Song lyrics copyright

[Arpangel]

I've just recorded a couple of my own songs, I've been on the internet looking for similar lyrics, and can't find any.
However, I'm sure I’ve used a couple of phrases that I’ve heard elsewhere, but a search hasn’t turned up anything.
If I do use these lyrics, is it enough that if just a few words are different I will avoid copyright issues?

These are the lyrics,

"Dragged into the future like a rag doll"

"Waving goodby from a tear stained window"

I want to make sure that these exact lyrics haven’t been used by anyone else, or, am I worrying too much, as phrases that are quite similar can turn up in many songs by different artists.

[amanise]

Which are you most worried about;

1) Getting sued ?
2) Offending the original artist or being open to accusations of plagiarism or unoriginality ?

If it's 1, my approach is always to think about what's the benefit to someone of suing me. The £ value of my work is 0. So there's no money in suing me - and doing so would be futile in terms of clawing back legal fees. I therefore don't worry about borrowing a phrase or two - it happens all the time.

If it's 2, for me it's never 2. If I want to do it to pay homage to someone who has gone before me and influenced me a lot - that's different. So I do that without worry also, if I want to. I have a very small number of listeners who will ever even hear what I've done.

Other opinions are available, and will most likely be better informed.

[Drew Stephenson]

If you've googled them and had no hits that's a good sign.
Legally a court would be looking, should anyone bring a case, at two factors: how extensive are the similarities and how likely are you to have heard a previous work with those phrases.
With two short phrases like this I doubt there would ever be an issue.
Taylor Swift was sued for using the phrase, " Haters gonna hate, players gonna play." but successfully defended it in court as being generic phrases.

[BWC]

Yep, it's not easy to come up with really original phrases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uQyS7rTdJI



I wouldn't worry about it. The first line "...rag doll", there's a song called Rag Doll, it's made up almost entirely of cliches. Nope, I wouldn't worry about it.

[Arpangel]

Thanks, yes, I think given the context of my work, the small number of listeners, and no obvious internet similarities, I'll carry on.
I just had to check as my friend who runs the label is concerned about things like this, and quite rightly so.
Also I call these "songs" very loosely, in the traditional sense, if at all, they are more like the vocalisations of a demented tortured soul, so very limited appeal.

[alexis]

... they are more like the vocalisations of a demented tortured soul, so very limited appeal.

Unless already famous (see "Plastic Ono Band" album)

[OneWorld]

Hmmmmm, I wonder if I'd get sued for writing a song about the 'Jailhouse Clock' - might even end up in jail if I get sued!

"It's Coming Home" could be "It's Combing Home?" or 'Sweet Caroline' could be "Sweet Car of Mine?"

ON a slightly different subject, YouTube is stuffed full with people dancing, either professional dancing, or just ordinary people posting up a vid. If I wanted to use one of those vids, with the music taken out, and not for financial gain - I just want some dancing to accompany a piece of music, would that be an infringement of copyright? in other words, is all stuff on YouTube not freeely available toi us because it is within YouTube?

Question 2, and the ideal situation for myself. I am under the impression that if I submit a photograph of a person, to an AI graphics app, the AI can create a meme (is that the right terminology?) from that photo, and once created as a meme, then of course I can have it dancing

I have seen some examples where someone's face has been 'pasted' onto an existing meme, but the examples I have seen are particularly unconvincing. On the other hand I have read of many examples where AI generated images of celebs/politicians etc and the resulting AI generated character is almost indistinguishable from the real person?

[The Red Bladder]

These are the lyrics,
"Dragged into the future like a rag doll"
"Waving goodbye from a tear stained window"

I'm pretty sure those phrases have not been penned by anyone before.

YouTube is stuffed full with people dancing, either professional dancing, or just ordinary people posting up a vid. If I wanted to use one of those vids, with the music taken out, and not for financial gain - I just want some dancing to accompany a piece of music, would that be an infringement of copyright? in other words, is all stuff on YouTube not freeely available toi us because it is within YouTube?

The images are not your property so you cannot use them - that is both the tort of abuse of copyright and may even be a crime - i.e. theft.

