What is the Lit policy on using song lyrics?

[MayorReynolds]

Forgive me if this is covered in the FAQ, but I couldn't find it.

One of the stories I'm working on is a followup to the first piece I wrote for this site. It takes place seven years after the first installment, where my male lead was married, is now divorced, and shares custody of a two-year-old.

This scene happens at the beginning of the story. Leon wakes up from a strange dream to the sound of his screaming toddler. Leon has an odd friends-with-benefits relationship with his ex wife, Jen, who pops by at random intervals to bring over Kara and then sleep with Leon after Kara has been put away for the night. Here, Leon has been forced into "calm the baby" duty for the third time, a job he hates because Kara prefers the other parent over him and goes into screaming hysterics at any time it's Leon and not Jen.

Leon asks Jen for advice on how to quiet the baby and Jen tells him to sing to her. Baffled, Leon decides to try it:

===
Kara’s eyes fill with tears when she sees me.

"No! Not you! Want mama! Want mama!” She punctuates her points by slamming the crib bars with the impact of a goddamned tanker truck.

Hurt strikes my heart. This is the typical situation when I’m sent in for Kara damage control. Actually, it’s typical in nearly every situation. Kara never wants me to fix her food or read her stories, or take her to the park. It has to be Jen, every time.

I'd once asked Jen about it over breakfast.

“Why does she hate me so much, Jen? I just...don't get it.”

Jen shoved a spoonful of Coca Puffs in her mouth. “She doesn't hate you, Leon. Come on, that's ridiculous.”

“Well then explain to me why it's the end of the world every time it's me and not you?”

“You're really upset about this, aren't you?”

I gave her a funny look. “Uh, yes! Wouldn't you be if she treated you the same way?”

Jen returned my gaze and cracked a smile. “Sit down Leon.”

I pulled up a chair at my kitchen table.

"She does not hate you Leon. It's simple. She acts that way because you're a big, tall man. Think of how big you are in contrast to a small person. Honestly, it's probably your voice that scares her more than anything."

"My...voice?"

Jen deepened her own voice to that of some low-pitched space overlord's. “Yes. Your voice. You are a man and your speech makes little girls cower in the bleak night.”

I had to chuckle. “I do not sound like that.”

“Maybe not to you or me, but to a small person...”

“So what do I do? Do I start talking like, like you?”

"Oh? And how do I sound?"

“Softer, I suppose,” I replied, lost in confusion. “Like a woman?”

Jen released my hands and went back to her cereal. “Well, there's one thing you can try. Seems to at least quiet her when I do it.”

“What's that?”

Through a mouthful of Coca Puffs Jen said, “Sing.”

I was baffled. “I'm sorry. Your mouth is full. Did you say sing?”

Jen swallowed her food and drank a swig of orange juice. “Yep.”

“What do I...sing?”

Jen shrugged. “Anything you can think of.” She wagged a finger. “As long as it's language appropriate, mister.”

So here we are again.

“Mama! Want mama! Maaama!”

I struggle to restrain my own tears.

“Kara!” I bite my tongue and try to change my tone. I don’t want to yell at a child, my own child at that.

“Mama's...resting,” I say more carefully.

And damn you for it, Jen.

Kara sniffs. “Want mama.”

I open my mouth. Words don’t come out. I think a minute.

And then:

“You can't...always get...what you want...”

It’s nowhere close to Mick Jagger, but I doubt Kara can pick up tone deafness, and my put-on singing voice is softer and higher-pitched than my usual one.

Kara looks at me, puzzled, still teary eyed.

“You can't...always get...what you want...”

She twists her head, reminding me of a puppy.

“You can't always get...what you want...but if you try sometimes...”

I cautiously move closer to the crib, walking on eggshells.

“You just might find...”

I stand over the crib now. Kara is silent. No longer crying. Just curious.

“You get what you need.”

I hoist Kara over her bars and pick her up. Her head rests on my shoulder.

I sway back and forth. “New boy in the neighborhood...lives downstairs and it's understood...he's there just to—”

"—daddy?" Kara interrupts.

"Mmm?"

“What that?”

