May I add additional lyrics to a copyright song without claiming any ownership?

Question

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.

Does this mean it is simply illegal?

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 "Bittersweet Symphony" by giving up all income to the Rolling Stones (whose song they sampled).

Does this imply that I can 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.

Answer 1

general things on copyright

Copyright law is very similar globally, due to the Berne convention on copyright.

Ány country's copyright law grants the copyright to an author. Copyright is the exclusive right of an author to authorize ("license") copies, performance, and derivative works. In case multiple authors jointly create a work, they own the right in their respective parts, or jointly.

The copyright holder can deny making derivatives.

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.

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.

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.

Licensing Fees

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.

License fees for recording a cover version (with the unaltered lyrics!) are usually mandatory to be available. for example in the united-states, it is mandatory to grant a mechanical license to create cover recordings for a licensing fee, for which for example the Harry Fox Agency is collecting and distributing the required payments and royalties. Those Royalties are about 9.1 cents per copy for a sub-5-minute song's recording. This license does not allow to alter lyrics.

However, synchronization (tone and 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.

A public performance of a work requires a different license. A performance license 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.

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.

The price of copyright infringement

Wilful copyright infringement, especially after you were told no, can be super expensive:

• In the US, the rightsholder can get 150 000 USD and the lawyer fees for willful infringement. The rightsholder can sue in the US if they are there.
• Recoverable costs plus damages are also available in the UK, capped at 60 000 GBP for costs and 500 000 GBP in damages.

Answer 2

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 can use copyrighted works without a license. Is it one of those cases?

Fair dealing: can I perform (without a license) in a "private congregational church setting"?

Almost certainly not.

A limited amount of use of copyrighted works is allowed under various, jurisdiction-dependent provisions. In the uk, the name of that doctrine is "fair dealing".

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).

In some jurisdictions, certain small-scale uses are exempt. For instance, france has a statute provision for "private and free-entry showings restricted to the family circle" (link to statute, in French).

I could not find any such provision in UK law in my (admittedly quick) search for UK copyright exemptions, and the government’s "copyright for non-lawyers" website lists no such exemption.

Furthermore, even assuming there are such provisions in UK law or jurisprudence, I doubt a "private congregational church setting" 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 in practice the same people show up every Sunday, that would be a death blow to any argument that the setting is "private" and small-scale.