Copyright Question

[Emmett Marshall]

Is it possible to copyright just a riff or a hook? I once heard that for music to be copyrighted, it had to be a complete song, but I don't know if that is correct. Can anyone enlighten me?

[sblock]

No, what you heard is not correct. First off, there is no accepted definition of "a complete song." Second, a melody does not have to be sung to be copyrighted, so the prevailing criterion is certainly not a "song." However, a melody does have to be long enough to stand a chance of being unique and original! Consider, as an absurd example, a short "lick" that consisted of just a single note. You obviously cannot copyright that. Ditto for short sequences consisting of just two notes, three notes, four notes, since all possible combinations of such things are usually present in all music of any reasonable length.

There is no established criterion for the minimal copyrightable length of a piece of music, to my knowledge. Some long licks run can for 8 bars or more, and would probably qualify, because there are some tunes that just run 8 bars that have been copyrighted. Most licks are shorter, though, and likely would not qualify.

The very same considerations hold for copyrighting a text. You obviously can't copyright a single letter, or a single word. Most short phrases cannot be copyrighted, either, because they are not unique and have already appeared in print (but then again, a catch-phrase or brand name can be trademarked, but that is something else!). But, to my knowledge, there is no hard and fast rule about how short a piece of text can be to qualify for copyright.

The key point is that the work has to be considered "original", and you (or your assignee) needs to be an "author." And you can also copyright performances and recordings, but that is a whole 'nuther subject.

[Emmett Marshall]

Thanks sblock. I kinda figured that what I was told might be BS. Well, it looks like I'm in business then, and already getting into the "red" with having to chunk out copyright fees! At this point, it would seem that if I could even create a song that contained my riffs - even if it was crappy in my opinion - then my riffs would still be copyrighted?

I was talking with a friend who sent in 14 songs back in January, but she is still waiting for the process to go through. The gov't website says it's taking about 8 months for approval/disapproval. Oh well. It's still worth the wait for sure. Just curious, is the "8 Bars" that you mentioned actually a government guideline or policy, or is it a guesstimate? I can certainly make any of my riffs go 8 bars and beyond, so I'm really not worried about that too much, but I'm wondering if you have detailed info you might share on what gets approved or if you can point me to more resources? Thanks again.

[Marty Jacobson]

The NBC Bong is copyrighted and trademarked, but the whole sound (including instrumentation) is part of the sound mark.
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/soundmarks/72349496.mp3

You shouldn't need to wait for approval for a copyright. If you write it, the copyright is yours. No fees necessary. The fees come when you want to enforce it (as with anything else in the IP world, it's a ticket to court).

[bigskygirl]

There doesn't seem to be any cut and dry rule on this other than to be careful. Research Vanilla Ice and Queen, Beach Boys ripping off Chuck Berry and Phil Collins was involved in a copyright case years ago.

I just recently heard a song on the radio that reminded me of another but while you can't copyright a chord progression a court could determine its similar enough to a previous tune...it's why Chuck Berry is credited as songwriter for Surfin' USA.

[Emmett Marshall]

The NBC Bong is copyrighted and trademarked, but the whole sound (including instrumentation) is part of the sound mark.
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/soundmarks/72349496.mp3

You shouldn't need to wait for approval for a copyright. If you write it, the copyright is yours. No fees necessary. The fees come when you want to enforce it (as with anything else in the IP world, it's a ticket to court).

Hey Marty, I'm taking everything in like a sponge, but now I'm a bit confused. If I don't need to get a copyright approval, then what is the whole point of the government setting up this: http://www.copyright.gov/eco/

To register the music as copyrighted material "before" people try to steal it seems to make more sense. It also seems that if such a scenario ever occurred, I would be spending my time trying to prove that the unregistered material originated with me - as opposed to enforcing something that is already substantiated by registration, so what am I missing here?

