http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/noelcoward3.shtml

...says it all, really.

>:(

Wasn't that nice of them.

How many other parodies will be affected?

Wasn't that nice of them.

How many other parodies will be affected?


so far just that one.  First one in over 15 years of hosting parodies.

8-P

This can't be legally sound, can it?

8-P

This can't be legally sound, can it?


it isn't in the US.  but this was from their UK branch.  Just asking a lawyer is costly and frankly not worth the effort since it's available around the web on other sites as well. If it were the start of a trend, I'd have to reconsider that stance obviously. 

8-P

This can't be legally sound, can it?

There's a tendency in the UK courts to try and assert jurisdiction over pretty much anywhere they can, it seems: moving on from libel tourism, and "Justice" Eady's opinion that if you can read something from the UK, it's subject to UK law wherever it happens to be hosted.  Personally, I think that's bullsheesh, but like Chucky I have neither the time nor the money to fight it.

..on the bright side, there is talk (in that there was a report for the previous government and has just been another one for the current one) of a change in the law to allow the same sort of "fair use" for parodies here as you have in the US.  That change goes through, and I'm starting a new career...

There's a tendency in the UK courts to try and assert jurisdiction over pretty much anywhere they can, it seems: moving on from libel tourism, and "Justice" Eady's opinion that if you can read something from the UK, it's subject to UK law wherever it happens to be hosted.  Personally, I think that's bullsheesh, but like Chucky I have neither the time nor the money to fight it.

..on the bright side, there is talk (in that there was a report for the previous government and has just been another one for the current one) of a change in the law to allow the same sort of "fair use" for parodies here as you have in the US.  That change goes through, and I'm starting a new career...


Good luck Phil, I will seriously root for such as this is a great injustice to criticism, free speech, and everything that democracies stand for. . .

That is alot crap. C/Ds like that shouldn't be allowed if it's on a site from outside the country.

That is alot crap. C/Ds like that shouldn't be allowed if it's on a site from outside the country.

The internet makes a mockery of a lot of intellectual property law - I don't believe this could be made to stick, but it would take money & time to find out.

PS...

Don't let's be beasts to Warner Chappell
Though we may think they are basically scum
It was just those loony lawyers who persuaded them to sue
And if Fred Goodwin and Giggs can do it,
They think they can, too
Let's not rave at them
Or swear and be depraved at them
With screams and shouts and yells and cries and grunts
Let's not let them get pissed at us
Wave their "Cease and Desist" at us
No, don't let's be beastly to those..


If they must sue
And all that will ensue
We would far, FAR rather do what's right
They obviously know
We cave to legal bullying
Face it, it ain't worth our while to fight

We must be meek
And turn the other cheek
Try not to show our pique
We mustn't, no
Let feelings show
So they might know our anger
And they might dislike or hate us
Though we may think that they're a bunch of masturbators

Don't let's be beasts to Warner Chappell
Though we may abhor
Their legalistic stunts
Though the "Copyright infringement" has "fair use" in the U.S.
They sent us through a printed, scanned and emailed PDF

Let's not swear at them
Make out that we don't care at them,
If they're not the kind one legally confronts
They may not like our parody
And have sweet fudge all charity
But don't let's be beastly to those..


Don't let's be beasts to Warner Chappell
However tempting are some legal stunts
Though they've now ordered a takedown
On the one that I liked best
It seems to me quite strange that they've
Forgotten all the rest

Let's concede to them
And offer a cup of tea to them
And maybe a drag on some thick well-rolled blunts
Let's not take them to task and do
Just what those bastards ask us to
But don't let's be beastly to those ...

The internet makes a mockery of a lot of intellectual property law - I don't believe this could be made to stick, but it would take money & time to find out.


Kinda sucks that money is the only way in cases like these. Especially since no one's making any money on these written parody submissions(at least as far as I know).

Holy Crap!  >:(

I did a little internet research, Warner Chappell has a history of going after content that is controversial.  Particularly Religious controversy.  I won't bother posting the examples since they are abundant from a Google search on Warner Cease and Desist, but its definitely a censorship thing.  If they ever expand their target radius they will likely cause more of an uproar at which point maybe something will be done to combat them, at the moment since neither Chucky or Phil have the ability to fight it I guess we just sit and hope this keeps them at bay. . .This is why people hate the music industry, this is why they are suffering--they have become far more oppressive than the government and they go after their own customers even in cases where the customers aren't stealing or illegally sharing the music in question, clearly Phil's posting of a parody lyric set would not constitute stealing or sharing since it in no way could serve as a substitute for the original song (which is 7 decades old this year, just 3 decades shy of a century).

Eventually a campaign will probably have to be started against abuses of copyright law by the music industry.

When they came after people making software that allowed illegal sharing, I said "that sucks"

When they went for those who illegally shared music, I said "that's a bit much"

When they went after those who downloaded the files, I said "this is getting kinda old"

When they went after those who posted lyrical interpretations and guitar licks, I said "This is bull $#it"

Now they have been known to go after critics, parodists, YouTube covers, and the like which have no possibility of spreading the original illegally in their nature and now I finally have had enough.  I don't know what to do about it at the moment, except maybe raise an awareness campaign. . .we shall see. . .but it can't be allowed to sit here until they go even further.  Saying "our artists' music must be legally purchased" is one thing, but to say "once you own it, you can't enjoy it in the ways you want" is too much.  

I was thinking the same thing Dave, that it isnt the infringement that is the issue, but the content. Oh, how dare Philbo besmirch the good name of Sir Noel Coward! ::)

I did a little internet research, Warner Chappell has a history of going after content that is controversial.  Particularly Religious controversy.
So their "we were contacted by the estate of Noel Coward" statement is likely to be a trifle disingenuous.. I think in that case it might be amusing to post the above parody, and see if they go for that, too (possibly posting it as a parody to something else, if you see what I mean, so it doesn't hit the search engines as a Coward parody.  Anyway, thanks for doing that research, Dave - I rather suspected it was the content rather than the source material that caused the reaction.


Oh, how dare Philbo besmirch the good name of Sir Noel Coward! ::)

I've had a few people say that they thought he'd have approved of that one :)

There was an extensive discussion of "Fair Use", plagiarism, copyright infringement (those are two different issues), etc. a few years ago:

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=632.0

I had several comments in that thread, the most complete being this one.

I can't help but copy Spaff.com's reply - please forgive me:

What Tommy Turtle said.

Thank you, Tommy. You said everything I was thinking. Plus more. Plus better. Plus you actually said it.

xoxox
Spaff

Phil, I haven't seen the parody in question, but so long as you made substantial and significant changes to the OS lyrics and/or their meaning , parody has long been recognized by US courts as "fair use". Else how would WAY still be in business? Stick to your guns... ChuckyG, too. It's a scare tactic; they won't waste the money on a suit; and to win, they'd have to show that you damaged the value of the original, or falsely claimed TOS as your own. George Harrison *lost* when The Chiffons' producer sued for stealing the melody of "He's So Fine" for "My Sweet Lord'. At TT's suggestion, Red Ant parodied that case. His parody has a link to the story of the case itself.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Personal opinion only, no guarantees, I do not accept liability for results. For legal advice, consult an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in question, and who is experienced in this area of the law.

"Changing the meaning without changing (most) of the lyrics": Like this:

"But the man there said the music wouldn't play" -- OS
"But the man there said the ewe's sick; wouldn't play" - parody.

Only a single sound was changed in the whole line - the "m" sound was dropped from "music". But somehow, I can't see anybody mistaking the parody line as being Don McLean's original work.  8)