Song lyrics in stories? You’ll pay

The Nov. 7 session of #writechat led by the fantastic @writingspirit took a interesting turn when it delved into the notion of using a published song’s lyrics to help move a written story along. It’s a fascinating topic that delves into all sorts of areas, including Digital Millennium Copyright Act, artists’ rights, and whether not using song lyrics in a story is a good idea in the first place.

The discussion took a tangent around the age old question (for writers) of “Do I have to pay to use a song lyric, or lyrics, in my book?” Of course, the answer is yes and it’s been proven again and again. This article from Writing-World.com cites a number of examples (solid references toward the bottom). As someone writing a story with copious references to 1980s music (not necessarily lyrics), needless to say, the topic held my interest.

Some of the answers were standard ones. “Why are you even using song lyrics? Write your own songs.” My take: young and old writers have been and are inspired by music. Many of us associate moments of our own lives with whole songs (“Best of Both Worlds” by Van Halen is the latter-half of my teenage life) or excerpted lyrics (My own with cancer and some specific Ray LaMontagne lyrics). That effect has a carryover in to our creative works. And certainly, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”  However, it could be argued that the rule of law and the want of control of intellectual property is drying up inspiration through fear. “Oh, it seems your best-selling story was inspired by two lyrics from my rock ballad? That’ll be $250,000 plus a 2 percent of gross. And a credit.”

However, in keeping up with these things, this is a no-brainer. If you want to use the lyrics, you pay. Someone or something, like a Recording Industry Association of America-invested record company, owns those lyrics. Like any commodity, and because what’s been created has the rule of law on its side, the lyrics cost money to use. In the above cited example, that use could come to the tune of THOUSANDS of dollars. Plus, if you read reddit enough, you’ll know that RIAA is litigious to both behemoth and housewife.

Easy access to content and the capability to store and manipulate that content bolsters this problem. How many of you have looked for lyrics to that favorite song, found a website that hosted those lyrics and then pasted them into a Tweet or status update? And if so inspired, how many would copy and paste the same inspiring lyric into a work-in-progress? Many based on the tone of the #writechat. What if the song lyric or lyrics inspired the entire story? And sequels? The problem is this: if one bases a work or seeds a work with someone else’s content, and it’s one of the main components of driving that content along, then the entity that created the original content should get a cut.

Now, it’s up to courts to decide how “inspired” a particular work is and how to award damages. But, similarly, if I shot a photograph of the Bavarian landscape, and it ended up in a German tourism brochure without my permission, I’d seek damages. Why shouldn’t the same apply for lyrics to “Jumping Jack Flash,” “The Battle of Evermore,” or “Pac-Man Fever”? Three to five years ago, for-profit/fame/power bloggers/website owners could probably get away with excerpting content under “Fair Use” guise for their blogs, too, and still can. But mostly it’s about making money. There’s a reason I can’t see so many YouTube music videos in Germany: no one makes any money by allowing them to be seen here.

Companies have been formed to stifle people that use content without permission. Moreover, there is a groundswell of movement to change copyright laws. That will mean it will take longer for items to enter the public domain, if ever at all, as the rights will belong to generations of families or corporations who seek to bolster their profit bases. The notion of a work no longer making money after 50 or 75 years and then being given to the public for good is fading fast. At what point do you believe Beatles music will enter the public domain? My guess will be at about the same time that Paul Atreides becomes emperor of the known universe.

“Don’t make money on the backs of our work.” That’s the theme here, regardless of how much you may dislike the RIAA, record companies, or anyone else perceived to big a compassionless cog in the big profit machine. As an artist, I can’t necessarily disagree with the notion. I want control to choose how I donate my works; not have them ‘Saved As’ and repurposed. Creative commons is great (and I’ve done plenty of free and CC  illustration and writing work), but in the end, established, working writers and artists will tell you that it won’t pay a mortgage or put food in mouths.

What’s your opinion?

PS. Be sure to catch #writechat on Twitter Sundays from noon-3 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

(Image credit: soupgreens.com under Creative Commons and public domain)

Popularity: 4% [?]