Copyright question

[ariel80]

After seeing a youtube video of a meet & greet concert by a singer named Anahi, I was wondering if what she did there was a copyright violation. In the video she's singing a song called Salvame and sometime during the song there is an instrumental solo where she goes back stage to get wires attached so she can fly around the stage imitating Disney's Tinkerbell. In that part of the song where she's flying above everyone she yell's the phrase from Disney's Peter Pan: 'I Do, I Do, I Do..Believe in Fairies', as well as having the audience yelling that with her.

I was wondering if this is a copyright violation? Can an artist use a disney phrase for a concert where they charge admission? I don't think she's asked any disney rep for permission to use that phrase, and she always claims its hers. She uses that Disney phrase everytime she sings "Salvame" in concerts and tv.

I'm just curious to know, there is no particular importance about it.

The youtube video I'm refering to is the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTh3dyVjTRI
The part where she yells "I do, I do, I do..believe in fairies" is at min 2:43.

Thanks

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

I don't think she's asked any disney rep for permission to use that phrase, and she always claims its hers.

Two points here -

1) Have Disney ever copyrighted the phrase ?

2) If they have - how do you know she's never applied for permission to use it ?

 

[unkadug]

Isn't international use different that use inside the US ?


edit: And after watching the video. I so badly want to make a comment about the actions of Brazilians in groups...but I will refrain. :zipit:

 

[Monty]

I doubt anyone could say that her use of the phrase even indirectly increased her profit, so she can use it. If people were buying tickets to her show because she imitates Tink and/or it were an integral part of one of her songs, then it might be infringement of a trademark if Disney has it registered. My understanding of copyright is that it starts with the creation of the work and extends until 50 years after the creator's death. J. M. Barrie died in 1937, so copyright would no longer attach.

I'm no lawyer, so all of the above may be bunk!

 

[Krack2]

The short answer is, unless she's never seen Peter Pan or anything related with Tinkerbell, it's probably a violation of US copyright law (and at least another 160 countries that have similar copyright laws in place). However, depending on her popularity, it would be very difficult for Disney to prove enough damages to make litigation (in this particular situation) worth it.

As for duration of copyright ownership, it's not 50 years after death anymore; if it was, Disney would lose Mickey Mouse (and just about everything else they own) in 6 years. In the United States, it's now 70 years after the death of the creator. That would make Mickey and Donald "up for grabs" in 2036 ... and I guarantee that time period gets extended even further before Disney loses its meal tickets.

 

[Monty]

The short answer is, unless she's never seen Peter Pan or anything related with Tinkerbell, it's probably a violation of US copyright law (and at least another 160 countries that have similar copyright laws in place). However, depending on her popularity, it would be very difficult for Disney to prove enough damages to make litigation (in this particular situation) worth it.

As for duration of copyright ownership, it's not 50 years after death anymore; if it was, Disney would lose Mickey Mouse (and just about everything else they own) in 6 years. In the United States, it's now 70 years after the death of the creator. That would make Mickey and Donald "up for grabs" in 2036 ... and I guarantee that time period gets extended even further before Disney loses its meal tickets.

So J. M. Barrie's copyright is still over, he died in 37. It would have ended in 2007.

 

[Figment632]

Isn't international use different that use inside the US ?


edit: And after watching the video. I so badly want to make a comment about the actions of Brazilians in groups...but I will refrain. :zipit:

Not really at least not modernized countries. I will us HP as an example, J.K. Rolling has on a number of cases all around the globe for copywrite infringement.

 

[MousDad]

I doubt anyone could say that her use of the phrase even indirectly increased her profit, so she can use it. If people were buying tickets to her show because she imitates Tink and/or it were an integral part of one of her songs, then it might be infringement of a trademark if Disney has it registered. My understanding of copyright is that it starts with the creation of the work and extends until 50 years after the creator's death. J. M. Barrie died in 1937, so copyright would no longer attach.

I'm no lawyer, so all of the above may be bunk!

Current term of U.S. copyright is life + 70, or 95 years from creation or first publication, if the work is made for hire.

However, those terms would not apply to when that particular work was created (old law pre-1978). The original book could very well be in the public domain, but Disney's screenplay most definitely is not. Where the phrase originated, I don't know.

Then there's the whole question of whether that short phrase is de minimis (insuffuicient), a therefore not possible to be infringible. That would be a court determination.

As far as the swinging from the cable, that's definitely not copyrightable, as I doubt that would be considered choreography. General movements are not protected.

 

[Eyorefan]

Current term of U.S. copyright is life + 70, or 95 years from creation or first publication, if the work is made for hire.

However, those terms would not apply to when that particular work was created (old law pre-1978). The original book could very well be in the public domain, but Disney's screenplay most definitely is not. Where the phrase originated, I don't know.

Then there's the whole question of whether that short phrase is de minimis (insuffuicient), a therefore not possible to be infringible. That would be a court determination.

As far as the swinging from the cable, that's definitely not copyrightable, as I doubt that would be considered choreography. General movements are not protected.

I was going to say the samething, but also add that the phrase did not orginate in the Disney screenplay. It was in the book, and the play long before it made its way into Disney's movie.

 

[fosse76]

In short, no, this not an infringement, even under the most scrutinous reading of the law. Its copyright status is complicated. J.M. Barrie gave the copyright to Great Ormond Hospital in London, who under a EU directive has a perpetual copyright to the material. However, the copyright directive only grants royalties to the hospital, not creative control or the power to refuse permission to use it. It's more complicated in the U.S., since the book technically wasn't published until 1928. The hospital is being disingenuous, since copyright begins the second something is created. Disney, not surprisingly, disagrees with the hospital that the copyright hasn't expired yet.

