How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?
I received an E-mail newsletter inviting me to watch a chorus perform several songs that were arranged for this occasion. They are also selling tickets, so I don't know if half of the profit is sent to the publishers for having performed those songs. In the E-mail they said
This time, we'll be singing songs of LOVE from some of your favorite artists (We can't quite tell you what they are because of boring copyright stuff, but they rhyme with BABBA, Qween and Bruno Bars) along with original spoken word performances and all the magic you've come to expect.
So, is it really because of copyright that they can't tell you what they are, or is it a diversion tactic? And, if it is a copyright violation, how and why?
copyright intellectual-property derivative-work
edited 10 hours ago
Dale M
56k23579
asked 10 hours ago
HeavenlyHarmonyHeavenlyHarmony
227111
add a comment |
I received an E-mail newsletter inviting me to watch a chorus perform several songs that were arranged for this occasion. They are also selling tickets, so I don't know if half of the profit is sent to the publishers for having performed those songs. In the E-mail they said
This time, we'll be singing songs of LOVE from some of your favorite artists (We can't quite tell you what they are because of boring copyright stuff, but they rhyme with BABBA, Qween and Bruno Bars) along with original spoken word performances and all the magic you've come to expect.
So, is it really because of copyright that they can't tell you what they are, or is it a diversion tactic? And, if it is a copyright violation, how and why?
copyright intellectual-property derivative-work
edited 10 hours ago
Dale M
56k23579
asked 10 hours ago
HeavenlyHarmonyHeavenlyHarmony
227111
3
I don't know these people, but I assume they mean they are preforming songs they don't own the rights to and don't want to broadcast that.
– Putvi
10 hours ago
This question is verging on non-LawSE grounds, by encouraging speculation on the motives of the people in question, rather than sole focusing on legal facts.
– Acccumulation
3 hours ago
Your question title is talking about SONG names, while the message in the body is obfuscating and referencing ARTIST names. Which are you asking about?
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
@Aethenosity The quote is kind of unclear. It seems like 'they' should refer back to the subject of the previous clause, which would indeed be the songs, but then the next clause says 'they' ryhme with the poorly-obfuscated artist names. So, I don't think it's so much a problem with the question not being clear as the quote it's asking about not being clear (or grammatical.)
– reirab
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I received an E-mail newsletter inviting me to watch a chorus perform several songs that were arranged for this occasion. They are also selling tickets, so I don't know if half of the profit is sent to the publishers for having performed those songs. In the E-mail they said
This time, we'll be singing songs of LOVE from some of your favorite artists (We can't quite tell you what they are because of boring copyright stuff, but they rhyme with BABBA, Qween and Bruno Bars) along with original spoken word performances and all the magic you've come to expect.
So, is it really because of copyright that they can't tell you what they are, or is it a diversion tactic? And, if it is a copyright violation, how and why?
copyright intellectual-property derivative-work
edited 10 hours ago
Dale M
56k23579
asked 10 hours ago
HeavenlyHarmonyHeavenlyHarmony
227111
I received an E-mail newsletter inviting me to watch a chorus perform several songs that were arranged for this occasion. They are also selling tickets, so I don't know if half of the profit is sent to the publishers for having performed those songs. In the E-mail they said
This time, we'll be singing songs of LOVE from some of your favorite artists (We can't quite tell you what they are because of boring copyright stuff, but they rhyme with BABBA, Qween and Bruno Bars) along with original spoken word performances and all the magic you've come to expect.
So, is it really because of copyright that they can't tell you what they are, or is it a diversion tactic? And, if it is a copyright violation, how and why?
copyright intellectual-property derivative-work
copyright intellectual-property derivative-work
edited 10 hours ago
Dale M
56k23579
asked 10 hours ago
HeavenlyHarmonyHeavenlyHarmony
227111
edited 10 hours ago
Dale M
56k23579
asked 10 hours ago
HeavenlyHarmonyHeavenlyHarmony
227111
edited 10 hours ago
Dale M
56k23579
edited 10 hours ago
Dale M
56k23579
edited 10 hours ago
Dale M
56k23579
56k23579
asked 10 hours ago
HeavenlyHarmonyHeavenlyHarmony
227111
asked 10 hours ago
HeavenlyHarmonyHeavenlyHarmony
227111
asked 10 hours ago
HeavenlyHarmonyHeavenlyHarmony
227111
227111
3
I don't know these people, but I assume they mean they are preforming songs they don't own the rights to and don't want to broadcast that.
