A copy right question

[George Beck]

Hi all

I received an interesting request yesterday. A customer want to engrave a song, specifically a Beatles song) onto a plaque. I usually do not do popular music or lyrics due to copyright issues. However, this customer has translated the song themselves into spanish. My customer feels that this is their translation and thus not copy right issue. I am not sure. Do intellectual property laws extend to translations and other languages?
I spoke to my attorney, who, speaking of course on my behalf, advises not to use anything unless you have a piece of paper granting you permission. She advises to stick with public domain (The Bible, Constitution, quotes, etc.).
An interesting question. What do you think?

btw: It looks really cool in spanish

George

[Mark Ross]

George,

There are plenty of song lyric websites on the internet now. I am not so sure that the song lyrics are a big issue, I think the issue is with taking money to do it. If you were going to publish the lyrics or offer mass quantities of the engraving then it might be an issue. A one off? Hard to say. I think your attorney is correct when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it.

[Gary Hair]

George,
Simply translating to another language doesn't change copyright of anything. If that were the case then I would rename the Ipod to something in another language and start producing them. Mark said
I am not so sure that the song lyrics are a big issue, I think the issue is with taking money to do it and that's got nothing to do with it either. Reproducing something that is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, etc., is against the law, unless you have permission. It's a completely different story as to whether or not you would get caught or not, but it's still not legal. Try reproducing an NFL team graphic and selling it on a commercial during prime time tv - surely you'll get into all kinds of trouble. Do the same thing for personal use, or for a friend, and you are almost certainly not going to get caught. Still, they are both illegal.

Gary

[Robert Walters]

The Copyright Act defines a musical work as any work of music or musical composition with or without words and includes compilations thereof. Lyrics without music are protected by copyright as a literary work.

"A translation is a derivative work, and only the copyright owner can authorize a translation that will be distributed. This envisions a work that is translated into another language and distributed in parts of the world where that language is spoken. Derivative works are infringing if they are not created with the permission of the copyright holder. Thus, a work of fiction or a best-selling biography cannot be translated into French and distributed without the original author's or copyright holder's permission. If the author authorizes a French translation, the author owns the copyright in the translation since it is a work for hire. According to the statute, for a work for hire, the employing party is the author. In fact, the translator's name may not even be revealed in the work."

In the US, anything published before 1929 is usually considered "fair game".

Certain variations of the bible ARE copyright.

When citing a work, use no more than 2% as a rule and you have to pay attention to the "purposes" clause.

Parody is fair use, satire is not. (See 'Garbage Pail Kids' for an exception)

Song lyric websites may in fact be violating copyright if they don't have permission.

Ironically, the "Happy Birthday" song is copyright and tv/movies have to pay a royalty every time it's sung.


I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. Use common sense and good judgment.

[Martin Boekers]

We have discussed copyrights numerous times here.

Basically think of it this way, if you created something, music, design, artwork, photography, whatever
would you like to have approval of who uses it and for what reasons? If you say yes then I think you can use this
as a benchmark when deciding these issues. If you say no you may want to rethink that as someone may use
your art to promote something against your principals or what you believe in.

The only industry that I am aware of that doesn't recognize copyrights is fashion design.

Marty

[Robert Walters]

The only industry that I am aware of that doesn't recognize copyrights is fashion design.

Car body designs too as I understand it, as vehicles are "utilitarian" in nature - go figure.

[Brian Fiore]

Generally there is a copyright issue with reproducing lyrics/poetry, even if it is in spanish, and it dosn't matter if you get paid for it or not.

HOWEVER, you can probably get around this with a "FAIR USE" or other statutory exception exception if the client of yours was to purchase or already owns the CD slip, or something else with the lyrics on it in written form.

So the question now becomes does a Fair Use exception require you to only make a photo copy of the lyrics for say education purposes, or is it ok to make an engraving of the lyrics for educational purposes? Does you client do any spanish tutoring or home schooling?

Please don't take my word for it though, go and look up "Fair Use" exceptions for your own knowledge copyright dot gov, and/or ask your attorney. Make sure your attorney is an IP attorney though, or else they will likely just give you a conservative answer, as they are not familiar with the ins and outs of IP law, unless you pay them to research it for you.

[George Beck]

Well I decided to take the high ground and declined the order. I hate to pass on orders but one never knows. I have run into this before but usually it is pretty cut and dried (like the client who wants an NFL logo). I do use a couple of college logo's which I pay a licensing fee and a 7% percentage to use.

[Mike Null]

I just declined a t-shirt job yesterday because the guy wanted to use the image of a rapper that I had never heard of (that's easy as I never heard of any of them)but anyway his image was bad so I asked where he got it and he pointed me to the site. It was clear that using the image would be infringement.

