Re: Who owns signature guitar licks?

I'm not familiar with the song, so that may be a handicap, but here's my take.

First, Dobie Gray recorded the master; he didn't write the song. So, he is not involved in the copyright ownership dispute over the underlying song. If anything, he would only have a claim to the sound recording. But, that's not your question.

Williams is the writer of the song = the copyright owner of the song. Since I'm not familiar with it, I'm not sure if Williams wrote the words and music (except for the "lick"), or just the words. If he wrote the words and music, then he is the owner of the entire song. Otherwise, owner of just the words.

Young comes along and writes the "lick." If young wrote all of the music, then he would own the copyright in the music, and Williams would own the copyright in the words. Together, perhaps, they would be joint authors of the "song" for copyright purposes. Otherwise, I see no reason why they would not each own 100% of their own creation. However, let's assume that Williams wrote the entire song, and Young ONLY wrote the lick. I don't believe Young has written anything that is independently copyrightable. Again, however, I'm not familiar with how substantial the lick is. If anything, Young's contribution is to Williams' copyright; and Young would have no claim in it. This answer, however, ignores any actual agreement between Young and Williams.

As we all know, there is no set number of notes that makes something copyrightable (Jaws has only two notes, Mary Had a Little Lamb has three notes, etc.). Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that a lick could be copyrightable, particularly in the context of the whole song. But, without hearing the lick, how can I say. You must evaluate the lick in its context - is it sufficiently original enough to warrant copyright protection, or is it public domain. Is the lick the "heart" of the song, or is it just a flash on the radar, and the true heart is the chorus.

To truly analyze this hypo, you have to determine whether the lick is even copyrightable. If not, then it is public domain and neither Gray nor Young have any rights to it. If the lick is copyrightable, then Young would own it, since he wrote it and he was not an employee or a work for hire (no written agreement), and didn't sign an assignment.

As far as whether Gray has the license to use the lick, perhaps in the actual recordings when they are duplicated, but how can you come to the conclusion that Gray has a license to use the lick otherwise? If it is truly copyrightable, how can there be an implied license for Gray to use it, even if Young was hired to record it. If anything, Young may have granted the license in connection with that one recording.

I don't see a license for any other use. But, I'm still not convinced that the lick is copyrightable anyway.

Brock

On 8/28/03 8:00 AM, "Mike Phillips" <copyrightlist[_at_]mikephillips.com> wrote:

> Hypo: Dobie Gray records "Drift Away", which was written by Mentor R.
> Williams. Assume for the sake of discussion (I have no idea what the truth is)
> that Gray never signed an assignment document for the master recording. The
> signature guitar lick in the recording was created (written) by Reggie Young.
> Assume that there was no writing between Gray and Young and that Young was not
> an employee for copyright purposes. Who, for copyright purposes, owns the
> copyright in the lick? Not the he would want to, but what would stop Young
> from playing the same riff on someone else's recording?
>
> My analysis, under this fact pattern, is that Reggie Young owns the copyright
> to his creation, and that Dobie Gray has an unlimited license to use the work,
> since Reggie was hired as a session musician.
>
> Mike Phillips
>
Received on Thu Aug 28 2003 - 22:09:32 GMT