tolerance for "fair use" quotes

[hipsteress]

I'd like to include several snippets of actual song lyrics in a story. Just a few lines per song, source noted. This would typically be accepted as "fair use" within the publishing world, but I don't know how such things are treated here.

So this question is to people who've been here long enough to witness how literotica handles fair use quotations. Are they typically accepted for publication if within reason, or are they typically rejected under zero tolerance?

(To make things clear, an example of what I'm talking about would be the first two lines of a particular Rolling Stones song, with reference to the band name and song title given.)

 

[Hypoxia]

Since Laurel is the final authority on fair-use approval, you might PM her and ask.

Other than that... I've gotten away with totally integrating the lyric into the story by essentially deconstructing the song and using it as framework. A bit of story; a line or couplet; some story related to the lyric; the next line or couplet; more relevant story; etc. I didn't just plop a copy of the verse down and I transformed it, which is Fair Use.

But in another story I *did* print a verse, then a short context explication, then a variant / parody version of that verse, then the story with more variant verse fragments. Thus I was commenting on the verse, which is covered as Fair Use.

Those approaches worked for me. I would not put an entire miulti-verse song lyric into a story -- not unless I wrote the song!

 

[sr71plt]

Industry guidelines tolerate two lines of song lyrics, and two lines only for your entire work, unless you are doing a literary criticism of that song.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I got 50% of a four stanza poem through, alternate stanzas. Messed up the end of the story from an emotional point of view, but was the best that would be allowed

 

[oggbashan]

I used the whole lyrics of "Jeanie with the light brown hair" at the end of my story Jeanie The Genie, but those lyrics are now in the public domain and have been for over 100 years.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Industry guidelines tolerate two lines of song lyrics, and two lines only for your entire work, unless you are doing a literary criticism of that song.

Two lines?! Can you point me to source material on this since this will impact something else I am working on. It's a total of 8 lines broken into two groups of 4 lines which is the chorus from the song.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

If you are quoting a modest number of lines for totally non-commercial purposes(literotica) I don't think you have a problem The free publicity is a bonus.

 

[PennLady]

Two lines?! Can you point me to source material on this since this will impact something else I am working on. It's a total of 8 lines broken into two groups of 4 lines which is the chorus from the song.

I quickly googled this and found a few links that I'll post below. The thing is, I think this question has two different answers.

On Literotica, I doubt a story will be rejected for use of song lyrics. I have seen many stories on here that quote liberally from songs. The site is free to post on, Lit is not your publisher in the sense that Random House would be. So the rules for posting her are not quite the same as publishing for sale.

If you were publishing with a publishing house, you'd likely have an editor who would deal with this and based on what I've read, they'd either insist on permission for any number of lyrics, or they'd suggest skipping it.

Links:
From AdWeek: http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/can-you-include-song-lyrics-in-your-book/80482

http://annerallen.blogspot.com/2013/03/so-you-want-to-use-song-lyrics-in-your.html

From Writer's Digest: http://www.writersdigest.com/editor...stions/can-i-use-song-lyrics-in-my-manuscript

And this one from Daily Writing Tips: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/quoting-copyrighted-work/

I will quote one section from this:

A common myth is that writers are free to use 400 words from a book, 50 words from an article, or two lines from a poem or song, and it constitutes fair use. This is not true. In reality, fair use can only be determined by the court. And if you’re already in court, you’re in trouble.

You could also check the US Copyright office information.

If you are quoting a modest number of lines for totally non-commercial purposes(literotica) I don't think you have a problem The free publicity is a bonus.

I doubt anyone would come after someone who posts on Lit. As I've said, I've seen a number of stories on here that quote complete songs, and haven't heard that there's been any repercussions. But I don't think your statement holds up.

 

[Hypoxia]

If you are quoting a modest number of lines for totally non-commercial purposes(literotica) I don't think you have a problem The free publicity is a bonus.

I doubt anyone would come after someone who posts on Lit. As I've said, I've seen a number of stories on here that quote complete songs, and haven't heard that there's been any repercussions. But I don't think your statement holds up.

Both right. Slight non-commercial quoting has a tiny tiny chance of arousing either positive or negative interest from the source. As mentioned, LIT is neither a commercial nor traditional publisher, and "fair use" is determined by courts, the buggers. But even if some assholes (like a certain Metal band) were highly perturbed by their lyrics being displayed, they would start with a takedown request, not sending in squads of cops and lawyers.

Re: the latter -- I am active on certain non-commercial amateur music sites where folks post vids of their good-or-bad performances. Some sites allow anything non-criminal. Some have banned covers of Metallica, Jimi Hendrix, Prince, and other material because they've received takedown notices. And some ONLY allow covers of public domain materials.

Thus the site's experience dictates what they consider Fair Use. Apparently Laurel has not yet received enough takedowns or attorney letters to bother implementing her own Fair Use guidelines. She only demands original material not blatant plagiarism.

