copyright united-kingdom music
May I add additional lyrics to a copyright song without claiming any ownership?
<p>A copyright holder has flatly refused my request to add additional lyrics to one of their songs, for use in a private congregational church setting.</p>
<p>Does this mean it is simply illegal?</p>
<p>I have seen several high-profile cases in the pop music world recently where artists have resolved copyright dispute by simply adding other artists as writers - sometimes as a precautionary measure before any complaint has been made! And going a bit further back, The Verve famously were only allowed to release their hit single &quot;Bittersweet Symphony&quot; by giving up all income to the Rolling Stones (whose song they sampled).</p>
<p>Does this imply that I <em>can</em> make a derivative work so long as I relinquish any rights to it, or does the original author still have the final say - is listing them as the author merely a politeness they can reject or does it grant me some official position? I couldn't care less if they wanted to claim ownership but I don't understand the rules. A lot of the time in real life it seems artists just 'do it' and then pay some/all the proceeds to the copyright holder but it is important to me I do things correctly.</p>

<h1>general things on copyright</h1>
<p>Copyright law is very similar globally, due to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Berne convention on copyright.</a></p>
<p>Ány country's copyright law grants the copyright to an author. Copyright is the exclusive right of an author to authorize (&quot;license&quot;) <em>copies, performance, and derivative works</em>. In case multiple authors jointly create a work, they own the right in their respective parts, or jointly.</p>
<p>The copyright holder can deny making derivatives.</p>
<p>If a derivative is made without authorization, it is copyright infringement. If the author was asked, denied the authorization and it is made anyway, it is wilful copyright infringement.</p>
<p>Relinquishing your rights in the altered work does not make it not copyright infringement. The only way to not commit copyright infringement is to get a license.</p>
<p>Naming the original author of a work you adapted is not just politeness, it is mandatory in all copyrights that follow the Berne convention on copyright.</p>
<h2>Licensing Fees</h2>
<p>The Verve's agreement to get the license was specifically to pay all the proceeds to the Rolling Stones, but that was an extraordinary case.</p>
<p>License fees for <em>recording a cover version</em> (with the <strong>unaltered</strong> lyrics!) are usually mandatory to be available. for example in the <a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="united-states-container">united-states</a>, it is mandatory to grant a <em>mechanical license</em> to create cover recordings for a licensing fee, for which for example the <a href="https://www.harryfox.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Harry Fox Agency</a> is collecting and distributing the required payments and royalties. Those Royalties are about 9.1 cents <strong>per copy</strong> for a sub-5-minute song's recording. This license does <strong>not</strong> allow to alter lyrics.</p>
<p>However, <em>synchronization</em> (tone <em>and</em> video) is not mandatory to be granted, and those start at a flat 4-digit and are rather open-ended. Without a sync license, you may not make video recordings of a work being performed.</p>
<p>A <em>public performance</em> of a work requires a different license. A <em>performance license</em> is required for any public performance, and those are not regulated either, but typically not too expensive - yet alteration again is not within the scope of such a license. Granting a performance license is typically handled by Performing Rights Organisations such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, taking the required fees and distributing the royalties.</p>
<p>Making an adaptation or alteration is a derivative work. Making a derivative work requires a license that is different again. Those can only be granted by the copyright holders, and if they say no... Close the folder.</p>
<h2>The price of copyright infringement</h2>
<p>Wilful copyright infringement, especially after you were told no, can be super expensive:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504" rel="nofollow noreferrer">In the US</a>, the rightsholder can get 150 000 USD <strong>and</strong> the lawyer fees for willful infringement. The rightsholder can sue in the US if they are there.</li>
<li>Recoverable costs plus damages are also available <a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-011-3729?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=(sc.Default)#co_anchor_a722496" rel="nofollow noreferrer">in the UK</a>, capped at 60 000 GBP for costs and 500 000 GBP in damages.</li>
</ul>

<p>Trish’s answer covers the main point: you need a license, and the license can prevent certain uses such as modified lyrics. There’s a side note though: sometimes, you <em>can</em> use copyrighted works without a license. Is it one of those cases?</p>
<h2>Fair dealing: can I perform (without a license) in a &quot;private congregational church setting&quot;?</h2>
<p>Almost certainly not.</p>
<p>A limited amount of use of copyrighted works is allowed under various, jurisdiction-dependent provisions. In the <a href="/questions/tagged/uk" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;uk&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;uk&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="uk-container">uk</a>, the name of that doctrine is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing" rel="noreferrer">&quot;fair dealing&quot;</a>.</p>
<p>The exact amount and scope depends a lot on the jurisdiction, but they almost always cover critical commentary of various forms (a newspaper can print a photograph of someone’s painting to call it ugly, or a politician’s speech to call them a liar; Wikipedia articles can put up film posters in the article about the film; parodies only work if the original work is kept sufficiently recognizable, but they are allowed).</p>
<p>In <em>some</em> jurisdictions, certain small-scale uses are exempt. For instance, <a href="/questions/tagged/france" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="france-container">france</a> has a statute provision for &quot;private and free-entry showings restricted to the family circle&quot; (<a href="https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006278917/2009-04-27/" rel="noreferrer">link to statute, in French</a>).</p>
<p>I could not find any such provision in UK law in my (admittedly quick) search for UK copyright exemptions, and the government’s &quot;copyright for non-lawyers&quot; website <a href="https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others" rel="noreferrer">lists no such exemption</a>.</p>
<p>Furthermore, even assuming there are such provisions in UK law or jurisprudence, I doubt a &quot;private congregational church setting&quot; is covered. For instance, in France’s (somewhat) generous terms outlined above, it would not be. If the service is open to any who would like to come, even if <em>in practice</em> the same people show up every Sunday, that would be a death blow to any argument that the setting is &quot;private&quot; and small-scale.</p>
