CBS, Others Sued For Copyright Infringement Over "Soft Kitty" In Big Bang Theory (arstechnica.com) 349
UnknowingFool writes: In the popular sitcom, The Big Bang Theory, Penny has sung "Soft Kitty" to the difficult Sheldon Cooper on numerous occasions as a lullaby and to comfort him. These scenes are such fan favorites that the song lyrics are sold on merchandise. The daughters of poet Edith Newlin are suing CBS, Warner Bros, and others claiming copyright infringement for her poem, "Warm Kitty".
The situation is not a simple copyright infringement case of Warner Brothers not obtaining any permission. The poem was created in the 1930s by Newlin, but she granted permission to Willis Music to be used as lyrics in their songbook Songs for the Nursery School. Warner Brothers obtained permission from Willis Music in 2007 for the song to be used in the show. Willis Music is also named as a defendant.
The situation is not a simple copyright infringement case of Warner Brothers not obtaining any permission. The poem was created in the 1930s by Newlin, but she granted permission to Willis Music to be used as lyrics in their songbook Songs for the Nursery School. Warner Brothers obtained permission from Willis Music in 2007 for the song to be used in the show. Willis Music is also named as a defendant.
Oh give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
For fuck's sake, it's 2016 and a fucking child poem from 1930 is still copyright protected?
Has the world gone fully retarded?
Re:Oh give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the copyright for that last 95 years. So 2025 is when the copyright expires. We'll find out before that if that will enter the public domain since a certain mouse is set to expire in 2023.
Re:Oh give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Statute may define copyrights to such lengths, but make no mistake, copyrights in mid industrialized countries are now effectively infinite.
By harmonizing to whose term? (Score:3)
make no mistake, copyrights in mid industrialized countries are now effectively infinite.
How so?
The 1998 extension was enacted soon after the European Union had standardized copyright at life plus 70, following the term then in place in Germany. The Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft justified the 1998 extension by being careful to distinguish harmonizing to the EU from what has since come to be called "perpetual copyright on the installment plan". But because the EU is still at life plus 70, Congress won't be able to use the EU again. To which other industrialized country's copyright term wou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would view copyright terms as being too long, but it wouldn't bother me quite so much if they just limited the copyright increases to newly created works. The real problem is that they always extend it retroactively to already existing works, and are keeping items out of the public domain that would have landed their long ago under their original copyright terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mexico has a 100 year copyright. I'm also sure that America can bully other countries to follow suite, why else spend so much on military
Penny's horrible hair... (Score:2, Funny)
Ugh, what is the deal with women who have great looking long hair...and they whack it off and it looks like crap?
One of the others that just did this is Megan Kelly...geez, WTF are they thinking? Wait till you get to be elderly and long hair doesn't look good anymore, enjoy it while you're young.
And besides....most men like longer hair on women anyway...I guess Kaley C
Re:Oh give me a break (Score:5, Interesting)
It's 95 years for corporate authors. Individual authors are life plus 70. If the author died in 2004, then the copyright will expire in 2074.
Yes, it's too long, and it's silly.
Pre-1978 works are like those made for hire (Score:2)
U.S. copyright in individual works published before 1978 subsists for the same duration as that in works made for hire: 95 years.
Re:Oh give me a break (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's really not. You can't apply the terms established by the October 1976 copyright act, with subsequent extensions, to works published before that date. You get to apply the terms established by the 1909 copyright act, with subsequent extensions. It's all horribly complex [cornell.edu], but...
For a work registered or first published in the US between 1923 and 1963, and renewed, the term is indeed 95 years after the publication date.
Lawyer ouuuuuuut...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh give me a break (Score:5, Interesting)
> since a certain mouse is set to expire in 2023.
Spoiler alert: It won't.
Re: (Score:3)
since a certain mouse is set to expire in 2023.
Spoiler alert: It won't.
What expires is the copyright on "Steamboat Willie."
Eight minutes of silent era sight gags with a synchronized sound track and a thin narrative thread.
You do not get the right to infringe on later incarnations of the mouse in any media. That would be a tad less than 90 year backlist of theatrical features and shorts, radio and television productions, Little Golden Books, comic strips, comic books, ViewMaster 3-D, stage shows and so on.