Question 2, and the ideal situation for myself. I am under the impression that if I submit a photograph of a person, to an AI graphics app, the AI can create a meme (is that the right terminology?) from that photo, and once created as a meme, then of course I can have it dancing.

If that person is a performer (actor, dancer, singer) then they are very likely to have registered image rights. In plain English - the image of that person is a registered trademark and is as protected as the Coca Cola logo. An AI version of, say, Marilyn Munro is inevitable one day, but it is within the good graces of whoever owns that image trademark to let that happen.

Also, please remember that a trademark exists outside the various registration systems as a common law right.

Politicians and other public personalities can be made fun of as that falls within the bounds of public commentary. For example, the Nick Clegg "I'm Sorry" music video and of course Spitting Image.

[S2]

YouTube is stuffed full with people dancing, either professional dancing, or just ordinary people posting up a vid. If I wanted to use one of those vids, with the music taken out, and not for financial gain - I just want some dancing to accompany a piece of music, would that be an infringement of copyright? in other words, is all stuff on YouTube not freeely available toi us because it is within YouTube?

The images are not your property so you cannot use them - that is both the tort of abuse of copyright and may even be a crime - i.e. theft.

Just to add to this, it isn't theft since intellectual property doesn't fall under the Theft Act as it isn't 'property'. It's covered under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act. As it happens the maximum penalty under that Act is more than the Theft Act (10 years instead of 7) so it's not losing out by not being covered under the Theft Act.

[OneWorld]

I'm pretty sure those phrases have not been penned by anyone before.

YouTube is stuffed full with people dancing, either professional dancing, or just ordinary people posting up a vid. If I wanted to use one of those vids, with the music taken out, and not for financial gain - I just want some dancing to accompany a piece of music, would that be an infringement of copyright? in other words, is all stuff on YouTube not freeely available toi us because it is within YouTube?

The images are not your property so you cannot use them - that is both the tort of abuse of copyright and may even be a crime - i.e. theft.

Could you point to a case in court where someone has been successfully prosecuted for theft or one of those tort things, where the victim has not suffered any loss.

If someone puts something on a public platform, and it is not protected by copyright, or there is no explicit statement forbidding use of the picture/video, and there is no loss, then what loss has the 'victim' suffered?

There might be an implicit informal universal agreement between users, that one asks for permission, but you're not exactly stealing someone's knickers off the line. I have a pic on YouTube, I haven't copyrighted it, I have not made clear I do not consent to it being used by someone else, so I cannot see how I could enforce the desire for the pic/video not to be used.

IMagine this, someone has used my pic/video on YouTube and I go to a solicitor. "I want to sue Bladdered Red because he is using my video"

Solicitor "How much do you want to sue them for, what loss have you suffered?"

Me "None"

Solicitor "That'll ne £50 we'll send the bill in the post. Close the door on your way out please"

Maybe there is an infringement of YouTubes Terms of Use and so they do have recourse to contract law.

I have seen loads of cats on YouTube that look identical, doing identical things, but they appear in different videos? How so?

If a video is used in a complimentary manner, and raises interest, that indeed gould be a revenue stream for the video maker, as long as the video is not shown on a nefarious website for nefarious purposes.

After all, how many social media sites, and indeed others feasture a 'share' option where in fact users are encouraged to cast their seed across the firmanent. I suppose if someone did not want their video used they could always put a bag over their head?

Come to think of it, some years ago now, Facebook was taken to court by various media sites, who claimed Facebook (and others) had to pay for content that they (FB) had to pay for those images it purloined. FB claimed it was not a publishing company and as such were not expected to pay copyright etc FB said they were merely a sharing sight where content could be freely copied and shared on an intra-site basis, arguing that was the ethos to share freely and not for gain, as such they were not a publisher. I am not sure how the case ended., WHere the case was a bit more complicated was the fact that FB stood to gain financially specifically down to the content, and of course the media companies claimed they suffered loss as people were viewing the content for free and thus not purchasing the media itself, hence lost sales

[Drew Stephenson]

Copyright exists the moment a creative expression is fixed in a medium. Doesn't matter if you've registered it or not. Unless you've specifically released it to the public domain the it is protected. Registering just affects how easy it is to pursue legal action and how much you can claim.