– Putvi
10 hours ago
This question is verging on non-LawSE grounds, by encouraging speculation on the motives of the people in question, rather than sole focusing on legal facts.
– Acccumulation
3 hours ago
Your question title is talking about SONG names, while the message in the body is obfuscating and referencing ARTIST names. Which are you asking about?
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
@Aethenosity The quote is kind of unclear. It seems like 'they' should refer back to the subject of the previous clause, which would indeed be the songs, but then the next clause says 'they' ryhme with the poorly-obfuscated artist names. So, I don't think it's so much a problem with the question not being clear as the quote it's asking about not being clear (or grammatical.)
– reirab
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3
I don't know these people, but I assume they mean they are preforming songs they don't own the rights to and don't want to broadcast that.
– Putvi
10 hours ago
This question is verging on non-LawSE grounds, by encouraging speculation on the motives of the people in question, rather than sole focusing on legal facts.
– Acccumulation
3 hours ago
Your question title is talking about SONG names, while the message in the body is obfuscating and referencing ARTIST names. Which are you asking about?
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
@Aethenosity The quote is kind of unclear. It seems like 'they' should refer back to the subject of the previous clause, which would indeed be the songs, but then the next clause says 'they' ryhme with the poorly-obfuscated artist names. So, I don't think it's so much a problem with the question not being clear as the quote it's asking about not being clear (or grammatical.)
– reirab
1 hour ago
3
3
I don't know these people, but I assume they mean they are preforming songs they don't own the rights to and don't want to broadcast that.
– Putvi
10 hours ago
I don't know these people, but I assume they mean they are preforming songs they don't own the rights to and don't want to broadcast that.
– Putvi
10 hours ago
This question is verging on non-LawSE grounds, by encouraging speculation on the motives of the people in question, rather than sole focusing on legal facts.
– Acccumulation
3 hours ago
This question is verging on non-LawSE grounds, by encouraging speculation on the motives of the people in question, rather than sole focusing on legal facts.
– Acccumulation
3 hours ago
Your question title is talking about SONG names, while the message in the body is obfuscating and referencing ARTIST names. Which are you asking about?
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
Your question title is talking about SONG names, while the message in the body is obfuscating and referencing ARTIST names. Which are you asking about?
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
@Aethenosity The quote is kind of unclear. It seems like 'they' should refer back to the subject of the previous clause, which would indeed be the songs, but then the next clause says 'they' ryhme with the poorly-obfuscated artist names. So, I don't think it's so much a problem with the question not being clear as the quote it's asking about not being clear (or grammatical.)
– reirab
1 hour ago
@Aethenosity The quote is kind of unclear. It seems like 'they' should refer back to the subject of the previous clause, which would indeed be the songs, but then the next clause says 'they' ryhme with the poorly-obfuscated artist names. So, I don't think it's so much a problem with the question not being clear as the quote it's asking about not being clear (or grammatical.)
– reirab
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The name can not be copyrighted, but they don't own the rights to the songs and they are telling you they will preform them.
They don't want to put it in writing that they are performing songs they legally can't.
answered 9 hours ago
PutviPutvi
3963
New contributor
Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Probably true, although it is possible that the singers have misunderstood what copyright protects. They might or might not be violating copyright. Often the place of performance has a general license with one of the collecting societies which would make this legal.
– David Siegel
5 hours ago
1
The venue needs a PPA license (public place of amusement) to charge a cover fee. - Isn't the wording something like: you cannot advertise and then receive monetary compensation for reproducing or performing a protected work of art. ? You can't sell yourself under the guise of their intellectual property. I'm not sure how the actual wording goes, but I'm pretty sure that's how you get away with doing a live cover song. Releasing an album with a cover probably requires permission though.
– Mazura
2 hours ago
@Mazura If you can find that wording, that sounds like the basis for a good answer.
