mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
by - June 4, 2008 - 9:02 AM
A copyright is supposed to protect a creator’s intellectual property and ensure that the copyright holder’s work isn’t nefariously misappropriated. However, they don’t always work so well; just ask anyone who has fond memories of Napster circa 2000. Not all copyright battles are Metallica-initiated, though. Take, for example, these three instances of infringement.
Those Freeloading Girl Scouts
When you own the copyright for a song or other original work, you don’t just have the exclusive right to record it and create other tangible reproductions. You also own the sole rights to broadcast or perform the song in public. Technically, then, any band or group performing a cover version of one of your songs owes you royalties, as does any hold music an office might play over its phones, which counts as a broadcast.
Since it would be logistically impossible for each band or composer to collect its own royalties from these performances, intermediaries known as performance rights organizations exist. These organizations, the largest two of which in the U.S. are the non-profits BMI and ASCAP, manage huge portfolios of songs, collect royalties from music venues, bars, restaurants, and other places live covers or recorded music are played, and then reimburse the copyright holders.
This system’s interesting, to be sure, but what does it have to do with the Girl Scouts? In 1995, ASCAP decided that summer camps were getting away with publicly performing copyrighted campfire songs without paying any licensing royalties. From a legal standpoint, ASCAP was within its rights, but its request that even large non-profit camp directors pay annual fees of as much as $1400 or face six-figure fines or a year in prison didn’t sit well with the public. Girl Scout camps were hit particularly hard, and TV reports and a major story in the Wall Street Journal recounted tales of young lasses having to learn the Macarena in silence.
Public opinion swayed against ASCAP as further tales recounted birthdays passing with no singing of “Happy Birthday” lest a camp director be forced to spend hard time, and the copyright holders eventually relented. ASCAP now charges the Girl Scouts $1 a year to license its portfolio, a symbolic compromise that reasserts the group’s ability to demand these kind of fees.
Apple Gets Less Creative
In June 2007, the beloved Apple Computers had a copyright tiff of its own. Photographer Louis Psihoyos claimed that the tech giant, which has been praised for its creative and clever advertising, ripped off his image of a wall of video screens in a spot for Apple TV. The two images were uncomfortably similar: Psihoyos’ depicted a seated figure surrounded by a wall of videos, whereas Apple’s was pretty much the same save that it didn’t include the figure. Worse still for Apple, Psihoyos’ lawyer claimed that Apple had been in negotiations to license the image, then reneged on the potential deal and used the image anyway.
Psihoyos filed suit against Apple in U.S. District Court, but in December he reversed field and withdrew the action. However, the suit was dropped with prejudice, meaning that the artist could still receive a settlement.
When Chuck Berry Became a Beach Boy
If you think wholesale pilfering of songs began when Vanilla Ice swiped the bass line from David Bowie and Queen’s song “Under Pressure” for “Ice, Ice Baby,” think again. Far more revered artists have given in to the temptation to lift more than a chord or two. Take, for instance, the Beach Boys’ classic anthem “Surfin’ USA.” The 1963 hit single listed Beach Boy Brian Wilson as the sole composer of the track, but the melody was a complete replication of Chuck Berry’s “Sweet Little Sixteen.” You can judge for yourself:
When Chuck Berry accused Brian Wilson of bogarting his melody, the Beach Boys’ manager, Wilson’s father Murray, gave Berry the copyright to the tune. He didn’t tell the members of the band, however, who supposedly only learned 25 years later that they weren’t getting royalties from this song and that Berry now receives credit for writing it. Berry, for his part, supposedly enjoyed “Surfin’ USA.”
Ethan Trex grew up idolizing Vince Coleman, and he kind of still does. Ethan co-writes Straight Cash, Homey, the Internet’s undisputed top source for pictures of people in Ryan Leaf jerseys.
Comments (8)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
That girl scout reference is so funny. These folks gotta come up with some way to duke out these copyright things without looking so much like money grubbers. For whatever reason, it because hard to respect with that reputation.
I’d move to independent as much as possible for that reason alone. I wrote a quick recommendation of the eMusic service, which seems to get the point.
posted by Jake on 6-4-2008 at 12:28 pm
I’m a musician, so I totally respect an artist’s right to try to protect their music, but there’s a point where it’s absolutely ridiculous. Organizations like ASCAP and the RIAA are going too far too often these days. Some of their actions in recent years aren’t in line with what artists register with organizations like ASCAP for. Artists use ASCAP to keep people from profiting off of their music without giving them their fair share, not so that ASCAP can levee fees and strong-arm organizations, venues, and individuals. Sure, if another band covers my song and puts it on their album and makes money off of it, I want a cut. If a night club makes it’s money off of having music to dance to (by cover bands or by dj or a PA), okay, they should have to pay the artists. But if the music is just incidental like business’s telephone music, or overhead background music in stores or restaurants, not a vital part of what the business does that makes it money, the majority of musicians don’t want anyone to pay for that. Most certainly, I don’t know a single musician that would commend ASCAP for protecting them against infringement from the Girl Scouts. Those huge “artists” organizations have completely lost touch with intentions of the musicians they say they are protecting.
posted by Melissa on 6-4-2008 at 4:21 pm
Saying a group of people can’t sing a copyrighted song in public without paying a fee, like around a campfire, or singalong at a party, is like Golden Press sueing a church or family reunion for serving a meal using one of their copyrighted recipes from Betty Crocker’s cookbook. It’s just silly.
posted by Pam on 6-4-2008 at 5:58 pm
There is another music Copywrite company worth note. CCLI handles licensing for all those lovely songs we sing in churches. not the Hymns but if you have ever sang a chorus you probably owe them money unless you have a CCLI licence. I handle the license for my church so every couple of years I get to take part in a report cycle. That means for 3 months I have to keep track of every song we sing, how many times we sing it, and how many copies of music and lyrics are printed, are overheads used, was the service recorded and was any part of the song changed in any way. Oh and every time we print something we have to place our account number on it to make it legal.
Think about this the next time you sing This Little Light of Mine. GRIN
posted by Patrick B on 6-4-2008 at 6:04 pm
Dont forget about George Harrison’s mishap over “my sweet lord” sounding curiously like “he’s so fine” apparently he wouldnt listen to the radio after he was found guilty of incidental infringement.
posted by WarTiger on 6-5-2008 at 4:48 pm
Be sure to thank a greedy, dirt bag lawyer for this stupidity. Paying a royalty for singing campfire songs? What next? Sue Mother Nature on behalf of water utilities for taking away their lawn watering business??
Lawyers are idiots and serve no purpose.
posted by June Yer on 6-5-2008 at 9:51 pm
Phuck Lawyers!
posted by Larson on 6-5-2008 at 9:53 pm
This is a trademark issue, not copyright, but the Girl Scout thing reminded me – don’t forget Johnson & Johnson’s recent ill-conceived lawsuit against the American Red Cross concerning … the red cross. Johnson & Johnson has actually held the trademark to the red cross logo for years and has had a sort of gentleman’s agreement with the Red Cross allowing them to use it, since they’re a nonprofit, but J&J drew the line at the Red Cross licensing it for use on first aid kits and things like that that weren’t benefiting the nonprofit directly. Theoretically, J&J’s reasoning is not all that unsound, but the PR disaster that’s resulted from suing a charity has not been good for the company’s image.
posted by Rachael on 6-8-2008 at 7:12 pm