Copyright Questions Answered

I'll start off by saying that I'm not a lawyer, but as a member of the broadcast industry I have studied copyright law and how it pertains to music in particular.

I'll start off by describing the law, then work through how it applies to LOTRO and you in a practical sense. You can then decide for yourself what level of copyright infringement you are comfortable with.

If you have any corrections to make, let me know and please cite sources.

Copyright Law in the US: The Basics

Copyright law protects the creator of, well, creative works. When it began it covered only specific kinds of works such as literature, but it has been expanded in the years that followed to include nearly everything. Copyright law protects authors with the following:

-The right to reproduce the work (such as burning a CD)
-The right to derivative works (such as a remix of a song)
-The right to distribute the work (such as selling or giving away)
-The right to publicly perform the work (such as a concert or streetcorner)
-The right to publicly display the work (same as performing, but with pieces such as paintings)

Ah, you may have noticed the big one. "Publicly Perform." You might think that performing copyrighted works is okay, so long as you don't make any money doing it. This is not so. By performing for free, you devalue the work. Simply put, the original author can't make any money performing if other people perform the same work for free.

A lot hinges on whether it could be proven that playing something in LOTRO is a public performance, something that in the real world is usually dependent on the number of people listening.

It could also be argued that by posting ABC files on the internet, you are illegally distributing the work, or at the very least derivative works.

Fair Use

You may have noticed things like small .mp3 samples on websites that sell music, or excerpts of articles quoted in books or websites.

"Fair use" is an exception to copyright law meaning that anyone can reproduce small portions of copyrighted works. Though not always required, it is helpful if you attribute the work when you do so. "Attribution" is a fancy word meaning you cite the original author as the creator of the work.

Parodies are also protected by Fair Use. The Supreme Court defines a parody as "the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works."

What is copyrighted?

Everything, as soon as it is published, whether it be posted on the internet, published in a magazine, played on the radio, whatever.

The author does not need to apply for a copyright if they published it after 1978, though doing so helps prove their case in court if the work is stolen. If published prior to 1978, they do need to have filed the copyright with the US Copyright Office.

A "poor man's copyright" that is used by some authors is to seal a copy of your work and send it to yourself via registered mail, which is timestamped and considered admissable in court. Obviously, you don't open the package until you're in a courtroom.

Public Domain

The "Public Domain" is where works go when they are no longer under copyright. Public Domain works can be used freely by anyone.

-Works published in the US prior to 1978 remain copyrighted for 95 years from the date of publication.
-Works published in the US after 1978 remain copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author.
-Works of US corporate authorship published after 1978 remain copyrighted for 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter.

There are a few other rules, but this is enough to give a general idea. If you have a specific question and you don't think it's covered here, the US Copyright Office can help you.

Fun fact: The Copyright Act of 1976 (which took effect in 1978, obviously) originally protected works for 50 years after the death of the author. In 1998, Disney successfully lobbied Congress to extend it by 20 years, as Mickey Mouse was about to slip into the public domain.

Fun Fact #2: The song "Happy Birthday to You" is copyrighted and will remain so until the year 2030. This is why it is not sung at restaurants such as TGI Fridays, and they instead sing some other birthday-themed song.

The LOTRO EULA (End User License Agreement)

Now, with all these laws protecting the author of works, any idiot can assume that Turbine did some covering of their own. They did:

"...Content created by you must not: (a) infringe any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, or other proprietary right of any person or entity;..."

So not only are they (in theory) protected, they could even suspend or ban you for inputting copyrighted material to protect themselves. Not that they need the excuse, as they can ban you for any or no reason at any time. Until it starts happening however, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

So wait, I can't play any copyrighted works?

Technically speaking, no. Are you likely to be sued for it? Basically, not a chance in hell. (though I assume no responsibility if you are, *cough* *cough*)

Remember the case where Marvel sued NCSoft over City of Heroes? The lawsuit stated that NCSoft was responsible for the copyright infringement being perpetrated by the players. You see, players were using the robust hero creation system to recreate approximations of copyrighted characters.

The point is, Marvel didn't sue each player. It would have been a waste of time. They sued NCSoft, and settled out of court. The conditions weren't released, but it is presumed that NCSoft paid Marvel some money to make the problem go away quietly, though chances are good the lawsuit would have been defeated (details).

It isn't too much of a stretch for the RIAA, ASCAP, or BMI to try to sue Turbine, but that's between them. And there probably isn't much of a case.

On the other hand, the RIAA is a bloodthirsty animal when it comes to illegal music downloading. That sort of thing is a lot easier to prove than what songs you play in LOTRO, however. They would have to know when you did it and your account name, and lean on Turbine to release the logs.

Posting copyrighted material on the forums, however, is easy to prove (if Turbine cooperates). Not all ISP's have rolled over for the RIAA and given them their logs, whether Turbine would do the same is unknown.

Would-be composers: Who owns the work you create on LOTRO?

Here's another section from the EULA:

"...If and to the extent you are deemed to have retained, under applicable law, any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Content, you hereby transfer, grant, convey, assign and relinquish solely and exclusively to Turbine, in perpetuity to the extent permitted by applicable laws or for the duration of the legal protection afforded to the Content...To the extent permitted under applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any and all Content..."

(emphasis mine)

This is where it gets muddy. It sounds like Turbine would like to claim whatever rights to your work that they can, but precedent in these types of cases is limited. To be safe, I would advise against playing anything in LOTRO that you plan to copyright and sell. You do retain certain rights no matter what the EULA says, but it's best to avoid a battle.

To clarify what the EULA means by "the Content," I'll make another quote from earlier in the same section:

"As part of your Game experience, you may be able to input language and upload content to the Game, our servers and similar areas which allow you to communicate with others in various forms, such as in the selections you make for playing the Game (for example, character names, in-game (text or voice) conversations, broadcast announcements, etc.) and in chat channels (text or voice), and to create and modify your user interface, characters, character names, game play and the like (collectively, the "Content")"

(again, emphasis mine)

So we can see by "Content," they in fact mean what the player inputs and creates. Though it doesn't specifically say player music, it could fall under "game play."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PugPug

This is where it gets muddy. It sounds like Turbine would like to claim whatever rights to your work that they can, but precedent in these types of cases is limited. To be safe, I would advise against playing anything in LOTRO that you plan to copyright and sell. You do retain certain rights no matter what the EULA says, but it's best to avoid a battle.

---

This typically applies to character images, as created in-game using game mechanics.

