Copyright Question?

[Murphy Slaw]

Did Beyonce get a new, shared, copyright with Dolly for her version of Jolene?

The words are totally different.

Not that writer royalties are worth much nowadays, I was just curious being the owner of many copyrights.

[Talk2Me]

Most likely a derivative works copyright.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/w...-copyright-law

[keith.rogers]

For someone with the gazillion streaming plays like Beyoncé, the copyright will matter [financially]. (And possibly for the original writer of Jolene, if it's a derivative work - have not listened yet, myself.)

[Inyo]

Interesting topic.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Murphy Slaw

Did Beyonce get a new, shared, copyright with Dolly for her version of Jolene?

The words are totally different.

Not that writer royalties are worth much nowadays, I was just curious being the owner of many copyrights.

Well sort of as Talk2Me said, she (Beyonce) likely got permission from Parton for derivative work, and thus likely got a derivative work copyright. How the royalties might be divided I do not know.

[Talk2Me]

[QUOTE=Inyo;7437881]Here's a rather recent similar situation. Check out the 2023 Country release Chevrolet by Dustin Lynch (feat. Jelly Roll)--went #45 US Billboard Country. It's stuck with a different song title, but note that it's the same melody accompanied by different lyrics to Drift Away, a 1970 Mike Berry composition that Dobie Gray took to #5 US Billboard in 1973:

[EDITED]

A "similar situation" that was resolved how? That might help the OP to get an answer rather than just providing us all with some music to listen to. The closest I could find was that the original songwriter received partial credit for this one too.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Murphy Slaw

Did Beyonce get a new, shared, copyright with Dolly for her version of Jolene?

The words are totally different.

Not that writer royalties are worth much nowadays, I was just curious being the owner of many copyrights.

No. She no doubt copyrighted her recorded version which is what the "circle p" signifies but cannot claim any part of the song itself.

[Talk2Me]

Originally Posted by RRuskin

No. She no doubt copyrighted her recorded version which is what the "circle p" signifies but cannot claim any part of the song itself.

Nope. That circle just means the song is copyrighted. It doesn't say by whom nor is it likely a waiver of her contribution to the new recording. A "derivative work". Not an original but Beyonce should get something and Dolly something. That's what derivative means.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Talk2Me

Nope. That circle just means the song is copyrighted. It doesn't say by whom nor is it likely a waiver of her contribution to the new recording. A "derivative work". Not an original but Beyonce should get something and Dolly something. That's what derivative means.

One cannot copyright a work derived from an existing copyright without the owner of that works permission. Considering that Dolly turned Elvis down when he wanted a piece of "I Will Always Love You," in order for him to record it, it's doubtful that she would dilute, "Jolene" for Beyonce. Without contractual license, Beyonce can claim copyright on her recorded performance only.

FYI- proper copyright notices include the symbol, date, & copyright claimants name(s).

[Talk2Me]

Originally Posted by RRuskin

One cannot copyright a work derived from an existing copyright without the owner of that works permission. Considering that Dolly turned Elvis down when he wanted a piece of "I Will Always Love You," in order for him to record it, it's doubtful that she would dilute, "Jolene" for Beyonce. Without contractual license, Beyonce can claim copyright on her recorded performance only.

FYI- proper copyright notices include the symbol, date, & copyright claimants name(s).

My point was there's no way to tell from just the symbol as to who holds the copyright to a particular piece of work. Just that it's been copyrighted by someone. Additionally, a copyright notice is optional for unpublished works, foreign works, and works published after March 1, 1989, when the United States signed on to the Berne Convention.

As to "dilution"... have you heard Beyonce's version?

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Talk2Me

My point was there's no way to tell from just the symbol as to who holds the copyright to a particular piece of work. Just that it's been copyrighted by someone. Additionally, a copyright notice is optional for unpublished works, foreign works, and works published after March 1, 1989, when the United States signed on to the Berne Convention.

As to "dilution"... have you heard Beyonce's version?

By "dilution" I mean ownership. I'll tell you what, do your version of "Jolene" and try to claim copyright without a license to do it. Your application will be automatically bounced. If through an oversight it isn't, see how fast you get slapped with legal repercussions.

"Jolene" is a published work so your bringing unpublished material into this is totally off-topic. In addition, anyone wanting to legally protect their work will place proper copyright notice on it.

[Talk2Me]

Originally Posted by RRuskin

By "dilution" I mean ownership. I'll tell you what, do your version of "Jolene" and try to claim copyright without a license to do it. Your application will be automatically bounced. If through an oversight it isn't, see how fast you get slapped with legal repercussions.

"Jolene" is a published work so your bringing unpublished material into this is totally off-topic. In addition, anyone wanting to legally protect their work will place proper copyright notice on it.

Again. Publication of the notice is unnecessary since 1989. Most EU works I see don't show it anymore. Doesn't mean they don't still have full protection.

I see we are actually in agreement though that it must be some sort of "shared" (for lack of a better non-legal term for derivative works) copyright. No doubt she received permission ahead of time.

I don't have my own version of Jolene. I just do Dolly's and since I don't play public gigs it's never been an issue.

I wasn't bringing "unpublished material" into this. That's the law as to the THREE situations I noted in that sentence. Note that it's 2024 so definitely past 1989 and no need to publish the notice. Original holder is still protected. That's all I was saying along with the fact that the circle P doesn't tell you who holds what rights nor what portion thereof.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Talk2Me

Again. Publication of the notice is unnecessary since 1989. Most EU works I see don't show it anymore. Doesn't mean they don't still have full protection.

I see we are actually in agreement though that it must be some sort of "shared" (for lack of a better non-legal term for derivative works) copyright. No doubt she received permission ahead of time.

I don't have my own version of Jolene. I just do Dolly's and since I don't play public gigs it's never been an issue.

I wasn't bringing "unpublished material" into this. That's the law as to the THREE situations I noted in that sentence. Note that it's 2024 so definitely past 1989 and no need to publish the notice. Original holder is still protected. That's all I was saying along with the fact that the circle P doesn't tell you who holds what rights nor what portion thereof.

What makes you think Dolly Parton would agree to share any part of her copyrighted material? Nobody needs prior permission to record their version of a previously released song. For sure, royalties must be paid. That's what "compulsory licensing" is all about.

[Talk2Me]

Originally Posted by RRuskin

What makes you think Dolly Parton would agree to share any part of her copyrighted material? Nobody needs prior permission to record their version of a previously released song. For sure, royalties must be paid. That's what "compulsory licensing" is all about.

I don't just think she agreed. I KNOW it as that's what the law requires. I'll post another informational page about derivative works but it's clear that 1. You don't know the copyright law 2. You don't want to know (or you would have read and understood already) and 3. You haven't listened to Beyonce's version or you'd know it was the very definition of a derivative work.

Here, once again, is the law summary which clearly states the original owner must give permission or you can't even do it at all.

https://musicbusinessmadeeasy.com/un...rivative-work/

If anyone doesn't see it now they never will so I'm done responding to nonsense.

[RRuskin]

"Lawful works requirement
Copyright ownership in a derivative work attaches only if the derivative work is lawful, because of a license or other "authorization." The U.S. Copyright Office says in its circular on derivative works:

In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully."