Yeah, I know I am going to stir the pot here again. I am a believer that song lyrics should be copyrighted, but, I dont think melodies should be. Take tunes out of the copyright equation and we would have real original music all over the place again on radio. Just my 2 bits and I am sure I am in the minority here. Cliff

Yep would make a very interesting world indeed 1000 songs different lyrics, but same melody.

Think of all the time you would save playing an instrument just know the one melody and when people hear it, they could immediately try to guess what song it is from the 100's with the same melody but different lyrics.

True, but, many songs are that way now, country songs of the 40's and 50's were notorious for that and no one listening seemed to mind, because, the songs became different themes, same tune.

Most songs would not be completely copied even with no copyright, just parts pieced together much like now.

With so few ways for composers to make a living now, you would remove one?

At one time, composers and producers were not nearly as obsessed with copyright as we are now. Heck, orchestral music has places having whole lines copied and thought of as paying tribute -- sometimes twice or three times in a symphony.
A lot of water under the bridge between then and now. I've heard of suits where the plaintiff's case was based on "sounds too much like." The upside of that is most of the songs heard on the radio today, we don't even want to sound like.

And if radio airplay is the goal, that’s one sure way the composers don’t get paid (in the USA, anyway). Someone else is making the money.

Why would the melody be less copyrightable than the lyrics?
I think that musically, the melody is even more important than the lyrics.

Exactly!

What about instrumentals? They should not be copyrighted?

Lyrics without a melody is called a poem isn't it?

I'm struggling to figure out how that would work with someone like (for instance) James Taylor, who writes both. So he would copyright his lyric but not his music?
Sorry, that makes zero sense to me.

This subject shows that inconsistencies abound. Lyrics and music can be copyrighted but chord progressions can not. Terrestrial radio pays no royalties but satellite does (a pittance, but something).

Surely lyrics without music are just poems?

Terrestrial radio absolutely pays royalties to songwriters. That's where the big BMI/ASCAP checks come from.

What they DON'T do is pay the artist/record label a royalty, as is paid in most other countries. That's commonly called a "performance in a sound recording" royalty, and it's a non-starter in DC. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Somehow the O/P's suggestion suggests that a composer can write a melody and anyone can use it freely by just adding their own the words? No. I don't think so. This has happened in the music business before and it has been problematic (think litigation). Even people have innocently used small riffs from children's songs written decades ago, and been sued, years later.

Think 'Down Under', written in 1980. Ten years after the 'Down Under' song was written, someone subsequently purchased the rights to another song, which was composed in 1932.

Twenty-seven years later the connection to a small riff contained in 'Down Under' was discovered in an answer to a question on a musical quiz program, and the songwriters to 'Down Under' were subsequently sued.

The outcome of the litigation actually resulted in a wonderful, talented musician eventually taking his own life.

So it's hard enough for composers to remain independent, because someone will crawl out of the woodwork to get you - given a chance.

Protection for composers is important. Don't give anyone an opportunity to take advantage. I wouldn't go there, ever.

Interesting topic for discussion - I do think the whole copyright thing has gotten a bit out of hand. I've heard of the side-by-sides of cases and fail to hear it. When you start suing over a song's groove and feel...really?

Well.... without going off the deep end.... It doesn't matter what anyone "believes" to be the case.... there are laws that supersede those "beliefs".


The more appropriate question would be ...Do you subscribe to your own beliefs? Do you place your music into the public domain from the very start?


Personally, I don't copyright the songs and cues I write. No one is out there waiting for me to write something and steal it. It is, however, still protected by the copyright laws of the USA.

Well, nothing I have ever written as far as the tune goes is a problem with me for someone else to use. The lyrics a different matter. Most blues songs have pretty much the same tune, that 's why we love to jam them. I feel sure most of my tunes are peices of something I have heard before, nothing brand new. I still think a song should be copyrighted, just not sure the tune should be held as original work.

A "song" is music. Tune, melody - semantics really. As others have said, lyrics without music isn't a song, it's a lyric or a poem.

I do believe that infringement cases have gotten out of hand, and I absolutely do not subscribe to the notion that chord progessions or rhythmic 'feels' should be covered under copyright law, but the melody is absolutely something that should be copyrighted, and infringements on them should be protected.

As for blues, a great deal of it is in the public domain, and is fair game (for good or for bad).

A song is an entity. It's a bit like a marriage in that way. Doubt it?

Listen to an instrumental version of "Yesterday" and tell me it's not an instrumental version of A SONG. The song is "Yesterday". Arrange it differently, reharmonize it, slow it down, speed it up, embellish the melody--it remains "Yesterday".

In addition, print the lyric out, and it is the LYRIC of "Yesterday".