It'd be a real stretch to lay claim to any music posted on the boards, or played in-game, or so I'd think.

Great Post!

Having to deal with copyright issues in everything, it was nice to get a narrowed down/dumbed down version of the legal issues. Very informative!

Thanks!

I work in the music industry, (under contract with a major label) and pretty savvy in copyright of music. (registering works, optaining a UPC, ISRC, etc...) All my efforts to inform the uniformed were brushed aside.

I, at least, appreicate all the time and effort you put into this post... however, don't be disheartened when it is ignored, someone tries to find a loophole, discredit you or you're called a fear monger. ;)

Nice post PugPug.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that you cannot have a transfer of IP without a signed document. I read the EULA once, and I am doubtful that Turbine could claim ownership of any IP created by anyone in game, or brought into game, as you have not signed. They try to skirt it with an agreement to sign, but I'm doubtful that would work.

Take a look at the famous dispute between the B-hole surfers and Touch 'n' Go for more on that issue.

ps Nice post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pellegro

I may be mistaken, but I believe that you cannot have a transfer of IP without a signed document. I read the EULA once, and I am doubtful that Turbine could claim ownership of any IP created by anyone in game, or brought into game, as you have not signed. They try to skirt it with an agreement to sign, but I'm doubtful that would work.

Take a look at the famous dispute between the B-hole surfers and Touch 'n' Go for more on that issue.

ps Nice post

---

The signed document is that you clicked "I Agree" to all terms in the EULA. An electronic signature is just as good as a paper one.

Nice post. A couple of very quick minor replies:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PugPug

...Ah, you may have noticed the big one. "Publicly Perform." You might think that performing copyrighted works is okay, so long as you don't make any money doing it. This is not so. By performing for free, you devalue the work....

---

The key word, though, is "publicly". You're allowed to perform anything you like privately. And that would presumbly include just playing your instrument at home with a couple people listening. (Otherwise there would be no point to buying sheet music in the first place.)

Similarly I think you'd have a hard time defining most playing of music in LOTRO as "public performances", especially if your character or maybe one or two other people are around to hear it. On the other hand, if you're entertaining lots of people simultaneously in LOTRO, doing a mini-musical show for example, then you're starting to get into the realm of public performance. I doubt there's an exact numerical number involved in differentiating between public and private performances, but it's probably a stretch to call two or three bystanders "public".

So this part of it is probably the part I'd be least worried about. I doubt even the RIAA gives a hoot if someone plays a song on their lute in LOTRO in front of three or five people. Posting the songs would be the bigger issue, mainly because it would reach a wider audience.

Quote:

---

The LOTRO EULA (End User License Agreement)
Remember the case where Marvel sued NCSoft over City of Heroes? The lawsuit stated that NCSoft was responsible for the copyright infringement being perpetrated by the players. You see, players were using the robust hero creation system to recreate approximations of copyrighted characters.

The point is, Marvel didn't sue each player. It would have been a waste of time. They sued NCSoft, and settled out of court. The conditions weren't released, but it is presumed that NCSoft paid Marvel some money for the right to keep running City of Heroes.

---

Getting off-topic, but you're making a bad assumption if you think NCSoft settled "for the right to keep running the game." Marvel's case was virtually thrown out of court and the odds are quite good that had they continued to pursue it they would have lost. (For more info on the story, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of...Suit_by_Marvel )

So why would NCSoft settle the case if they were going to win? Simple - it's cheaper and better business to settle a case then to drag it through court. Playing the case out, even if NCSoft won, would have cost a ton of money and time and wouldn't be worth it. And who knows, there's always the remote chance they'd lose part of a case, so why even take the risk? Plus, by settling, they opened the door to actually work WITH Marvel, as can be seen by Cryptic being the developer for the Marvel MMORPG. (In fact in my head I can just imagine the settlement went something like -
Cryptic/NCSoft - "Why not drop your lawsuit and we can work together on making a Marvel MMORPG?"
Marvel - (realizing they're in a losing position and that CoH is doing well) "Hmm... good idea.")

Quote:

---

Would-be composers: Who owns the work you create on LOTRO?

Here's another section from the EULA:

"...If and to the extent you are deemed to have retained, under applicable law, any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Content, you hereby transfer, grant, convey, assign and relinquish solely and exclusively to Turbine, in perpetuity to the extent permitted by applicable laws or for the duration of the legal protection afforded to the Content...To the extent permitted under applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any and all Content..."

---

Keep in mind all abc music files are created outside of the game in text or music editors. When the EULA talks about "the Content", it's referring to all the resources in the game itself. For example, I don't own snapshots of my character from inside the game even though in a sense I "created" them - Turbine owns those snapshots. And I can't just take art objects or sounds or music from the game and make my own stuff out of it. They own all of those resources.

But abc music files are created outside of the game with no resources from Turbine. You don't even use any tools developed by Turbine to write them, and even if you did they couldn't claim the work as their own. (It would be like Photoshop claiming they own any pictures you create using their product.) So they can't say your abc music file belongs to them even if you posted it here or play it in the game world. They're your music files, and theoretically if they're also your original songs then they're also automatically copyrighted to you.

On the other hand, what they probably CAN do is record you playing music in game and use that recording however they like (eg stick a recording of it in their advertising or on their website, etc). And their recording of what you do in game belongs to them, not you. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that you automatically consent to Turbine reproducing anything you post here, so they could probably take any abc file posted here and use it however they like. So I definitely agree with the original poster that if you plan to sell an original song you wrote in an abc file you probably shouldn't post it here, and you might not even want to play it in game if you're worried about it being recorded.


Anyway, just a couple quick replies. Great post. :)

Thanks for your thoughts. Based on your input I've updated the "basics" section, the COH lawsuit section, and the would-be composers section.

Concerning "Content" belonging to Turbine meaning screenshots and the like, I think it does include that, but I believe it also includes much more. I base this on where in the EULA the language appears, and how "Content" is defined in the document.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmonaugTruehammer

The signed document is that you clicked "I Agree" to all terms in the EULA. An electronic signature is just as good as a paper one.

---

I feel hesitant to ask since folks like Lonya enjoy taking pot shots (EDITED) but I'll ask anyway because I'm sincerely curious: Do you know that the above assertion is legally right? I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm genuinely curious. I was under the impression (for no good reason at all) that e-sigs were still up in the air ... Thanks!

Last follow up since we have a real legal discussion going on here ...

As for posting an ABC: As you know, a copyright attaches automatically at the time of creation. Any ABC song that is created would be the property in the first instance of the author. Only subsequent to that right attaching would/could it be posted.

Is it your view that by posting the ABC the author has granted a nonexclusive license to Turbine to use that ABC however they wish, pursuant to the EULA? If so, wouldn't attribution still be required?

Or, do you believe the EULA actually gives Turbine the exclusive ownerhsip of the ABC merely from the act of posting (combined, I guess, with the e-signed EULA).

Just curious ....

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pellegro

I feel hesitant to ask since folks like Lonya enjoy taking pot shots (even though I am quite certain I've litigated more copyright issues than he/she has ...) but I'll ask anyway because I'm sincerely curious: Do you know that the above assertion is legally right? I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm genuinely curious. I was under the impression (for no good reason at all) that e-sigs were still up in the air ... Thanks!

---

I'm sorry, I didn't realize my comments (pot shots) were directed at you. As to the litigation issue, unless you've dealt with copyright issues for 20 years, don't be so certain. To clarify the gender confusion, I'm female, so she would be the correct usage.

Having said that, regarding e-signatures... You can enter into a contract over the internet with nothing more than a click of a button, typing of a few scrambled letters as confirmation and/or simply answering the confirmation e-mail sent to you when you apply for said contract. All of the above are considered legal and binding should you try to default. Typical contract rules apply however, granting a 24 hour grace period should you change your mind and wish to cancel said contract.

There is no such thing as a 24 "take back" period under the common law of contracts. Some states have specific statutory consumer protection laws that allow certain purchases to be rescinded in some period of time (in my state, car purchases for something like 72 hours), but there is no general rule of law that contracts have a 24 hour "out". A contract, once formed, is binding (unless modified by statute as noted above).

Anyhow, getting back to e-signatures ... while I haven't looked at, in knowing general contract law and in dealing with what are called adhesion contracts (i.e. take it or leave it contracts like a EULA, on opportunity for bargaining over terms), I would be very surprised if one could give away their rights to IP by merely clicking "I agree". Especially when you're talking about an IP transfer buried in a user agreement for a game. I suspect that would *not* hold water, if push came to shove.

But it wouldn't come to that anyhow as I'm certain Turbine would steer clear of any user created content. That language is there just to scare kids off who like to threaten legal action over account bans, or game changes, or whatever ....

Anyway, the most important part IMO to take from any of this is as follows:
1. End users are *not* likely to be sued, in fact, its *very* unlikely. Even if someone cared, you are far more likely to receive a cease & desist letter first. The various parties at interest are already looked at with some degree of disdain; they're not going to drag someone to court over a simple ABC file issue. Its just not going to happen.
2. The EULA is between the end users and Turbine. If Turbine wants to enforce the "dont post copyrighted material" provision, they will do so privately. Knowing Turbine as a fair company, they would likely issue a warning before a ban.

So, put differently, I think its patently reasonable to continue as most users have before, to create and share and play ABC files. If, and when, someone cares, I've no doubt we will all hear about it.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pellegro

I am quite certain I've litigated more copyright issues than he/she has ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pellegro

I think its patently reasonable to continue as most users have before, to create and share and play ABC files. If, and when, someone cares, I've no doubt we will all hear about it.

---

Pell, you say you've litigated copyright issues. This implies you're a legal professional of some sort. Since you're implicitly representing yourself as an officer of the court, are you really advising players to go ahead and post copyrighted material simply because it's unlikely they'll be caught and/or prosecuted?!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pellegro

Some states...

---

There lies the problem. I'm not in the States, thus laws are somewhat different. While it's not in every contract written, a large amount of them have a "cooling period" to protect the consumer from high pressure sales.

In my line of work, transfer of IP happens almost everyday with collaborations. A single click and the IP is transfered, usually for a specific time but the end result becomes the property of the secondary person, or clicker. I've been in my line of work for over 20 years and hold several copyrights. Encouraging people to post copyrighted material because it's "unlikely" they will be caught seems to be a rather careless suggestion. You claim to have litigated more copyright issues than I, I concede to as I am not a lawyer, but I'm hardly a kid who fears words and I know my rights as a performing artist.

sidenote: Pot shots are only taken in an attempt to debunk, discredit or prove who's right. In this case, the shots from the pot are crossing large distances. I'm aware that not everyone who posts on these forums is from my country, but apparently it eludes many that we're not all American. It's not the first time I've run into this sort of generalized thinking and feel confident it won't be the last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwoods

Pell, you say you've litigated copyright issues. This implies you're a legal professional of some sort. Since you're implicitly representing yourself as an officer of the court, are you really advising players to go ahead and post copyrighted material simply because it's unlikely they'll be caught and/or prosecuted?!?

---

I really don't understand your motivations ...

Anyhow, to answer your post - You can take what you like from my representation that I've litigated. Obviously, you don't have to be a lawyer to litigate.

Regardless of that point, however, nowhere did I ever advise anyone to do anything. Nor did I present a legal opinion qua legal opinion. There is obviously no lawyer-client relationship here, and no legal advice being given (which of course it would be inappropriate to post legal advice, which is confidential, in any event).
From the other thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pellegro

I can't ethically, and won't, give legal advice here.

---

But I guess I'll have to put a disclaimer on each and every of my posts lest God forbid someone accuses me of acting unethically. Sigh.

In any event, what is clear is that you are soooo motivated to quash any dissent to your opinions that are you willing to make accusations of professional ethical improprieties - in the face of explicit disclaimers to the contrary. I think that is extraordinarily curious ... and telling ...

And to Lonya, friend from afar ...

Apologies on my assumption. It seems that we are not even talking about the same set of rules! I had thought we were all talking about US copyright issues .... Throwing into the mix international copyright concerns really makes the issue interesting ....

In any event, I am not recomming that people post copyrighted materials because I think you will not be caught. Reread my post. What I said was I'm pretty sure nobody cares. Again, to recap: Turbine has provided us a forum for the exchange of ABCs - stickied it in fact. Allegedly copyrighted ABC files are exchanged there daily. This has been going on for months yet no word from ASCAP or anyone else objecting to it. No warnings from Turbine (yet). Of coures, all this attention is not helpful ...

Don't lose the forest for the trees. Even if you're dealing with a technical violation, if nobody cares, why do you? I mean really... you think someone playing an ABC song is in any way hurting the artist??? Oh well .... I'm done here. You guys are set and determined - which is fine, but no further purpose is served by continuing this back and forth.

for your reading pleasure

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...royalty01.html

http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html

http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/es...-politics.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pellegro

In any event, what is clear is that you are soooo motivated to quash any dissent to your opinions that are you willing to make accusations of professional ethical improprieties - in the face of explicit disclaimers to the contrary. I think that is extraordinarily curious ... and telling ...

---

Since we're parsing words, I never mentioned ethics. That my comment should be taken as such is extraordinarily curious ... and telling ...

Again.

9. You may not upload or transmit copyrighted material, without the express consent of the copyright holder.

That's pretty unambiguous. But wait! There's more!

17. Users must not violate, or promote the violation of, Turbine’s terms of service, codes of conduct or end user license agreements.

Even suggesting that it's OK, that you won't be prosecuted because nobody cares, would seem to violate that one, no?

You cannot advise people to post copyrighted material. You won't tell them not to.

And yet, you keep posting that it's OK, or maybe not OK but you won't get in trouble, but you're not advising anyone, but there's nothing to worry about anyway, not that you're saying it's OK, though nobody will get in trouble if they do post <wink, wink>.

Take a stand. No complicated legalese. No justification based on your interpretation of one legal case and a loose interpretation of US copyright law. Be clear, concise and unambiguous: Is it OK to post copyrighted material, and are you willing to back your assertion?

My position is that it's not, and I'm standing by that position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pellegro

...
Anyway, the most important part IMO to take from any of this is as follows:
1. End users are *not* likely to be sued, in fact, its *very* unlikely. Even if someone cared, you are far more likely to receive a cease & desist letter first. The various parties at interest are already looked at with some degree of disdain; they're not going to drag someone to court over a simple ABC file issue. Its just not going to happen.

---

I agree that a lawsuit doesn't sound likely. Worst case you'd probably just have the song taken down and get a letter saying "don't post it again". On the other hand, there's still the ethical issue. Just because it's not likely you'll get caught doing something doesn't mean it's ethical to do it.

So even though I doubt a squad of lawyers is going to come knocking on my door if I post an abc file of some 1970's song, I'm still refraining from doing it because it seems like the proper thing to do.

So... I can freely put folk, traditional and classical music from ancient days gone by based on listening [no sheet music] that would be more fitting to the RP environment of LotRO?

Fine by me.

One day when I have enough time to come back (lots going on out here for many months still), I'll probably flood the ABC thread with renditions. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northman

So... I can freely put folk, traditional and classical music from ancient days gone by based on listening [no sheet music] that would be more fitting to the RP environment of LotRO?...

---

Just an interesting aside, but I'm pretty sure it's not a problem to use sheet music when creating an abc file based on a public domain classical work. The reason I say that is that when you create an abc file you are effectively writing your own "sheet music arrangement" of that song. For example, if I convert a piece by Bach into an abc file, what I'm doing in essence is typing out a digital piece of sheet music. And frequently that involves moving notes around, transposing, tempo changes, coding and comments. So my abc version of a song by Bach is going to look, if you printed it out, much different than a standard printed arrangement.

Another way to think of this is just ask yourself - how do people nowadays make new copies of sheet music for Bach and Beethoven, etc? The answer is they work off of other sheet music for reference. If I was putting together a printed compliation of Bach's preludes and fugues, for example, I wouldn't be doing it by ear. I'd be working off previously printed sheet music written out by someone else, or possibly a couple of different pieces of sheet music of the same song.

So I doubt there's an issue if you work off of printed sheet music for songs in the public domain. The only thing someone who prints sheet music has a copyright over would be the things in their sheet music that are unique to them, like tweaks to the arrangement, how the whole thing appears visually, the arrangement of the songs within a book, author commentary and such. They don't own the original song itself though.

I still assert that ABC songs fall under fair use as they are transformative and a small sample of the full copyrighted work.

We know the following is legal:

15 second recording clips of songs for preview purposes.
Thumbnail images of full images in Google searches.

There are plenty more uses that fall under fair use including private performances, etc. You get the idea.

So how is stripping a song of its lyrics, harmonies, percussion, voice, instruments, etc. leaving a single note melody different? It is in no way a recording or full copy of the original. If played side by side they don't even begin to resemble each other. It's a sample, and it falls under fair use.

If you were taking a melody and transcribing it into a full orchestral score, that might make a better argument of it being a transformative work, as you're adding a wealth of new material to the original. In the subtractive case, what you're doing is reducing the original to meet the playability requirements of the LOTRO system, leaving only the most identifiable essence. In other words, you're eliminating the glitter and leaving just what makes the song identifiable as that song. I'm not sure that would qualify as transformative.

As for lyrics, someone who is familiar with music publishing answer please: is it typical to copyright the music and lyrics separately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countbuggula

I still assert that ABC songs fall under fair use as they are transformative and a small sample of the full copyrighted work.

We know the following is legal:

15 second recording clips of songs for preview purposes.
Thumbnail images of full images in Google searches.

There are plenty more uses that fall under fair use including private performances, etc. You get the idea.

So how is stripping a song of its lyrics, harmonies, percussion, voice, instruments, etc. leaving a single note melody different? It is in no way a recording or full copy of the original. If played side by side they don't even begin to resemble each other. It's a sample, and it falls under fair use.

---

Assert all you want. You are wrong. The melody is the copyright. Changing the arrangement (which is all you're doing by stripping the rest) does not change the copyright. Whether you add full orchestration to Happy Birthday, or sing it solo, it is still the melody, and still under copyright.

I created a Square Dance tune based on a Monty Python song (The Galaxy Song). The orchestration is nothing at all like the original, the lyrics are only partially used, the verse/choruses are arranged in an entirely different manner. However the song is recognizable as the Monty Python tune. Should I decide to release it, I would owe the Harry Fox agency money for the 'mechanical' license to that song, even though it is a total transformation of the original.

Performing it however is covered in the ASCAP/BMI fees I pay every year.

As long as the song is recognizable, the copyright applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countbuggula

I still assert that ABC songs fall under fair use as they are transformative and a small sample of the full copyrighted work.

---

Assert all you want but not all .abc files are snippets of the full songs. You can very easily put the entire song in an .abc file. naturally you can't do this for every song but some songs (folk and folk-like) fit this format very well. I should know since I have put many of "The Masterharper of Pern" into .abc files, these are straight from the sheet music with nothing changed. Of course I do not post these on the forums as that would be a breach of the copyright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorudil

Assert all you want. You are wrong. The melody is the copyright. Changing the arrangement (which is all you're doing by stripping the rest) does not change the copyright. Whether you add full orchestration to Happy Birthday, or sing it solo, it is still the melody, and still under copyright.

