#on copyright

[stargir1z]

“custodians in solidarity with scihub and library genesis”

[aquitainequeen]

Random question, but is there a hard and fast rule about how much of a song lyric can be used in a published work before it has to be licensed/attributed/whatever the correct wording for it is? Or how different it has to be from the original if it's paraphrased and the rights to use the original are not being purchased? Are there different rules for academic and non-academic publishing?

Thanks for the question!

The rules for song lyrics are pretty much same for academic and non-academic publishing alike; even one whole line needs permission. The issue with songs or poems is that, compared to quoting from an academic text or a novel, they're incredibly short and so there's more concentrated copyright to be infringed upon (unless it's an excessively long epic poem, and even then). I've never come across this myself, but you could potentially reference one or two words in a lyric without permission, just not the whole lyric, and instead describe what the rest of it says.

As for paraphrasing lyrics, one of my favourite examples is from Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys:

[drewday]

excerpts from Reality Hunger: A Manifesto by David Shields

[stargir1z]

imagine there is no copyright

[stargir1z]

learning abt founders of pirate bay, piratbyran and found this symbol <3

[mercuryismygenius]

Book review: ‘Bound By Law?’

For anyone looking for a quick, accessible introduction to copyright law in the U.S. I cannot over-recommend this one (even if it is specifically aimed at documentary filmmakers).

Bound By Law? by Keith Aoki, James Boyle, and Jennifer Jenkins. (Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain, 2006) on a Creative Commons license: attribution, non-commercial, share alike. This is a 75-page comic book specifically concerning the subject of copyright and the rights of documentary filmmakers. In their afterword, the authors (all lawyers specializing in intellectual property and the public domain) note that “one of the underappreciated tragedies of the permissions culture is that many young artists only experience copyright as an impediment, a source of incomprehensible demands for payment, cease and desist letters, and legal transaction costs” (69). The goal of this book is to enlighten and inform the general public—or at the very least, the general artist—about copyright, intellectual property, and the public domain.

Bound by Law? is, by design, accessible (and available for download here). The comic’s “plot” follows Akiko, a documentary filmmaker trying to make a film about a day in the life of New York City. However, due to all the ambient—and copyrighted—material floating around New York—inundating it, seeping from every pore of it—Akiko worries whether her film will ever see the light of day. Akiko naturally gets two guides to help her navigate the confusing and seemingly disordered world of copyright law. Using this conceit, the authors are able to address questions specific to documentary filmmaking (use of clips from other movies; incidental and background material like a copyrighted-song-ringtone, etc). However, the authors also address more general issues of copyright, which makes this book a must-read for anyone just starting to try and get a handle on copyright law. For one thing, they talk about the public domain, including a handy reference chart on pages ten and eleven. They discuss fair use and even provide a copy of section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act, which outlines “limitations on exclusive rights: fair use” (36). Also given are examples of specific court cases where the use was ruled fair (and one, Harper & Row v. National Enterprise (1985) that was ruled as not being a fair use). Beyond fair use, the authors talk about term limits—how long copyright lasts on a work before it enters the public domain: “the term lasts 70 years past the death of the author and 95 years for corporate authors./ . . . now only works published before 1923 are clearly in the public domain” (44). Also helpful is the distinction between copyright and trademark. According to the authors, “while copyright law protects artistic works, trademark law protects brand names and logos that tell consumers where products came from” (47), and they note that “to infringe a trademark, you would generally have to use it in a way that confuses consumers” (48). This is especially useful for a documentary filmmaker. Although specific to documentary filmmaking, much of the information is general and valuable for other media. The authors explain things concisely and without getting into a lot of technicalities. And if you want further reading, check out the spines of the books in the library on the opening pages.

[mercuryismygenius]

Book Review: ‘Copyrights and Copywrongs’

Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity by Siva Vaidhyanathan (New York UP, 2001) Vaidhyanathan’s intention in this book is “to voice the case for the public interest in copyright policy” (vii). To that end, he sets up three goals: first, to outline the development and the effects of copyright; second, to discuss the principles of copyright and how the dichotomy between expression and idea has slowly been undermined; and third, to put forth the argument that “thin” or “leaky” copyright is far more effective in the exchange of ideas and thus far more beneficial to society. However, Vaidhyanathan makes clear that “this is not a legal history. It’s a cultural history of a legal phenomenon” (16).

