Song verse attribution rules

[JanusGoneAwry]

Alright, I've seen this topic or something close to it recently but can't find it again so I apologize if this is duplicative.

My question has to do with including song verses in line with story text. I've got a plot bunny for a song I like that I'd like to include in a story thusly.

Song Verse 1

Text Text Text based on song verse 1...

Song Verse 2

Text Text Text based on song verse 2...

and so on.

The real question is do I need to attribute the song title and artist each time I insert the song verse, or just at the beginning? Or do I need to attribute it at all if it's well known and it is obvious what the title is and who the artist is?

 

[LAHomedog]

Alright, I've seen this topic or something close to it recently but can't find it again so I apologize if this is duplicative.

My question has to do with including song verses in line with story text. I've got a plot bunny for a song I like that I'd like to include in a story thusly.

Song Verse 1

Text Text Text based on song verse 1...

Song Verse 2

Text Text Text based on song verse 2...

and so on.

The real question is do I need to attribute the song title and artist each time I insert the song verse, or just at the beginning? Or do I need to attribute it at all if it's well known and it is obvious what the title is and who the artist is?

Well, in real life you are talking about two different kinds of copyright. One is the writer(s)/publisher of the song. The other is the singer/artist of the recording.

The writer's covers the lyrics and the music (not the arrangement), the recording is the "master use license" Now making an assumption, the only thing here that is material is the copyright for the lyrics.

You are always allowed fair use. I have used song lyrics in a number of my stories. (My IP attorney wife warns against using the entire song lyric.)

For what it's worth, I always attribute the singer in my stories. For example, "I was listening to Sinatra and Frank was singing..."

 

[jaF0]

I haven't used lyrics exactly, but have heavily eluded to them:

"Alice is there and starts to reminisce about her attempt to start a small restaurant that didn't work out. We started to talk more about Alice's Restaurant, but the story got too long. Maybe it was the menu. She'd tried to make it so you could find anything there."


"All I could gather was that all the young girls really loved Alice and often wondered if it would be their turn that day."

 

[jaF0]

One other thing I've done in a different tone. Sometimes I'll deliberately bastardize lyrics in a way there weren't meant to be and that changes the intent. Can't think of a specific example right now, but it might be in a board post somewhere.

Then at the end I might add, 'With apologies to: (songwritrer)'.

 

[KeithD]

Legally, including citation for a song doesn't change how much of song lyrics you can provide. There's no set rule on how much you can use, but custom is that you're safe to use two lines of the song--in total.

As far as "fair use" is concerned, there's a lot of misunderstand how this applies to writing in the United States. It doesn't apply in the United States at all to writing erotica.

This is how the U.S. government (www.copyright.gov) defines the applicability of fair use:

"Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."

That doesn't include writing fiction.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You are always allowed fair use.

You are, but it's not altogether clear that the way people commonly use song lyrics on Literotica would be ruled "fair use" if the copyright owners chose to pursue it.

Fair use is complex, full of "balance X against Y" rather than bright lines, but a lot of it is about protecting the ability to comment on copyrighted works. If I want to argue that [insert name here] is a terrible book, or to compare how two different writers use language, it may be very difficult to do that without quoting from the text. Fair use recognises that people should be able to have those kinds of discussion without having to pay royalties. It's also more favourable to transformative works, which are doing something different to the original.

Most Literotica stories that use song lyrics are doing something like this.

"I am so in love with you", I told her. Just then the radio came on, playing Big Emotion's "Big Emotion":

"Oh the feeling that I feel for you
It's big and bold and totally new
It's as big as the Atlantic Ocean
Big emotion - big emotion - big emotion!"

Made-up example, slightly exaggerated, but the important part is - the author starts with wanting to evoke a particular emotion (being in love), they've picked a song that already expresses/evokes that emotion, and put the lyrics in their story to do the same thing they were doing in the original song.

That's not very transformative, and it's not commentary on the original work, which would count against it in a copyright suit.

(It is certainly possible to write a story that uses song lyrics in a way that is transformative and/or commentary on the original song. For example, if one felt that "Baby It's Cold Outside" was kind of date-rapey, one could write a piece about a Christmas Eve date-rape, intercut with relevant song lyrics. But most Literotica authors who use song lyrics aren't doing that, and I doubt Laurel would be keen to depend on fair-use arguments for such things.)

Literotica stories are small fry, and so far the record labels don't seem to have taken an interest in people using lyrics in a story, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen - elsewhere on the net, automated copyright infringement complaints are becoming common.

 

[ElectricBlue]

...I doubt Laurel would be keen to depend on fair-use arguments for such things.)