---

Why can restaurants sing the Happy Birthday tune with different lyrics then? I know several that do this (Macaroni Grill is one - they sing something in Italian to the tune of Happy Birthday).

And you're right. It doesn't change the copyright. It's still the same copyrighted tune. But now it falls under fair use, as do pre-recorded samples and thumbnail images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countbuggula

Why can restaurants sing the Happy Birthday tune with different lyrics then? I know several that do this (Macaroni Grill is one - they sing something in Italian to the tune of Happy Birthday).

And you're right. It doesn't change the copyright. It's still the same copyrighted tune. But now it falls under fair use, as do pre-recorded samples and thumbnail images.

---

To answer both paragraphs:

- Happy Birthday is an unusual case because the lyrics for Happy Birthday were written 40 years after the music. Basically Happy Birthday is actually the song "Good Morning To All", written in the 19th century, with completely different lyrics. So in this case you have the lyrics which are still under copyright but the music itself has an expired copyright. That's why you sometimes hear restaurants or others playing the song but not using the lyrics.

- abc files don't fall under "fair use". A sample is just what the word implies - a short sample, maybe 10 seconds or so. And thumbnail images might or might not be fair use depending on the context (I seem to remember search sites getting sued for using thumbnail images without permission, so where the line is drawn is probably still disputed.) Either way, though, an abc file which is the clearly recognizable melody of a copyrighted song would be called a "derivative work", and only the copyright holder is allowed to make derivative works without permission. A simple arrangement of a song is still an arrangement, not just a sampling. As an example, I couldn't distribute a Metallica song ringtone without permission, even though it's probably going to be a very simple arrangement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countbuggula

Why can restaurants sing the Happy Birthday tune with different lyrics then? I know several that do this (Macaroni Grill is one - they sing something in Italian to the tune of Happy Birthday).

And you're right. It doesn't change the copyright. It's still the same copyrighted tune. But now it falls under fair use, as do pre-recorded samples and thumbnail images.

---

No, it does not fall under fair use. That's the whole point. Paying for the mechanical license is NOT optional. Even if I give them away for free I have to buy the license. Before ever starting this project, I did a lot of research and there really is no 'gray' area no matter how hard you try to make it seem like it.

My brother is Music Minister at a fairly large local congregation. If you want more info on how these laws work, they are also a good source. They deal with these issues on a weekly basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dugforum

- abc files don't fall under "fair use". A sample is just what the word implies - a short sample, maybe 10 seconds or so. And thumbnail images might or might not be fair use depending on the context (I seem to remember search sites getting sued for using thumbnail images without permission, so where the line is drawn is probably still disputed.) Either way, though, an abc file which is the clearly recognizable melody of a copyrighted song would be called a "derivative work", and only the copyright holder is allowed to make derivative works without permission. A simple arrangement of a song is still an arrangement, not just a sampling. As an example, I couldn't distribute a Metallica song ringtone without permission, even though it's probably going to be a very simple arrangement.

---

Several people tried to sue over thumbnails but have failed. The court ruled in favor of the search engines, proving that resized versions of the full image are "fair use". We're not arguing that that simple one-note melody isn't copyright. But it does fall under fair use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countbuggula

Several people tried to sue over thumbnails but have failed. The court ruled in favor of the search engines, proving that resized versions of the full image are "fair use". We're not arguing that that simple one-note melody isn't copyright. But it does fall under fair use.

---

You're wrong. Sorry, you saying so doesn't make it so. Thumbnails are not melodies. If the melody is recognizable, the copyright applies, and royalties are due. This has been proven in courts over and over. It is not fair use.

Where you might be getting confused has to do with performance copyrights, which are a much trickier beast. If an artist covers a song, then there are two copyrights in effect. The music copyright (which basically covers the melody and/or lyrics) which is held by the publisher, and the performance copyright which is held by the performing artist (simplifying out the cases where 3rd parties might actually hold the copyright.). A performer is not due royalty payments from others that use the same melody in their own arrangements. The performer cannot stop you from using the melody, but might be able to stop a performance that too closely matches theirs. If you use snippets of their performance for preview / review / educational purposes, performance royalties are not due. If you use a substantial portion of their performance in a public setting then royalties are due. What is a public setting? Basically if more than family and a few friends can hear it, it is a public performance. Music you play on your CD at a tailgate party is probably a public performance as people nearby can listen to the music. Music played in your backyard to friends is probably not.

A composer/publisher copywrites the melody, not a specific arrangement of that melody. If you use that melody, no matter how it is arranged, you owe royalties. If you create sheet music of that melody, you owe royalties, if you create a midi file of that melody (an electronic form of sheet music) you owe royalties, if you create an ABC file of that melody (another form of electronic sheet music) you owe royalties. All these royalties are due the composer/publisher, who has FULL rights to that melody.

In cases where the performer is the composer these two separate copyrights still apply. If you create your own 'cover' to that melody with your own arrangement (even a single note arrangement) you owe the the composer royalties (usually paid through the Harry Fox agency, but not always, Disney has their own agency). To use the actual performance requires that you pay performance royalties, (usually through ASCAP/BMI).

However, the composer/publisher is ALWAYS due their royalties, no matter how you arrange the song.

Does this help clear the confusion?

(Note ... I'm ignoring here the question of whether ABC/MIDI is 'sheet music' or if it is 'performance'. If it is 'performance' then you owe mechanical royalties on each copy distributed, and the composer cannot prevent you from distributing them as long as those royalties are paid. (Last time I checked, mechanical royalties were about 8.5 cents per copy, this rate is set by Congress). If it is 'sheet music' then you have to negotiate directly with the composer/publisher on the rate, as this is not covered under the mechanical royalty laws.

So...... not being a guru in record industry legalities, what I gather from this thread is that each and every bar band playing a cover song at this moment (10:45 PM on a Friday in the US of A) is in mortal danger of being sued into oblivion. Seems a little far-fetched. It sounds somewhat like a legal ability that is brought into play when a company (note I don't say artist here) feels that they are losing a significant income (apparently more significant than a cut of the $5.00 at the door for Harry's House of Rock's band night).

This sounds like a situation similar to my state's adultery statute. It's still on the books and is punishable by 2 years in the state penitentiary....... but it's not enforced.