Neither do you get the right to use the Mickey Mouse trademark or a
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to hedging them?
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to buy SEGA?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Copyright HAS gotten that retarded.
The whole system needs to be scrapped and re-written from scratch
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you have to admit, it can't really get much worse anymore. We are already at "I can do everything, you can do jack and be glad I let you actually watch what you paid for".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but that's the state of copyright. If you tell these few people to get a clue and go away but you're still left with Disney with a lock on its own copyrights then nothing's been achieved except to kick the little guys.
Similar to patent law, if all the big players use patents to go after everyone else then it's only fair and rationale for the tiny companies to do the same. You have to fix things starting at the top.
Re:Oh give me a break (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The music company did not have authority to grant CBS the rights. The lyrics clearly stated who owned the copyright. CBS could have easily figured this out.
Not only that, but it seems the bigger problem may be that they implied the whole thing wasn't licensed from anyone in some merchandise and instead was made up by one of the writers on the show.
From TFA:
"Defendants not only willfully infringed Plaintiffs' copyright, but they failed to credit Edith Newlin as the author of the Soft Kitty Lyrics. Instead, they placed a credit line on some merchandise items that made it appear as if one of the Defendants themselves created the soft Kitty lyrics," the suit claims. "The credit states that the Soft Kitty Lyrics were 'Written by Bill Prady.' Bill Prady is a principal of Defendant Chuck Lorre Productions, one of the producers of The Big Bang Theory."
Even if they licensed the music and/or the lyrics, implying that they wrote it is clearly problematic. Even if the work was in public domain (which, arguably, it should be in any sensible copyright system), it still would be appropriate to credit the original creator, even if not legally mandated.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, this is a (probably rare) legitimate application of copyright law, that hinges on whether the music company had the right to offer the song to CBS. Seems fairly straightforward.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, this is a (probably rare) legitimate application of copyright law, that hinges on whether the music company had the right to offer the song to CBS.
Yes
Seems fairly straightforward.
I take it you haven't dealt much with the US legal system then.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, this is a (probably rare) legitimate application of copyright law, that hinges on whether the music company had the right to offer the song to CBS.
Yes
Seems fairly straightforward.
I take it you haven't dealt much with the US legal system then.
Ok, relatively straightforward.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, this is a (probably rare) legitimate application of copyright law, that hinges on whether the music company had the right to offer the song to CBS. Seems fairly straightforward.
So, my question is this: What compromises a "Song"? The lyrics, the melody, or the combination of both?
The reason I ask is that according to this website [wikia.com], the genesis of the melody for what we know as "Warm Kitty" (a/k/a "Soft Kitty") SUPPOSEDLY is this relatively ancient (19th Century) Polish children's song. Personally, I don't get it, because, even with my limited ability to read musical notation, it sure doesn't look like the same melody-line, nor is it in the same time-signature.
Of course, the Goog
Re: (Score:2)
Seems fairly straightforward.
depending on when she sold them the rights, they would need to find a contract that had been written 85 years ago to determine whether they actually had the rights to sell this to someone else.
this is anything but straight forward.
this is similar to the happy birthday debacle.
some of these items are so old that no one even remembers who actually owns the copyright any longer. that alone should help illustrate the problem with such long copyright terms.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's ridiculous, the "heirs" didn;t create it. Copyright should end on creator's death.
Re:Oh give me a break (Score:5, Funny)
If copyright ended on the creator's death, it opens up a whole new world of possibilities for the unethical re-publisher.
Re: (Score:2)
No u!
Re: (Score:2)
Non-commercial use is not a fair use argument.
The rest of those I believe are valid fair use arguments.
Additional comments (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You attacked me for having an opinion. I did not initiate the lawsuit by the Rolling Stone. I was not part of this lawsuit. Direct your anger elsewhere.
Second you leave out certain facts: The Verve HAD an agreement. The Stones argued that they broke their agreement by using 10 notes instead of 5. Secondly, they settled. They may have won or they may have lost. They chose to yield.