– reirab
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Song names, book titles, etc. can not be copyrighted. There are many examples of multiple songs/books having the same title. The ASCAP Repertory web site has dozens of songs with the one-word title "Love".
answered 10 hours ago
George WhiteGeorge White
672110
I feel like the OP meant ARTIST names, considering the "rhymes with" part is all artist names. I asked for clarification
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38716%2fhow-can-saying-a-songs-name-be-a-copyright-violation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The name can not be copyrighted, but they don't own the rights to the songs and they are telling you they will preform them.
They don't want to put it in writing that they are performing songs they legally can't.
answered 9 hours ago
PutviPutvi
3963
New contributor
Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Probably true, although it is possible that the singers have misunderstood what copyright protects. They might or might not be violating copyright. Often the place of performance has a general license with one of the collecting societies which would make this legal.
– David Siegel
5 hours ago
1
The venue needs a PPA license (public place of amusement) to charge a cover fee. - Isn't the wording something like: you cannot advertise and then receive monetary compensation for reproducing or performing a protected work of art. ? You can't sell yourself under the guise of their intellectual property. I'm not sure how the actual wording goes, but I'm pretty sure that's how you get away with doing a live cover song. Releasing an album with a cover probably requires permission though.
– Mazura
2 hours ago
@Mazura If you can find that wording, that sounds like the basis for a good answer.
– reirab
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The name can not be copyrighted, but they don't own the rights to the songs and they are telling you they will preform them.
They don't want to put it in writing that they are performing songs they legally can't.
answered 9 hours ago
PutviPutvi
3963
New contributor
Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Probably true, although it is possible that the singers have misunderstood what copyright protects. They might or might not be violating copyright. Often the place of performance has a general license with one of the collecting societies which would make this legal.
– David Siegel
5 hours ago
1
The venue needs a PPA license (public place of amusement) to charge a cover fee. - Isn't the wording something like: you cannot advertise and then receive monetary compensation for reproducing or performing a protected work of art. ? You can't sell yourself under the guise of their intellectual property. I'm not sure how the actual wording goes, but I'm pretty sure that's how you get away with doing a live cover song. Releasing an album with a cover probably requires permission though.
– Mazura
2 hours ago
@Mazura If you can find that wording, that sounds like the basis for a good answer.
– reirab
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The name can not be copyrighted, but they don't own the rights to the songs and they are telling you they will preform them.
They don't want to put it in writing that they are performing songs they legally can't.
answered 9 hours ago
PutviPutvi
3963
New contributor
Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The name can not be copyrighted, but they don't own the rights to the songs and they are telling you they will preform them.
They don't want to put it in writing that they are performing songs they legally can't.
answered 9 hours ago
PutviPutvi
3963
New contributor
Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 9 hours ago
PutviPutvi
3963
New contributor
Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 9 hours ago
PutviPutvi
3963
answered 9 hours ago
PutviPutvi
3963
3963
New contributor
Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Putvi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Probably true, although it is possible that the singers have misunderstood what copyright protects. They might or might not be violating copyright. Often the place of performance has a general license with one of the collecting societies which would make this legal.
– David Siegel
5 hours ago
1
The venue needs a PPA license (public place of amusement) to charge a cover fee. - Isn't the wording something like: you cannot advertise and then receive monetary compensation for reproducing or performing a protected work of art. ? You can't sell yourself under the guise of their intellectual property. I'm not sure how the actual wording goes, but I'm pretty sure that's how you get away with doing a live cover song. Releasing an album with a cover probably requires permission though.
– Mazura
2 hours ago
@Mazura If you can find that wording, that sounds like the basis for a good answer.
– reirab
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
Probably true, although it is possible that the singers have misunderstood what copyright protects. They might or might not be violating copyright. Often the place of performance has a general license with one of the collecting societies which would make this legal.
– David Siegel
5 hours ago
1
The venue needs a PPA license (public place of amusement) to charge a cover fee. - Isn't the wording something like: you cannot advertise and then receive monetary compensation for reproducing or performing a protected work of art. ? You can't sell yourself under the guise of their intellectual property. I'm not sure how the actual wording goes, but I'm pretty sure that's how you get away with doing a live cover song. Releasing an album with a cover probably requires permission though.
