Huge database of songs in Powerpoint format

[buggyboy]

For the record, I understand the ethical issues involved and agree that as Christians we should walk the straightest and narrowest of possible options. I'm with you all 100%. The questions I'm asking could lead you to think otherwise, but I'm only trying to get a firm grasp on the details of the laws involved.

As far as Sam's question...This "performance" of lyrics is the part I understand. The part I don't understand is about storing lyrics.

Let me come at it a different way. Say I've got a big program coming up and I need to make a dozen powerpoints. I start by getting all the lyrics loaded into powerpoint files. Then, I send those files to another guy to do some photoshop backgrounds or something like that. Then they get sent to the pastor, and back a forth among a bunch of people.

Anything wrong with that? Lyric files, passed around between multiple people.

Is this "distribution" (whatever that is?).

What if they are posted on the church website for all the members (password protected)?

Illegal yet?

what if those powerpoints are converted into youtube videos and posted on youtube. Now the lyrics are completely public.

Illegal yet?

The point is, at what point does "sharing" become "distributing" or "publishing".

[Chkurgrnd]

This is distributing/sharing within the same church/organization between you, the graphic guy/gal, the pastor and the projectionist. Your church is covered by CCLI.

When you talk about YouTube, that is just plain illegal. No bones about that so it really shouldn't be part of the conversation. I have my own rant about YouTube content but the illegal part is the recording of the licensed and copyrighed music to lyrics. Lyrics themselves are not illegal to distribute but when you run into issues is when you begin reproducing them on a larger scale (chorus sheets, chord sheets, said powerpoint slides for projection). That is publishing... large scale sharing. As soon as you move out of the organization, people can access the lyrics at home online if they are on the website. That becomes personal and not corporate.

You can keep your own database, church database or 12,000,000 songs if you wanted to. They just need to stay within the church.

Copyright is not here to stifle things but to protect intellectual rights of songwriters and the producers of works. It is our responsibility to work within the framework.

Any other questions you can go to CCLI and they can answer anything.

[buggyboy]

I'll search elsewhere for answers. but let me point out how confusing this is.

"Lyrics themselves are not illegal to distribute"
Lyrics good, powerpoint bad??

"That is publishing... large scale sharing"
So it's based on number of potential viewers?

" YouTube, that is just plain illegal"
Really? I'm not saying you are wrong...but if youtube is hosting illegal content, won't they be liable? wouldn't this give them a major incentive to prevent the posting of illegal content to begin with?


This whole mess is just really confusing.

Thanks to the posters who took a stab at this. If I can find answers somewhere i'll try to remember to come back and share them with everyone here.

Ciao

[blonborg]

For $46/year, you can download the lyrics for the songs from "SongSelect" - a CCLI offering. They maintain the 90,000+ database of worship songs that you can download to your computer. Bill

[waynehoskins]

If you replace "Powerpoint database" with "hymnal" or "songbook", it makes a lot more sense.

It's still plenty confusing, not helped at all by how far technology has advanced since the prehistoric times when the laws were written and the significant blurring of distinctions between this and that.

Recall the mess between Apple Computer and the Beatles some decades ago over the Apple name, that part of the deal was that Apple Computer couldn't deal with music. At the time, that was a no-brainer. I don't know what had to happen in this last decade.

[daver2]

This is one reason why our song words are on our website but zipped up and password protected and only, therefore, available to the A/V techs who know the password. And yes, the password does change on a regular basis.

Constructing the running order and circulating power points around between members of the worship team for that week is allowed. I don't see anything wrong with that.

As people have already said - publishing the words to one or two songs on the internet will not cause undue wailing and nashing of teeth by the lawyers (but you still should not do it unless you know you are in the right from a license perspective).

Certainly, publishing the lyrics to 500 songs on the internet would cause a nasty legal letter to drop through the letterbox of the Church in my opinion!

I think YouTube try to absolve themselves by stating that the "poster" is responsible for the legal issues - although they do (and have) taken posts down where copyright infringement has been raised. If you say YouTube is responsible for any illegal infringement where do you stop? If I send a defamatory e-mail or tweet is the service provider legally responsible?

Dave

[KeckCreative]

and he walks in we could be sued?