[Canuckle]

Copyright is automatically granted to the creator of a work as soon as the work is created. There are myths around this like that if you send a copy of something through the mail that somehow does something, that are bunk. As soon as you create something, you own the copyright to that thing so long as is does not substantially infringe on a previous work. The reason that you register it is that while it is technically true that you have the copyright as soon as you create something, if you're going to litigate to protect your copyright it would be difficult to do if you don't have evidence to show that you created something first. So people register copyrights and publish materials.

[Canuckle]

Whether something infringes on someone's copyright is also dependent on Fair Use (or Fair Dealing here in Canada). The creator of a work has the right to copy a work (copyright) but everyone has the right to Fair Use of everything (despite what some big eared corporations would have you believe). Whether the use of something is "fair" or not is essentially a case by case basis which is why something as short as the NBC sound can be copyrighted but some longer samples or millions of mandolin licks can be reused without infringing someone else's copyright. Wikipedia's article on Fair Use is pretty decent.

If you're ever curious about something in particular you can contact a copyright lawyer or contact your local librarian. Librarians (like me) are usually pretty knowledgeable about copyright. Not as knowledgeable as lawyers, but usually free.

[Emmett Marshall]

Thanks Canuckle. I appreciate your input. I came away from the government website with pretty much the same understanding that you have articulated here - minus your experience and insights. It would seem like a major (and expensive) chore to try and prove that a piece of music originated with me. I'd much rather have a paper that says it was registered by me on such and such a date.

I've also heard the idea of "mail it to yourself," but that doesn't seem to be solid logic, or solid ground to stand upon in a court room. Perhaps if I could pre-select my judge right now, and mail him/her a copy tomorrow?

Anyway, thanks for clearing it up for me. It is appreciated.

PS: I hope the fire up there didn't affect you and yours too much!

[Eric C.]

Would a digital recording work as proof of originality? Aren't digital files times stamped? WOuld that be usable in a court situation as showing the exact time you recorded whatever it is?

[farmerjones]

Would a digital recording work as proof of originality? Aren't digital files times stamped? WOuld that be usable in a court situation as showing the exact time you recorded whatever it is?

I though about that. I'd say, if it were a write once/read many file type like a CD. Otherwise, not so sure.

Copyright laws work better in a culture where everybody is aware of them, like Nashville. Jussayin

[Timbofood]

When the royalties start rolling you might be able to buy the postage to mail yourself the letter via certified mail.
Paraphrased from stage banter by Special Concensus.

[sblock]

When the royalties start rolling you might be able to buy the postage to mail yourself the letter via certified mail.
Paraphrased from stage banter by Special Concensus.

Yup, good point (if a bit sarcastic)! This is an old canard, I'm afraid.

The "poor man's copyright" -- namely, mailing yourself a copy of the work in a sealed envelope by certified mail (or some similar mechanism,) as a way of establishing the date of creation -- is NOT valid legally, and it will certainly not stand up in court as a valid defense of copyright. This concept is just an "old wives tale" and it's been debunked multiple times, but the idea is still out there in musical circles, and so people keep doing this in an attempt to protect their work for essentially no cost, without applying for a formal copyright. Except the "poor man's copyright" does NOT WORK in courts! One reason is that it's waaaay too easy to fake: all you have to do is mail yourself an unsealed, empty envelope to establish the postmark date, then fill it up later, after the fact, with anything you like, and claim that you "produced it" before the postmark date, even if you didn't!

Please folks, don't use the "poor man's copyright." This will not be recognized if you ever have to defend your intellectual property.

[DavidKOS]

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf , a work is copyrightten at creation; what you do with the gov. is register the copyright.

You can save money by doing a "collected works of......." and thus register your copyrights all at once. It's faster to do so on line rather than mail it in.

You cannot copyright chord changes, but a recognizable riff should be OK.

[Marty Jacobson]

Another thing to consider is whether you intend to enforce the right to litigate which you've staked a claim to in your copyright (or patent, or whatever). I have plenty of patent-worthy ideas, many of which are in production and commercial use. But I don't bother with patents because I don't have the cash or interest to police them. I guess if you write the next "Great Day to Be Alive" you'll be glad you registered it promptly.