Rights to a song

[mrbiggs]

I was just having a debate with my friend (I do have friends ), and I thought that being a political active bunch, this could start a flame war!

Okay, so here's the question. (as you can tell, I haven't really researched this, I'm just giving you what I know) Sometime in the nineties, Coolio came out with "Gangsta's Paradise", a song about the affects of the gangsters on society. This was a very impressive song, especially considering that gangsters were about 90% of his audience. A couple years later, Weird Al comes out with "Amish Paradise" a song that I have to admit may well be Weird Al's best. Later on, Coolio claims that he didn't give permission to Weird Al to parody the somg, saying that it was too serious. Rather than suing or anything (this would never happen today), he goes back to writing music. Weird Al apologizes, saying that he was told that he had gotten permission. On top of that, "Amish Paradise" isn't a parody of the song or the topic, but is the same melody with different lyrics that happen to be making fun of a completely different topic.

So should Weird Al be able to make songs that do not harm their author with or without permission, and Coolio overreacted, or does Coolio have full authority over what happens to the song? (Bonus points to anyone who uses Boba Fett in the context of their answer!)

[noodle]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I was just having a debate with my friend (I do have friends ), and I thought that being a political active bunch, this could start a flame war!

Okay, so here's the question. (as you can tell, I haven't really researched this, I'm just giving you what I know) Sometime in the nineties, Coolio came out with "Gangsta's Paradise", a song about the affects of the gangsters on society. This was a very impressive song, especially considering that gangsters were about 90% of his audience. A couple years later, Weird Al comes out with "Amish Paradise" a song that I have to admit may well be Weird Al's best. Later on, Coolio claims that he didn't give permission to Weird Al to parody the somg, saying that it was too serious. Rather than suing or anything (this would never happen today), he goes back to writing music. Weird Al apologizes, saying that he was told that he had gotten permission. On top of that, "Amish Paradise" isn't a parody of the song or the topic, but is the same melody with different lyrics that happen to be making fun of a completely different topic.

So should Weird Al be able to make songs that do not harm their author with or without permission, and Coolio overreacted, or does Coolio have full authority over what happens to the song? (Bonus points to anyone who uses Boba Fett in the context of their answer!)

weird al doesn't need permissin, he just seeks it and generally doesn't do songs that he doesn't get permission for.

[mrbiggs]

I know, thus the debate. Should Weird Al need permission? He CAN parody any song and get awy with it, but is he morrally obligated to have the original writer's blessing?

Boba Fett would just use his rocket launcher
(and a reputation point to noodle for setting a great example of using Boba Fett in context, although everyone else is going to have to do more than just replace a letter)

[Soldier]

They both were definitely honorable, much more than ever would have been. I don't know if he's legally obligated, but I think Weird Al should be morally obligated to get the rights to a song, just as a professional courtesy.

I wonder how he thought up "The Saga Begins", the Star Wars parody of "American Pie"? Too bad he had to use Episode I - there was no in it.

[Inquartata]

First of all, there are no rap "songs". No singing is involved. It's poetry set to a beat. Mostly bad poetry.

Second, if the rappers themselves can rip off other artists for the tunes they can't write themselves and call it "sampling" why can't others treat them likewise?

[noodle]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I know, thus the debate. Should Weird Al need permission? He CAN parody any song and get awy with it, but is he morrally obligated to have the original writer's blessing?

he shouldn't need to lawfully or morally speaking. its cool that he does and respects other artists for doing so, but you don't really need to. he mostly does it because he has a serious career that's spanned a large amount of time and he likes that. if you go around making albums that piss off the biggest, most powerful stars of the day, your career isn't likely to last long...

do you think political cartoonists get permission to use the likeness of presidents/candidtates/etc when poking fun at them each time they do it?
<font size="5">&hearts;</font><font size="5">&hearts;</font><font size="5">&hearts;</font><font size="5">&hearts;</font><font size="5">&hearts;</font><font size="5">&hearts;</font>

[DJ Apostrophe]

It is called the fair use doctrine (as applied to copyright law).

Copyrighted works are specifically ALLOWED to be parodied.

This provides some great opportunities for satire, comedy, and criticism, and honestly, people need to lighten up. I'm sorry that you didn't approve coolio, but in our society, people have the right to use someone's work in this manner.

