Forbidden Broadway/Legal Question- Page 2

[Danielm]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 2:33pm

Hey Fosse76, I seem to remember something from a law class about this, was this the Saturday Night Live case where they changed the "I Love NY" song to "I love Sodom?"

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 5:16pm

"But to state that you have to use someone's music note-for-note to create a parody of it that is recognizable… just ain't true."

I didn't say that. I was explaining the legaility of using copyrighted music for a parody and that that if you are writing a parody of a song, the music of that song is inherently fair use provided it is in fact a parody.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 5:48pm

Well, if you don't mean using music from a song that is note-for-note, then how DO you mean using it?

Kinda-sorta?

If so, then you're not really using their music; you're writing your own melody that "sounds like" the original song, but is, in fact, different. You're not liable at all then, because it is a true parody (of lyrics, music and people).

The definition of plagiarism and copyright infringement regarding a song is 12 consecutive notes and/or 9 consecutive lyrics that are an identical match. If you aren't doing this, then you don't have to worry about infringement to begin with. You're not liable, and it is a true parody and fully protected. Gerard did not have to worry about obtaining legal rights to "Johnny One Note" or Lloyd Webber's Phantom music because he didn't use them. He created his own sound-alikes, which were protected as parody, but also weren't breaking any copyright laws.

If he had used them note-for-note beyond 12 consecutive notes, he COULD have been liable, if they had chosen to take action.

EDIT: Most of the music in FB was and is used note-for-note. I thought that's what we were talking about... not "sound alikes."

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 05:48 PM