– Mazura
2 hours ago
@Mazura If you can find that wording, that sounds like the basis for a good answer.
– reirab
1 hour ago
1
1
Probably true, although it is possible that the singers have misunderstood what copyright protects. They might or might not be violating copyright. Often the place of performance has a general license with one of the collecting societies which would make this legal.
– David Siegel
5 hours ago
Probably true, although it is possible that the singers have misunderstood what copyright protects. They might or might not be violating copyright. Often the place of performance has a general license with one of the collecting societies which would make this legal.
– David Siegel
5 hours ago
1
1
The venue needs a PPA license (public place of amusement) to charge a cover fee. - Isn't the wording something like: you cannot advertise and then receive monetary compensation for reproducing or performing a protected work of art. ? You can't sell yourself under the guise of their intellectual property. I'm not sure how the actual wording goes, but I'm pretty sure that's how you get away with doing a live cover song. Releasing an album with a cover probably requires permission though.
– Mazura
2 hours ago
The venue needs a PPA license (public place of amusement) to charge a cover fee. - Isn't the wording something like: you cannot advertise and then receive monetary compensation for reproducing or performing a protected work of art. ? You can't sell yourself under the guise of their intellectual property. I'm not sure how the actual wording goes, but I'm pretty sure that's how you get away with doing a live cover song. Releasing an album with a cover probably requires permission though.
– Mazura
2 hours ago
@Mazura If you can find that wording, that sounds like the basis for a good answer.
– reirab
1 hour ago
@Mazura If you can find that wording, that sounds like the basis for a good answer.
– reirab
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Song names, book titles, etc. can not be copyrighted. There are many examples of multiple songs/books having the same title. The ASCAP Repertory web site has dozens of songs with the one-word title "Love".
answered 10 hours ago
George WhiteGeorge White
672110
I feel like the OP meant ARTIST names, considering the "rhymes with" part is all artist names. I asked for clarification
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Song names, book titles, etc. can not be copyrighted. There are many examples of multiple songs/books having the same title. The ASCAP Repertory web site has dozens of songs with the one-word title "Love".
answered 10 hours ago
George WhiteGeorge White
672110
I feel like the OP meant ARTIST names, considering the "rhymes with" part is all artist names. I asked for clarification
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Song names, book titles, etc. can not be copyrighted. There are many examples of multiple songs/books having the same title. The ASCAP Repertory web site has dozens of songs with the one-word title "Love".
answered 10 hours ago
George WhiteGeorge White
672110
Song names, book titles, etc. can not be copyrighted. There are many examples of multiple songs/books having the same title. The ASCAP Repertory web site has dozens of songs with the one-word title "Love".
answered 10 hours ago
George WhiteGeorge White
672110
answered 10 hours ago
George WhiteGeorge White
672110
answered 10 hours ago
George WhiteGeorge White
672110
answered 10 hours ago
George WhiteGeorge White
672110
672110
I feel like the OP meant ARTIST names, considering the "rhymes with" part is all artist names. I asked for clarification
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I feel like the OP meant ARTIST names, considering the "rhymes with" part is all artist names. I asked for clarification
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
I feel like the OP meant ARTIST names, considering the "rhymes with" part is all artist names. I asked for clarification
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
I feel like the OP meant ARTIST names, considering the "rhymes with" part is all artist names. I asked for clarification
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38716%2fhow-can-saying-a-songs-name-be-a-copyright-violation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
I don't know these people, but I assume they mean they are preforming songs they don't own the rights to and don't want to broadcast that.
– Putvi
10 hours ago
This question is verging on non-LawSE grounds, by encouraging speculation on the motives of the people in question, rather than sole focusing on legal facts.
– Acccumulation
3 hours ago
Your question title is talking about SONG names, while the message in the body is obfuscating and referencing ARTIST names. Which are you asking about?
– Aethenosity
2 hours ago
@Aethenosity The quote is kind of unclear. It seems like 'they' should refer back to the subject of the previous clause, which would indeed be the songs, but then the next clause says 'they' ryhme with the poorly-obfuscated artist names. So, I don't think it's so much a problem with the question not being clear as the quote it's asking about not being clear (or grammatical.)
– reirab
1 hour ago