Afternoon folks, I know someone here will know the answer to this

Are there copyright implications with quoting a line from someone else’s song?

Totally different melody, but a sentence used in another song. Rest of the lyrics are original.

Reason I’m asking is that my songwriting partner sent me back a demo of a new song we are working on, and one line from her lyric is a line used in another song.

Very easy to change the lyric if needed, but it’s a cool line and would be nice to use it if we can.

Thanks!

Hey Dave, it's hard to say. Length of the line and how common/uncommon the actual words are, play a lot into it.

This may help?

The Law

Many modern artist are doing the same thing, though not sure about the technicalities. They call it sampling.

Sampling has come under much legal scrutiny lately. As with any activity sampling sort of flew under the radar until it reached a high enough level of popularity to be considered successful (feel free to substitute the term money maker for successful). Now many record labels, artists, artist agents and artist estates line up to sue on the grounds of copyright infringement anytime a recording containing non licensed samples even remotely becomes successful. Past recordings containing non licensed samples keep having their day in court over the same issue. There ain't no free ride and few free passes anymore but, if you own the copyright, that's a good thing.

Guys, this has nothing whatsoever to do with sampling! That is not what I was asking about.

Thanks for the link HTL, very helpful We have decided to change the lyric in question.

These are just my personal thoughts, but you could always talk to a lawyer that specializes in the field. Then you'd know for certain, but there are probably some references online as well. I just don't know how true they would be depending on the source.

Dave,

I'm sorry I went off topic.

I was trying to help KennethSennet understand that from a legal standpoint it most likely dosn't matter if you are copying lyrics or audio samples. As the lawyer noted in the link HearToLearn posted it's still copying.

Again, I apologize.

Absolutely no need to apologize Jim, it’s all good

Lyric has already been rewritten, it actually fits the song better than the quote.

Thanks everyone for your input!

Now I have to know what the line was!!!!

If it makes you feel better, I quoted a line from "New York, New York" in that Mr. Jay song and nobody called me out then or now.

I'm glad Blue Attitude has answered his post to his satisfaction. However, I feel this is a topic of interest to many others for exactly the same question. I know The Rolling Stones was sued for a song as also was Led Zeppelin and Ed Sheerhan. I believe these suits were more for riffs or melodies but I'm sure a judge somewhere could apply it to lyrics of any song that was successful. I also know the Marvin Gay Estate is pretty suit happy if they hear anything that resembles any of Marvin Gay music.

From what I could gather, the Ed Sheeran suit was pretty lame. The plaintiffs were trying to argue that the use of a chord progression was infringement. I haven't heard what happened in that suit, but that is draconian. The suit against George Harrison had more merit, but if musical phrases and chord progressions are "copyright-able" then new music is dead.

I think if I had a commercial song with an important passage that was very closely related to another, I'd have my people contact their people and work out something. If my hook was the same lyric as another person's hook and the lyric was "unique" and not everyday speech, then a plaintiff may have a point. If I included somebody else's hook that seemed like a "quotation" then things might be more iffy. Time for people to talk to people. "Hey, my client has a song that pays homage to your client's song "Breaking Wind". We'd like to avoid future issues and are asking your opinion."

Of course, I'd have to talk to my people to see if that was the right advice. And you should talk to your people before you listen to either me or my people.

Carry on.

LOL! The line was "Summertime, and the living is easy" sung with a totally different melody.

Zeppelin was successfully sued by Willie Dixon for a couple of songs, actually settled out of court. In that case it was using his lyrics. In one of the songs, "Bring it on Home", the songwriting credit actually reverted to Dixon. The other song was "Whole Lotta Love".

They were also sued by the estate of Randy Wolf (Randy California) for the chord progression and arpeggios used in Stairway to Heaven, identical to a short section of the instrumental "Taurus" by the band "Spirit", however that was unsuccessful.

Here's a bit about the Ed Sheeran lawsuit. In was in relation to a song by Australian Songwriters.

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/ed-sheeran-hit-with-plagiarism-lawsuit-from-australian-songwriters-20180112-h0h8no.html

Dave,

The line probably would have been OK.

The music was written by George Gershwin who died in 1937 and the lyrics were by DuBose Heyward who died in 1940.

