copyright question

[ford442]

i've been pondering the idea of doing some spoken word set to music and i'm VERY new to writing lyrics - i've only done one track with vocals so far..
so just now i thought what about using perhaps some direct quotes of people like Lao Tzu or maybe some old and respected poetry..
would there be any legal issues involved in taking a poem by say Alfred Lord Tennyson and reading the whole thing with musical accompanyment?
i've noticed some commercial goa trance groups get away with using dialog ripped right out of movies like I Robot and Natural Born Killers, but i don't want to have any disagreeable reaction from any distributors...

[duncanparsons]

General rule in most countries is that the author has to have been dead for 75years, then copyright ceases. This can be extended or protected by the estate of the deceased, but this is rare - often it can be good form to let them know if you are going commercial with it, that is if they can be traced.

Tennyson should be fine.

Quotes from films.. They probably did the ripping, then approached the source copyright holders and came to an understanding. It would have to have been declared on a PRS/MCPS (uk) or RIAA/ASCAP/etc (us) or similar document, and royalties would filter back to the copyright holder.

On an album I was on years ago, we used some of the 'Roll out the barrel' melody (still under copyright), and some BBC sound effects. We didn't approach either of the copyright holders, just declared them when we registered the works for our own royalties.

HTH
DSP

[ford442]

alright !
most informative! thank you!
ohh.. now this is funny.. - the charge of the light brigade is by tennyson.. i didn't remember that - heh - in the sixth grade a couple friends and i recited this on stage with swords for a kind of talent show at a local theater.. hehe - at the end we were going to all raise our swords, but i hesitated and was late - everyone laughed.. hehe.. good times..

cool - i see there are mp3s and even shockwave renditions of tennyson..

great.. i think i'm going to do this! thanks again for the help..!

[clueless]

OT @ ford442 - I clinked on your link, but alas, no cats!

[james0tucson]

In the US, a good rule of thumb is, if the author died before 1930 then his work automatically entered the public domain by 1944. However, no works have automatically entered the public domain since WWII because Congress keeps extending the term.

I firmly believe that the end result of this congressional fiasco will be that people eventually stop respecting copyright -- and that they will be indefensible in courts -- because ultimately the people (and the courts) will be forced to recognize that unlimited copyright terms are not in keeping with the spirit and the purpose of copyright.

But I don't expect that to occur for several generations. It's an unfortunate injustice to society that the only cultural artifacts we are permitted to use, are all expected to be taken from a frozen period of history that is already more than three generations past.

I understand the author's point of view, even the dead author, but I think it's also important to realize that the reason copyright works at all, is because it gives society a reason to give authors an incentive to write. If society, in the long run, receives nothing for its end of the bargain, eventually, the deal's off -- whether Congress agrees or not.

[ford442]

OT @ ford442 - I clinked on your link, but alas, no cats!

hehehe.. the plan is working flawlessly..!

but really - i used to sell a cd at the old mp3.com that had a cool cat picture..

here lemme grab the link for my cats.....

Romeo:


and little Budi:

[duncanparsons]

In the US, a good rule of thumb is, if the author died before 1930 then his work automatically entered the public domain by 1944. However, no works have automatically entered the public domain since WWII because Congress keeps extending the term.

I firmly believe that the end result of this congressional fiasco will be that people eventually stop respecting copyright -- and that they will be indefensible in courts -- because ultimately the people (and the courts) will be forced to recognize that unlimited copyright terms are not in keeping with the spirit and the purpose of copyright.

But I don't expect that to occur for several generations. It's an unfortunate injustice to society that the only cultural artifacts we are permitted to use, are all expected to be taken from a frozen period of history that is already more than three generations past.

I understand the author's point of view, even the dead author, but I think it's also important to realize that the reason copyright works at all, is because it gives society a reason to give authors an incentive to write. If society, in the long run, receives nothing for its end of the bargain, eventually, the deal's off -- whether Congress agrees or not.

I forget which founding father it was, but there was a move to have no copyright at all when independence was won. In the end a compromise of 15years was reached. But yes, since the war, there have been the 'Mickey Mouse' laws because Disney wanted to retain controlof their assets, and the 'Sonny Bono' laws against renewing copyright because of fear of losing revenues..

However, some things have benefitted from coming out of copyright - 'It's a Wonderful Life' was a complete flop. It was only after the studio forgot to renew it's copyright in 1971/2 and it came into public domain that it has become a cherished film, as all the networks could show it without having to pay royalties...

Such is life!

DSP

[james0tucson]

I forget which founding father it was, but there was a move to have no copyright at all when independence was won. In the end a compromise of 15years was reached.

If only they'd written it down!

The founding fathers correctly observed that copyright without limits is not distinct from censorship. Copyright had been used by the crown for oppression and censorship, and this was very much on their minds. However they also recognized that, by not providing some level of copyright, progress of knowledge and learning could be stifled.

The stated goal of copyright was not to protect the authors' interests, but instead, to protect the authors' interests as a means to a much more important end: To to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.

But yes, since the war, there have been the 'Mickey Mouse' laws because Disney wanted to retain controlof their assets, and the 'Sonny Bono' laws against renewing copyright because of fear of losing revenues.

If they were patriotic, they would understand that acting on their fears damages society.

As more individuals produce creative works, independent of corporate interests, the balance of the equation will eventually turn ass-on-end. Corporate enterprises will come to realize, to their shock and horror, that the same draconian policies which were meant to protect their interests, *also* prevent them from producing derivitave works based on existing works that are part of the cultural milieu.

They will discover that there was not one law for the ruling class, and another law for the peasants.

However, some things have benefitted from coming out of copyright - 'It's a Wonderful Life' was a complete flop.

Wonderful Life is a good early example of how well the anti-communist movement was already working by 1947. The commies in hollywood weren't affected -- It was nominated for 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Director! But Capra was high on the FBI's blacklist, and significant efforts were made to discredit him as a leftist subversive, and to brand the film as Anti-American. Once the idea was spread that the film was communist propaganda. Remember, the Rebublicans had just taken over both houses of congress, and the very first and foremost item on the national agenda was the anti-communist foreign policy. Next was a 20% tax cut, more restrictive labor laws, strict centralized control of federal agencies, and unification of the armed services. Even these republicans had a liberal side, though: They also eliminated the poll tax and created more federally subsidized education, housing and medical aid.

It was only after the studio forgot to renew it's copyright in 1971/2 and it came into public domain

Note that Tiomkin's musical score did not lapse along with the film.

that it has become a cherished film, as all the networks could show it without having to pay royalties...

Godless commies

[duncanparsons]

how well observed!

DSP