Re: pd? or not pd? that is the question.

On Fri, 05 Mar 1999, Derric Oliver <doliver[_at_]jazz.fantasyjazz.com> wrote:
>
> facts:
> 1. copyright registration for song1 (which is music only) is secured
> with the library of congress in 1960 and the copyright renewal is also
> properly registered in the 28th year by the heirs of the songwriter.
>
> 2. copyright registration for song2 (which is music of song1 with
> words added) is secured with the library of congress in 1961; however,
> the song was not renewed.
>
> issue:
> if song2 is recorded and distributed today, are mechanical royalties
> due the copyright claimant of song1 (as though the lyrics never
> existed), or is the entire work--when recorded and published as the
> lyric version--public domain, therefore eliminating any mechanical
> royalty obligation?
>
> (in broader terms, the question i think i'm asking is whether or not a
> derivative work stands alone as a separate copyrightable work? right?)

I think the question as stated shoots past the real issue - what you have in song2 are two separate works (a) the music of song1 and (b) the newly-written lyric. There is no mention whether consent was obtained to add lyrics to song1 but assuming the owners are estopped from objecting due to time, seems to me the owners of the respective parts of song2 get 50% of the royalties unless/until sagreement to the contrary is reached.

I'm not sure song2 is a derrivative work in the legal sense. From the point of copyright - both elements are capable of being copyright and do so regardless of wherther they are combined to make a song-with-words or are commercialised separately (e.g the music and lyrics of Elton John and Bernie Taupin respectively).

CS

"Galvanising Ideas"

Colin Seeger, Consultant, Management of Intellectual Property. P.O Box 3227, Tamarama, Sydney, Australia 2026 Tel: (61) (02) 9365 1186, Fax (61) (02) 9365 1286 <seeger[_at_]ozemail.com.au> Received on Tue Mar 09 1999 - 23:38:38 GMT