Juat a question,
Or a few,
Does this debate also apply to Midi file?
If midi files fall into the copywrite laws too, why are there so many web sites that offer midi's for free download?
You can find midi's of songs from any time period, and any style. and 99% of them sound like the original song, except no lyrics on songs that would contain them.
would we not be hearing about these sites being sued for copywright infrigment if it was a great concern to the copywight holder?

All that aside, I don't think IMO, that anyone is losing, or making any money from any songs that have been played, posted, copied, or shared in game or in forums for LOTRO. If anyone is selling there services to transpose a song into ABC format, I think they would need to start looking for another job, I don't see the market in it. I also don't see Turbine making any extra money from their in game music system. Out of all the players of this game, there can't be many (-100) that bought the game soley for the in game music system. I may be worng on that, for I did read one post from someone who did buy the game for that reason, but although I don't post, I do read many of the post and have been since sept. 2005 when game was in beta.

durinsbane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koric

So...... not being a guru in record industry legalities, what I gather from this thread is that each and every bar band playing a cover song at this moment (10:45 PM on a Friday in the US of A) is in mortal danger of being sued into oblivion. Seems a little far-fetched. It sounds somewhat like a legal ability that is brought into play when a company (note I don't say artist here) feels that they are losing a significant income (apparently more significant than a cut of the $5.00 at the door for Harry's House of Rock's band night).

This sounds like a situation similar to my state's adultery statute. It's still on the books and is punishable by 2 years in the state penitentiary....... but it's not enforced.

---

The answer is yes they could be sued.
Any group that performs music written by another artist publicly, whether they are paid or not, is obligated by law to pay royalties for that performance. On top of that the owner of the bar, restaurant, club, etc. is also liable for royalties for the performance.

Agencies like ASCAP and BMI are very proactive when it comes to collecting the royalties for those that they represent. Copyright laws are not old blue laws left on the books from a by-gone era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cubrethil

The answer is yes they could be sued.
Any group that performs music written by another artist publicly, whether they are paid or not, is obligated by law to pay royalties for that performance. On top of that the owner of the bar, restaurant, club, etc. is also liable for royalties for the performance.

Agencies like ASCAP and BMI are very proactive when it comes to collecting the royalties for those that they represent. Copyright laws are not old blue laws left on the books from a by-gone era.

---

So you are saying that these copyright laws are being enforced against cover bands, bars, night clubs, excetera? Not only that, but these are not "old blue laws" which means that garage bands and bars are being sued on a regular basis.

If this were actually the case, I'd imagine you would able able to cite thousands of suits (if not tens of thousands) filed from last weekend. Has anyone seen this actually happening? If so I'd love to see some documentation of this tsunami of civil litigation. It's more of a case of "it could happen, but you are far more likely to killed by meteorite in your backyard."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koric

So you are saying that these copyright laws are being enforced against cover bands, bars, night clubs, excetera? Not only that, but these are not "old blue laws" which means that garage bands and bars are being sued on a regular basis.

If this were actually the case, I'd imagine you would able able to cite thousands of suits (if not tens of thousands) filed from last weekend. Has anyone seen this actually happening? If so I'd love to see some documentation of this tsunami of civil litigation. It's more of a case of "it could happen, but you are far more likely to killed by meteorite in your backyard."

---

A quick search for you to peruse
http://www.google.com/search?q=ascap+suing

What you do not realize is that any bar that has live music is most likely already paying their part of the fees. It is owners of the clubs that ascap, bmi et al target not the players generally. The offending musicians are harder for them to track down in many cases so they do not go after them.

Lawyers for the most part are reluctant to take these cases on because the copyright agencies almost never lose and they have large legal departments to boot. The reason you never see the suits; it is easier to pay than to fight them. Or Business owners are not out to break the law and contact these agencies prior to opening.

And for the record as you can see I have never been killed by a meteorite but I have been on the recieving end of an ASCAP litigation threat. Not even for live music. I had to pay for playing CD's at my restaurant.

Garage bands do not fall into this debate as that is in the privacy of your home and would fall under fair use.

Just because someone is unaware of the copyright lawsuits and uninformed about copyright laws does not mean that the laws are not being enforced. The above search was only done with ASCAP and the word suing. I am sure much more could be found with a more consice search.

What this all boils down to for those of us on these formus is:
1) It is against the forum rules to post copyrighted materials
edit: without the permission of the copyright holder
Any other consideration is irrelevant. Turbines rules trump all else.

Editted as per Northwood's clarification below

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cubrethil

And for the record as you can see I have never been killed by a meteorite

---

How do we know that? I've seen enough movies to know that it's possible the meteor's otherworldly radiation could have left you an animated corpse. :D

Quote:

---

What this all boils down to for those of us on these formus is:
1) It is against the forum rules to post copyrighted materials
Any other consideration is irrelevant. Turbines rules trump all else.

---

Technically, it's against the forum rules to post copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright holder. If anyone wants to get permission from your favorite bands and/or their publishers, as appropriate, to post ABCs of their music, I'm sure many of your fellow players would welcome your efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwoods

How do we know that? I've seen enough movies to know that it's possible the meteor's otherworldly radiation could have left you an animated corpse. :D

---

oh darn! My secret is out!

*begins mindless zombie shuffle*
Arrrrgggghhhhhhh Hobbitssss brainsssssss. AAARRRGGGHHHHH.

*shambles off towards Hobbiton*

After perusing the search I came up with this little tidbit.
----------------------------------------------------------
ASCAP says that besides broadcasting songs over the radio, television and Internet, the definition of performing copyrighted music includes playing it "any place where people gather," with the exception of small private groups
----------------------------------------------------------

So, I would need an ASCAP license to play the CD player in my car. Especially in the summer since I often have the windows down and live in an urban area where untold numbers may have subjected to my felonious disregard of ASCAP licensing. I notice that the lawsuits seem to be being filed against business owners who use music as part of their ambience, nightclubs, etc. I also noted that ASCAP sent investigators into restaurants, nightclubs and other business establishments to see what songs were being played and if the business had a license to do so.

Not once, however, did I see any evidence that Johnny the wanna-be gangsta was getting served for blasting Cop Killa out of his brain cell deadening sub-woofer as he rolls his Kia though the 'hood. Nor did I see any evidence of Suzy the junior high-schooler being served for singing along to Avril Lavigne on her iPod as she prowls the mall. Both are public performances of copyrighted material and they happen thousands of times a day.