And that's where your hypothesis falls down. If you've not registered your work then you have to prove actual losses, but if you've registered your work you can claim statutory damages: last time I checked that was $135,000 in the US and £50,000 in the UK.

(Trademark is very different and irrelevant to the discussion)

[Edit] Just to add a general note to say that whilst there are bits of TRBs post that are broadly right one should definitely not take any of it as gospel.

[N i g e l]

... YouTube is stuffed full with people dancing, either professional dancing, or just ordinary people posting up a vid. If I wanted to use one of those vids, with the music taken out, and not for financial gain - I just want some dancing to accompany a piece of music, would that be an infringement of copyright?...

youtube has a ton of stuff marked as royalty free, some of it on a green screen background to make reuse easier. Ts&Cs may apply

[RichardT]

Tony, I'd say not to worry. Write what you like, do a quick Google search for key phrases and if there are no close matches, you're OK.

That's sufficient due diligence for people like us.

[RichardT]

Hmmmmm, I wonder if I'd get sued for writing a song about the 'Jailhouse Clock' - might even end up in jail if I get sued!

"It's Coming Home" could be "It's Combing Home?" or 'Sweet Caroline' could be "Sweet Car of Mine?"

ON a slightly different subject, YouTube is stuffed full with people dancing, either professional dancing, or just ordinary people posting up a vid. If I wanted to use one of those vids, with the music taken out, and not for financial gain - I just want some dancing to accompany a piece of music, would that be an infringement of copyright? in other words, is all stuff on YouTube not freeely available toi us because it is within YouTube?

Question 2, and the ideal situation for myself. I am under the impression that if I submit a photograph of a person, to an AI graphics app, the AI can create a meme (is that the right terminology?) from that photo, and once created as a meme, then of course I can have it dancing

I have seen some examples where someone's face has been 'pasted' onto an existing meme, but the examples I have seen are particularly unconvincing. On the other hand I have read of many examples where AI generated images of celebs/politicians etc and the resulting AI generated character is almost indistinguishable from the real person?

Question 1: don't do it.
Question 2: Only do it with explicit written permission of the person involved, signed and dated.

[The Red Bladder]

Could you point to a case in court where someone has been successfully prosecuted for theft or one of those tort things, where the victim has not suffered any loss.

Try using footage or images owned or represented by Getty Images or Reuters and see what happens! Those two agencies employ large legal teams in every major jurisdiction and give thousands of idiots who abuse copyrights barbed wire enimas every year.

If someone puts something on a public platform, and it is not protected by copyright, or there is no explicit statement forbidding use of the picture/video, and there is no loss, then what loss has the 'victim' suffered?

You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word copyright. There is no "and it is not protected by copyright" and you do not have to explicitly state that you are the owner and are forbidding further use. Copyright exists the very moment a work is first published. Throughout Europe, copyright does not have to be registered - in the US, registration is required for litigation.

Germany goes one step further and gives a single agency - the GEMA - the right to go after infringements and collect fees, regardless of whether the owner of that copyright wants their protection or not. And they don't mess about!

Another common mistake many make is not understand the term 'commercial use' - it does not just mean for pecuniary gain, but includes charity work, publicity, reputational gain and a whole host of other 'benefits in kind'.

On a broader topic - there are hundreds of jurisdictions on Planet Earth, but the agencies only have to cover the main ten or so. There are jurisdictions where there is practically no protection of copyright - and then there are others where the protection is very severe and some types of copyright infringement fall under criminal law.

[OneWorld]

Could you point to a case in court where someone has been successfully prosecuted for theft or one of those tort things, where the victim has not suffered any loss.

Try using footage or images owned or represented by Getty Images or Reuters and see what happens! Those two agencies employ large legal teams in every major jurisdiction and give thousands of idiots who abuse copyrights barbed wire enimas every year.

If someone puts something on a public platform, and it is not protected by copyright, or there is no explicit statement forbidding use of the picture/video, and there is no loss, then what loss has the 'victim' suffered?

You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word copyright. There is no "and it is not protected by copyright" and you do not have to explicitly state that you are the owner and are forbidding further use. Copyright exists the very moment a work is first published. Throughout Europe, copyright does not have to be registered - in the US, registration is required for litigation.

