My understanding is that for song lyrics, the "I just used a little" defense doesn't work well. That's partly because songs are so short--for example, if I grab the lyrics of this song and remove all instances of the phrase, I've removed roughly ten percent of the words. Reproducing ten percent of a novel would absolutely be a copyright violation. And those ten percent are the heart of the song; it would be impossible to imagine singing the song without them. Then there's the fact that the phrase is both a title and a lyric. I have no idea how that affects the legality. Yes, the phrase could theoretically be used in real life, but if the phrase is used in a context that brings the song to mind, that fact doesn't help. Every copyrighted work is made up of commonly used elements. If the author wouldn't be just as happy to say, "Goodness gracious, Molly!", and the reason why has anything to do with the song, then I think that copyright is an issue. My conclusion is that I definitely wouldn't risk this without getting a legal opinion.
To beat a dead horse, the fact that people even worry about this is evidence that copyright law defeats its own purpose.
@ChickenFreak: I can see intellectually, the logic of your explanation, however, I can't help but think that there's a line that we should all draw and utilise common sense. And not fear taking responsibility for our decisions. Obviously, someone will be more comfortable with calling a lawyer about something like this. Not me, though. The phrase OP mentioned IS a normal phrase anyone who knows a Molly would utter at some time. Is it because of the Little Richard song? I doubt anyone can prove that conclusively. 'Golly-molly' rhyme is older than that. If you consider a phrase 'comfortably numb' which I heard and saw used many times and is recognisable as a Pink Floyd song, would you run to the lawyer before you wrote 'Comfortably numb from whiskey, Jack sank into the cushions and finally let the pain go.' I would feel it's a waste of my time and hers, besides, I already know, not even being a lawyer, that Pink Floyd can't sue me for using it. Even if I mentioned it in reference to their song, and even if I said 'that seventies band' not even mentioning them, still, it isn't a legal issue. I think it's wise to be careful, but common sense should not be abandoned.
I distinctly remember a senior member of this forum was convinced that I violeted copyright law by publishing a short story entitled "The Unforgiven" in a gihj-school magazine, because, hey, it was a title of a Metallica song! (three songs, actually, and two movies, or maybe a few more of both). As you say @jazzabel, common sense is the first thing one should consult in any dillema. But isn't there something more about it? I see people almost terrified by even the vaguest possibility that they might, incidentally, unknowingly, break into someone else's "territory" - plagiarism, copyright infringements, "unoriginality"... I understand the need to secure the uniqueness and complete legality and marketability of your product before entering any market, but being scared of even thinking something wrong... It triggers the "paranoia" alarm...
We can draw all the lines we want, but the line that we draw isn't necessarily going to be respected by copyright holders, judges, agents, and publishers. I'm not an advocate of the insane extensions of copyright in recent decades. I'd like to see laws written guaranteeing fair use and expanding it. But that's not what's happening right now. People can sue for anything that they want, so, certainly, Pink Floyd could sue. I agree that they probably couldn't win, though I'm not a lawyer so my agreement means nothing. But to go through the process of making them not-win, to point out, in nice neat legal terms, to a judge, how ridiculous the claim is, how the phrase uses two common words in a combination that isn't that unusual, to manage the nuances of claiming that it's not copied from the song while the work does refer to the song...I suspect that that's a lawyer's job. One lawyer and one day in court might well cost more than the profits of a book. People are talking about the expense of a lawyer to find out--that's tiny compared to the expense of a lawyer once someone sues. But I should clarify my "wouldn't risk this without a legal opinion"--I mean that I wouldn't embark on a course where I lose anything substantial if I remove the material. Yeah, sure, if it's a funny aside, include it and see if a later publisher says lose it or don't lose it, or if you go with self-publishing, see the lawyer later, when the whole work is polished up and you know if the material is even going to be in the final version. There's no harm in having it in the manuscript. (Well, no legal harm.) But I would not go to publication based on my own judgement of the legal issue, and I would not make the work dependent on that material.