Re: (Score:2)
Down Under (song) copied stuff from a 1932 song (Score:3)
Down Under (song) copied stuff from a 1932 song and that made it to a court case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The world would be a more creative place if... (Score:2)
...people would actually aspire to create something new rather than spend their lives trying to profit off the mental effort of their dead relatives.
Re: (Score:2)
...people would actually aspire to create something new rather than spend their lives trying to profit off the mental effort of their dead relatives.
Options: With respect to their dead relatives, they are:
(a) less capable of mental effort.
(b) less willing to exert mental effort.
(c) both (a) and (b).
Re: (Score:3)
...people would actually aspire to create something new rather than spend their lives trying to profit off the mental effort of their dead relatives.
Because all creative thought is entirely original and has no connection to the rest of the world... even disregarding satire, parody, sampling etc etc do you really think creativity takes place in some void in the mind and is spawned from nothing?
Someone's new creations will be connected to any copyrighted material they have absorbed because creativity takes place in the neural network which is the human mind, and ultimately the output of a neural network is the product of it's cumulative input and some noi
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm too cynical for slashdot. But I think these daughters, and their lawyer, are seeking to benefit not from a dead relative but from defendants with deep pockets who are likely to pay them to shut the fuck up and settle out of court.
I'm no fan of current copyright law. But I really dislike the mud sucking bottom dwellers who file lawsuits seeking not to win but to walk away with a fat settlement. I hope that CBS and Warner recognize that if they handle the publicity right, the cost of dragging this
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that they temporarily replace their theme song (which I like) with "Soft Kitty". That would be one way of making lemonade.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so who are we criticising here?
The daughters, for suing over a poem written by their mom? I assume that's correct right?
But the interesting thing is that the basic thrust of your argument is that the daughters should create something new instead of profiting of the mental effort of someone else? Right?
If you expect the daughters to "create something new" then shouldn't Warner Bros also be held to that expectation?
You are literally arguing that the daughters should create something new for themselves t
Re: (Score:2)
.......people would actually aspire to create something new rather than spend their lives trying to profit off the mental effort of their dead relatives.
or perhaps, just perhaps...
The world might be a more creative place if artists were encouraged to build a literary estate --- a body of work -----with a eye to the future needs of their heirs.
[In 1878,] Grant moved to New York City to go into business with his son, Ulysses S. Grant, Jr., and a young investor, Ferdinand Ward.
Grant & Ward failed in May 1884, leaving Grant penniless.
That fall, the former president was diagnosed with terminal throat cancer. Facing his mortality, Grant struck a publishing deal with his friend Mark Twain and began working on his memoirs, hoping they would provide for his family after his death.
Grant suffered greatly in his final year. He was in constant pain from his illness and sometimes had the feeling he was choking. Despite his condition, he wrote at a furious pace, sometimes finishing 25 to 50 pages a day. In June 1885, as the cancer spread through his body, the family moved to Mount MacGregor, New York, to make Grant more comfortable. Propped up on chairs, and too weak to walk, Grant worked to finish the book. Friends, admirers and even a few former Confederate opponents made their way to Mount MacGregor to pay their respects. Grant finished the manuscript on July 18; he died five days later.
Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant [wikipedia.org]
Fucking copyright vultures (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for copyright, but set it back to 14 years, and no extensions. As far as I can tell, the current system allows for just two things:
1) People can take from the public domain but never contribute
2) People can profit off their dead ancestors' work.
Neither is particularly good for the public at large.
renewal fees are needed so we don't orphan works. (Score:2)
renewal fees are needed so we don't the DMCA issues with orphan works / Abandonware that in some cases are not even sold any more but can't be put out for people to use.
Re: (Score:2)
renewal fees are needed so we don't the DMCA issues with orphan works / Abandonware that in some cases are not even sold any more but can't be put out for people to use.
Amen! And the renewal fees should increase over time since the work was copyrighted. If it's not profitable enough to pay for a renewal, it should be in the public domain. That will put a quick end to these "submarine" copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for copyright, but set it back to 14 years, and no extensions.
If you do that, then you will be helping big movie companies who will feel free to make blockbuster movies from authors without paying them a single cent.
As another point, you will also encourage serialized content, but I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We would probably get better books and movies this way.