According to Google, the current copyright in the USA is 70 years after the death of the last composer in the case of a joint work (if I understand things correctly). Since 1940 + 70 = 2010, the work is out of copyright. This principle is most likely reflected in trade agreements between other countries.

That said, as Pat Pattison once stated at a seminar I went to too... "Never be afraid to throw out pet lines, there's always something better waiting in the wings that wants to come on stage". I always keep that in mind.

What's interesting about your situation and copyright is that you'd be governed firstly by Canadian laws and Chris's lyrics would be governed by firstly by German laws. I have no idea how that works!

I'm looking forward to hearing the song!

All the best,
Noel

I have a friend that saw four lines of a poem written on a small rock in a gift shop with credit for authorship listed as anon. He used those four lines as lyrics in the second verse of a song. It's obvious the words are from the poem. It's a fairly long poem but the first verse is quite famous and quoted in many different formats. I've always advised to change those lines but he hasn't felt the need to do that.

Is it Plagiarism or Inspiration?


Here is a posting of the poem and how a funeral service instructs a family can adapt and personalize it for use in a specific funeral.

"This is another very popular and flexible poem with words that are easy to adjust, lines can be added or removed, a name could be inserted to make it more personal and all religious references could also be removed if required."


"If tears could build a stairway
and thoughts a memory lane
I'd walk right up to heaven
and bring you home again"

Funeral Helper


But then today, I found this post by Ann Parlett:
Poem Author

Of course there's the story of Lennon and McCartney setting in front of a framed Victorian circus poster from 1843 that John Lennon purchased from an antique store and transformed the poster wording into song lyrics. This authorship of Lennon/McCartney is similar to me to the unknown author of the poem above. (that would be my defense anyway);)


How many songs from the 50's-60's talked of the girl putting on her red dress to party? How many songs say I love you? Every country song today plagiarizes pickup trucks, beer, country girls, acoustic guitars, tractors, guns, riverbanks, country roads, cowboy hats, boots and either George Jones, Merle Haggard or Hank Williams.


This topic actually tracks closely my latest non-published project that will likely go as far as my last 10 or so non-published projects but I think it could generate some interesting conversation. I may start a new thread so as to not disrupt this one.

Ok, then. In the legal sense, that may have been "okay" to use for reasons Noel explained above. But that line is too recognizable to "copy" in a creative sense. The only real setting I personally would see that line being other than "copying" is if it were an obvious reference, or should be perceived as an obvious reference--law or no law. Context is key.

I think you probably did right to change it, and I'm glad the change works better.

Perhaps I'm wrong but...
I think you will only be sued if you make tons of money from a song that has a plagiarism ...
The rest of us will be blocked or be asked to remove the offending song.

Jim is correct. You can only be sued for damages. If you caused no loss of revenue for infringing, or did not otherwise damage the value of copyrighted work, what can they "get" out of you? If you've had no revenue, they'd have a hard time proving you deprived them of revenue by infringement.

Other damages can be claimed against artists and publishers (including this forum, YouTube, SoundCloud, etc.) that are just not worth the hassle. I'd want my legal team to have as little to do as possible.

My greatest financial hope for my music is that some big name act steals enough of my stuff to make suing him a good career move.

Nice plan! Hope it works out for you

Hank Williams Sr. (Have I told you lately that I love you)
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=Hank+Williams+Sr.+%27Have+I+told+you+lately%27#id=0&vid=fd525d538bc8887a4dfc7ecfd8fe1890&action=click


Rod Stewart (Have I told you lately that I love you) https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=Rod+stewart+%27Have+I+told+you+lately%27#id=0&vid=a517cfe4e94abf866c0260dc665a1502&action=click

I think that is different. In that case it is just using a very common expression in two different songs, I say that to my wife all the time.

Yeah I totally agree, no problem if it's a common saying. Also, in some cases of the lawsuits it was proven the lyrics or riffs where actually from earlier songs, so the plantiff couldn't substantiate they had generated the original, so case closed.

covered well....

common vs unique.... and most importantly.... are you making a ton of cash from the use?

Ultimately, it's whoever the jury believes more.

Use it... don't worry, no one will be sending you legal correspondence via their attorney.