@ChickenFreak : I think we can assume that our work would go through a legal department and countless editing before a publisher puts it out, so I wasn't talking about that. I am also aware of the whole 'they can sue you and you have to pay upfront legal costs' paradigm you have in the US, no need to explain. In the UK it's different, you can't get sued without reasonable grounds and I can pretty much guarantee you that Pink Floyd wouldn't have a case if someone used the phrase 'comfortably numb'. To go around worrying about what someone can sue you for, and not win, is the equivalent of being scared of our own shadow. Maybe that's the reality in America, but I don't think your legal system is that indiscriminate. I never suggested someone should 'wing it' on a legal issue either, I said there was no legal issue with 'golly Molly'.
"Fair use" only applies for certaintypes of nonficion, such as rev iews and scholarly papers. It does not apply to inclusion in fiction. The real question is whether the material is covered under copyright law. You are probably okay in this case, but you should probably clear it with a literary attorney.
Do people really worry a lot about this? There's been a couple threads in the past few weeks on the matter and I'm curious where this concern comes from. Do people assume they're going be published and thus don't want to do something that's been done before?
Skirting copyright law can feel like tiptoeing past a sleeping bear. The government has sent us the message that speech is a privilege, not a right, and that there are greedy, powerful people who will make us suffer for exercising that privilege if they can profit from doing that. In response, some people are paranoid about exercising their privilege because they do not want to make themselves targets of greed.
A few reason why new writers worry: + They want to be original; to not retell a story that had been done before. Haunted hotels, magical children in schools, etc. They don't want to look online and read something like, "This new author is a hack, the book is a blatant rip-off of [insert name of well-known story]." They want to look online and read about how wonderfully original they are, how so unlike any other book their story is. I would not want people thinking my fantasy is just a chopped-up version of The Elder Scrolls video game series with bits of Avatar: The Last Airbender thrown in. Yeah, I know one's a video game series and the other's a TV show, but you can accidentally plagiarize from other forms of media as well. Eragon by Paolini was accused of being a blatant rip-off of Star Wars with a few choice details tweaked. + They don't want to start off their career with a lawsuit! Imagine if you wrote a book about a haunted hotel, then get a letter in the mail that said to the effect that Stephen King is suing you for plagiarizing his The Shining. I'd just about throw myself off a bridge if that ever happened to me. D: + Copyright is both vague and specific at the same time. It's...so complicated and so confusing that it would make sense for new writers to want to know what is and isn't acceptable. Should they have a character named Oliver Twist in their story, even if their Oliver is a black kid going to college? What if they made a mention that one of their characters is obsessed with Harry Potter and would pretend to sort his/her friends and enemies in the respective houses? Are there things that are trademarked, and thus should not go into their books? It's...yeah, as a new writer, they want to get it all nailed down into nice little boxes of 'Acceptable' and 'Unacceptable'.
If you're putting a definition in an article or essay, do you have to cite where you got the definition to avoid plagiarism? Part of me feels like, because you are using their exact words, you have to cite them. The other part of me feels like you are simply stating a fact, so to speak, so you aren't stealing anything--a word means what it means. For instance, Pulp Fiction begins with definition of "Pulp." Tarantino doesn't cite a source--Pulp means what it means, no matter who said it. I want to begin my blog post with a definition of "irony." Just looking for what is expected.
Ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife- apparently. Although the only irony in that song is the title.
For an essay, it makes sense to attribute everything that you are quoting, so that your sources can be checked for accuracy (your accuracy in quoting them) and legitimacy (would you believe anything that Adolf Hitler said about the Jews?) For a blog, I think that what's important is that your definition won't get a lot of people saying "That's not what it means! I'm going to look that up!" If that's unlikely, you don't need the attribution. But, on balance, I'd say give it (perhaps as a footnote) and save yourself too much heartache. I don't think that a definition of a word is a plagiarism issue.