That's optimistic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for a Sherlock Holmes feature film set a few hundred years into a cyberpunk dystopian future. I think the closest we've seen of Sherlock Holmes in the future is in Star Trek TNG S02E03 "Elementary, Dear Data" and S06E12 "Ship in a Bottle". This horse can take many, many more beatings.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like how Disney ripped off the Brothers Grimm (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White), Carlo Collodi (Pinocchio), and others?
By not allowing works to fall into the public domain, culture is stolen from us.
Re: (Score:2)
Greed. (Score:3)
The original author was alive for years while it was being used by the TV show.
Now ownership has transferred to their estate, they're suing, after it's been going on for 8 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops.
I shouldn't believe everything I read in a slashdot comment
The author died in 2004, not 2009.
Ugh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BBT doesn't use a laugh track, it is a live audience laughing you hear.
How they record a show that takes place in many different places in front of a studio audience though is beyond me.
The copyright laws are a joke (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two points. (Score:2)
2) This is a clear example of how absurd our copyright laws have become. This HEIRS author of this ditty deserves NOTHING. The song should have become public domain 50 years after it was created, not have it's copyright life repeatedly extended by Congress drunk on lobbyist donations.
My solution for copyright extension (Score:5, Interesting)
1. If people/companies can't be bothered to remember to file for an extension, tough. Tough tough tough. That's how it was in the past. The current situation where they just get extended automatically won't resolve the issue sometimes where certain old things (ie. photos) may be under copyright but nobody has any idea at all how to find anybody who actually owns the copyright to try to license it.
2. If these copyrights are so valuable then why on earth is the federal government giving extensions away for free? That makes no sense.
Here's my proposal. OK, if the current terms aren't enough (ie. perhaps Disney comes to mind here), then at expiration allow the copyright holder to apply for a 10 year extension. The price? $100,000. Then when that expires, let them apply for another 10 year extension at 10 times the price of the previous one. So the next extension is $1 million, then $10 million, then $100 million, then $1 billion, then $10 billion, and so on. Eventually even Disney won't pay for it anymore. Could Disney really justify to its stockholders paying $10 million to renew the copyright on the oldest version of Mickey Mouse for 10 more years? Maybe not. But I'm pretty sure that once it reaches $1 billion that nobody is going to want to do that. Exponentially rising costs allows the copyright holder the opportunity to renew if they are willing to pay for it, which I think is fair if these copyrights are so valuable that they just must be extended. Since few will agree to pay even $100,000 in my solution, stuff will at least finally enter the public domain. If it makes anybody feel better, the recent EU copyright extension was so contentious that I can't imagine there's any real political will in Europe to ever extend that beyond what it is now.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:A slashdot favorite! (Score:5, Insightful)
If a TV show like that offends you, you're the one with a problem.
You're taking offense because of your own personal issues, not because the show is 'insulting' you in some way.
Considering a couple of the actors have actual geek cred and all you have is a slashdot account, I'm really not sure why you're getting pissed off instead of being thankful.
Its not about the 'best' of a culture any more than Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Honeymooners, The Simpsons, Family Guy or any other TV show.
ITS A FUCKING FICTIONAL COMEDY OF COURSE IT PICKS ON STEREO TYPES AND YOU JUST CONFIRMED ITS RIGHT TO DO SO, Sheldon.
Seriously, you just gave the show even more cred by making these this stupid post.
Re: (Score:3)
*audience explodes in laughter*
Re:A slashdot favorite! (Score:5, Funny)
Did you know people with aspergers are unable to detect sarcasm?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly. The show is about 4 fictional people. Those kind of people exist in real life, all very different. I've seen the equivalents of each of them throughout my years. It is only insulting if you identify with one. I'm going to guess you are like Sheldon?
Or I suppose we should run sitcoms about a bunch of people sitting at the computer tapping on a keyboard. That will be far better. Does family guy insult your family? Does American dad?
Re: (Score:2)
I think we all have features of each of the characters, but I will personally say I enjoyed the earlier seasons more, the recent couple have been all about relationships and have moved from the nerd culture they used to be about.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Re: (Score:2)
Little ball of hate.