I'm sorry your business was targeted by ASCAP, but I still don't think players in an MMORPG poorly strumming out a tune here and there are who these people are after. I mean, six-ten people in the Prancing Pony (a small private group) listening to me play Into the West doesn't really seem to be their focus.

(Note: Johnny the wanna-be gangsta and Suzy the junior high-schooler are fictional characters created for the purpose of illustrating a point in this thread. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koric

I mean, six-ten people in the Prancing Pony (a small private group) listening to me play Into the West doesn't really seem to be their focus.

---

Small private group is you playing in your basement.

Playing in an MMO where anyone with access to the game can listen in is a broadcast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwoods

Small private group is you playing in your basement.

Playing in an MMO where anyone with access to the game can listen in is a broadcast.

---

So I guess I'm going to get sued if I listen to music outside in my front yard cause anyone that has access to my neighborhood can listen so it's a broadcast.:rolleyes:

It's really the same thing. Outside of being in the Bree auction house the most people that will usually be around you at one time is 5 people. There are usually no more people in the Prancing Pony than there would be at a party in my home so I still don't see the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elfheart

So I guess I'm going to get sued if I listen to music outside in my front yard cause anyone that has access to my neighborhood can listen so it's a broadcast.:rolleyes:

It's really the same thing. Outside of being in the Bree auction house the most people that will usually be around you at one time is 5 people. There are usually no more people in the Prancing Pony than there would be at a party in my home so I still don't see the issue.

---

Yeah, even the basement analogy doesn't really hold water. A band playing in the garage/basement is going to heard by neighbors, anyone on the sidewalk, etc. That's starting to sound like a broadcast under this definition......

The laws of copyright have been summarized for you. The forum posting guidelines have been pointed out.

If you want to violate either, do so quietly and at your own risk. You can't go advising people, even backhandedly, that it's OK, though: it's not.

If fact, even asking people to post copyrighted material is encouraging them to violate forum posting guidelines, which is itself a violation of the guidelines.

There is a vast differenece between playing copyrighted music in game (no matter the size of the audience) and posting copyrighted sheet music (ie ABC) on the forums.

One COULD cause troubles the other won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cubrethil

The answer is yes they could be sued.
Any group that performs music written by another artist publicly, whether they are paid or not, is obligated by law to pay royalties for that performance. On top of that the owner of the bar, restaurant, club, etc. is also liable for royalties for the performance.

Agencies like ASCAP and BMI are very proactive when it comes to collecting the royalties for those that they represent. Copyright laws are not old blue laws left on the books from a by-gone era.

---

Minor quibble here: In the US, an entity is not required to pay any royalties if the performance is for EDUCATIONAL purposes. This is true for both public AND private performances, but only holds up so long as the entity takes no money for the performance. Should the educational entity decide to take money for the performance, they are required to pay royalties and the copyright holders are required by law to provide permission to use the copyrighted work. The only exception to this is if the copyright holder has never released the work in media, in which case they do have the right to deny permission to the educational entity.

How many college football fans do we have? Anyone ever watched the marching band halftime shows? Recognize the songs? I guarantee you they don't pay royalties. I was the drum major for the largest 100% student-run collegiate marching band in the nation and am intimately familiar with these issues, as we released a CD and had to deal with them. One of our songs, arranged off of a recording of a live concert, was never published on an album, so we were denied copyright permission. Obviously, we didn't lay that track down. All the others were fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sactoking

Minor quibble here: In the US, an entity is not required to pay any royalties if the performance is for EDUCATIONAL purposes. This is true for both public AND private performances, but only holds up so long as the entity takes no money for the performance. Should the educational entity decide to take money for the performance, they are required to pay royalties and the copyright holders are required by law to provide permission to use the copyrighted work. The only exception to this is if the copyright holder has never released the work in media, in which case they do have the right to deny permission to the educational entity.

How many college football fans do we have? Anyone ever watched the marching band halftime shows? Recognize the songs? I guarantee you they don't pay royalties. I was the drum major for the largest 100% student-run collegiate marching band in the nation and am intimately familiar with these issues, as we released a CD and had to deal with them. One of our songs, arranged off of a recording of a live concert, was never published on an album, so we were denied copyright permission. Obviously, we didn't lay that track down. All the others were fine.

---

I did generalize a bit there. However we were not discussing educational entities here so I did not bother to address that point.

Here is a decent article from the BBB that explains things in a fairly straight forward manner.

http://www.bbb.org/Alerts/article.asp?ID=451

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cubrethil

Here is a decent article from the BBB that explains things in a fairly straight forward manner.

http://www.bbb.org/Alerts/article.asp?ID=451

---

An excellent article. It does, however, reinforce my assertion that these organizations are going after businesses and not private persons playing music.

I've actually dealt with a bunch of copyright stuff on the non-legal level where a band or artist wants to re-perform a song that was written and/or recorded previously and contacts the artist/label directly to ask for permission and terms.

The actual terms vary widely but they are all depending on only a few key factors listed here in order of importance

#1 is the song in question current and selling?

#2 is the artist current and selling?

#3 the level of the musician and type of music. pop/rap stars who have big names will command much higher royalties than rock/punk stars on the same level, and the more famous they are the more they are worth

#4 is the music part of an estate

#5 the projected level of income - if some local cover band from kansas wants to put your song on their CD it will probably cost less than if Jay-z wants to sample your music in his next song

So making a remake of the new Beyonce song would be insanely expensive if they even would let you do it. But then you would be surprised who will let you remake their music for free with only a few terms such as

-The song must be a new recording. You are forbidden to insert any part of the musician's original recording. So you can't just cut their vocals and have someone else singing over their music

-The original songwriter/artist must have credit

These were the only two things that most artists asked for and a lot of them are pleasantly surprised when we even ask. Several of them have explained that they do notice when people post their work without permission but if the previous two criteria were followed then they don't have any issue with it. Many of them actually enjoy their work being remade as it helps to keep their music current and that means more sales of their own.

Also keep in mind it is ALWAYS bad press for an artist to sue someone over copyright material even if they do have a valid argument. Hell look what happened to Metallica over napster. No artist in their right mind would bring legal action against such a small group as the LOTRO players over such a small issue as the press from it would be devastating to their image.