In addition, Wierd Al is a hysterical song-writer and I am a fan of his work...

-w

[Tomas N]

This issue was decided pretty definitively in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994). Here's a link.

(Better known as Oh Pretty Woman vs. Hairy Woman)

As DJ says, we allow it under copyright law. There are a whole bunch of interesting legal and economic reasons for wanting to allow such use.

Tomas

[mrbiggs]

I know that legally, weird al can parody whoever he wants, with some restrictions. I'm asking whether or not he should, morally, parody a song someone else wrote.

In response to Inquartata, rap songs do quite often suck ( I haven't heard a good one in months) But, there are some very musical rap songs, with "Gangsta's Paradise" being one example. You have to listen to it differently than you listen to rock, just as you have to listen to classical and rock music differently as well.

Sampling a song can go either way. I have a friend (no one famous) who writes songs as a hobby by sampling other songs, but it is musical. He doesn't take the exact song someone else had and write new lyrics, he uses small parts from different songs, and fits them together to form a new one. Of course, that's another moral question worth debating.

And a reputation point for soldier because he used Boba in context.

[Moonitic]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be HONORED to have someone as talented as Weird Al writing parodies of my songs. As it stands, I'm honored to have one of my "oldest" friends writing parodies of the stories I've written.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or so they say. Maybe what Weird Al does can be considered "imitation." He certainly means no ill will toward those whose works he uses.

I'll stay out of the legal thing, though. Had a debate about "the writing biz" last night. Met my quota for the week!

DJ, I completely agree...some people need to lighten up!

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I know that legally, weird al can parody whoever he wants, with some restrictions. I'm asking whether or not he should, morally, parody a song someone else wrote.

In response to Inquartata, rap songs do quite often suck ( I haven't heard a good one in months) But, there are some very musical rap songs, with "Gangsta's Paradise" being one example. You have to listen to it differently than you listen to rock, just as you have to listen to classical and rock music differently as well.

Sampling a song can go either way. I have a friend (no one famous) who writes songs as a hobby by sampling other songs, but it is musical. He doesn't take the exact song someone else had and write new lyrics, he uses small parts from different songs, and fits them together to form a new one. Of course, that's another moral question worth debating.

And a reputation point for soldier because he used Boba in context.

Stingy! I used him twice!

[a517dogg]

I don't see why Coolio should have any problem. First of all, it gets more people interested in his song. Second, the song doesn't even make fun of him, it makes fun of Amish people. It's basically Weird Al saying "This is a great song, alot of people will recognize it, it's a catchy melody, so I'll yank it for my own stuff." like moonitic said, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

If Coolio is mad, he should write a song making fun of Weird Al's stuff.

Kind of reminds me of stuff like when two jazz soloists would be playing, and one would copy what the other had just played, but make it sound humpty dumpty or something, or when one player would cut the other. It's all in good fun.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by a517dogg

or when one player would cut the other. It's all in good fun.

<a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=jazz+knife+fight&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search" target="_blank">jazz knife fights</a> are never funny...

[CarlKnoch]

I think that the question of morality doesn't fit this situation. He is completely within his rights to parody the song without asking. That is all that needs be said to me. He's not even walking an ethical thin line in my opinion by doing a song without getting the blessing. Getting the blessing is just being extra nice.

[Soldier]

Yeah, I guess ethics is the word I was looking for. And I'd have to agree.

[The0ne]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

First of all, there are no rap "songs". No singing is involved. It's poetry set to a beat. Mostly bad poetry.

Second, if the rappers themselves can rip off other artists for the tunes they can't write themselves and call it "sampling" why can't others treat them likewise?

depends on the rap artist. 50 Cent is bad, KRS-1 is very good. COnscientious hip-hop has very intelligent lyrics. . .

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I know that legally, weird al can parody whoever he wants, with some restrictions. I'm asking whether or not he should, morally, parody a song someone else wrote.

As a society we grant people monopoly rights to use a song. That monopoly right generates new artistic behavior. In compensation for those rights, we allow other people to use the songs. It's not a moral question, but rather it's a question of how we set up the law to generate the right amount of creative activity.