“What's what, K?”

She points at something I can’t see. “That.”

I turn to look.

My mouth drops.

Kara is looking at the window.

It’s snowing.
============
Leon's choice of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" here is also important to the story as a whole, because in essence it describes him: he's a man who doesn't get what he wants, but at the end of the story will come to find out that he has what he needs. Eh, probably overdone, but it's within a larger story framework.

But anyway, my question concerns the use of song lyrics. I don't know how Laurel handles using them in stories, whether they're mild like that or word-for-word copy/pasted. I wanted to go ahead and put this question out there lest my story get rejected for copyrighted material and such.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But anyway, my question concerns the use of song lyrics. I don't know how Laurel handles using them in stories, whether they're mild like that or word-for-word copy/pasted. I wanted to go ahead and put this question out there lest my story get rejected for copyrighted material and such.

I don't think Laurel is particularly tough on material with song lyrics; I've certainly posted stuff that quoted lyrics without any problems. However, discussion on the forums later persuaded me that even if it gets by the mods, it's probably copyright violation. (Speaking of the Stones, "Bittersweet Symphony" is an example of what expensive lawyers can do with even a small sample.)

Unlikely that anybody will bother sending a Lit user a cease-and-desist for this (look at all the sites out there that exist solely for posting lyrics) but since I'm also selling some of my stuff, I decided it'd be better to rewrite and remove lyrics that are still in copyright.

I do still have an excerpt from a song used in "2001", and the audio from that scene would still be in copyright, but the song itself was written long before so I'm assuming the lyrics are OK.

 

[LWulf]

I agree with bramblethorn.

Consider this: "The Lathe of Heaven", written by Ursula K. Le Guin, adapted to the screen by PBS/WNET in 1980 (starring a very young and promising Bruce Davison).

After it's initial run, the direct-to-TV movie was blacklisted because it used a 30 second clip from a Beatles song "With a Little Help from My Friends." The song was an integral plot point (in the story as well as the movie), so it couldn't be omitted all so easily.

Eventually, after some 30+ years, a deal was negotiated that a cover of the song was allowed and the movie was allowed to be televised to the public once again (even as a "cover", the Beatles got their slice of the proceeds though it is much smaller).

While you might think "Well, I'll worry about it when my story is adapted to film" is an acceptable easy-out, just remember that everything here (at literotica) is copyrighted. Likewise, copyright law doesn't allow for copyrighted material to use previously copyrighted material, that would render the first copyright useless.

Copyright law protects a copyright in ALL medias. You can't say "Well, I didn't sing it, so it's okay that I used it" because that is a fallacy of logic and legal law. The fact that the Beatles didn't pursue Ursula K Le Guin for her use of their song in her story doesn't legitimize her breaking their copyright, it is an act of overwhelming generosity.

The only saving grace for breaking copyright is in parody, commentary or for educational purposes which is covered by the legal loophole "Fair use."
However, you must make a clearly defined and effective use of that loophole to avoid court issues as stated by a court ruling against one such abuse of it's usage:

"[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ...

In short, we must often ... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."
(source: a la Wiki)

Note: Copyright breaking doesn't involve merely if someone profits from such an act, but from the manner in which the copyright material is used which might affect the profits of the original copyright holder.
Copyright only lasts for approximately 120 years from the time of it's inception. If the song is older than that, then the copyright is no longer withheld, unless renewed by the original copyright holder or their immediate kin (wife/husband and children), but that would be covered by a newer copyright for another 120 years.

This is why I can use Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" in literary form while not breaking copyright (though my use was a parody which, even if the copyright was still invoked, is allowed via "fair use."

 

[sr71plt]

Two lines of song lyrics or a poem is the safest guideline in publishing (although copyright laws don't support any number of words/lines as guaranteed safe from successful suit and the music industry is the most copyright litigious).

Who knows what you can get away with on Literotica, though? It appears that Literotica, despite its own forum rules, will let the lyrics of entire songs be reposted to the forum.

There's less allowance in the story file, but I don't know what Lit.'s tolerance level is there. It recently rejected a story of mine for using four lines of poetry in three different places in a story--accepting the story only after I pointed out that the poem not only was my creation, but that I had previously posted the poem in its entirety to Literotica without question D).

