How Far Should Copyright Go?

[S_V7]

Let’s say someone is playing Chopsticks or Heart and Soul with a friend on a piano for fun and neither one owns the sheet music. Would that be a violation of copyright? If so, then in would seem that even whistleing a tune would be illegal, and that seems a bit too much. I know copyright exists to protect the author’s rights and all but how strictly should one follow it? Would it be a sin not to follow it? Don’t mean to be scrupulous, I just really want to know if it’s ok or not.

 

[BobP123]

Generally this is ok. When you start collecting money for such performance, however, then you can get into a little trouble. I still remember the copywriter of Happy Birthday to You suing a major motion picture producer for having it played in a movie without paying royalty fees.

 

[1ke]

SV, you are being scrupulous. Please discuss your concerns with your priest and he will give you guidance.

 

[S_V7]

Probably being a bit scrupulous but not as much as usual

If anythining I would think it’s a venial sin. I whistle all the time though and don’t think much about it, and I’m sure no one would be sued for singing along with the radio, so how would playing a tune be too different? I think copyright laws, when literally read, would forbid such things but I don’t think it it should be so. Then again that’s just my opinion.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Generally this is ok. When you start collecting money for such performance, however, then you can get into a little trouble. I still remember the copywriter of Happy Birthday to You suing a major motion picture producer for having it played in a movie without paying royalty fees.

One of the fast food chains, where the staff sang for birthdays, was unable to use * Happy Birthday to You * but had to make up their own ditty.

 

[Gizmo]

Probably being a bit scrupulous but not as much as usual

If anythining I would think it’s a venial sin. I whistle all the time though and don’t think much about it, and I’m sure no one would be sued for singing along with the radio, so how would playing a tune be too different? I think copyright laws, when literally read, would forbid such things but I don’t think it it should be so. Then again that’s just my opinion.

That is like saying that it is illegal to remember things since we will be able to recall certain frames of a movie or particular parts of a song so we can replay them in our minds.

Is there a certain part of the law that you are confused about? maybe if you would post that part of it so I can get a better idea of the issue - otherwise this makes little sense.

 

[S_V7]

That is like saying that it is illegal to remember things since we will be able to recall certain frames of a movie or particular parts of a song so we can replay them in our minds.

Is there a certain part of the law that you are confused about? maybe if you would post that part of it so I can get a better idea of the issue - otherwise this makes little sense.

Which is why copyright seems a bit absurd to me sometimes.

It’s my understanding that a copyrighted work cannot be reproduced in any way without permission, although it seems to imply only concrete reproductions then? So recalling something wouldn’t violate it, neither would singing or playing a song, as long as it’s not done frequently or with the sole purpse of putting on a performance in my opinion.

 

[BobP123]

Which is why copyright seems a bit absurd to me sometimes.

Here’s another one for you. Music that is put into the public domain, such as baroque music, isn’t copyrightable but the sheet music is. Meaning you can’t xerox it. However, I can produce my own sheets of that same music without any problems.

 

[baltobetsy]

S_V7, it’s nice to see you back. Hope your move went well.

IMO, it’s perfectly fine to remember a song and sing, whistle or play it. You do not deprive anyone of his rights or his income by doing so. And I’ll bet (without looking it up, so I don’t know for sure), that *Heart and Soul *and *Chopsticks *are both in the public domain. I don’t think anyone learns those by reading. They are taught by one person to another as part of the larger culture.

Betsy

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Copyright is about stealing some ones work for your profit. If you sing in public for free you can not violate copyright laws. If you sing the same song for a paying audience you could be sued for using someone else’s song. If you sell copies of someone else’s song without permission you should be sued, as the action is a form of thief. So as mentioned earlier it is the act of collecting money for the work of another without permission that violates copyright laws.

 

[rwoehmke]

Probably being a bit scrupulous but not as much as usual

If anything I would think it’s a venial sin. I whistle all the time though and don’t think much about it, and I’m sure no one would be sued for singing along with the radio, so how would playing a tune be too different? I think copyright laws, when literally read, would forbid such things but I don’t think it it should be so. Then again that’s just my opinion.

I would hesitate to even call it venial. You will never get hauled into court for whistling or singing a happy tune unless you make money in some way by doing so. The copyright owner gets a little bit of the action, so if no money changes hands, he gets a portion of zero cash. Nadda, nothing. If you record your tunes and sell the tapes or discs that would be a whole nother thing. Even then no body is going to pursue you for ten bucks.

 

[BobP123]

I would hesitate to even call it venial. You will never get hauled into court for whistling or singing a happy tune unless you make money in some way by doing so. The copyright owner gets a little bit of the action, so if no money changes hands, he gets a portion of zero cash. Nadda, nothing. If you record your tunes and sell the tapes or discs that would be a whole nother thing. Even then no body is going to pursue you for ten bucks.

Yes, but that ten bucks could make it venial. Just because you’re not hauled into court doesn’t make you 100% clean.