Tomas

[Masterurethane]

I could be mistaken here, but wasn't it mostly a cover of Stevie Wonder's pastime paradise? Hmm, weird al is great, and I would consider it an honour to have one of my songs parodied by him, unless it was on a sensitive topic that I took very seriously.

"He's no good to me dead"

[oiuyt]

It should ONLY be allowable if it can be considered a parody of the original song (which given the title of the new song I would be willing to agree it was). Sampling, to be legal, requires permission (or needs to be one of the protected fair uses).

Libraries have special rights including limited rights to make copies for archival purposes, to replace lost, stolen, damaged, or deteriorating work. They also have the right to make copies to share with other libraries in the form of interlibrary loans. They also have limited rights to make copies for patron use. There are fairly tight restrictions on all of these special rights.

Educational institutions and government agencies pursuing educational purposes (face-to-face teaching, and in a more limited fashion distance education) are protected under their own set of limitations.

If :boba: were reborn as a lawyer he might cite the following guidelines to help determine whether or not an example of copying is fair use. Note that fair use is a squishy boundary. It's like ROW, we can all agree that the attack (fair use copying) has priority over the counterattack (the rights of the creator/copyright holder), but different people can reasonably disagree on whether or not a specific motion from a fencer is an attack. Some things will tip this judgement strongly in favor of one side or the other (if the "attacker" is running backwards with his/her hand behind his head then chances are the ROW should go to the copyright holder (this would be the analogy's equivalent to a mass-producing DVD pirate)). Anyway, on to :boba: 's guidelines (taken from UT's guidelines to try to help that their staff/students don't violate copyright http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellec...y/copypol2.htm ) :

Factor 1: Character of the use
Factor 2: Nature of the work being used
Factor 3: How much of the work is used
Factor 4: If this type of use were widespread how would it affect the market for the original

Factor 1 is generally the most commonly looked at, especially by non-lawyers. The first division is to look at if the use is commercial or falls into the realm of nonprofit, educational, or personal use. The former category tends to be negative (as far as the use being fair), the latter positive. More importantly, is if the use falls into one of the following categorizations: criticism, commentary, newsreporting, parody, or otherwise "transformative" use. These are specifically allowed uses. The more closely the use falls into one of these categories the more evidence there is that the use is fair use. This latter categorization matters considerably more, in most cases, than the commercial vs. nonprofit/educational/personal division. Newsreporting is protected even if it's for commercial gain.

Factor 2 is the nature of the work. If the original work is a published work and if it's mostly fact-based then it is easier for a second use to be considered fair use. If the original work was unpublished and especially if it was an imaginative work (think lots of creativity and originality) then it makes it harder for a derivative work to be considered fair use.

Factor 3 is the amount of the original work used in the derivative work. Using a quote from a book is likely fair use. Copying entire chapters is much more likely to be fewed as in violation of copyright.

Factor 4 is the financial impact on the rights holder of the original work. This factor is somewhat different from the first three. If, after looking at the first three factors, the general result is that the use is fair, the result of factor 4 is meaningless. Where factor 4 comes into play is if, after the first three factors, the general sense is that the use is somewhat tipped towards the unfair use side. In this case factor 4 comes into play. If widespread use that might be unfair, might be fair, but is somewhat marginal to either side, would have little financial impact to the rights holder then that tips the balance somewhat towards fair use (and at the very least would likely result in lower court-ordered damages). If a marginally fair/unfair use would, if widespread, severely damage the rights holder then that tips the balance strongly towards the use being declared unfair use. If the use, after looking at the first three factors, was already strongly unfair, then factor 4 doesn't matter, there's already been a copyright violation.

An additional consideration is that if there is a readily accessible market for purchasing permission then it is harder to gain fair use status. If the rightsholder is unknown and it's impossible to reasonably secure permission to copy a work then it is more likely that a use of the work will be considered fair use (not to mention considerably less likely that anyone will bring a action to court in the first place).

I am not a lawyer, nor, to the best of my knowledge, is :boba: so if you're planning on skirting the edges of copyright law I wouldn't use the above a cannonical guidance for your actions.

-B :)

[oiuyt]

I disagree with all of the poll options.

I think the song was a parody (as is nearly everythi