TAXI.com

Hi again. I have a song that was registered with copyright office and ascap. I have someone now interested in using the same song but without the vocals, an instrumental version. Do I need to re-register this song with ASCAP and/or copyright office or does the original version with vocals cover me? Thanks again.

I'm thinking that you may have to copyright the instrumental version as a derivative work of the original. If it was a minor change to the work then you wouldn't have anything to worry about. However, removing the lyrics to have just the instrumental I believe would be a major enough change. The copyright office puts it this way:A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, shortphrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.HTHGod bless.

Nov 30, 2009, 3:09pm, prez wrote:I'm thinking that you may have to copyright the instrumental version as a derivative work of the original. If it was a minor change to the work then you wouldn't have anything to worry about. However, removing the lyrics to have just the instrumental I believe would be a major enough change. The copyright office puts it this way:A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, shortphrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.HTHGod bless.I don't know all of the legalities of copyright law, but that would not be my interpretation of a derivative work. If that were the case, then every Muzak instrumental version of popular songs would be considered derivative works. If you're just replacing the vocal (a melody) with another instrument (still the same melody) then that should not be considered a significant change.JUST-MY-OPINION Steve

***I AM NOT A LAWYER, DUDE . DON'T TAKE THIS AS ADVICE.***My perception is, copyright protection really only exists to prove who created something first, via an official "time-stamp" on a recording. In the event of a discrepancy of ownership in a court, I'd say it's almost a pre-requisite to hold an OFFICIAL "time-stamp" with the office of copyright. Now, as soon as the published version of a song becomes different from the original registered-copyright-version (instrumental, radio edit, acapella, etc), it technically is no longer covered under the original copyright, as it is not an exact copy. But it still serves the copyright holder as a piece of evidence for arguments in a court. Ultimately, it will always come down to the judge and court's decision on how close the copy is to the original.Under it's original intention, your copyright only covers an exact "copy". The copyright office will advise that with every addition, manipulation, and so on we make needs a new copyright, and TECHNICALLY I think they do to be covered under strict interpretation of copyright law.I send in a disc with a group of "works" and blanket protect my stuff, only so that if I ever had to prove WHEN I composed them, I'm not approaching a court case with only the easily-manipulated time-stamps on my Pro Tools files. I stick with the original copyright even when publishing instrumentals or slightly different arrangements. As long as you can recognize it on the disc, I have something to present to a judge. It's a decision we all have to make individually to protect our babies. If you are unsure, you should consult an attorney.

Nov 30, 2009, 3:09pm, prez wrote:The copyright office puts it this way:A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, shortphrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.My interpretation of this is that the instrumental version is not primarily a new work and therefore does not require it's own (separate) copyright.Stuart

Some other tid-bits on your specific copyright issue... Hope some are helpful.http://www.songs2share.com/for-song-buy ... aq.pdfGood luck!BB

Thanks guys, very helpful.

When you copyright a song you copyright both the words and music, so they both are protected.

they are one and the same IMO. As above, you copyrighted words and music at the time of registration, so both are covered. If you filed a PA form, then you copyrighted the underlying work (not the recording of the work). If you filed a SR & indicated "words, music & sound recording", then you copyrighted the underlying work (words & melody) and the sound recording.