Does musical satire really require permission from the copyright holder? I was reading this article on American art-rock/new-wave band Devo in The New Yorker and came across this claim that puzzles me: It’s a little unclear why Warner, once they learned that Devo wanted to include “Satisfaction” on their début album, demanded that Devo get it approved by Jagger’s people. Cover songs don’t need anyone’s approval: you can cover anything you want as long as you pay the original copyright holder and don’t change the words. (Gerald) Casale thinks Warner may have been worried that their cover was so different that it might have been considered satire—a separate legal entity for which one needs permission. (Devo had run into a similar issue covering “Secret Agent Man,” and ended up using a sneaky runaround to get permission from his Japanese publisher since Rivers himself refused.) Huh? So if Devo’s cover of The Rolling Stones “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” was considered a satire it would have been a big legal mess? I understand there are all kinds of laws surrounding sampling and such, but I was always under the impression that satirical takes on pop music are protected under fair use and do not require any legal permission from the copyright holder.
You’re confusing satire with parody. Parody is when you use the protected work to comment on that work, while satire is when you use it to comment on something else. If you take R. Kelly’s “I Believe I Can Fly” and change the lyrics after the first verse to be about the singer jumping off a roof and having to spend the next three months in the ICU, that’s parody — you’re making fun of the song’s lyrics by exploring the consequences of an overly-literal interpretation. On the other hand, if you used the melody for a song with totally different lyrics about clubbing baby seals, that’d be satire. If you’re sued over “I Believe I Can Break My Spine,” you have a good excuse for why you used the copyrighted ”I Believe I Can Fly” you can’t exactly make fun of the lyrics without using substantial copyrighted elements of the song. On the other hand, for a satirical song about baby seals, you don’t need to use “I Believe I Can Fly.” You’re using it because it’s easier than coming up with your own melody, but if you just want to avoid extra work you need to get a license. The distinction can get fuzzy when a work is also clearly talking about other issues. Nader’s U.S. presidential campaign in 2000 featured this ad, which was clearly based off Mastercard’s “Priceless” ads. The ad was most directly criticizing his opponents as corrupt politicians, and that would be satire. However, when sued he argued that part of the subtext of the ad was commentary on Mastercard’s ultimate message of materialism (sure, there are “priceless” moments, but you can get them with things money does buy). In contrast, a book in the style of Dr. Seuss about the OJ Simpson trial was held to not be parody — it didn't make any point whatsoever about Seuss, just about the trial. Seuss’s style was just used to draw attention, not because they were giving commentary on Seuss. In any event, fair use is complicated. There are four statutory factors: The purpose and character of the use (specifically including whether or not it's commercial) The nature of the copyrighted work. How much of the original work was used The effect of the new work on the market for the old work. All four statutory factors have to be considered; none of them can automatically make something fair use or not fair use. Even a legitimate parody might not be fair use under the right circumstances. The only way to definitively know if something is fair use or not is if you’re actually sued for copyright infringement and convince a court that it was fair use. It’s fairly common for whoever’s backing your work to demand that you get a license even if it’d almost certainly be fair use, because they don’t want to have to go to court and argue that as a whole the four statutory factors suggest that your work was fair use.
If I draw something, having been inspired by looking at some other thing, you are not copying that thing. If you carefully copy something even if you are also deliberately changing features of the original, then you are copying. Copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to make copies. There is a difference between copying music and visual art in this respect, since music can be reduced to a small set of specific symbols, so "being inspired by" a musical work is often found to be infringement. The difficult part is legally distinguishing "making a copy" versus "being inspired by". The courts use a subjective test of "substantial similarity" to decide if there has been copying. the case of Mannion v. Coors. "Pose" is an element that is considered in assessing similarity: the question the court would ask (itself) is whether such a pose could ever have come from elsewhere (such as, your own creative efforts).
You're largely correct, though there's some vocabulary you're using that could go either way in terms of proper understanding. My comments on your understanding, presuming we're dealing with two Berne countries (UCC is largely irrelevant these days): My understanding of copyright is that it grants the author an exclusive right to distribute their work in whatever manner they'd like for some amount of time (determined by the copyright duration in a country). Generally correct though there can be many exceptions here (fair use, technical/temporary copying, first-sale doctrine, etc.). Can a person in Country A legally use the adapted work? I'm assuming no [...], Basically correct, whoever holds rights to the original work could theoretically still assert their rights in Country A on any portion of the derivative work that was part of the original. [...] does that mean that the author of the work created in Country B does not technically have all the rights to the work they created, since they have no control over whether their work can be distributed in Country A? This is splitting hairs, but while the derivative author has the rights given to them by copyright law, they aren't absolute. In particular in this case, regardless of which country, they still don't have any inherent exclusive rights over the original work. With respect to country B, those exclusive rights have expired so they don't bind the derivative author, but they haven't expired in country A. If that is the case, then would these rights be &quot;granted&quot; to the author of the adaptation when the copyright finally expires in Country A? Again splitting hairs, but its more helpful to express that no rights are actively granted by the expiration of copyright in Country A, it's just that no one holds those rights anymore (here there might be a language issue too, generally in copyright law &quot;rights&quot; refers to those exclusive actions that may be taken by the copyright holder, and not always to the &quot;right&quot; i.e. &quot;freedom&quot; for someone to do something).