Not just him, but the agency that represents him and/or the publishers. Step one is usually just a cease and desist notification, which is your warning that the copyright owner is claiming an infringement. I've worked with a guy that use to freelance as an ASCAP and BMI investigator. He wasn't investigating churches, but he did go "undercover" to restaurants and bars to verified the establishments had secured proper rights for live and recorded (DJs) music and/or document their violations.

[KeckCreative]

Actually it is not complex or confusing at all. If you want to copy, publish, or distribute in any format or method other than the narrow exceptions outlined in copyright law (i.e. Fair Use) or items in public domain you MUST have been granted permission by the copyright holder. Period.

Personal use is defined by intent. You can do anything with that copy, printout, PowerPoint, etc. as long as it stays in your possession and is not publicly display. Once you share that copy, printout, PowerPoint file, or show it publicly you cross over the line and it is no longer personal use. It gets confusing because we are talking about intangible rights. If you look at intellectual property the same way as physical property it is a lot easier. My neighbor comes and takes my lawnmower without asking and he is stealing. My neighbor asks me to use it and I say yes without stipulation, I've granted him full permission to do with as he pleases. I say no and he takes it, he is again stealing. If I say yes he can use my lawnmower to mow his yard, but not take my mower over to his friends house, then I've granted him limited permission. He uses for his yard, he's fine. He goes ahead and takes it over to his friend's house; he's violating our agreement and in essence stealing again. I tell him he can use it this week only, then if he tries to use it next week, he is again stealing. Think of copyrights as tangible property and it's easy.

[KeckCreative]

Lyrics themselves are not illegal to distribute

That's an inaccurate statement. See article in 2007: http://news.cnet.com/Lyrics-sites-ou...3-6203085.html

And another from 2010: http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2010/01...ed-lyrics-site

It's not until recently (past 3-4 years) that publishers have been pursuing unlicensed lyric sites. Lyrics are in scope of copyright. See section 102 of copyright law.

but if youtube is hosting illegal content, won't they be liable?

This was sort of settled in Viacom's lawsuit against Google (owner of YouTube). On June 2010, the court sided with Google's position that it was not liable under the "safe harbor" stipulation in Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Viacom vows to appeal the decision. You can read the entire court decision here: http://static.googleusercontent.com/...j_decision.pdf. Essentially it currently requires the copyright owner to troll YouTube and notify YouTube of ever possible violation, if the person who uploaded the content cannot produce evidence to the extent that they were granted rights to the copyrighted materal, YouTube will take down the video.

YouTube also has a program where copyright owners can send YouTube reference files that YouTube uses as a filtering method to either block, allow, or setup up some sort of advertising revenue sharing with the copyright owner. See YouTube ContentID.

[waynehoskins]

Originally Posted by KeckCreative

If you look at intellectual property the same way as physical property it is a lot easier. My neighbor comes and takes my lawnmower without asking and he is stealing. My neighbor asks me to use it and I say yes without stipulation, I've granted him full permission to do with as he pleases. I say no and he takes it, he is again stealing. If I say yes he can use my lawnmower to mow his yard, but not take my mower over to his friends house, then I've granted him limited permission. He uses for his yard, he's fine. He goes ahead and takes it over to his friend's house; he's violating our agreement and in essence stealing again. I tell him he can use it this week only, then if he tries to use it next week, he is again stealing. Think of copyrights as tangible property and it's easy.

Excellent illustration. I'll have to remember it.

[daver2]

Yes, an excellent set of posts Jon.

[KeckCreative]

Thanks.

I will say this. When to ask for permission is pretty clear cut. Who and what type of permission to ask for can be confusing. The reason being because the creator of the work may have transfered some right to other entities (i.e. publishing companies or recording companies). It can get confusing sometimes on when to ask for publishing vs. mechanical vs. synchronization vs. broadcast vs. performing vs. master rights.

Services like Christian Copyright Solutions and CCLI help streamline the process by reaching agreements with content producers and then setting up a method for entities to get the most common permissions they need (i.e. perform music, display/copy/distribute lyrics within the organization).

Also numerous royalty free content providers make it easy too because they grant non-exclusive rights to those that purchase the content (i.e. Sharefaith, Digital Juice, etc.) to copy, distribute, modify the content. The only stipulation is usually that the content cannot be resold or redistributed in such a way that is directly competing with the content provider.