From Purdue's Online Writing Lab: Note that the citation here is in MLA format. Edited to clarify: Yes, you would need to cite it if you're using the definition from a particular dictionary.
Rumwriter, if i where you, I would definitely cite it. Use https://www.library.cornell.edu/research/citation/mla as guide for MLA.
Anytime you quote published words exactly, you have to cite. But if I were writing an essay, I'd try to find something outside of a dictionary definition. Depends on the tone of the essay, but you could find something from a scholar or even a comedian.
A word's meaning is a fact, but many different words could be used to describe that meaning, so I'd be very surprised if the definition isn't copyrightable. I wouldn't be confident that citing the source would be sufficient. One thought: How about finding a dictionary sufficiently old to be out of copyright? Edited to add: It would still be plagiarism in that case, but not violation of copyright. If you don't want the plagiarism, just cite the source. I'd probably do tho by stating the definition where I want it, and then crediting it at the bottom. That's how I credit the "free but give credit" photos that I put in my blog.
Not really sure about this one. I do know that most dictionaries use The Oxford Dictionary as their source but cannot ever remember them quoting a source.
I just ran across this blog by Jane Friedman, which deals with this topic in general. She teaches university courses in publishing and other writer-related topics, and seems well-informed—not only in her main blog article, but in the very informative discussion that follows. Basically, citing sources seems to be a grey area AND seeking permission is not always necessary or a great idea! If you contact a publisher for permission they will always charge you for it—even if you're within the category of 'fair use.' If these publishers had to go to court to press their claim, they might well lose ...but you don't know that. It's a minefield. http://janefriedman.com/2012/01/23/permissions/ Here is a particularly useful section, which is actually a blog written by another writer, but it deals more completely with use of quotes within works of fiction. http://janefriedman.com/2013/07/15/the-fair-use-doctrine/
And I feel it worth mentioning that starting your essay with a definition is a fine way to go, if you want your readers to think you're still in elementary school. You couldn't get more cliched. http://blog.writeathome.com/index.php/2012/06/please-quit-starting-papers-with-dictionary-definitions/
@Jack Asher See, I was going to say that. But I felt it was too mean. So, please don't start with a dictionary definition. Odds are, people know the word well enough unless the entire paper is about semantics and splitting hairs of a particular meaning because you're in some sort of linguist class..
In the book I am trying to write I want to pay homage to one of my favorite scenes from a movie. I want to be clear that I am referencing this scene. The dialog and actions in my book are written to mirror the movie, and my intention is that anyone who has seen the movie will instantly recognize it. This is not just a throwaway scene. I plan for it to be something serious that drives one of my character's motivations. I was wondering if anyone had any experience doing this? If you like an idea, scene, image, quote, anything really, how do you show it in your own work respectfully? Would it be considered plagiarism to actually have someone else's work, their dialog, actions, etc. help flesh out my characters?
As for the legal etc. aspects of this, someone else needs to answer your questions, but I just want to say that it's important that you consider your audience in relation to the work you're referencing: you run the risk of alienating a huge part of your readers if something they neither know nor care about suddenly happens to be a big and important part of your work, and especially if your story doesn't readily make sense without having watched the film.
Yes, unless the dialog, actions, etc were so generic that they could not be considered covered by copyright or trademark (two different sets of rules, BTW). In other words, the more closely the object of your affections is associated to your writing, the more likely the chances of a copyright violation (very expensive to defend, even if you win). You would generally need a release from the owner of the copyright or trademark, and such releases are generally contingent on the payment of a fee. My own view is that this notion of "paying homage" through imitation is the mark of a very novice writer. Bjornar (above) points out the concern from the perspective of readership. But from the perspective of the writer, making the telling of your story so heavily dependent on the telling of someone else's story, no matter how great it might have been, can only inhibit your ability to develop your own writing "chops" and the ability of your own writing to stand on its own. Besides, if the movie (and please don't tell us which one) is so terrific, I'm sure it's already garnered its share of kudos.
