Slashdot Mirror
CBS, Others Sued For Copyright Infringement Over "Soft Kitty" In Big Bang Theory (arstechnica.com)
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.
For fuck's sake, it's 2016 and a fucking child poem from 1930 is still copyright protected?
Has the world gone fully retarded?
This is going to be great...everybody here loves "Big Bang" and knows that it's the best representation of "nerd" culture out there! Za-zing!
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
So she stands to win from one or the other, something anyway.
Parodies like http://shirt.woot.com/offers/soft-kitty are protected, right?
The daughters of poet Edith Newlin are suing...
Good on them! CBS et al are exploiting Copyright to their own benefit.
If anyone of us made T-Shirts about "Stoned Kitty", or Sheldon's Legal Documents parody, you can bet your ass that CBS and Chuck Lorre would be sending you nasty C&D letters and suing to recover "lost revenues."
I hope these ladies WIN!
The editors removed my last paragraph but my opinion is that CBS is probably legally fine because they used the derivative work (the song) as the song. Merchandise that show the lyrics are another matter and they may have to license the lyrics from Newlin's family.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Down Under (song) copied stuff from a 1932 song and that made it to a court case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
daughters of
Whoever wins, we all lose.
Hard kitty, Suing kitty.
...people would actually aspire to create something new rather than spend their lives trying to profit off the mental effort of their dead relatives.
The legal question is whether the song is a derivative work that was lawfully created and licensed. In this case Willis Music made the song from the poem. Their agreement with Newlin is important. Warner Brothers can argue that they licensed the song from Willis.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
some ppl just need a swift kick in the mouth
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.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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.
While I think CBS/Warner are probably in the right here, I'd still rather see them lose and get harsh penalties. The media cartels made this bed with their utterly ridiculous copyright extensions, now they should get to lie in it.
untold thousands of scientific references: sure...fine...whatever, we hardly get it. if anything maybe dial back the laugh track so the show seems more like a comedy and less like dora the explorer for jokes.
song about a cat.: sweet mother mary of thundering christs white whiskers...call from on high with a cacophany of wailing babes the name of every lawyer you can summon. a true injustice has been committed.
Good people go to bed earlier.
U.S. copyright in individual works published before 1978 subsists for the same duration as that in works made for hire: 95 years.
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 would a subsequent U.S. copyright term extension harmonize?
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.
No they can't because the lyrics were created by Edith Newlin. She owns the copyright and it clearly stated that in the lyrics.
This is just another example, in a long list of examples, why the copyright laws are a joke that has grown why beyond the original intent.
Again, it is a derivative work. The question is what rights she granted Willis Music in creating the derivative.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
they have the case and will probably get everything they want.
It's not derivative work. Look up the Verve and Vanilla Ice...see what the courts thought of their derivative work.
On the show, Sheldon is going to get a nasty gram about singing the song and have to change to a modified version.
Should cause a cult following for the new t-shirts and a scramble to get the 'rare' old t-shirts.
Whoooooooooosh, don't nerds read and comprehend sarcasm?
No.
Sarcasm is invisible on the internet.
It's like immersing a piece of glass of refractive index 1.34 in water: it becomes invisible, because the surrounding medium has exactly the same characteristics.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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 Cuoco having gotten married recently, doesn't care what men think of her anymore, so off with the hair....ugh
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Damages? What damages are they, specifically?
I think the suit seeks for a person to enrich themselves over a fucking nursery rhyme which they themselves didn't even write.
They had close to a century to monetize it. It's not the BBT's fault if they didn't. If anything the BBT contributed to the familiarity of the song.
The person seeking "damages" simply wants something for nothing (no work of their own was involved) In other words, it's a simple case of plain old greed. Nothing to see here.
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 (it would seem) had rights to publish both the words and the melody in a book. The question before the court is whether they had the right to sell the performance right of those to anyone else. That should come down to interpretation of the original contract between Wilis and Edith Newlin, and of course her estate and heirs inherit the right to litigate any infringement of that.
How exactly this being litigated 86 years after the work's creation serves to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," is a different matter...
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Vanilla only used the bassline, which was created by Queen's bass player.
While I'm not in favor at all of endlessly extending copyright, I feel that the Bono Act missed two very important points.
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.
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. 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?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
One of the vanity cards at the end of an episode in an earlier season (4 or 5, I think) showed a stitched panoramic picture of the "laugh track", which was indeed a live studio audience. Here's what Google turned up for Vanity Card #282.
Hopefully you now feel the pain of how shit your complaints are.
