YouTube, the song 'Winter Wonderland' and Copyright Law

[Eric J in MN]

Using YouTube's new automated copright detection technology, Warner Brothers detected last month that 15 year old Juliet Weybret had posted a video of herself playing the piano and singing the 1934 song Winter Wonderland.

This unrepentant little criminal might have thought that such a widely covered tune had entered the public domain, 75 years after it was recorded, but Juliet was clearly unfamiliar with legislation like the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act, which extended copyright protection to 95 years or more after publication date.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_copyright_system_eff_action.php

We should be asking Congress to repeal the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act.

[spanone]

1. you would feel different if you were a songwriter making a living from your copyrights

[dbonds]

2. How many song writers are over a 100 years old.

[RB TexLa]

3. Many song writers have family members that have outlived them.

[dbonds]

6. Most everyone has family members that outlive them. big deal.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Let the relatives write their own songs if they want song royalties after 75 years.

The Sonny Bono Act made song copyrights last 95 years.

[RB TexLa]

11. I don't see why there should be a time frame on the ownership of something.

Funny, I don't think anyone would walk up to someone and say, "Your mother bought this house 95 years ago today, so now this house is public domain."

[dbonds]

15. Houses do move into public domain after a time period. But invalid comparison.

One is a song that becomes part of the public conscience, the other is an object. Ownership of anything is only an illusion anyway.

[JackintheGreen]

16. What a ridiculous argument

If your mother still lived in the house, no such argument could be made. If she died, there are legal mechanisms for passing ownership within the family.

Copyright is a damn sight different. Better to say "my father worked for the state of IL for 47 years and now I want his job."

[RB TexLa]

18. How is it different? The house just as the art was either created or purchased by someone

There are legal mechanisms for passing ownership of copyrights as well.

[Eric J in MN]

19. Just one family can generally fit in a house, and so if one family is using it...

...then society isn't losing out.

But if thousands of artists don't play a song because it's still in copyright after over 75 years, and millions of potential audience members don't get to hear their versions, then millions of people are losing out.

[RB TexLa]

22. One can perform other's copyrighted material, it's done legally all the time.

[Eric J in MN]

25. An amateur posting a cover-song video to YouTube can't afford...

...to pay royalties on a song which he or she isn't making any money on.

A professional with a record contract is told by the record company: Put a cover-song on the album and the royalties will come out of your paycheck. So they often don't.

The public gets to listen to fewer cover-songs because of long copyright periods.

[Nye Bevan]

23. Right. So Beethoven's descendents should be receiving royalty checks

any time one of his symphonies gets played.

And Shakespeare's descendents should be paid whenever one of his plays is performed.

[RB TexLa]

24. Unless the royalties were sold or given to someone other than their descendants, yes.

[KamaAina]

8. Which would make a 95-year copyright a form of inherited wealth.

Wasn't that the plot of a Hugh Grant movie? Where he played a toff (slacker) who was living off his daddy's royalties, then he met Julia Roberts or somebody?

[cobalt1999]

14. This law was passed for one company's benefit

Disney.

Without it, people could open up Micky Mouse Worlds everywhere.

It was passed with heaping helpings of Disney money.

[KamaAina]

17. Those dirty rats!

:P

[cobalt1999]

21. LOL

Well done. :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Then those family members should write their own songs.

I'm all for copywrite protection, but three generations is excessive.

[Eric J in MN]

4. 75 years is enough for the songwriter to make money from one song.

He can write more songs which would then have 75 years from publication to be copyrighted.

The Sonny Bono Act made it 95 years.

[backscatter712]

29. Damned straight. Even 75 years is way too long.

Copyrights are supposed to be a temporary protection. When originally implemented, you got seven years, with a possible renewal for another seven.

Realistically, they should last no longer than 20 years - that's plenty for authors and artists to make money from their works. Then they damned well should go into the public domain.

[Eric J in MN]

31. I agree that it should be less than 95 and less than 75.

I might say 30 for song copyrights rather than 20, but it should be somewhere around there.

[RoyGBiv]

10. I very much doubt it ...

But whatever the case, the composer of _Winter Wonderland_ has been dead for over 60 years.

[LanternWaste]

12. Honored...

Honored that a young lady would play a song I wrote for her own enjoyment and musical education.

[JackintheGreen]

13. Please give me an example

of a single song-writer who is still collecting royalties from a song he/she had written 76+ years ago. Not their children. Not their estate. The writer themselves.

I'm not saying no examples exist, but I honestly don't know any. The laws exist to allow song-writers (and such-like) to make a living off the fruits of their labor, but 75 years was more than enough time. 95 years is excessive and stupid.

And if you argue that their children or estates deserve that money, I'll tell you they need to do their own work instead of living off someone else's fat.

I don't mean to be snarky, but as an artist I think copyright law is applied with far too broad a brush.

[Silver Swan]

32. Although Irving Berlin is no longer alive

He did out live the copyright on some of his early songs. He died in 1989, at age 101.

[damntexdem]

27. Not if I had a conscience, I wouldn't.

Of course, if I had written a song 75+ years ago, I'd likely be dead by now, anyway.

[ColbertWatcher]

28. You know the other nickname for that law?

The protect Disney's copyright claim on Mickey Mouse law.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html

Well, maybe not that exactly.

[NashVegas]

30. If You Wrote a Song In 1925 You Probably Aren't Alive

[Ex Lurker]

33. Hilary Rosen, is that you?

welcome to DU.

[KamaAina]

5. "Later on, if we wanna, we can dress, like Madonna..."

Just use the new, updated, uncopyrighted lyrics. :evilgrin:

[Eric J in MN]

9. That's catchy.

Doesn't have much to do with winter, but it's catchy.

[Iggo]

20. "...Walkin in women's underwear!"

:rofl:

[csziggy]

34. Spider Robinson argued against extension of copyright law long before the Sonny Bono Act

In "Melancholy Elephants" (published in 1984) his contention was that there is nothing new under the sun. With perpetual copyright law, eventually artists, especially musicians, would run out of material to "invent."

Without limits on how long particular arrangements of notes, words and/or ideas can be held inviolate, creativity would be strangled.

Aside from the story, the pettiness of a company that would shut down a young person sharing her rendition of a song is beyond contempt. I will never be able to listen to Winter Wonderland with enjoyment again.