Germany goes one step further and gives a single agency - the GEMA - the right to go after infringements and collect fees, regardless of whether the owner of that copyright wants their protection or not. And they don't mess about!

Another common mistake many make is not understand the term 'commercial use' - it does not just mean for pecuniary gain, but includes charity work, publicity, reputational gain and a whole host of other 'benefits in kind'.

On a broader topic - there are hundreds of jurisdictions on Planet Earth, but the agencies only have to cover the main ten or so. There are jurisdictions where there is practically no protection of copyright - and then there are others where the protection is very severe and some types of copyright infringement fall under criminal law.

I'm not talking about the Getty's of this world, I am talking about an Ordinary Joe and am asking for youto point me in the direction of one single court case where an Ordinary Joe has Taken an Ordinary Jill to court and won a case where Jill took a video off YouTube of Ordinary Joe's Cat doing a Fandango in the bath, and put it on YouTube - understand?

There's a very well understood presumptio in law - Never sue a man of straw. But again I ask you to point me to one case that contradicts my perspective. i am not saying no such case exists, no more tha I am sayng there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, it's just that I haven't seen any yet

Furthermore, there's a chasm between understanding/misunderstanding someone and agreeing/disagreeing with someone, in fact you have to understand a concept before you can form an opinion.

If I had any creative content and I put it into the public doman, the very first thing I would do is register/copyright it, otherwise I would consider myself fair game because of the very fact the whole situation is festooned with ambiguity - that's how lawyers make their money, not out of certainty but uncertainty

Though yes, I do acknowledge that the original creator of a work, no matter how 'insignificant' is the rightful and legal owner of that work

[OneWorld]

I've just recorded a couple of my own songs, I've been on the internet looking for similar lyrics, and can't find any.
However, I'm sure I’ve used a couple of phrases that I’ve heard elsewhere, but a search hasn’t turned up anything.
If I do use these lyrics, is it enough that if just a few words are different I will avoid copyright issues?

These are the lyrics,

"Dragged into the future like a rag doll"

"Waving goodby from a tear stained window"

I want to make sure that these exact lyrics haven’t been used by anyone else, or, am I worrying too much, as phrases that are quite similar can turn up in many songs by different artists.

If you did use those words, and they were already in existence, and you knew that, and you used them in a song, but that song would only ever be sang, say privately, to one person, hence unpublished, would that still mean you would be in breach of copyright?

[OneWorld]

Could you point to a case in court where someone has been successfully prosecuted for theft or one of those tort things, where the victim has not suffered any loss.

Actually, I stand corrected. I have been reading up on this and you are correct, the meaning of copyright is a very narrow definition - a copy is a copy and that's that.

Yes there are some extraordinary exceptions but no matter what, even with the best of intent there is no such thing as an 'innocent infringer'

[Drew Stephenson]

Er, I'm not sure about that. The concept of parallel construction is pretty well established, that's why they have the test for extent and proximity. Led Zep successfully proved that hadn't been influenced by Taurus because they'd never heard it.

[Arpangel]

It gets worse, I recorded a song, a whole song, in which I attempt to sing.
The lyrics sound like something I've heard before, so does the tune, but I cant think of anything.
It's like some invisible force is using me to write this stuff, the only thing that comes close is this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qah0t_maZRo

I'm only using a fraction of the words, plus they are slightly different.

[Arpangel]

One more thing to check out, I took a picture for the album cover using Google Earth, of a landscape, is this OK to use as a cover?

[Sam Spoons]

It's all in here Tony https://about.google/intl/en-GB_ALL/bra ... uidelines/ but I think that the nearest thing is use as cover art for a book which is prohibited.

[Drew Stephenson]

I think it would be covered under the "Consumer & retail goods or packaging (t-shirts, beach towels, shower curtains, mugs, posters, stationery, etc.)" but that's still a 'no' I'm afraid.

Know anyone with a decent drone?

[Arpangel]

Thank's all, damn, a drone? a bit difficult, it's in New Mexico.

[Drew Stephenson]

Just take a picture of some sand and draw some straight lines across it.