|
Britney Spears - Copyright Infringer or lousy stinkin pirate?
The Associated Press, and I am sure, dozens of news sources are reporting that Britney Spears is being sued for copyright infringement. (It is interesting to note that the major media refrains from calling her a "thief" for some reason.)
Steve Wallace's attorneys filed a complaint May 5 in federal court against Spears, her album promoter, Sony/BMG Music Publishing Inc., and recording and publishing companies affiliated with the singer. Mr. Wallace says he wrote the song "Sometimes" 15 years ago and did not register it then with the copyright office, but instead, relied upon the "poor man's" copyright (mailing the song lyrics and/or recording to himself via U.S. mail and obtaining a post mark.) [To my knowledge, this form of "protection" has never been used in court to sucsessfully back up a claim of copyright, but in "theory" should be sufficient evidence. Someone let me know if the "poor man's copyright" ever has been used --Shmoo]
Wallace also has a copy of what he claims is an e-mail from Spears in which she wrote: "I now know for a fact that you wrote sometimes. But there's nothing I can do about it. That's all I can say about it."
Wallace had shopped the song around to publishers in 1994 and submitted it to a lyric contest in Pennsylvania in 1997.
"The New York guys decided the Indiana local boy didn't have much moxie," said Wallace's attorney, John Ritchison. "It's real difficult to get them to belly up to the bar."
The songs are lyrically nearly identical according to reports.
Spears' camp replied with a one-page document denying the claim.
So far, Wallace's complaint does not specify damages, but there is the $150,000 fine per infringement provided by copyright law. [In this instance, it seems to me that it should be applied. If proven, this looks to be a REAL case of copyright infringement in my eyes ...as opposed to someone sharing a song non-commercially via p2p. --Shmoo.]
In all fairness to Britney Spears, my guess/assumption is that she simply sang the song chosen for her by her producers and perhaps directly should not be held responsible. It is my opinion that her handlers and the record company are most likely the true bad-actors here.
Here is a link to the Yahoo version of this story from the AP.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
medwardl
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 10:41 PM
rats you beat me to it they must have gotten to yours first but iether way im glad to that they get to see how it is on the other side of the lawsuit |
|
compmore
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 11:14 PM
I guess only those unable to pay attorney fees are the pirates and theives |
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 11:19 PM
First, let me preface what I'm about to say by this:
I don't take the devil's advocate side for nothing, but I do defer to CodeWarrior's penchant for deliberately dealing with the very side of an issue that is most likely to deflate one's best argument.
Okay, my thinking goes like this. As much I would like to react with glee over a major label's plight in this tables-are-turned scenario . . .
the actual case appears to be one in which the song was not officially copyrighted. The question might be begged as to how these people can be held responsible to the fullest extent of the copyright law if it can't be proven they knew about it beforehand.
(Mroop might have a pertinent comment on this aspect.)
And, BTW, Spear's e-mail (if verified) came after the fact.
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 11:25 PM
I meant to say:
If the original song was not formally copyrighted and wasn't in any database, how can these people be held responsible to the fullest extent of the copyright law if it can't be demonstrated they should have known about it beforehand?
If I were a defense attorney, this might be my second favorite approach to take in this litigation.
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 11:26 PM
Any work is copyrighted the moment it is set in tangible form (ie, in the case of a song, when first recorded and/or lyrics/notes writen down on paper.)
There is NO requirement to register a work with the copyright office! (...nor should there be...) Registration merely serves as extra "proof" that you claim to have wrote the song or created the work. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 11:29 PM
If you were an attorney defending by using this approach, you would loose (and rightfully so.)
Registration with the copyright office was the best means to lay claim to your copyright (until Creative Commons came along.) but it is NOT the only means. |
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 11:37 PM
"If you were an attorney defending by using this approach, you would lose (and rightfully so.)"
Any caselaw to verify?
Regretfully, I didn't add the part that I was only thinking to myself . . . as a defense attorney in this case, I probably couldn't keep from losing something, but as I contended above, how would a judge or a jury apply the full force of the law if the song wasn't formally copyrighted and almost no one could have known about it.
(I understand how ignorance of a law is no excuse, and I realize what you say about the copyright technically counting even it it wasn't made properly official. I'm mainly saying that it is unlikely a heavy hammer will fall in this case.