Just don't play any Metallica and you're good to go. :rolleyes:

nice post ...a simple solution to avoiding copyright infringement is to stick to works created in a time frame that corresponds ..ie those works that are generally recognized as public domain ..<ie anythin over 100 years old is public domain> youd be suprised at just how much music youll find ...<also works generated from the 1200 to 1600's fit the RP enviornment better>

Here's a question.
Since Turbine has some of the rights to the LotR franchise (I assume this includes music), is reproducing songs from the LotR movies in-game via the music system, by the players, an infringement upon copyright?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vraell

Here's a question.
Since Turbine has some of the rights to the LotR franchise (I assume this includes music), is reproducing songs from the LotR movies in-game via the music system, by the players, an infringement upon copyright?

---

Turbine has rights to books only (Hobbit and LOTR, no other books) not movies, so they have no rights to music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by durinsbane

Turbine has rights to books only (Hobbit and LOTR, no other books) not movies, so they have no rights to music.

---

Its more like they have the right to create a mmo based on the works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sactoking

How many college football fans do we have? Anyone ever watched the marching band halftime shows? Recognize the songs? I guarantee you they don't pay royalties. I was the drum major for the largest 100% student-run collegiate marching band in the nation and am intimately familiar with these issues, as we released a CD and had to deal with them. One of our songs, arranged off of a recording of a live concert, was never published on an album, so we were denied copyright permission. Obviously, we didn't lay that track down. All the others were fine.

---

"Recognize the songs? I guarantee you they don't pay royalties."

I was under the impression that the hefty purchase of the score + reproducible parts for each instrument by an educational facility for the purpose of education, including how to perform (Performing Arts) removed said facility from having to pay royalties. At least that how it was when I was in school.

Now on the other hand, when i went to band camp during the summers, the public performances of CR material of course had royalties as well as our "remember your summer recordings" we usually bought at the end of the session because the performance was available to non camper related audiences and of course the recordings were distributed to anyone who wanted to buy them and were sold for a profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by durinsbane

Turbine has rights to books only (Hobbit and LOTR, no other books) not movies, so they have no rights to music.

---

and yet the incorperate the songs from the movie into the in game music. Not to mention alot of the artwork is similar to stuff you see in teh movie. Weather top, Trolls,styles of Dress. That fancy Quiver Legolas uses. etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferumac

and yet the incorperate the songs from the movie into the in game music. Not to mention alot of the artwork is similar to stuff you see in teh movie. Weather top, Trolls,styles of Dress. That fancy Quiver Legolas uses. etc

---

Which songs from the movies did Turbine incorporate into this game?

Just watched FoTR again last night. Weathertop in the movie and Weathertop in this game bear no resemblence to each other. The version in this game is much better, in my opinion, than that in the movie.

Things may look and sound similar but that is not the same as an outright copy. After all trolls are all ugly and most everyone's version of one is similar. Mediaeval garb is all going to look similar. It is period fashion based on historical documents.

The music is pretty cool in the movie. Turbine did a good job with their music, but I wish they at least got the rights to Howard Shore's masterpiece(s)! The movie music just seems so rich and perfect for the times it was used in the movie. The Minas Morgul theme would fit perfectly with Carn Dum...sorta. A Knife in the Dark would be perfect for Book 5 chapter 8. "Osgiliath Invaded" would fit well for book 3 chapter 6 (or whichever was the one for Trestlebridge).

Maybe have a mix? They did a good job with the music for places like Goblin-Town and instances. Maybe during massive raids in the Moors have the "Siege of Gondor" playing?
I just like the movie music is all, and their interpretations of Orcs, Gondorians, Ithilien Rangers, Rohirrim, Aragorn, Faramir, Gimli and the rest (John Rhys-Davies was awesome!)

Oh well too late now...still they did a good job with their music...

Watch out for Metallica, they're probably in game right now hunting down those who illegally play they're songs.

How do cover bands get away with it then lol they even get PAID to play other ppl's music
Is it still considered in public if yer on a private copmpany's server?

In the case of bar bands, the establishment is paying a charge to one of the copyright offices that will gets distributed to all artist. thats why many bars and restaurants don't have live music. It's just another thing for them to pay.

In September 2015, a federal judge declared that the Warner/Chappell copyright claim to 'Happy Birthday' To You' was invalid, ruling that the copyright registration applied only to a specific piano arrangement of the song, and not to its lyrics and melody. In February 2016 Warner/Chappell settled for US $14 million and sent the song into the public domain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countbuggula

I still assert that ABC songs fall under fair use as they are transformative and a small sample of the full copyrighted work.

We know the following is legal:

15 second recording clips of songs for preview purposes.
Thumbnail images of full images in Google searches.

There are plenty more uses that fall under fair use including private performances, etc. You get the idea.

So how is stripping a song of its lyrics, harmonies, percussion, voice, instruments, etc. leaving a single note melody different? It is in no way a recording or full copy of the original. If played side by side they don't even begin to resemble each other. It's a sample, and it falls under fair use.

---

Tell that to The Verve, who had to give up 100% of their royalties because they used a small sample of an orchestral arrangement of a previously useless and unknown Rolling Stones song in Bittersweet Symphony. Or to Robin Thicke who lost the suit with Marvin Gaye's family for Blurred Lines (which to me, sound nothing alike). Vanilla Ice vs. Queen/Bowie. Ray Parker Jr, sued over Ghostbusters by Huey Lewis, etc.
However, I do need to point out that any song you play in LOTRO is more than likely NOT going to break into any Top 100 chart anywhere on the planet or make any real $$ whatsoever, the chances of getting sued over playing it here is about the same as Warner Bros suing you over naming your guardian character Bugs Bunny.

However, changing the lyrics while keeping the original music, and calling it a Parody, is a whole different game. Just ask Weird Al...
So if I play a song, made into an .abc via a midi taken from the original music, and alter the lore-breaking lyrics into more LOTR leaning wording, while acknowledging the original authors if anyone asks, no one can sue me for it. It's parody.

Why was a thread from 8 years ago revived?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maartena

Why was a thread from 8 years ago revived?

---

Because sticky threads are (unofficially) not bound to the same rules as other threads. Sticky threads tend to be a place where questions are asked/answered/discussed for many years. That's why they're stickied: They are important enough to stand out.

Examples of similar threads can be found:

https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...Reporting-Tool

https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...review-Program

Stickies aren't "necro'd" as they remain on the front page 24/7

Has anyone ever played Drakan: The Ancients Gate? I can't believe it took me this many years to realize that LOTRO has been using the music from it. Drakan: TAG came out in 2002, about 4-5 years before LOTRO was even out.