Italics

[DarkRaven13]

Quoting from songs is a tricky business. There appears to be less "fair use" leeway. Stephen King advises you to obtain permission to use even one line from a song from the copyright holder rather than risk a lawsuit.

I didn't even think about this. One of the future stories I was thinking of doing (and for which I have a ton of notes on) consisted of listing the a song, by stanza. After each the story would continue. I guess that idea is now a no-go ..

 

[ElectricBlue]

I didn't even think about this. One of the future stories I was thinking of doing (and for which I have a ton of notes on) consisted of listing the a song, by stanza. After each the story would continue. I guess that idea is now a no-go ..

Probably. One or two stanzas maybe, but not the whole song.

As I say, I got in two verses of a four verse poem, and even then, I think Laurel was being kind - it was an in copyright translation of an out of copyright Russian original.

 

[gunhilltrain]

It wouldn't be Paul Simon searching for lyrics, it'd be his label. So far nobody seems to have taken an interest in policing lyrics copyrights in Literotica stories but automated copyright enforcement has become a thing in recent years so it's possible that could change.

I don't know if Lit has enough money to be worth asking for compensation. Possibly they would be asked to remove the story, or possibly revise it. When you say "automated enforcement," does that mean the material could be removed remotely or would someone from the label have to find and contact the owners of the site? How labor intensive is that compared to the small scale of the violation?

 

[gunhilltrain]

YouTube has a range of licensing arrangements. Major copyright owners (record companies etc.) upload a set of digital "fingerprints" for the work they own; YT checks uploaded content against that for matches, and when it detects a match it gives rights owners a choice of how they deal with it. They can require it to be taken down, or they can monetise it (i.e. YT shows ads on the video and the money goes to the rights owner, not to the person who uploaded it), or they can just keep an eye on it.

(This gets problematic with older music: even when the original composition is out of copyright, a particular recording may still be in copyright, and if somebody else's recording sounds similar that can lead to false matches.)

If you're not a major copyright owner, you don't get access to that automated fingerprinting service, but if you do become aware of a violation of your copyright you can still report it and get the same options. This gets abused; some folk have figured out that they can harass small-scale musicians etc. into letting them monetise a video rather than fight a bogus copyright claim.

Different owners take different positions on YT stuff. Some bands are pretty liberal with fan uploads, seeing it as a form of promotion, others fight it. It comes up especially with reaction videos where somebody will add their own commentary to somebody else's work ("watch as this vocal coach explains what the singer's doing in this song" kind of thing) since by necessity that contains a large chunk if not the whole of the original video.

So what about the large number of videos lifted from YouTube and then posted on this and other sites? That would seem to be going beyond whatever arrangements YouTube made with the original copyright holders.

Some digital images have a "watermark" like Getty Images does with photos of celebrities. It can't be removed unless one buys the original from Getty. But 95% (?) of online images can just be copied and reproduced wholesale. A lot of them are so generic or posted by individuals so that most of the copying is never noticed. A think a few places have videos that can be viewed but not downloaded, but I haven't seen much of that. YouTube may have the technology to do that (?) but they don't seem to use it.

 

[XerXesXu]

So what about the large number of videos lifted from YouTube and then posted on this and other sites? That would seem to be going beyond whatever arrangements YouTube made with the original copyright holders.

Embed 'Media' is only a more visual link than 'Insert Link'. It's not a download.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't know if Lit has enough money to be worth asking for compensation. Possibly they would be asked to remove the story, or possibly revise it. When you say "automated enforcement," does that mean the material could be removed remotely or would someone from the label have to find and contact the owners of the site? How labor intensive is that compared to the small scale of the violation?

Automated as far as identifying apparent violations and sending a takedown notice to somebody appropriate. For a large publisher, it should be possible to automate almost all of that process, maybe depending on the details of Literotica's hosting.

So what about the large number of videos lifted from YouTube and then posted on this and other sites? That would seem to be going beyond whatever arrangements YouTube made with the original copyright holders.

As XXX said, they're not being "lifted" - with music videos, all that's posted here is a link to the place on YT where the video is hosted. Your browser sees that link and loads the content from YT for you, but Literotica's not hosting the video. YT does in fact have some capability to block their videos being embedded on sites where they don't want them; if somebody posts a music video on Discord, for instance, quite often I'll get a notice saying that the rights holder has blocked it from playing on Discord so I have to click through to find it on YT.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I don't know if Lit has enough money to be worth asking for compensation. Possibly they would be asked to remove the story, or possibly revise it. When you say "automated enforcement," does that mean the material could be removed remotely or would someone from the label have to find and contact the owners of the site? How labor intensive is that compared to the small scale of the violation?

A copyright violation only really matters where money is involved. Here at Lit, stories aren't monetised so nobody is earning income at someone else's expense. Sure, someone might get twitchy at "artistic violation" of a song lyric, but I doubt it. I think people overthink this copyright stuff far too much.

 

[stickygirl]

Tumblr wouldn't exist without a fair use concession being given. They do block certain image links like imgur. Besides if P!NK wants to chase my fair use, maybe I'll get to meet her?!

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Not sure, but I think Literotica may convert <i> to <em> during the submissions process anyway?

I would doubt that.

<em> and <i> are not totally interchangeable. While both might appear to present italic type, emphasis coding also generates a higher volume of speech for reader applications used by the visually impaired to denote "emphasis" of the word(s).

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Here at Lit you can easily get away with one or two lines from a song, and nobody gets sued. Fair use and Stephen King are both red herrings, this is Lit.

I tried to quote a poem in one of my stories - after a couple of passes, Laurel allowed every second stanza (so, 50%) which was better than nothing, but spoiled the point.