He came back with another image a friend drew so i didn't lose the order.

[Dee Gallo]

Generally there is a copyright issue with reproducing lyrics/poetry, even if it is in spanish, and it dosn't matter if you get paid for it or not.

HOWEVER, you can probably get around this with a "FAIR USE" or other statutory exception exception if the client of yours was to purchase or already owns the CD slip, or something else with the lyrics on it in written form.

So the question now becomes does a Fair Use exception require you to only make a photo copy of the lyrics for say education purposes, or is it ok to make an engraving of the lyrics for educational purposes? Does you client do any spanish tutoring or home schooling?

Please don't take my word for it though, go and look up "Fair Use" exceptions for your own knowledge copyright dot gov, and/or ask your attorney. Make sure your attorney is an IP attorney though, or else they will likely just give you a conservative answer, as they are not familiar with the ins and outs of IP law, unless you pay them to research it for you.

Brian, I believe the Fair Use education clause refers to using the work in the course of education, such as a student learning to engrave using it for a class assignment which will not be for sale in the future.

This is from the Copyright Law:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code (http://www.copyright.gov/title17)). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:



The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work


The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

[Robert Walters]

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.


We've found that no more than 2% as a whole is usually safe under Fair Use and within context.


Example:

Lets say the Beatles put out 100 songs at 1000 words each:
2% of 1000 words = 20 words.
2% of 100 songs = 2 songs @ 1000 words each = 2000 words.

If you were writing a book titled "The Best Beatles Lyrics", and it just happens to be 10,000 words long and you used 2% (or 2000 words) of The Beatles lyrics in your book:

That makes 5% of your book comprised of copyrighted material and I doubt any judge is going to see in your favor even if you only used 2% of an artists' content.

Now, had you only used 2% (or 200 words) of copyrighted works in your book, that seems reasonable.

It's all in the context of its usage.

[John Barton]

Clothing cannot be copyrighted. Lyrics are copyrighted. However if someone wants to write down the lyrics from a song and then translate them into spanish and then have you engrave that on a plaque I would say that no judge in America or anywhere else in the world is going to bother with it. In essence that is no different than the same person going to Kinkos and making photocopies or laser copies of their translated lyrics.

This is not a case of you doing the work and then advertising commemorative lyric plaques where the "hook" is the fact that you are using the lyrics of famous songs. It's a one-off personal use application with no harm to the owner of the copyright.

For example if I wanted to paint a giant Mickey Mouse on the side of my house then I could do that under Fair Use. If however I were running a day care out of my house then it would be infringement of Disney's copyright.

So I say that in my opinion, which is somewhat ignorant but not entirely, you can do the work without any fear of prosecution nor any moral issues. Now if your customer tries to market that plaque on Ebay as some sort of Beatles product then they will be violating the copyright.

As a general rule any item that is utilitarian is not protected by copyright. You can make a hammer and put it on a pedestal and it's art and protected. The moment you drive a nail with it then it's not protected. The design of utilitarian items can be protected with a design patent. These are usually not applied for as they are difficult to defend because it's easy to change just enough of the design to defeat the patent. Many companies make the mistake of trying to protect mechanical aspects by getting cheaper design patents. This results in failure almost all the time. Utility patents protect the mechanical workings of a thing. Design patents protect the look of the thing (poorly). Both are costly to get and costly to defend.

Intellectual property law is geared towards protecting large corporations and their interests. The little guy need not apply because the facts are that a corporation will run all over you and steal your idea if they want to unless you have some really good legal help which costs a lot. So for that reason if someone asks me to laser engrave Mickey Mouse on their item then I will do it. If they want to run around and advertise for Disney then that only helps Disney. For me it's just another doohickey sold.

[Robert Walters]

Lyrics are copyrighted. However if someone wants to write down the lyrics from a song and then translate them into spanish and then have you engrave that on a plaque I would say that no judge in America or anywhere else in the world is going to bother with it.

That is considered a derivative work, and can get you into trouble.




For example if I wanted to paint a giant Mickey Mouse on the side of my house then I could do that under Fair Use.And you WILL get a cease and decease letter from Disney too.

Disney does not play around when it comes to their copyrights.



Someone made Christmas lawn ornaments of Disney characters for their own personal use and received a letter to remove them. It's primarily to do with PUBLIC display.

Had you painted you newborn's nursery walls with Disney characters in the PRIVACY of your own home, that's another story.




The copyright was about to expire on Mickey Mouse and become public domain.
What did Disney do??? They bought a few Congressmen to extend the copyright term another 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

[Martin Boekers]

In essence that is no different than the same person going to Kinkos and making photocopies or laser copies of their translated lyrics.