What will encourage Edith Newlin to write new poetry if others are able to profit off her old work??
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.
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.
There seems to be a particularly wide spectrum of opinions offered mostly by those who know nothing of copyright law. Realistically it is probably worth it to both sides to fight to the bitter end. Incidentally even a small fee of say $1000 per show would be a large sum considering the wide syndication of the show. My own worthless opinion is that CBS should settle for a few millions.
Sounds like you have a lot of nerd rage.
Again, the courts were split on this with one federal court declaring the simple act of gluing wasn't trans-formative enough with one saying that it was. However in this case, Willis Music created the music to the song which should be transformative enough in my opinion. But I am not a lawyer.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
We really need to see the original agreement between poet and publisher.
If the publisher was allowed to further license use of the song version then CBS should be in the clear, if they weren't, then both CBS and the publisher might be paying some money to the heirs, and CBS might take their own crack at suing the publisher.
A little long, sorry...
I used to write jokes for a living. Actually three jokes, one for Playboy, and two for Reader's Digest. In the paperwork accompanying the checks was an agreement that I had to sign and return before cashing; the relevant words were "assign", "unrestricted" and "in perpetuity". They now owned the Jokes. Important bit here: if I had copyrighted the Jokes _before_ assigning them, the wording would have been quite different, and the Jokes probably would have been tossed. It's just not worth it to them for a $25 Joke, in questionable taste.
I traced the "Warm Kitty" Copyrights, both in the US and Australia. I have found absolutely no proof that Newlin _ever_ claimed Copyright on the Lyrics, only MacCarteney and Willis. The Lyrics were Credited to Newlin, but that is not the same thing.
The Newlin Family will have to prove that their Mother did indeed secure Copyright, and that it hadn't been assigned away. The Burden is on them. If they want to claim Copyright, they probably can, even now, with proof; but damages can only be claimed on infringing actions taken _after_ Copyright is secured.
You'll find the original Lyrics to "Warm Kitty" here, on page 21:
http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/doview/nla.mus-vn2628642-p
Copyright assigned to MacCarteney, June 21, 1937, here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=DzEhAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PA1074&ots=nm5Lqza9-7&dq=%22Songs%20for%20the%20Nursery%20School%22&pg=PA829#v=onepage&q=%22Songs%20for%20the%20Nursery%20School%22&f=false
Note that there is no evidence that 'Warm Kitty" was ever separately Copyrighted. MacCarteney did thank Newlin for permission to Publish and acknowledged Newlin's "Copyright", but there is _no_ evidence that Newlin ever owned the Copyright, or even that she is the original Author, and that constitutes Fraud on Newlin's part.
A final thought- these old Biddies didn't come up with this idea on their own. There are deep pockets of unknown origin behind all of this. Copy of the Lawsuit here:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151230/15070433207/daughters-sue-big-bang-theory-over-infringing-use-mothers-82-year-old-poem-warm-kitty.shtml
(I am not a Lawyer, but I do have some experience in these matters. I worked for three decades for a University that was in such a hurry to hire me and put me to work, that somehow I never signed the Patent and Copyright Assignment forms, and the Loyalty Oath. hehe.)
the execs should pay up to 500,000$ per viewing of that song and then do 10 years in prison for each viewing.
I wonder why they bought laws that would put them in jail for so long and ruin CBS? I'm pretty sure these laws are not just meant to apply to "little people" are they?
Hopefully Disney can also be charged.
For fuck's sake, it's 2016 and a fucking child poem from 1930 is still copyright protected?
Has the world gone fully retarded?
No. It's 2016 and there are LOTS of poems from 1930 that never earned their authors a penny.
Long copyright terms are NOT bad because of the poem here or there--they are only utterly ridiculous for the massive projects that earn a fortune that clearly there would be a financial incentive to produce anyway. And they are silly when used to *prevent* derivative works from existing, rather than when used for licensing.
Normally this kind of thing pisses me off. BUT.. Since CBS is now suing Axanar for copyright infringement of a FAN FILM, they deserve this.
Two hundred posts and not one joke yet about soft pussy, warm pussy.
I guess I'm the only pervert on slashdot.
Sue EVERYONE for EVERYTHING!
Hey, you're breathing at the same rate as me- I'M SUING!!!
Hey, you put mustard on your sandwich just like I do- I'M SUING!!!
Hey, you drive with one hand on the wheel just like I do- I'M SUING!!!
Hey, you sue people just like I do- I'M SUING!!! Oh, wait...
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I'd prefer they cancel show, really.
