I am not a lawyer. I also feel artists should be compensated for their works. Now that that is out of the way…
Let’s take an example. Recall the WKRP episode The Americanization of Ivan. Now, I know about acquiring the rights to entire songs, which is why so many episodes have the music changed. But why is it a copyright issue when Ivan looks at Bailey and says “Hold me closer, tiny dancer”? (the line is changed in syndication, annoyingly).
To me, a line from a song is not the entirety of the work, for copyright purposes. Sometimes, lyrics are also just phrases used in everyday speech. If I write a blog about how I can’t find anything for Christmas, and I title it “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for”, will U2 sue me? It’s just a phrase. Confusion! I don’t know what I should do! It’s got me in a stranglehold (baby). Anyway, I want it, and that’s the way I need it.
Shouldn’t the use of the one lyric be covered under fair use?
Bonus question, maybe related to my first question:
Although they are a part of the entirety of the work, why ARE lyrics by themselves so protected? Protection from them being sold as uncompensated sheet music-that I understand. But I ask about lyrics sites. The words to a song are “out there”, so to speak. The artist usually intends them to be understood. So why is the act of writing them down illegal? If the artist is worried about someone stealing their lyrics, barring someone from writing them down doesn’t prevent the theft. All the thief has to do is listen to the song.
(Yes, the listener/thief can also ‘reverse engineer’ the music as well, but if he performs the song he still has to pay royalties to be legal, whether he learned the song legally or illegally.)
It seems odd that a person would create a song and deny the listener access to half of it (If we the listeners can’t understand what he is singing.) If I need help understanding why he is singing, that’s not stealing. It’s clarifying.
Is it because the websites often get ad money, and they are using other people’s copyrighted work as content? Would a site with no income derived from viewing be legal?