I'll be interested to see how things ultimately turn out.
|
|
compmore
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 11:43 PM
schmoo, Just a note, I found the problem. it was an IRQ conflict. I'm back on track though it'll be a couple days later then I expected
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
"full force of the law" = the high end of the penalty spectrum
In many cases defense attorneys pretty much know that they risk losing something, so they prepare strongly on damage control in the event the decision goes against their side. That was my main point.
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 11, 2005 @ 11:50 PM
Understood.
If everything truely is as reported thus far, my guess is that the Spears' camp will settle out of court as they don't seem to have a leg to stand on. |
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:00 AM
I actually hope this case goes to court, because I want to see the scene played out!
If there's no out-of-court settlement, my best guess (like yours) is that the Spears' camp might not avoid being in a technically losing position . . . yet, as I strongly suspect, with only minimum penalty to be envoked.
|
|
raoulduke1
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:03 AM
"the actual case appears to be one in which the song was not officially copyrighted. "
No such concept. All works receive copyright protection immediately upon fixation in a tangible medium. I.e., on tape or on paper. Registration is only a mechanism for evidentiary proof and allows the plaintiff certain extra rights. All he has to do is register it. If he wrote it first and can prove it, i.e. tape in the mail, submission to contest he will win. He may be able to have a preliminary injunction stopping all sales of the record. |
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:04 AM
In answer to the question posed by the article above, they are probably unwitting infringers...but I'd love to see the "poor man's copyright" put to the test.
Of course, an out-of-court settlement would somewhat spoil that prospect.
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:07 AM
"put to the test" = in lieu of possible absence of pertinent caselaw
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:09 AM
"If he wrote it first and can prove it, i.e. tape in the mail, . . . he will win."
This is from legal precedent?
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:13 AM
. . . or from your expectation?
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:16 AM
Hey, who changed my title to this story?
:) |
|
stilltrying
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:20 AM
WELLLLLLL I agree with Schmoo I think they will settle out of court and Steve Wallace will get more money for the song than if the Pirates (ie Spears handlers) would have had to pay him in the first place to use it!!!!!! |
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:27 AM
Let's hope so!
Electric Gypsy only had to pay about $49 to the Harry Fox Agency for the rights to cover Stevie Wonder's "Sir Duke" on our upcomming CD. (That's a blanket fee for runs of less 1000 units or so, I think the going mechanical royalty rate is around 8 cents per copy when you do a large run.)
How many copies of "Sometimes" did the label sell? |
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:27 AM
If that happens, they really can't blame themselves . . . IF what I understand from the story is that the Spears handlers were unaware of Steve Wallace previously having a melody very similar that was only accompanied by what I could call a secretive type of copright affirmation.
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:28 AM
copright = copyright
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:29 AM
lyrics and melody were reportedly identical.
They knew. |
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:37 AM
It said "nearly identical", but if it turns out to be true that "they knew", as you say . . . well, then:
That throws out the biggest part of my argument!
(About how they should be able to avoid getting hit with any kind of heavy hammer.)
BTW, I once did a calculation showing how for a database of about 9 million songs copyrighted, on the average if a person or group creates seven songs at random, the chances are better than 50-50 that one of them will seriously encroach on an already existing song.
When I mentioned it to George, he said he was definitely ready to agree with me on that.
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 12:41 AM
The calculation was primarily based on possible combinations of eight notes with intervals.
|
|
compmore
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 1:37 AM
I'm not a statistician but I can safely guess that the law of averages (statisticly speaking) would be largly against an entire song, with both lyrics and melody nearly identical to another song, to be an accident. parts of it, maybe. |
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 1:40 AM
I agree.
I must have missed the part about the lyrics also being nearly the same.
That would change the landscape dramatically.
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 1:42 AM
I had only seen this quote:
"The songs are lyrically nearly identical, according to reports."
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 1:43 AM
And mistakenly was thinking of 'musically' instead of 'lyrically'.
My bad.
|
|
wet1
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 2:57 AM
"...Wallace had shopped the song around to publishers in 1994 and submitted it to a lyric contest in Pennsylvania in 1997..."
