be protected. Those are the things a lawyer would do for you if you’d hire one. Otherwise you have to check those on your own risk.
Sorry if all this sounds rather uncooperative, but there are strict limits to the kind of advice that can be given in legal matters. If you want to have any degree of certainty you really have to pay to have someone look into it in depth. **brianmelendez** explained this very well a couple of months ago; if the board was quicker I’d do a search for his post.
---
### Author:  [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/12 "2003-05-20T17:00:57Z")
**TTT** , your last post is correct. Under U.S. copyright law, both the poem (1917) and Eliot’s recording of it (1948) are in the public domain.
The main confirmation, to me, that the poem is in the public domain is that it is [published](http://www.bartleby.com/people/Eliot-Th.html) without any copyright notice at [Bartleby.com](http://Bartleby.com) (“Great Books Online”), a well-established website that very carefully limits itself to public domain works.
That Eliot’s recording was made in 1948 is confirmed by the [British Library](http://www.bl.uk/collections/sound-archive/publists.html).
So, both the poem and its 1948 recording are in the public domain, under U.S. copyright law. The copyright claimant for the 1948 recording _could_ at any time file a claim with the U.S. Copyright Office to restore the copyright on the recording. But you have to ask yourself: Is this likely? In the nine years since Congress passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, no claim to restore the copyright has been made for the recording.
---
### Author:  [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/13 "2003-05-20T17:57:17Z")
Further good news. I had assumed that Eliot’s 1948 recording of _The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock_ was a British recording, because Eliot spent most of his adult life in England. However, I now learn that it was recorded at Harvard University for the [Harvard Vocarium](http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/02.13/19-vocarium.html) label. The notes in the Library of Congress catalog for the sound recording _T.S. Eliot Reading His Own Poetry_ confirm this.
Therefore, as a domestic sound recording made before February 15, 1972, the recording has no statutory protection under U.S. copyright law. Nor can its copyright be “restored” in the present day — as copyright expert Nimmer says above, that option is available only to foreign recordings.
🙂
---
### Author:  [@JAPrufrock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JAPrufrock)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/14 "2003-05-20T18:40:18Z")
Excellent! So, if I’m understanding you correctly, I can add a sliver of a literary classic to my CD, giving my band’s songs an iota of respectability (or not…). Right?
---
### Author:  [@Eats\_Crayons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eats_Crayons)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/15 "2003-05-20T18:48:54Z")
If the _recording_ is not in the public domain, you need a Master Use licence for the 10 seconds that you sample.
A Master Use license (a.k.a. Master Recording license, Sound Master License) is a license granting permission to use existing recorded material, including but not limited to: vocals, music, TV or film dialog, speeches, and sound effects.
For sampled material, a Master Use license is required regardless of the length or amount of material that is used. (Three seconds of a song, three minutes, three hours – makes no difference.) It is also required whether or not its intended use is for profit. (You must have a license for each sampled source even if you give your recording away for free.)
It is a negotiated licence. The cost will vary depending on the market value of the music and the length of the clip. It sounds like a hassle, but it’s not necessarily as bad as it sounds. The biggest pain in the ass is usually determining who owns the rights to the recording.
---
### Author:  [@Eats\_Crayons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eats_Crayons)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/16 "2003-05-20T18:55:56Z")
Gah! Got ahead of myself – the last paragraph should say that _if_ you need a Master Use licence, the cost generally depends on the market value of the _“recording”_ (rather than “music”).
In any case, if you can determine that the recording is in the public domain, you’re all set.
(Otherwise, you can always find someone who sounds like Frasier Krane to just read the poem).
---
### Author:  [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/17 "2003-05-20T19:00:55Z")
Thanks for clearing things up, **Walloon**. I apologize for the confusion which my previous posts generated; unfortunately I had forgotten what I had learned earlier: to read, think and write thoroughly and carefully before posting to legal threads.
---
### Author:  [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)
#### Post date: [May 20, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-laws/176155/18 "2003-05-20T19:56:23Z")
Hey, with a good beat track and a lot of mixing, you could turn him into The Notorious T.S.
Word!