Re:A slashdot favorite! (Score:4, Insightful)
It does actually. There's nerd chic now. People in the past who would never ever be called nerds are calling themselves that. The definitions of "nerd" in the past practically required them to be outcasts. I'd say a lot of the new nerds are really recovering nerds, able to fit in with mainstream culture better.
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhh!! You want us to get sued laddie?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think CBS should be cleared in this. They sought permission from who they thought held the rights. The song book publisher should have deferred if they didn't properly hold the rights, but that wasn't on CBS. I know in the eyes of the court, it's not important (kinda like receiving stolen property), but CBS at least put forth effort.
That being said, the actual license terms will come into play. They may have received "all" rights to publish the song which may or may not have included show ri
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GOOD! (Score:4, Insightful)
A copyright statement in a 1930's vintage book may have become inaccurate in the intervening 86 years. If Wilis subsequently acquired full ownership, existing copies wouldn't be retroactively updated. Don't believe everything you read.
All parties will have to show up in court with the text of whatever agreements they may have, and the sum total of those (as sussed out by 12 idiots) will determine who owns what and who owes whom.
Either that or they settle out of court...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On (3), most readers needn't agree. Life plus 70 or 95 years are the law, regardless of what most of anyone thinks.
As far as whether CBS dropped the ball or not (IE honest mistake / they thought they did the right thing), it might enter into the damages calculation for "willful" infringement, but it's otherwise irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking that 75+ years for copyright is too much doesn't change the existing case, but if enough people believe this they might be able to get the law changed which would obviously impact future cases. (3) isn't about "well, I don't think it should be that long so I'll ignore it." It's about "I don't think it should be that long so let's push to get it changed."
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright litigation doesn't work like that. If you go to the entity you *think* owns it, they take your money for it, but they didn't actually have the right to sell it to you, you don't get "good faith" credit for that. You could possibly sue them for misrepresenting that they owned the copyright and recover what you paid, but nothing in that transaction precludes the actual owner of the copyright from suing you for infringement.
The only instance that's close to what you're talking about would be if the
Re: (Score:2)
If you go to the entity you *think* owns it, they take your money for it, but they didn't actually have the right to sell it to you, you don't get "good faith" credit for that.
You probably would get a little "good faith" credit, to the extent that you would have (what I personally think would be) a reasonable defense against willful infringement and the extra damages that goes with it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. And also a question of fact for a jury, so go fish...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) The Verve settled a lawsuit in which they believe they had permission to, however, there was disagreement that they sampled too much.
2) Vanilla ice sampled David Bowie's Under Pressure but never got permission.
Thanks for leaving out certain facts.
Re: (Score:3)
No they can't because the lyrics were created by Edith Newlin. She owns the copyright and it clearly stated that in the lyrics.
It would depend on the contract between her and Willis Music. She could have assigned her rights to them for use as a song, in which case they would own the rights to the song and and be able license it.
Re: (Score:3)
The melody & the lyrics have separate copyright. It's inaccurate to say that putting words to music causes the song to become a derivative work of the words. Copyright of the song is the combination of the copyrights of the lyrics and the melody, and additionally performance rights of the combined work which may be conveyed separately. In order to perform the work and reproduce (IE broadcast) the performance, you'd need performance right of the song and copyright of both the words and melody.
Wilis (i
Re: (Score:2)
The melody & the lyrics have separate copyright. It's inaccurate to say that putting words to music causes the song to become a derivative work of the words.
From what I know the courts have been split about this. [wne.edu] The case in question was this: an artists created work that she/he licensed to a company to make and sell as note cards. Another artist used the note cards and glued them to tiles and then sold the tiles. Is the second artist infringing on the first artist's work?
Re: (Score:3)
If the second artist *bought* the original licensed cards, glued them, and sold them, copyright shouldn't enter into it. No unauthorized *copy* was made. First Sale Doctrine should apply. You can buy a book, cut it up into little pieces, then sell the pieces.
If the second artist bought one copy, made additional copies on their own, and sold those, then no question it's a violation of the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even think Fair Use is needed for that. To call a series of drawings of cats with adjectives under them a derivative work of the poem would be a bit of a reach.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever wins, we all lose.
Which one is the predator [imdb.com] and which one the alien?
Re: (Score:2)