Even under copyright protection, it is such an insignificant amount of material that it clearly falls under the Fair Use doctrine. And even if it weren't, it's not clear if Disney would have a claim of action. The hospital might have more of a claim than Disney.

 

[WDW John]

Not illegal

From what I understand about copyright (which isn't really that much considering how extensive copyright law is) a public performance, even inside the US, is not a violation of copyright, even without permission.

Look at it this way. You can pay to go to a concert and see an artist perform their own songs. Then, in the middle somewhere, they decide to sing one of their favorites by another artist. This is perfectly legal. Now, if they want to record that song and sell it they would need to get permission. I'm going under the assumption that copyright is still in effect.

You could even pay to see a band sing none of their own music and all they sing are other artists music for the entirety of the show. This is also legal.

Don't be fooled though, copyright gets weird and tricky. I won't go too far into it but just as an example, I could get permission from Cold Play (let's say) to make my OWN VERSION of Viva La Vida. Say I alter the music and the timing so that people would recognize it as Viva La Vida but it is clearly a different work. MY WORK would now be covered under a separate copyright and people couldn't copy it without permission.

One last thing. Let's say there is a Peter Pan play (I don't know but I would guess there is one). Any theater, school or other group could have a performance of the play without getting permission.

To directly answer the OP's question, it would be perfectly legal.

Anyway, hope I helped a little.

 

[MousDad]

From what I understand about copyright (which isn't really that much considering how extensive copyright law is) a public performance, even inside the US, is not a violation of copyright, even without permission.

The following are 2 of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner:

- The right to perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographed works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works

- In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

Don't be fooled though, copyright gets weird and tricky. I won't go too far into it but just as an example, I could get permission from Cold Play (let's say) to make my OWN VERSION of Viva La Vida. Say I alter the music and the timing so that people would recognize it as Viva La Vida but it is clearly a different work. MY WORK would now be covered under a separate copyright and people couldn't copy it without permission.

This may or may not be true. You can get permission to create a derivative work but that does not automatically entitle you to claim copyright in that work. To claim copyright in an arrangement of a work under copyright protection, you must have the express written permission of the copyright owner, and that permission must specifically say you have permission to claim copyright in the arrangement.

 

[captain marvel1]

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

 

[RAXIP]

Umm… that line's not even in Disney's Peter Pan. (although it is in Universal's)

 

[unkadug]

Umm… that line's not even in Disney's Peter Pan. (although it is in Universal's)

But it IS in the play, from what I can remember. :shrug:

 

[Disneylover1302]

But it IS in the play, from what I can remember. :shrug:

I just remember hearing it somewhere!:lol:

 

[WDW John]

The following are 2 of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner:

- The right to perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographed works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works

- In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

While your points are accurate they ignore Fair Use. Yes, they give the copyright owner those legal protections. If the owner feels they have suffered damages they can use the courts to enforce those protections.

That is when Fair Use comes into play. Does a radio station need to get permission from a content author to play a song from that person most recent CD? No. Does Leona Lewis need to get permission from Snow Patrol to sing "Run" at one of her concerts? No. Does Leona Lewis need to get permission from Snow Patrol to record "Run" and sell it on her CD? Yes.

These are basic examples but help to show that a person saying one line from a book or movie during a performance has more than likely not violated a copyright law.

 

[hemloc]

While your points are accurate they ignore Fair Use. Yes, they give the copyright owner those legal protections. If the owner feels they have suffered damages they can use the courts to enforce those protections.

That is when Fair Use comes into play. Does a radio station need to get permission from a content author to play a song from that person most recent CD? No. Does Leona Lewis need to get permission from Snow Patrol to sing "Run" at one of her concerts? No. Does Leona Lewis need to get permission from Snow Patrol to record "Run" and sell it on her CD? Yes.

These are basic examples but help to show that a person saying one line from a book or movie during a performance has more than likely not violated a copyright law.

Actually... No, you do not need anyone's permission to record and sell a track after it has been recorded and distributed by the copyright owner. You just need to obtain a mechanical license and pay licensing fees. Welcome to the wonderful world of Harry Fox:animwink:!!

 

[WDW John]

Actually... No, you do not need anyone's permission to record and sell a track after it has been recorded and distributed by the copyright owner. You just need to obtain a mechanical license and pay licensing fees.

Also known as "getting permission". The copyright owner is under no obligation to provide a mechanical license, it would be their choice to do so or not.

 

[hemloc]

Also known as "getting permission". The copyright owner is under no obligation to provide a mechanical license, it would be their choice to do so or not.

Again... NO PERMISSION is required. You don't even have to contact the copyright holder(They have no choice in the matter). You pay royalties through a service such as Harry Fox, and that's pretty much the end of it(a mechanical license is not considered permission).

Under the United States Copyright Act, the right to use copyrighted, non-dramatic musical works in the making of phonorecords for distribution to the public for private use is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. However, the Act provides that once a copyright owner has recorded and distributed such a work to the U.S. public or permitted another to do so, a compulsory mechanical license is available to anyone else who wants to record and distribute the work in the U.S. upon the payment of license fees at the statutory "compulsory" rate as set forth in Section 115 of the Act.