Please Note: This was written before the title change of this question and may no longer be applicable According to the Harvard website: In Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 US 340 (1991) the United States Supreme Court held that copyright does not extend to a mere compilation of facts. In this case, it was a telephone directory much the same as the one in ProCD v. Zeidenberg 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the Court also ruled that something more than simple "sweat of the brow" labor was required before copyright protection would ensue, with some modicum of authorial originality necessary. Accordingly, it was held in Feist that copyright did not extend to a telephone directory, no matter how laborious a task its compilation was. The decision in ProCD v. Zeidenberg 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) is highly significant, therefore, in that it permits copyright or quasi-copyright protection to be extended to non-copyrightable material through the use of contract. One would have to consider each meta tag independently. For example, the "description" tag could by copyrightable since it is written for more than just the 'facts', such as a subtle advert for the site that is more than an objective description. However the 'og:type' would not be copyrightable since it would just be considered a fact. Now, if you are using it on another website and sourcing it properly, you could probably use it under "Fair Use" Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses: Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations. Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use. Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A copyright would exist on the image. One would have to know what license currently applies to the image to know for sure, however, the "Fair Use" to copyright would still apply. With Fair Use, the entity type that uses the image is important. There is much more leniency when a non-profit uses copyrighted information than when the information is used in commercial activity. (With, of course, more exceptions.)
First I should point out that the Google question is about a different situation, the "snippet" issue where a tiny part of a web page is redistributed, where the issue of resolved in the US by appeal to the "fair use" defense. The proposed scenario as written here is broader since it would go beyond a couple of lines, and goes up to the limit of copy an entire web page. That is copyright infringement, with or without an associated link. Copyright protection is not just about attribution, it is about control. If you can limit your copying appropriately, you may survive under a fair use analysis; but you need to hire a lawyer with experience in copyright litigation to vet your notions of what is "a small amount" etc.
Online file converters are legal: there is no law that prohibits a person from making a program available and executing online, including creating output in the form of a file. It is possible that some person may illegally copy copyright-protected material then use a website to modify that material, in which case the question of vicarious liability for copyright infringement could arise, so we appeal to the DMCA safe harbor provisions to see what the website must do. First, the owner of copyright must submit a properly constructed takedown notice to the website. Crucially, the notice must contain sufficient information that the website operator can find and take down the item(s) in question. Assuming that the complainant can supply the &quot;where is it&quot; information, then there is a notice and counter-notice routine where the uploader is informed and can deny the accusation – the website operator doesn't evaluate the merits of the claim, he only sees that the formalities were observed. If the operator follows the rules, he cannot be held vicariously liable. If the link does not expire and if it is somehow promulgated, the technical potential for being a contributor to copyright infringement becomes very real, but it puts the operator in no worse a legal position than Youtube. So the question is not just related to OCILLA, it is entirely covered by that law. Questions of how users or website owners are &quot;supposed to&quot; act don't figure into this. If the website owner does not comply with those provisions, they have no access to the safe harbor provisions, and they can be sued. However, the website itself remains legally &quot;permitted&quot; (there never was a prohibition of such a website).
Generally, as the copyright holder, you can grant anyone a license to any or all of the copyright rights you have over your work (copying, distribution, derivative works, etc.). If you want to articulate unambiguously exactly what rights you are licensing, and optionally require attribution, you could use one of the Creative Commons licenses, which are designed for creative works. Some that would likely be a good fit for you are: Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY) - Grants full rights to any recipient to use, modify, and distribute. Requires that all reuse mentions you somewhere in the work's credits. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA) - Grants the same full rights as the CC BY license except that any new derivative work made by a recipient must also be licensed under the CC BY-SA license. With the CC BY license, another person's modifications could be under a different license; under CC BY-SA, all modifications must be licensed under CC BY-SA when distributed, so the work and all its future transformations must be shared under the CC BY-SA license, forever (until your copyright expires, of course). This falls under the broad umbrella of copyleft licenses. CC0 - Functionally places your work in the public domain where it can be used by anyone with no restrictions (other than moral rights). CC0 allows you to renounce all claim to copyright on your work (to whatever extent possible in your jurisdiction), and/or freely license all the rights you hold in your work to the maximum extent possible (for jurisdictions where renouncing your copyright is not possible). There are also Creative Commons licenses that disallow commercial use and disallow the creation of derivative works, but you are probably not interested in those, since you want to grant full rights. One other factor to consider is whether you want to license the musical work itself or only the sound recording. By default, you might only be licensing the recording, which means other people cannot record a new cover of your music. (See Does a Creative Commons license allow me to record a cover of a song recording?) If you want to allow that, simply make a separate declaration when you license the work, saying something like, "In addition to the sound recording(s), I also license the underlying musical work under identical terms, to allow recipients to record their own covers based on this song."
Generally speaking, copyright flows from the end of a pen (or at the A/D converter of a digital recording device). However, owning the copyright to a specific artifact, such as a digital video clip, does not trump all the other rights and claims that may be made regarding the materials captured within that clip. Which means that there are several rights all in play at the same time, and those rights may conflict. The legal term for getting enough rights so that you can do what you want with the rights you own is called "clearance" by those in the industry, and "collective rights management" by Wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_rights_management). The long and short of it is that it is not enough for you to "own" your video clip if you want to use it somehow. Depending on how you want to use it, and your tolerance for risk, you need to get every party who might lay a claim to any copyrighted or trademarked material within your video clip to agree that they are OK with you using it in whatever way you say you want to use it. Sometimes you can ask for, and receive, a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free license to use XYZ material in any way, imagined or not yet imagined". Other times, you might have to settle for more limited rights "a performance of the video at the ABC Bar in New York City, on December 31, 2015 only, for a fee of $10,000 paid to XYZ Rights Holding Company," and agree to a whole bunch of other stipulations to boot. There are entire industries that make furniture and automobiles for Hollywood studios so that they don't have to ask for the rights to feature an IKEA kitchen table or a Ford station wagon in a movie. That's how bad/hard the clearance problem can be. If you are lucky (and risk-tolerant), you might only need permissions from the band and the film maker. If you are unlucky or not risk tolerant, you might need permission from every person captured on camera, and from every company that made every item that appear anywhere in the film. Good luck!