One of the main thrusts of this book is to trace how a policy of granting a limited monopoly to authors/creators (Vaidhyanathan uses the term “producers”) became a dialogue concerning property. Ideas are not property, for “unlike tangible property, ideas and expressions are not susceptible to natural scarcity” (23-4). In other words, if I have an object, and I give it to you, then I no longer possess that object; however, if I have an idea, and I share it with you, then we both possess the idea. 

Vaidhyanathan prefers the term “producers” since copyright extends beyond single authors, even recognizing production companies and other corporations as “authors”—ergo “producers” to describe any entity responsible for the creation and distribution of a work. In addition to an introduction and an epilogue, Vaidhyanathan divides the book into five sections: (1) “Copyright and American Culture”; (2) “Mark Twain and the History of Literary Copyright” (Vaidhyanathan cites Twain as instrumental in the transformation of copyright into a property issue); (3) “Celluloid Copyright and Derivative Works” which focuses primarily on the movie industry and film adaptations; (4) “Hep Cats and Copy Cats”, concerning music, specifically blues and rap; and (5) “The Digital Moment” discussing the application of copyright to software programs. In each chapter, Vaidhyanathan details specific examples that contributed to the development of copyright in each industry. He also discusses issues of “originality” and “author”—i.e. the question of when someone can be said to have created a singular work. However, Vaidhyanathan’s recurring theme is the idea/ expression dichotomy. Copyright (supposedly—and once upon a time) protects the specific expression of an idea, but not the underlying idea itself. Vaidhyanathan’s overview is thorough, his style accessible. He takes the reader through what copyright was in the past to what it is today and why those changes occurred. He also makes a compelling argument for balancing copyright so that in addition to protecting producers, it also protects the public, allowing for the free flow of ideas and the creation of new works. Furthermore, Vaidhyanathan illustrates intertextuality, that works don’t exist in a vacuum, are not created ex nihilo---he talks about how artists take from and build upon each other’s works in storytelling, music, movies, and computer software. He cites African (American) tradition as a quintessential example of the balance he believes copyright could and should achieve: 

         "Creativity and composition ethics within the blues tradition derive from West African antecedents. . . . The music, lyrics, and dance that emanate from the circle often reflect these attributes: rhythmic complexity and syncopation; individual improvisation and stylization; call and response; engagement between individuals and the community at large; commentary in the form of satire, parody, or boastful competition; and a sense of group consciousness. The tension between individual improvisation and communal flow produces and celebrates both a balance between individuals and the community and a safe space for individual expression of daring and excellence. Each value depends on the other. The community rewards both individual ‘stylization’ and mastery of a canon" (125).

While this passage immediately brought fanfiction to mind, fanfiction and the way the audience (as audience) interacts with works is of little concern for Vaidhyanathan. The focus of Copyrights and Copywrongs is on the development of ideas, and how idea-masters build on “canons.” Although he does talk about education, which is a form of audience participation when it comes to information in general—i.e. education is a form of information consumption—fanfiction isn’t even name-dropped. The purpose of the book is to warn of the danger that a copyright system out of control becomes a tool of censorship and a means of ensuring that only the wealthy can afford information.   Also, despite getting into computer software, Vaidhyanthan does not really discuss the Internet, or how copyright functions in cyberspace (such as YouTube issues and fan sites). He does discuss the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its potential detrimental effects—such as giving the producer (Internet content provider) the right to limit access to a work—even a work in the public domain—at the discretion of that producer. This book was published in 2001—the paperback was released in 2003 with an afterword—and recent events have kind of justified his concerns. I had only one real complaint about this book, and it was that instead of having a separate bibliography, Vaidhyanathan couched his citations in his notes.  Official bibliographies are just more convenient.