It isn't the lyric, and it isn't the tune that wholly makes the song "Yesterday". It simply IS "Yesterday". And that song is what is protected under copyright, such as it is.

Yes you are right. As soon as you create a new piece of music the copyright is established. Whether you register it or not is up to you. The US Govt. charges way to much for us "normal" people to pay for every piece we create but it does not stop the law from protecting it. Just makes it harder to prove if we had to. Not that anybody is stealing anything I write either.

And a follow on from this is, that has been discussed before on the forums is the misconception that though chords can't be copyrighted, if you create a fake version of the song and call it Yesterday with the unique chords to that song included (but no melody) then if it was to go to court you could well loose the copyright infringement case.

I'm opposed to any form of plagiarism.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Vintage

Which is why the chord only versions in say a Norton Fake Book collection is named "Yesterday, et. al." Which essentially says these are the chords that are found in that song and others. Since we all know chord progressions are used over and over and over in all different songs. The melody and then the lyrics make it the song we recognize as Yesterday. Same as online Jazz instruction, when they rename a standard, yet it is still the same chord progression, then improvise over it without angering the take down gods.

Joe read this thread which appeared on the forum some time ago, especially the eighth post down and see what you make of that.

https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=591161&page=3

Just because someone includes a well known song in a fake disk, without a melody (because they assume that under no circumstances are chords copyrightable) does not mean this always is the case.

Yep The town I love so well, has a great melody to it, maybe if we write a different lyric to it, we could well have a hit on our hands.

Well having read replies and thinking this over, I have changed my mind completely, Lyrics are nothing more than random words thrown together for a rhyme and should never be allowed copyrights!!!. Ha, just joking folks. Yeah, I still think that while yesterday, being used as an example, has it's own flavor, as a tune it would not be copied as is, to make a song, it would never sell, yesterday is too well known, and any song that is so well known would not be something anyone could reproduce exactly in the original tune and sell to the public. So that alone would keep it's autonomy. But, my suggestion still stands.

So who gets to adjudicate which music is "well known" enough to remain immune to being copied? And what about a piece of music that is not "well known" but it clearly unique and different than anything else? See the problem with what you're suggesting? There's no practical way to do it, and I can assure you that there would be 0.0% support for something like this in the music industry, songwriting community, or the Federal government.

Kudos to sticking to your guns on your suggestion, it just happens to be one that has no basis in law and would never happen in a real world scenario.

1:Yes, and 2: (hopefully) Yes.

I think the recent stairway to heaven case is a good example. That chord progression, even the way it was played in that song, has been used numerous times. One could say Led Zep stole it from My Funny Valentine, or any number of other standards that have the exact same progression. The plaintiff in this case said they stole it from them because it sounded like their song. They ended up losing. Rhythm Changes (I Got Rhythm). I could list thousands of examples. Without the melody they are just chord progressions. How many songs have II V I, or I vi ii V progressions? There is a great comedy act band that plays the same progression over and over and sings the different songs that used it. It is funny and true.

I agree there could be a case where a chord progression is so unique, never been used before, that the song is instantly knowable without a melody or lyric, but I just can't think of any right off.

Doesn't matter too much to me anyway as I have said before nobody is clamoring to steal anything of mine!

Who gets to decide?

A jury of your peers, after being persuaded by the judge and attorneys.

To be clear:

There is a colossal difference between a chord progression and a melodic passage.

I can use the C-Am-F-G all day long in writing and not be infringing. On the other hand, if (over the same chord progression) I write a song with the same melody as Buddy Holly's "Everyday", I could (and should) get my butt sued.

Courts have erred, in the opinion of many, in applying too broad of an infringement brushstroke over chord progressions and "feels". Several such cases are under appeal and will probably be overturned (if common sense prevails).

Just a point of clarification to hopefully make apples to apples comparisons and conversations.

This.

I looked into the history a bit. One reason we see royalty getting in on it was because the Kings were the authorities. What was happening in the early days of printing was people would go to great expense to publish a book only to have copycats produce the same thing and pirate it for cheaper. It reached a point where investors were no longer interested. So, really, the original European copyrights were to protect the businessmen and assure a supply of books. The King used his authority for the benefit of the nation.

There is a reason that the laws are written the way they are. It would be impractical to copyright chord progressions. Melodies are unique. With chord progressions there are often many many songs that utilize the exact same chord progression.

As far as legal copywrite protection goes...I like what my old music biz professor said, 'court is not fun".

It is arrogant to think you need to legally copywrite.

No way will it ever come into play unless you are very well known.

And even then...it is still often NOT worth doing because of the legal costs.

The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress and Title 17 of the US Code do not agree with you.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are quite wrong on this. See my previous paragraph.

In February, I may have more to say about this for reasons that will be clear if I decide to weigh in again. I might even explain my last statement.

It's still January, however.