 

[R. Richard]

I am not a lawyer. However. before a copyright holder can realistically sue, a cease and desist letter needs to be delivered to the one who's allegedly infringing a copyright.

From Wiki:
A cease and desist letter, also known as "infringement letter" or "demand letter," is a document sent to an individual or business to halt purportedly unlawful activity ("cease") and not take it up again later ("desist"). The letter may warn that if the recipient by deadlines set in the letter does not cease and desist specified conduct, or take certain actions, that party may be sued.

Although cease and desist letters are not exclusively used in the area of intellectual property, such letters "are frequently utilized in disputes concerning intellectual property and represent an important feature of the intellectual property law landscape." The holder of an intellectual property right such as a copyrighted work, a trademark, or a patent, may send the cease and desist letter to inform a third party "of the right holders' rights, identity, and intentions to enforce the rights." The letter may merely contain a licensing offer, or may be an explicit threat of a lawsuit. A cease and desist letter often triggers licensing negotiations, and is a frequent first step towards litigation.

 

[sr71plt]

If you are quoting a modest number of lines for totally non-commercial purposes(literotica) I don't think you have a problem The free publicity is a bonus.

Well, that's inviting folks to get themselves into trouble. Your "don't think" isn't backed up by anything I've seen.

 

[sr71plt]

Two lines?! Can you point me to source material on this since this will impact something else I am working on. It's a total of 8 lines broken into two groups of 4 lines which is the chorus from the song.

I have edited for some twenty-five mainstream publishers. They all have the "two lines max" in their instructions (with the exception of literary criticism and, as Ogg, notes, songs in the public domain).

The official line is stricter though (and there's no reliable/firm guideline on what you'll be sued for, with the song industry being the most litigious): See, for example, http://www.writersdigest.com/editor...stions/can-i-use-song-lyrics-in-my-manuscript

 

[someoneyouknow]

I have edited for some twenty-five mainstream publishers. They all have the "two lines max" in their instructions (with the exception of literary criticism and, as Ogg, notes, songs in the public domain).

The official line is stricter though (and there's no reliable/firm guideline on what you'll be sued for, with the song industry being the most litigious): See, for example, http://www.writersdigest.com/editor...stions/can-i-use-song-lyrics-in-my-manuscript

Thanks, though that certainly throws some spinach on the crumpet.

The chorus in question relates directly to the underlying story and what the main character is up against. A bit heavy-handed, but it fits perfectly.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not remotely close to getting published.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I used to be a bit more free with quoting song lyrics until I saw an interesting point about that on a publisher's website. Might've been Bella Books.

Very often when an author uses song lyrics in a story, it's because they're trying to create a particular mood and they think that music will help with the mood. Usually because it's the same mood the musician was aiming to create.

If it doesn't make much difference to your story, well, you don't really need it there.

If it does make a big difference to your story... well, then, doesn't that mean you're relying on somebody else to carry you, without recompense?

If another author was writing a story and decided to use a few choice sentences from yours to help strengthen a weak scene - with acknowledgement, but without permission or payment - would you be comfortable with that? I'm not sure that I would.

I'm more relaxed about transformative use and comment, but I no longer feel comfortable with the idea of borrowing from a love song to help strengthen a love scene, etc etc. Not a recent one, anyway; past a certain point we have to let things fall into the public domain.

 

[ishtat]

Pilot's advice is correct from a book publishing point of view. However, newspapers and magazines frequently go well beyond that, and have lawyers on tap to advise them what they can get away with - which is generally much more.

My own experience is in the management of the legal defences against people who believe their property has been unfairly used. Generally courts will be reluctant to make awards, but usually the rights owners have far more money to fund disputes, so be cautious.

Conclusion. Stick to Pilot's policy recommendation.

Of course, the Stones are now so ancient they may well be out of time soon.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not saying to follow the strict guidelines for a Lit. story. I don't. I'm saying that what you can do and feel protected and what you can get away with are two distinctly different things. Where the edge is is fuzzy precisely because there's practically no case law on it at all. Copyright holders aren't suing--especially where it's hard to track down who is doing it and where there's no money involved to grab. And the courts aren't making it easy to sue--they don't want the courts bogged down with this stuff.

Just don't think that "fair use" claims gives you legal protection for much of anything. There's practically no case low in existence to provide reliable parameters. In addition, "fair use" was not established for free-use erotica. Chances are excellent that the first and subsequent "fair use" claims for a Lit. story are going to be met by a horse laugh long before they see the inside of a courtroom.

The point about the restrictions the publishers put on it is that they are protecting themselves. They are equally responsible before the law and they, generally, will have more money to go after and can more easily be tracked down. So they are more at risk. That's why they tend to get strict with authors on permissions. I'm not sure that Literotica understands its risk in these matters.