 

[DaveBj]

Actually, sometimes I think it is the copyright holders that sometimes get a little scrupulous about protecting their works. Just a personal comment.

Slight Bunny Trail Notice

When I was a protestant, I had contacts in both the Russian and Arabic protestant communities. In both of those, people wrote and distributed songs and poetry with no regard for copyright. It was considered God’s property, not their own. Contrast this with the American Way of copyrighting Christian music–“It’s mine, and if you use it, you have to pay me!”

 

[CuriousInIL]

Copyright is about stealing some ones work for your profit. If you sing in public for free you can not violate copyright laws. If you sing the same song for a paying audience you could be sued for using someone else’s song. If you sell copies of someone else’s song without permission you should be sued, as the action is a form of thief. So as mentioned earlier it is the act of collecting money for the work of another without permission that violates copyright laws.

Not true at all.
§106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to certain exceptions the owner of copyright

has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:**(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; **

**(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; **

**(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; **

**(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; **

**(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and **

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

So, as you can see the issue really is whether it is put into a copy, i.e., do you record your whistling or other performance or whether it is performed Publicly which means

**(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or **

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

So singing in public to a substantial number of folks that are not family or acquaintances can be infringement even if free.

***THIS IS ONLY COMMENTARY AND IS NOT MEANT AS LEGAL ADVICE NOR DOES THE READER FORM AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE AUTHOR

***No copyright is claimed in this post.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

So if I sing in a large crowd I should ask everyone to cover their ears. Actually that is unnecessary; they always do so any time I sing.

 

[andy120]

With regard to the original question, it would only be a sin if it violated relevant civil law. For that information you would have to contact a lawyer. And don’t always believe what a copyright agreement says; companies can put in clauses that don’t necessarily apply or may easily be misinterpreted by common people like us. A lawyer is the only one who may be able to help you out and understand what rights you have.

 

[Hlafdige]

A few years back, money-hungry copyright lawyers were combing the woods looking for Scout troops and childrens‘ camps and pinning lawsuits on them for singing „Blowin in the Wind“ around the campfire (public performance).

There is sometimes a big difference between what is legal and what is moral. In general, Christians are called to obey the laws unless they go directly against our faith, but I for one think there is some room for epikeia here (when obeying the letter of the law would contradict that law‘s reason for existence, better to go with the spirit of the law than the letter). The purpose of copyright is to protect authors‘ means of livelihood, not to restrict the extent of their works‘ contribution to culture (including popular culture). I would have no scruples whatever about campfire singing or „Heart and Soul“ at the spinet.

 

[Guldenat]

Let’s say someone is playing Chopsticks or Heart and Soul with a friend on a piano for fun and neither one owns the sheet music. Would that be a violation of copyright? If so, then in would seem that even whistleing a tune would be illegal, and that seems a bit too much. I know copyright exists to protect the author’s rights and all but how strictly should one follow it? Would it be a sin not to follow it? Don’t mean to be scrupulous, I just really want to know if it’s ok or not.

Being a musician, I can tell you that in the public domain, you can play any song you like, copyright or no. The laws come in when you wish to record and sell the ‘cover’ of the copyrighted tune. There is a reason that they sell music books in stores teaching people how to play copyrighted material. You can even play copyrighted material in a club or bar and collect cover charges and I assure you, no sin is involved, because it is 100% ok by law.

 

[cenpress]

Being a musician, I can tell you that in the public domain, you can play any song you like, copyright or no. The laws come in when you wish to record and sell the ‘cover’ of the copyrighted tune. There is a reason that they sell music books in stores teaching people how to play copyrighted material. You can even play copyrighted material in a club or bar and collect cover charges and I assure you, no sin is involved, because it is 100% ok by law.

Thank you, Guldenat. I was just about to make this point. That being, there is no law being broken (likewise, no sin being made) even when a musical artists decides to perform a cover song at a concert the audience needs to pay to see.

Now, here’s a question for you, Guldenat (being that you’re a musician). The group Pearl Jam used to (and still may) make all their live shows available on CD. If they were to perform a cover song at a concert, would they then have to first receive permission from the artist or their label before making that specific show available on CD? (Not interested in whether this is sinful, only interested in the legality.) Thanks!

 

[CuriousInIL]

A few years back, money-hungry copyright lawyers were combing the woods looking for Scout troops and childrens‘ camps and pinning lawsuits on them for singing „Blowin in the Wind“ around the campfire (public performance).

There is sometimes a big difference between what is legal and what is moral. In general, Christians are called to obey the laws unless they go directly against our faith, but I for one think there is some room for epikeia here (when obeying the letter of the law would contradict that law‘s reason for existence, better to go with the spirit of the law than the letter). The purpose of copyright is to protect authors‘ means of livelihood, not to restrict the extent of their works‘ contribution to culture (including popular culture). I would have no scruples whatever about campfire singing or „Heart and Soul“ at the spinet.

The Founding Fathers disagreed. The said that the purpose was:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8