I wanted to quote four stanzas of a translated poem in a story, she allowed me two, even with attribution. She keeps a fairly close eye on copyright matters, I think.

 

[LAHomedog]

Literotica stories are small fry, and so far the record labels don't seem to have taken an interest in people using lyrics in a story, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen - elsewhere on the net, automated copyright infringement complaints are becoming common.

I think a lot is being mixed up together into this stew of a tread about song lyrics, copyright, fair use, ownership, etc.

Allow me to go back to my first comment. Somebody singing a song on a recording does not give them the copyright of that song (music or lyrics) unless they wrote or co-wrote the music and/or lyrics. And the record company recording it and releasing it does not give them the copyright of the song.

It does give the record company copyright of the recording and to use it for commercial purposes you need to secure a license typically a master recording license or a master sync license.

The copyright to the song is owned by the writers of the music and lyrics and the publishers. If the record company is the publishing company they own part of the song. If the writers are also the publishers they own all of it.

Yes, fair use is limited, but copyright enforcement has a tendency to breakdown over is their commercial exploitation in the use or not. Authors understandably do not like it if you are making money on their copyright and they are not.

I'm going to suggest that most copyright infringement on the web involves someone making money from the use of someone else's copyright and BTW: a law mentioning certain items and leaving others out does not mean that the left out items can't be included. Under the law, silence means acceptance, or yes. If the specific exceptions are written into the law, such as, "and does not include x and xx, and xxx" those are a no-no.

Like most things in life, this comes down to a matter of style and portion.

 

[lovecraft68]

A little off topic, but I've always wondered about copyright when it comes to the thousands of cover songs on youtube. There are people making money on Patreon, Itunes, Spotify and everywhere else doing their covers of others songs.

They always say who the original artist is in the video notes, but how are they able to monetize?

Just curious.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Here's how I handled it, but I only used the chorus...

"Just like the white winged dove
Sings a song, sounds like she's singing
Ooo, ooo, ooo"​

That was the song. It was blaring from the radio speakers. Stevie Nicks, Edge of Seventeen. It went well with the roaring growl of the car's engine as John sped down the highway.

 

[oggbashan]

I have used seevral songs in my stories. From a song still in copyright (in Europe 70 years after the writer's death) I have restricted myself to no more than 3 lines in English Lane.

But for Jeanie the Genie, I used Jeannie with the Light Brown Hair in full at the end. It has been out of copyright since 1940.

 

[GinnyPPC]

A little off topic, but I've always wondered about copyright when it comes to the thousands of cover songs on youtube. There are people making money on Patreon, Itunes, Spotify and everywhere else doing their covers of others songs.

They always say who the original artist is in the video notes, but how are they able to monetize?

Just curious.

Many (most?) of the time on Youtube the original artist via their label files a claim on the video and end up with the small piece of advertisement money. The little guy reacting to it gets nothing. Rick Beato covers this a lot on his music education channel. He even testified about it before the US Congress.

 

[SimonDoom]

As far as I know, the Site has no rule on this.

There is, as far as I know, no definitive legal ruling in the USA on the question of how much of a song's lyrics you can quote in your own artistic work without infringing the copyright. A minimal quotation would be a fair use -- but how much is minimal? I would agree with what KeithD said as a rule of thumb. You can quote a line or two. If you quote the entire song lyrics, then it is very likely copyright infringement, even if those lyrics are interspersed throughout your story.

It's worth saying, again, that attribution does not cure copyright infringement. If your use of another's song infringes the copyright, then providing attribution does NOTHING to cure the infringement. You're still liable.

As a practical matter, if Laurel allows it, you're likely to get away with it, since no one is making any money from their stories here and it's unlikely that songwriters and publishers are paying attention to what gets published at Literotica. You have to decide for yourself if getting away with it is good enough.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes, fair use is limited, but copyright enforcement has a tendency to breakdown over is their commercial exploitation in the use or not.

Don't count it. Commercial/non-commercial use is one of the factors that affects fair use status, but amateur stuff gets taken down for copyright violation all the time even without any commercial exploitation. It's such a well-known thing that people will play Disney songs at protests etc. to prevent video being uploaded onto YouTube.

In any case...

Authors understandably do not like it if you are making money on their copyright and they are not. I'm going to suggest that most copyright infringement on the web involves someone making money from the use of someone else's copyright

Literotica runs banner ads, and a sex toy shop, and it has an affiliate link to a personals site. Pretty sure they're getting paid for those, and the stories are what draws people here to see those ads. If they were to let through stories that violated copyrights, then "someone making money from the [unauthorised] use of someone else's copyright" is exactly what that would be.

