Getting out of paying royalties

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 8:26pm

Was just flipping the dial and came across Friends. An early episode (it's on now), where someone steals Courtney Cox's identity, and they discover the person in a dance class. One of the scenes was Cox going to the class, and the background music was a solo piano accompaniment of One Singular Sensation, but played a key or so higher than normal.

Are they (and others) able to get out of paying royalties by merely changing the key of the song?

[autopilot2]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 8:26pm

no

[Just_John]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 8:33pm

I'm pretty sure they changed that enough to not have to pay for royalties. They added a bit at the end that has nothing to do with A Chorus Line, but that doens't mean they didn't, that show had enough money to pay for it.
Updated On: 1/21/08 at 08:33 PM

[clarkstallings]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 8:35pm

If the song's notes maintain the same intervalic relationship and rhythmic relationship and only the key changes, the song is still be played, thus, they don't skirt any royalties. Plus, the royalties for using that song in that context on the show would be nothing the producers would fret over.

[winston89]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 8:45pm

It is the same thing if there is a school cabaret or something and one student sings a show tune or two. Nothing the producers are going to fret over.

Besides, when they are making sheet music and publishing it they sort of have that in mind. That people are going to perform a song or two out of it.

[SahDu]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 8:48pm

What are the rules regarding royalties if there is no money to be made (i.e. if a show is produced and all tickets are free, no advertisements, etc.)? Do all the same rules apply?

Jeff

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 8:52pm

The Friends producers paid the actors millions of dollars in salary. Somehow I don't think royalties on an ACL song (which has already been used to hock products in commercials) would be a problem.

I think the law says that in order for it to be considered "ripped off" that a song has to have 7 notes alike.

[Flaunt It]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 9:02pm

It was not ONE in a different key.. it was a composition that was similar to ONE in rhythm and tone. They do this sort of thing all the time on MadTV and such... and they are very careful to deviate just enough to keep it legal.
Updated On: 1/21/08 at 09:02 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 9:06pm

I remember there was a Senifeld episode where Elane had a roomate auditioning for a dinner theatre production of A Chorus Line. And to mock her Elane walked into Jerry's apartment singing one.

There was an interview with Larry David not too long after that aired where he was asked about the rights. Larry said that she wasn't on key so they are safe. And mentioned that she never can sing on key and if she could then the producers should be paying him for getting her to do something right.

[Flaunt It]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 9:11pm

And let's not forget the case Carol Burnett just lost trying to sue FAMILY GUY.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 9:17pm

it wasnt "ONE" on seinfeld. it was "god i hope i get it" and elaine sang a completely wrong and off-key melody anyway.

[Kev2222]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 9:31pm

They do this sort of thing all the time on MadTV and such... and they are very careful to deviate just enough to keep it legal.

They do. Those are called "soundalikes" and they're legal. Walter Murphy writes tons of them for "Family Guy." Actually, they're getting sued over one right now that may have been a little too close to the original composition.

[clarkstallings]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 9:44pm

Family Guy does a combination of sound alikes and parody. For example, Mr. Herbert's version of "Somewhere That's Green" in Family Guy, is a parody of the song. Used in that context, with the original melody but without lyrics, the producers escape paying royalties. An example of a sound alike would be the music being played in the background during an episode in which Quagmire falls in love, and is swirling his date around a ball room while Peter and Cleveland look on a la "Beauty and the Beast." The music there was written to sound like the song "Beauty and the Beast" though it never used the melody. SahDu, there are no rules regarding money being made and whether or not royalties must be paid. There are always exceptions, but 99% of the time, it doesn't matter if no money is made, admission is not charged, etc. Royalties still must be paid. Sometimes, an author might allow a non-profit to perform a show royalty free as their contribution to a benefit, but this is rarely the case. The commercial purpose or lack thereof, can and does influence the royalty rate however.

PS Carol Burnett lost her case against Family Guy because the bit she was trying to sue for was, by the court, deemed a valid parody. Thus, there was no copyright infringement.

[winston89]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 9:55pm

Your right Nasty,

I had the clip playing in my head and heard the song. For some reason I wrote down One when I clearly meant God I hope I get it.


Kev,

Not only is Carol Burnet suing family guy. But, The guys that wrote When You wish upon a star are as well. They are doing so because of the anti semitic ( yet quite funny) spoof of When You Wish Upon a Star. Called " When You Wish Upon a Jew." The episode was originally never aired because it was deemed to anti semitic. But, it got a lot of fans due to it going out on DVD. It eventually was aired on cartoon network and this is why they are suing.

Seth Mcfarlen has said that he has the record collection of an 80 year old man. And that he isn't worried about these situation happening because he knows a lot of general knowledge to cover his ass. His words. But, I don't think that they are going to get in that much trouble. Knowing seth's know how with this stuff he most likely is going to be able to point out a bar or two that isn't the same.

[SahDu]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 10:17pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein" episode was never aired was because of a line in the parodied "When You Wish Upon a Star" (the ending line, in fact) was

"Even though they killed our Lord
I need a Jew"

This was deemed too inappropriate by the censors and only made it on air when the line was changed to

"I don't think they killed our Lord
I need a Jew"

Truth be told, the first version is much funnier :). Thanks clark for the info!

Jeff

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 10:22pm

Completely irrelevant to Yankee's question, but I do love that episode of FRIENDS. Jennifer Aniston gets to show some of her tap-dancing skills, and the lady that Monica befriends makes her go audition for CATS (I believe she tells her, "I say we go, get up there and sing 'Memory,' and make a fool of ourselves," or something to that effect, it's pretty funny).

[TomMonster]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 10:31pm

You even have to pay for HAPPY BIRTHDAY. It cost me $30,000 to use it in a feature film back in the 80's.

I'm sure they paid CHORUS LINE money for the usage of the material. Even if it was just to play it safe...

I'm not sure if it fell into the "parody" status that would allow free usage.

[henryt]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 10:40pm

Updated On: 3/7/08 at 10:40 PM

[verynewyorkcurious]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 10:49pm

This is the first I'm ever heard about royalties. So even after the show ends [its run], they would still have to pay these royalties? I remember that episode of Friends was from the first season..which was in 1994-1995. The original production of A Chorus Line closed in 1990.

Do you guys remember the one episode of Will & Grace, the episode after Nathan breaks up with Grace, and she couldn't get out of bed. Jack comes in, and tells Grace about the idea he had for his show Jack 2001. He sings a medley of songs with the word 'One' in them, and one of them was 'One [Singular Sensation].'

[TomMonster]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 11:01pm

It's pro rated as to how much of the song you use.

You pay it for the product. FRIENDS, WILL & GRACE, etc, payed once for the rights to use whatever and that's that.

I don't think they have to continue to pay rights after the fact.

[winston89]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 11:20pm

SahDu,

That episode of the show was at first deemed to offensive to air on TV. So instead they put it on compilation DVDs. It turned out to be so popular via the DVDs and illegal downloads that they eventually put the show on TV.


When they aired it they changed that line and nothing else. That is why they are suing.