Also remember, some items, namely all the old great books and poems, are public domain and can be freely quoted as long as you don't go overboard and piss off the estate.
The maximum length of time that something is copyrighted is up to eighty years after the person who it is attributed to - in most western countries, it's seventy. A few, such as El Salvador, have a hundred years. But anything after that is in the public domain. Many of them don't actually have legal representation, but there's no reason to offend the descendants, anyway, so that shouldn't be a significant problem.
There is a complication in the UK that copyright on material that is Crown Copyright never expires, because the notional author is the monarchy, not the monarch. Presumably it would expire x years after we became a republic, but I don't see that happening any time soon. I don't think many other countries recognise Crown Copyright, but in the UK we have to be careful with things like the King James Bible and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Considering the number of common phrases and sayings from those sources alone, that is potentially a serious problem, although if I were just to quote a line from the marriage service here I doubt anybody would be bothered (and what country's copyright law would apply, anyway?) Copyright is a really really complex issue.
Crown Copyright is generally something that most authors won't have that much of a problem with. If everyone was tried with treason (which probably won't happen even if you did copy and paste an entire chapter from a Crown Copyright document) because they quoted from the most published Bible in the world... It only really applies to professional documents and pictures, not the sort of thing that would interest most authors.
I don't think a breach of Crown Copyright amounts to treason. I agree that in practice they don't bother prosecuting every unauthorised KJV quote, but in theory they could. What does it take to appear on their radar?
gg... you seem to have left out the most important word [in italics]: '...after the person... dies'! net... cog is right, but it doesn't just apply to novels... it applies to any written work, which includes dialog from a movie or a tv show...
Recently I've been toying around with my novel. Trying to get some interesting hooks that I can play with throughout the book. I'm not saying I'm an uncreative bastard, but my latest one treads a line that I'd rather not ever cross, plagiarism. For example, I've since included quotes, always said during character's dialogue (to avoid the issue that I'm directly stealing the lines to make my own prose sound better) that references songs. The latest one breaks that rule a little. Let me show you what I mean. "I love this town, but it ain't the same." His ski mask ripped as he was putting it on. This is from a song by Iron and Wine, a group popular with the audience I'm targeting. As are many others. In fact, the working title of the novel itself is "Wish You Were Here". Am I an unscrupulous scoundrel? At this point it would be easy to remove references made, which is why I'm asking for your opinions.
Some authors, like Koontz, put song quote at the beginning of each chapter or section of the book. Something that ties into the meaning of the story. So it's not directly in the story itself, but still there for the audience. Sometimes it's charming. Other times it's annoying. In those cases, quoting one or two lines and indicating the singer/song is generally fair use. If that helps any.
No, it isn't. There is no fair usage in fiction. If you want to quote a song, then you need to get permission from the copyright holder. This is regardless of the context of the quote. And they will usually charge for the use.
Although titles of songs are not copyrighted, so your potential novel title is alright in copyright terms.
Common sense and copyright, like a couple after 50 years of marriage who just totally ignore each other. Titles are so common they can't be copyrighted, so you can use those all you like. As for quoting song lines, my heart says its fine. However its a grey area, most people play safe (spent a few minutes on google and didn't find any specific cases) and get permission rather than argue in court about relevancy to the story, whether a single line from lyrics without musical accompaniment falls under copyright, fair use etc etc. End of the day a few lines don't make or break a story, so just change them and avoid the issue entirely.
If you'd hear it on the street, then it's fine. That particular example is something that anyone would say - if there's no reference to the singer, then they'd have to prove that you were quoting them. It's still a good idea to get permission, or avoid any references to them whatsoever.
If it identifiable in the context you're using though, it is best to somehow give credit to the author of the song lyrics. Iron and Wine is a great band, by the way
All of this advice to the tune of, "Prove that I stole your riff or line!" is making me shake my head. And Gallow, hello! All songs can be heard "on the street." Cars drive by, blasting their radios, on every street of every city and town of every country on the planet. How does this make it Ok to just sample the lines of copywrited music without permission? This is, without a doubt, a subject where erring on the side of caution is going to be the rule. A donkey-stubborn attitude that proclaims, "Prove it! Prove I didn't just make that up myself," is foolhardy.
Seconded (though I believe that was the gist of my earlier post). Don't listen to people who say "Oh, it will be alright." It won't. The law is the law, and the music industry will rape you with it if you breach their copyright.
You might want to read a book on copyright. It will help you understand what you can and can't do. Names and titles are okay to use, as long as you don't disparage a person or trademark. (Disparaging someone isn't copyright infringement, it's libel which is also illegal.) Lyrics are definitely not okay to use without permission. When in doubt, don't do it, or consult a lawyer first. But basic knowledge never hurt anyone. Charlie
listen only to banzai and cog! no one else above has a clue, sorry to say... you can see for yourself that b/c are in the know, by checking the actual letter of the law at its source [which anyone should do, before offering what could be--and in this case is--bad advice]: www.copyright.gov you'll note that in the case of song lyrics--not titles--the amount one can use--when citing the author--is not specifically defined... that does not mean you can safely use even a single line... only that a court will decide the issue... which means you'll be out legal fees to defend yourself and could also face 'damages' if you lose... all of which means you'd be foolish to the max, to use any part of someone else's lyrics without their written permission... and, as noted above, that can cost ya biiiig bucks...
nonnie... that's ridiculous... if you're only joking, at least add a winker... if not, you'd better study up on the laws governing one's writing and check out news stories on how much the losers of copyright suits had to pony up... 'forgiveness' in such cases comes with a very stiff price tag...
*le gasp* Hey now, you'll see my reply stated that Titles are fair game, and as for lyrics its a grey area without any set precedents but its better to air on the side of caution. Being someone who spends a great deal of time in Trade law, i know a bit!
sorry 'bout that, r! should've excepted you from the 'no one' clause... apologies herewith tendered... abashed hugs, m
Not the songs themselves, but phrases that have passed into the vernacular that are also used in the songs.