Chances are very slim that a song owner will go after whatever you do on Literotica, as there would be no profit in doing so and too much difficulty trying to find out who you are to sue. That doesn't mean it would be right to use song lyrics belonging to someone else willy-nilly in your stories.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I agree with bramblethorn.

Consider this: "The Lathe of Heaven", written by Ursula K. Le Guin, adapted to the screen by PBS/WNET in 1980 (starring a very young and promising Bruce Davison).

After it's initial run, the direct-to-TV movie was blacklisted because it used a 30 second clip from a Beatles song "With a Little Help from My Friends." The song was an integral plot point (in the story as well as the movie), so it couldn't be omitted all so easily.

Eventually, after some 30+ years, a deal was negotiated that a cover of the song was allowed and the movie was allowed to be televised to the public once again (even as a "cover", the Beatles got their slice of the proceeds though it is much smaller).

While you might think "Well, I'll worry about it when my story is adapted to film" is an acceptable easy-out, just remember that everything here (at literotica) is copyrighted. Likewise, copyright law doesn't allow for copyrighted material to use previously copyrighted material, that would render the first copyright useless.

Copyright law protects a copyright in ALL medias. You can't say "Well, I didn't sing it, so it's okay that I used it" because that is a fallacy of logic and legal law. The fact that the Beatles didn't pursue Ursula K Le Guin for her use of their song in her story doesn't legitimize her breaking their copyright, it is an act of overwhelming generosity.

The only saving grace for breaking copyright is in parody, commentary or for educational purposes which is covered by the legal loophole "Fair use."
However, you must make a clearly defined and effective use of that loophole to avoid court issues as stated by a court ruling against one such abuse of it's usage:

"[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ...

In short, we must often ... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."
(source: a la Wiki)

Note: Copyright breaking doesn't involve merely if someone profits from such an act, but from the manner in which the copyright material is used which might affect the profits of the original copyright holder.
Copyright only lasts for approximately 120 years from the time of it's inception. If the song is older than that, then the copyright is no longer withheld, unless renewed by the original copyright holder or their immediate kin (wife/husband and children), but that would be covered by a newer copyright for another 120 years.

This is why I can use Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" in literary form while not breaking copyright (though my use was a parody which, even if the copyright was still invoked, is allowed via "fair use."

I'm not familiar with the example you provided, but it does illustrate some concepts in music copyright that are not always well understood. With recorded music, there are in fact two separate royalty payments that are made when there is a use of a copyrighted recording. The first is the "content" royalty, which goes to the person or persons who created the work. In other words, it goes to the writer(s) of the song. So every time a copyrighted song is played in public, the composer receives some money. Every time a song is played on the radio, or in a restaurant or bar, the composers get paid. Every time a song is performed in public, the composer gets paid. That little ditty that every marching band in the country plays, followed by a cheer of "lets go _______" nets each of the two composers about $1000 a year.

The second payment is the performance royalty. This applies specifically to recorded music. When David Bowie's verson of "The Man Who Sold the World" is played on the radio, Bowie is paid both the composer's royalty and the performance royalty. But when Nirvana's version is played, Bowie collects the composer payment but the performance royalty is split between Kurt Cobain's estate, Dave Grohl, and Krist Novoselic.

This partly explains why successful bands split up. Writing credits are invaluable. Whenever "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is played, all three members share equally in the royalty money. All three are listed as co-writers. But "All Apologies," "Lithium," and "Heart-shaped Box" were composed solely by Cobain. The performance royalties for these songs are shared, but Cobain receives the entire writing royalty. That's why band members get into fights over writing credits, and why they fight even harder to get their compositions onto albums.

A related concept is the compulsory license. A performer does not need permission to perform someone else's song. They just have to be prepared to pay the royalty fees.

All of this, of course, has nothing to do with writing stories on Lit. This is just an expansion of the previous post.

 

[MayorReynolds]

In that case, I think I'll change up the scene so there's no verbatim use of the song.

 

[alwayswantedto]

<deleted>