You may want to try that and see for yourself. Kinkos wont copy that for you if the tell them it's translated lyrics to a copyrighted song.
You may "sneek" it by them on a "you Pay" copy machine, but they do try to monitor that. They usually have a copyright warning posted.

If you don't believe that about Disney, call them up and ask if they would have an issue painting MM on your house. They could outlast any
one of us finacially if you really would like it to be heard in a court. Disney cares more about branding than whether you make $10 for engraving
that's why they put up the fight. The want to control the perception of MM.

Hmmmmm just another doohickey sold. Good luck, sometimes these things tend to catch up with us.

[Michael Hunter]

btw: It looks really cool in spanish

So what you are really engraving is a reproduction of an original caligraphic artwork.
The point is the beauty of the art : the words, their source and their meaning are a minor consideration.

(Just love muddying the waters)

[Martin Boekers]

So what you are really engraving is a reproduction of an original caligraphic artwork.
The point is the beauty of the art : the words, their source and their meaning are a minor consideration.

(Just love muddying the waters)

Ahhhh then it really doesn't have to be those words then. (The water is not only muddier but deeper too:D)

[John Barton]

You may want to try that and see for yourself. Kinkos wont copy that for you if the tell them it's translated lyrics to a copyrighted song.
You may "sneek" it by them on a "you Pay" copy machine, but they do try to monitor that. They usually have a copyright warning posted.

If you don't believe that about Disney, call them up and ask if they would have an issue painting MM on your house. They could outlast any
one of us finacially if you really would like it to be heard in a court. Disney cares more about branding than whether you make $10 for engraving
that's why they put up the fight. The want to control the perception of MM.

Hmmmmm just another doohickey sold. Good luck, sometimes these things tend to catch up with us.

Well, I will take my chances. I don't have a lot of faith in the law, it's not there to protect everyone equally. I am not going to advertise that I do "Disney" plaques but I am not going to refuse a customer who comes to me and wants a picture of Mickey Mouse on their case.

I lost $120,000 in orders in three days when neither the "law" nor my own industry association would stop the infringement of my trademark. In order to get an injunction I would have had to post a $500,000 bond. That was not possible. And my industry association said they couldn't get involved. BUT when a company showed up with a COPY of the Billiard Rule Book that the association publishes and sells it was pulled from the floor in minutes.

So call me jaded but as long as I feel that am not harming the copyright owner by putting a representation of their work on a piece of leather then that's what I will do on a customer's request.

You won't see me putting up a bunch of logos and advertising that I make "Harley" gear etc....

And before anyone wants to tell me that I'd feel differently if the shoe was on the other foot I have lost over ten million dollars due to knockoffs of my cue case designs (which were not under copyright). I have had to send out my own C&D letters to people who plagiarized my ad copy and to people who miused the images of my cases.

I spent $50,000 defending my trademark only to get a weak agreement from the infringers. I deal with going after infringers who counterfeit our pool cue designs and sell them on Ebay.

So I understand the difference between the intent of the law and the letter of the law. You won't find me making a line of Mickey Mouse pool cues without securing the licensing.

In fact, we bought a portfolio of designs from a prominent tattoo artist and album cover designer to have exclusive use of for pool cues and other billiard supplies. A year after we came out with pool cues with those designs a company here in China stole the designs and did laser engraved versions. So I understand it from both sides.

Here's one I just did:

http://www.jbcases.com/cases/getthecheese/get-the-cheese-c-logo.jpg

Laser engraved and hand colored.

[John Barton]

You may want to try that and see for yourself. Kinkos wont copy that for you if the tell them it's translated lyrics to a copyrighted song.
You may "sneek" it by them on a "you Pay" copy machine, but they do try to monitor that. They usually have a copyright warning posted.

If you don't believe that about Disney, call them up and ask if they would have an issue painting MM on your house. They could outlast any
one of us finacially if you really would like it to be heard in a court. Disney cares more about branding than whether you make $10 for engraving
that's why they put up the fight. The want to control the perception of MM.

Hmmmmm just another doohickey sold. Good luck, sometimes these things tend to catch up with us.

Yes I know, I do a lot of business with Kinkos. They make you sign a form where you state that you have permission to reproduce the work you are asking them to copy. That absolves them of liability because they informed you of the law.

It is not Kinkos responsibility to verify the authenticity of any customer's "permission". They are not even required to inform customers of the law. They do it to have another layer of insulation from being sued as having a signed statement usually stops anyone from naming them as accessories. As you know the clerk at Kinko's is not going to call Coca Cola to find out if I have permission to make copies of their logo. And if I wanted to be fraudulent then I am sure I could produce a credible-enough letter of permission that would pass well enough to get the work done.

I have copied the logos of dozens of companies to include major brands for tournament flyers over the years. It's not that big a deal.