Re: [Harp-L] Plagairism
just checkin in on this issue, since it has affected me directly, not to get all windy but someone close to me just got thrown out of school for using his memory too accurately and ended up in honor court and lost a semester and lots of pride on something he translated from latin in high school,........ watch out what becomes common like wistlin dixie.... so what if he just didn't make sure it wasn't word for word or footnoted,......... man if i can play a real copy of walter jacobs, then i'm smokin and that's the good life, lets leave the dream police to the people who know nothing of creativity and have some fun, loosen up your belt the gut is hangin at least a few inches over the belt and your harp is sounded limp...haaa grin and bear it joe g and i'm still harpin
Bob Laughlin <rlaughlin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The material in this
post is offered for entertainment purposes only."
That's an escape clause I stipulate in every one of my posts,,or should,,
I know nothinnnggg,,,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Joyce"
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 3:59 PM
Subject: [Harp-L] Plagairism
> I am an attorney who has done some copyright work, so I look at the issue
> little differently than an artist might.
> Whether the soloist on a recording is entitled to copyright protection
> depends on how he/she is hired for the recording session. If he/she is
> under a "work for hire" contract then there is no copyright protection
> available, so long as he/she gets paid. Most session work is done in this
> (Although, I have heard that in Nashville if another artist even walks
> the studio while you are recording then songwriting credit is
> shared on that song. I can't confirm this, but my friends who have been in
> the industry for the last two decades shared that with me.)
> I mention the pay issue because last year the great soul singer Betty
> was sampled on a Christine Aguillera song, and she sought royalties or a
> licensing fee. The producer of the original recording, I believe it was
> Touissant (sp?) claimed she had dome the recording as a work for hire. Ms.
> Harris countered that she was never paid under the contract, so the court
> set aside the work for hire status and ruled that she still held the
> As I understand it, Aguilerra's camp at that point offered her $100,000
> the sampling. Rumor is that as of yet she has not been paid.
> To actually prosecute for a copyright violation under the current statute
> you need to have registered the material with the copyright office before
> filing suit. The artist still has a "copy right" but in order to get into
> the courthouse you need to register.
> To collect your royalties you need to join a songwriters guild/union like
> ASCAP or BMI.
> Back to our soloist. If there is not a work for hire agreement in place
> under which the artists received compensation (or consideration,in
> legalese), the question of copyright remains open. Under the old
> paradigm/thinking before the current uncertainty hit the music industry,
> accepted wisdom was that the money in music was in the copyright through
> royalties it generated and the licensing fees that are generated when the
> work is used in other media. That was why the major labels required their
> artists to share the royalties with the label under a songwriting
> usually the best an artist could get was 50% of the royalties generated.
> As Winslow pointed out, the most common solution is to share songwriting
> credit, and the copyright that goes with it if the soloist will not
> under a work for hire contract.
> Bear in mind that any recording hypothetically creates 3 copyrights.
> One for the songwriter, one for the producer/recording studio in the
> recording itself, called the mechanical right, (usually the subject of a
> licensing fee) and performance copyrights for any musicians or singers
> performed on the recording and has not signed a work for hire agreement.
> mechanical licensing fees are distributed through the Harry Fox Agency in
> NYC, if I recall correctly.
> I'm curious why the original poster mentioned plagiarism, as I thought
> term only applied to written works, not performances.
> Perhaps if the soloist was not under a work for hire agreement and wrote a
> transcription then filed it with the copyright office he could prosecute
> violation, but that is a hypothetical I haven't thought about much or
> If you are interested in reading on the topic I recommend Koch on Music
> Licensing. You can find it in any good law library or buy it. There is a
> that comes with the book that contains all of the contract forms used by
> music industry. You can buy these (although maybe not the exact same
> contracts) in a number of places online, but Koch's work is the bible for
> lawyers working in the field.
> The copyright website offers guidance on which forms to use to register
> work and what you need to include with your filing.
> Sorry for the following disclaimer, but I'd be an idiot not to include
> all that I have written.
> This post is not legal advice and is written without research and may
> contain errors. It is not to be relied upon for making decisions in your
> artistic endeavors and the legal consequences thereof. If you have a
> copyright issue or are contemplating filing for copyright protection, you
> need to contact an attorney licensed in your state. The material in this
> post is offered for entertainment purposes only.
> Don't miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from
> Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.12/878 - Release Date: 6/28/2007
Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and