What's_with_all_the_underlines?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The audience sits in front of the main set for the show, but they have monitors above that, and can see the camera shots from the other sets. They do multiple takes, so recording takes all day, which means the audience has to laugh at the same jokes multiple times. Often they don't the 15th take. So just like they pick and choose the best camera shots and takes from the actors, they also pick and choose the best laughs from the audience. It all gets edited together later.
If there's an outside scene, that's recorded ahead of time, and played back at an appropriate time for the audience. Many shows use *paid* audiences, who are good at laughing at the right times, and have good sounding laughs. I don't know if BBT does that, but it is common in the industry. Both the camera crew and actors move from set to set, so when it's not the main set in front of the audience, that's empty and dark, and they are just watching the screens.
To add emphasis when traditional means- Bold or Italic, aren't available, or may not be available in the future.
Going back through old posts on archived Bulletin Boards or Forums using proprietary markup can be painful.
You must be new to the Internet.
So, the stupid song has popped up less than 10-15 times in the 9 seasons the show has run but since it has been renewed to run one more season, let's extort a piece of the loot! An entertainment industry equivalent of an ambulance chaser got a hardon and the suit is on.
Figuring that lawyers, like coakroaches, will be the last life forms to go extinct when the planet croaks.
Thanks
Please mention a good reason why copyright must expire.
There isn't actually one, beyond freeloading. I.e. the only reason the /. crowd wants it abolished is because they want their free stuff.
An expiring copyright system completely undermines the law of supply and demand. Having an expiring copyright or no copyright at all will destroy the market, and then you will have no works to demand for free.
I think you're confusing "derivative" and "transformative". A derivative work has its own copyright, but that copyright is not usually independent of the original work. The issue of "transformative art" is more controversial. It was supposed to mean (AIUI) that I could make a collage using various rolls of wallpaper I'd bought without having to obtain copyright clearance from all the manufacturers on their flower patterns or whatever. However, it has expanded to making it an easy excuse for "artists" to rip off the work of other artists and photographers.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
My contacts in IP have indicated that lyrics and music are inextricbly combined when a song is created with lyrics - they are not a separate/separable copyright. It's one of the reasons why Jonothan Coulton's music, which is set to the lyrics of Baby Got Back, is not under his copyright and was not actionable when it was used in the show Glee without his permission. Even though his musical composition is entirely unique, because it was set to existing lyrics the copyright is owned by Sir Mix-A-Lot. (rf:http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/01/18/jonathan_coulton_glee_and_baby_got_back_did_fox_steal_the_arrangement.html)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
What I can't believe is that singing scenes are "fan favorites". That's exactly when I turn off the TV. Nothing makes me cringe more than singing actors.
However signatories to the Berne convention (which defines international copyright law and to which the US is a signatory) are all supposed to have a standard (at life +70) copyright.
Since when? The last time i checked, Berne was life plus 50, and only post-Berne treaties have extended the minimum beyond that.
Except they are available, as <em> and <b> tags.
And links too; <a href> and <url> are both usable on /. so fer chrissake please learn to use them!
I've sure some of it has to do with the people involved. However I would bet the real reason is it isn't really worth suing over until it has been used enough.
If they sued when first discovered, likely the end result would be a check for a couple hundred bucks, and they simply stop using it, replacing it with some other dramatic device. Now that it has been repeatedly used, and marketed, they can actually sue for some money, making it worthwhile to do so... Which I doubt is really the intent of copyright if every there really was one.
That means nothing. They can cut and splice audience reactions just as easily as they can cut and splice scenes of the actors.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Good reasons why copyrights should expire? In the US, copyrights serve a purpose designated in the Constitution and are for a limited time. To allow later authors and songwriters to use pieces of older works longer than fair use, because at some point it becomes shared culture. Because the ownership is going to get awful murky over time. If someone were to prove himself or herself as the heir of Plato, what would happen to all the copies of his dialogs out there?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ask George Harrison.
Oh, um, to be clear, that was rhetorical, no a death threat (George Harrison is deceased; to 'ask' him you would have to also be deceased, or a medium, and the afterlife....etc.)
He lost a lawsuit over his hit song My Sweet Lord. It has the same chord progressions and He's So Fine. Legally, what counts in this case was the chords/notes on the sheet music. The timbral quality, tonal quality, etc, etc. are irrelevant. Some of the jurors even said they were fans of Harrison but the law was clear.
Harrison lost, paid out, and then bought the rights to He's So Fine, probably for much higher than he could have picked it up before his song was released.