(Probably not a lot of money, but I'm not sure that makes much difference to the legality of anything.)

and BTW: a law mentioning certain items and leaving others out does not mean that the left out items can't be included.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

 

[KeithD]

As far as I know, the Site has no rule on this.

The only instance I have encountered with Laurel on this is that she rejected a story once because I had stanzas of a poem interspersed here and there in the story. When my response was that I was the one who wrote the poem and pointed out that it already had been posted here in the poetry file, the story went through as written. I hadn't thought to claim ownership of the poetry in a note on the original submission, but if I had that would have obviated the rejection.

 

[jaF0]

I'm going to suggest that most copyright infringement on the web involves someone making money from the use of someone else's copyright and BTW: a law mentioning certain items and leaving others out does not mean that the left out items can't be included. Under the law, silence means acceptance, or yes. If the specific exceptions are written into the law, such as, "and does not include x and xx, and xxx" those are a no-no.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Just a W.A.G. .....

"Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."

That doesn't include writing fiction.

 

[Bramblethorn]

A little off topic, but I've always wondered about copyright when it comes to the thousands of cover songs on youtube. There are people making money on Patreon, Itunes, Spotify and everywhere else doing their covers of others songs.

They always say who the original artist is in the video notes, but how are they able to monetize?

Just curious.

Some info about that here: https://bandzoogle.com/blog/music-licensing-101-how-do-i-license-a-cover-song

Looks like the deal is:
- If you're selling a CD/etc. you would pay a fixed rate to the songwriter per album download ("mechanical license").
- On somewhere like Spotify, the site pays royalties to the songwriter
- On YouTube, in theory you should get a mechanical license paying money to the songwriter, but since that's not practical, YT gives them ad money instead.

At least round here, I understand there's a similar deal with busking. The buskers pay for a license, I think they have to provide info about what songs they're covering, and then the rights owners get paid out of the licensing money.

 

[SimonDoom]

The only instance I have encountered with Laurel on this is that she rejected a story once because I had stanzas of a poem interspersed here and there in the story. When my response was that I was the one who wrote the poem and pointed out that it already had been posted here in the poetry file, the story went through as written. I hadn't thought to claim ownership of the poetry in a note on the original submission, but if I had that would have obviated the rejection.

Another one of those mysterious "rules" one learns only by being around a long time, posting stories, and asking enough questions. The rules of "lore" as opposed to written rules. I'm hopeless at remembering those rules.

 

[HeyAll]

I've used song verses in a story and I just mentioned the artist name and song title. I put the lyrics like this:


Hello / How are you today? / Thanks for asking


That kind of format makes it easier to see that it's lyrics.

 

[Handley_Page]

I reckon that if you give full attribution to the version you use, you won't have a problem (Artist, writer, etc..)
.

 

[Trionyx]

To summarize; keep it short, change text characteristics and give full credit with title and original author/composer. You’ll be fine.

 

[KeithD]

To summarize; keep it short, change text characteristics and give full credit with title and original author/composer. You’ll be fine.

You'll probably get away with it here. Doesn't mean you are doing it either legally or ethically right. And, as has been pointed out by more than one on the thread, giving full credit means absolutely nothing in terms of copyright violation. What it primarily does is say, "possible violation can be found right here."

 

[AlexBailey]

Many (most?) of the time on Youtube the original artist via their label files a claim on the video and end up with the small piece of advertisement money. The little guy reacting to it gets nothing. Rick Beato covers this a lot on his music education channel. He even testified about it before the US Congress.

I have a few cover songs with attribution on YouTube, recorded and posted by third parties. A couple of them now have ads that were not attached by the poster that pop up before you can view them. Neither the poster nor I get any of the proceeds. I wonder if they go to the original autor. That would be cool if my recording was making money for the writer...

 

[8letters]

To summarize; keep it short, change text characteristics and give full credit with title and original author/composer. You’ll be fine.

Umm, no. Let's say you quote a few lyrics of a Disney song. Disney could start scanning porn sites like Literotica for use of its lyrics because they don't want their song lyrics in porn stories. If that happens, your story is going to be taken down. So if you use song lyrics in your story, you're really counting on people not caring enough about your using the song lyrics to request your story be taken down.

 

[JanusGoneAwry]

You have to decide for yourself if getting away with it is good enough.

Thanks for the terrific feedback everyone. While I'm quite sure that I don't generate enough views and actual reads to be a threat to any copyright holder of any media I can think of, I think that it's just more trouble than it's worth.

FWIW my plot bunny was based on the lyrics of the Radiohead song Creep. I felt like there's a lit story there lurking just under the surface of the song. That assumes of course that everyone is of legal age (wink).