I have used much more than one or two lines without rejection. Another arbitrary rule on Literotica it seems.

 

[PennameWombat]

So what about the large number of videos lifted from YouTube and then posted on this and other sites? That would seem to be going beyond whatever arrangements YouTube made with the original copyright holders.

Some digital images have a "watermark" like Getty Images does with photos of celebrities. It can't be removed unless one buys the original from Getty. But 95% (?) of online images can just be copied and reproduced wholesale. A lot of them are so generic or posted by individuals so that most of the copying is never noticed. A think a few places have videos that can be viewed but not downloaded, but I haven't seen much of that. YouTube may have the technology to do that (?) but they don't seem to use it.

As mentioned, YouTube has digital fingerprints (ContentID) they’ve been given for music. If they detect a video using a matching audio track, various things could happen. One of them is that the copyright owner will let the video stay, but the copyright owner gets any money (ads, etc.) that the video generates. They may also block the video. But in this case, they don’t issue copyright strikes. Those are if a copyright owner files a DMCA claim against a video. Three of those in ninety days and kiss your channel goodbye.

Instagram provides a library of licensed music you can use in videos, as do some other sites. There’s also plenty of agencies who offer catalogs of music you can easily license for social media.

Tumblr wouldn't exist without a fair use concession being given. They do block certain image links like imgur. Besides if P!NK wants to chase my fair use, maybe I'll get to meet her?!

I have used much more than one or two lines without rejection. Another arbitrary rule on Literotica it seems.

I’ve used the chorus and a couple of other lines from ’Fairytale of New York,’ by the Pogues, along with a number of public domain Christmas songs in my 2020 Winter Holidays story. Public domain songs are fair game, but others are infringing, but it depends on the copyright holders taking explicit action such as filing DMCA claims against the site. In which case, if the site takes the targeted stories down, they’re in the clear.

As to fair use, it doesn’t apply to stories posted here at Lit. It also doesn’t apply to, say, novels. Which is why you’ll need permission to use any lyrics, even a single line, in a novel or short story. Song titles and artists are fair game to mention. Have your characters go to a music festival, name the bands and the songs, just don’t quote lyrics. Unless they’re public domain.

Fair use only applies to certain usages: commentary/news reporting, criticism (i.e., movie or song reviews), research and scholarship. And parody, which is about the only usage you could try to claim here. But note that parody is strictly defined and must comment back on the original, not use the original to comment on something else. UK law apparently mentions satire as well as parody, US law doesn’t. The bulk of the content has to be yours, not what you’re borrowing, and you cannot copy a ‘substantial’ portion of the contents and you cannot ‘damage’ the market for the original.

I’m not a lawyer, so if you’re writing the Great American Novel talk to a real lawyer.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I have used much more than one or two lines without rejection. Another arbitrary rule on Literotica it seems.

What's arbitrary about any of this? A few lines, everyone agrees, is not a problem; fifty percent establishes an upper limit. There's a boundary, established in practice, for those seeking guidance.

 

[DarkRaven13]

In general I am a rule followerer. And so, I will scrap my idea of writing a story around the song lyrics I was going to do, and move to my next story idea.

In hindsight, the copyright issue should have been something that I should have been aware of.

 

[gunhilltrain]

As XXX said, they're not being "lifted" - with music videos, all that's posted here is a link to the place on YT where the video is hosted. Your browser sees that link and loads the content from YT for you, but Literotica's not hosting the video. YT does in fact have some capability to block their videos being embedded on sites where they don't want them; if somebody posts a music video on Discord, for instance, quite often I'll get a notice saying that the rights holder has blocked it from playing on Discord so I have to click through to find it on YT.

Thanks, I can see the distinction now.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I would doubt that.

<em> and <i> are not totally interchangeable. While both might appear to present italic type, emphasis coding also generates a higher volume of speech for reader applications used by the visually impaired to denote "emphasis" of the word(s).

I'm aware of the distinction, and that is indeed a good argument for not autoconverting <i> to <em>. But after checking back through my old submissions, I'm pretty sure Literotica was doing this at some point pre-2016.

The file I submitted for "Magnum Innominandum" has several <i> tags marking things such as a Latin phrase, internal monologue, and a long quote. The version Literotica displays has replaced all these with <em>s, even though it's not really an appropriate choice when the tag is being used to create distinction rather than emphasis.

For later stories, however, it seems to preserve the <i>s. So I guess the process changed somewhere along the way.

 

[stickygirl]

Having grasped the difference between forum and story coding formats, I used these brackets in my latest story for text-messages. It should be clear enough.

There's another odd thing I've noticed, that a single hyphen - in .rtf ends up as a double hyphen -- when it appears in story format. It's not a big deal but if you're inserting a short break ( which is probably poor punctuation anyway ) it becomes bigger than it needs to be.

I use * * * * * for informal chapter or scene breaks. I think it's obvious enough to the reader and reproduces okay.

 

[KeithD]

A copyright violation only really matters where money is involved. Here at Lit, stories aren't monetised so nobody is earning income at someone else's expense. Sure, someone might get twitchy at "artistic violation" of a song lyric, but I doubt it. I think people overthink this copyright stuff far too much.

Unless it's their property being violated, of course. Only worry about yourself, not your fellow writers, I guess.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Unless it's their property being violated, of course. Only worry about yourself, not your fellow writers, I guess.

One of my stories was lifted to another site well over a year ago. I've been so distracted recently that I can't even remember which one it was. They did list it under my Lit username, which I guess helped me feel better about it. At least they attributed it to me (or my Lit "personality" me).

I realize that my work here (and everybody else's) is completely unprotected and easy to take in this digital environment - just copy and paste elsewhere. It has happened to a significant degree already to various Lit writers. I guess I accept that as the way things are.