Copyright is odd, if I make a hammer then the person who buys it can hammer away making things they can sell for profit, modify the hammer, make another similar one or give it away or rent it out without any restriction. But I might have patent on the design and I might have copyright on the logo.
If I make a film of me making the hammer then copyright applies and even if they buy the film from me they can’t do with it what they want and probably have to pay me more to show it.
What I’m saying is that I think we need to rethink and simplify copyright. It’s simply not right that children couldnt (up to 2015) sing Happy Birthday at a party without paying the rights holder for the tune.
That statement isn’t true, copyright doesn’t work that way.
However, someone was trying to claim they owned the copyright to that song and finally in 2015 someone refused to settle with them when they sued. They went through the full court battle and the courts decided that person did not own the copyright to that song.
I don’t remember enough of the details of their claim to explain their reasoning, but the claim was good enough (and court battles are expensive enough) that everyone would just settle.
Anyway, copyright doesn’t work that way, you can sing any damn song you want.
However, someone was trying to claim they owned the copyright to that song
Whoa, that’s insane to me as a non-American. I mean, the song is even sung all around the world in different languages. Did they claim the rights to the melody, lyrics, or… 😭?
What they attempted to claim was rights to it being performed on television (and similar). If I’m sitting at home, I can sing whatever song I want. I can sing the entirety of Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen and no one would care (except maybe my roommates and neighbors). It becomes an issue of copyright when someone tries to then use that creative work, whether that include lyrics or melody (often called the composition) or any part of the recording (called the master). The composition and the master could be owned by the same person/group, or it could not. It depends on the contract set up for the song.
Note: Obligatory IANAL, I’m just an independent musician who at least vaguely needs to know about this stuff for my creative work.
Copyright is odd, if I make a hammer then the person who buys it can hammer away making things they can sell for profit, modify the hammer, make another similar one or give it away or rent it out without any restriction. But I might have patent on the design and I might have copyright on the logo.
If I make a film of me making the hammer then copyright applies and even if they buy the film from me they can’t do with it what they want and probably have to pay me more to show it.
What I’m saying is that I think we need to rethink and simplify copyright. It’s simply not right that children couldnt (up to 2015) sing Happy Birthday at a party without paying the rights holder for the tune.
what ??!?
That statement isn’t true, copyright doesn’t work that way.
However, someone was trying to claim they owned the copyright to that song and finally in 2015 someone refused to settle with them when they sued. They went through the full court battle and the courts decided that person did not own the copyright to that song.
I don’t remember enough of the details of their claim to explain their reasoning, but the claim was good enough (and court battles are expensive enough) that everyone would just settle.
Anyway, copyright doesn’t work that way, you can sing any damn song you want.
Thanks for explaining.
Whoa, that’s insane to me as a non-American. I mean, the song is even sung all around the world in different languages. Did they claim the rights to the melody, lyrics, or… 😭?
What they attempted to claim was rights to it being performed on television (and similar). If I’m sitting at home, I can sing whatever song I want. I can sing the entirety of Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen and no one would care (except maybe my roommates and neighbors). It becomes an issue of copyright when someone tries to then use that creative work, whether that include lyrics or melody (often called the composition) or any part of the recording (called the master). The composition and the master could be owned by the same person/group, or it could not. It depends on the contract set up for the song.
Note: Obligatory IANAL, I’m just an independent musician who at least vaguely needs to know about this stuff for my creative work.
Yeah, I think if that wasn’t the case, we’d have bigger issues to discuss in this thread.
Thanks for the insight though. Really interesting to learn as someone who consumes and enjoys tons of music.