Here is where access to his song was gained. In submitting to publishers there has always been a shady side to it. Many are the legions that have claimed works submitted stolen at a later date, while the submission was turned down at the time. Not only is that a possibility, but the contest. Most of these contests have a sort of rider to them that the submitter is allowing all rights to go to others just for the submission. Either way, both are ways of exposure and most that do rip them off, wait a good period of time to either hope the author has forgot, died, or otherwise won't press a case against a stolen work. |
|
wet1
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 3:02 AM
As has been mentioned before it is most likely that Spears didn't come up with the song on her own. It is also likely she wasn't the thief. I doubt she had the access to the material. Most likely either the majors came to her with the material, a usual industry practice, or a publisher offered without hint of where it came from. This has been done time and again, the artist taking credit for the song. However this time the artist got caught in the act. The other side of this shadow writing is that when they do get caught it is hard to say "I didn't write it", after it is on market with the artists name plastered all over it. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 7:01 AM
"Whoops I did it again" Shall not be considered an affirmative defense in this case.
~CodeWarriorz Thoughts |
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 7:37 AM
"Hit Me Baby, One More Time"
:) |
|
chrisbacke
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 8:46 AM
The case will probably rest on whether or not any rider he signed included giving up any and all rights to the submission, and whether any compensation would win. The question I have is, is it normal for a song to be written and not be published for such a long time? |
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 8:59 AM
You are very astute and most probably
%100 correct chrisbacke.
but as for: "is it normal for a song to be written and not be published for such a long time?"
the answer is YES, it happens all the time. I have DOZENS of unpublished songs writen years ago that I intend to put out eventually. |
|
INeedAlover
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 9:02 AM
"All works receive copyright protection immediately upon fixation in a tangible medium. I.e., on tape or on paper. Registration is only a mechanism for evidentiary proof and allows the plaintiff certain extra rights. "
This is where copyright law needs to be changed. Copyrights shouldn't exist until registered. Retro date to creation could be permitted with proper proof (such as 'poor man's'), but you can't defend your copyright until registration. This way, if you are a creator, you wouldn't risk losing your work and would register it immediately. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 10:00 AM
Hmm,
I think copyright SHOULD exist from the moment it is set in tangible form, but as for the duration of a copyright, it should only begin when first "published", ie, deliberately made available to the public at large via some means by the creator. |
|
raoulduke1
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 10:28 AM
"This is from legal precedent?"
- - YES.
Everything recorded is copyrighted. Registration doesn't mean shit.
The poorman copyright is used all the time in court. It is just a piece of evidence. It's not a copyright. It's evidence. |
|
raoulduke1
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 10:29 AM
He should win over a million in court. It would be $150,000 for every version. The single, the download, the CD, the video etc, etc, Plus, the actual damages would be very high. |
|
raoulduke1
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 10:30 AM
"This is where copyright law needs to be changed. Copyrights shouldn't exist until registered."
That's the way it used to be. |
|
raoulduke1
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 10:30 AM
"This is where copyright law needs to be changed. Copyrights shouldn't exist until registered."
That's the way it used to be. |
|
fatherbrennan
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 1:06 PM
I miss the days when a female vocalist would actually write her own music. This business is so fucked. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 1:12 PM
Andrea Wallace (no relation to Steve that I am aware of) wrote "Stepping Stones" found at Electric Gypsy's Dmusic page
(Blatent self promo, sorry... couldn't resist!)
:) |
|
fatherbrennan
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 1:46 PM
haha, allow be to rephrase my statement. I miss the days when major label artists wrote their own music. Independent female vocalists write their own music all the time, the two are not to be confused with eachother thats for sure. |
|
hawk7771
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 1:54 PM
"My Sweet Lord, Whoops I did it again" |
|
raoulduke1
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 2:32 PM
"My Sweet Lord, Whoops I did it again"
LOL! |
|
INeedAlover
|
Date: May 12, 2005 @ 3:44 PM
"This is where copyright law needs to be changed. Copyrights shouldn't exist until registered."
That's the way it used to be.
Right, and the RIAA changed it via Congress so that it wouldn't have to spend time and $ registering its copyrights. |
|
leflaw
|
Date: May 13, 2005 @ 11:02 AM
I miss the days when female vocalists just sang what the bandleader put in front of her! |
|
falsenorth
|
Date: November 9, 2005 @ 3:57 PM
"Right, and the RIAA changed it via Congress so that it wouldn't have to spend time and $ registering its copyrights."
Sorry I'm getting to this a few months late. But Congress actually made this change in the interest of compliancy with the Berne Convention. |
|
|
Navigation
