Question About Music Cuts In SANFORD AND SON (1 Viewer)

I haven't found this posted anywhere, but I also did not do a comprehensive search, so forgive me if it's already been addressed.

I've been watching SANFORD AND SON on broadcast TV and I am amazed at how often Redd Foxx, i.e. Fred, is singing a popular song as he putters around the house. Sometimes he'll sing 2-3 different ones in the same episode. I know that other DVDs have had to be edited whenever a character has sung or even quoted a song where the rights have not been paid for, so does anyone know how the DVDs for SANFORD AND SON have handled this?

I think the songs may have survived here. If any had been cut, believe me, it would have been reported by now.

I have the entire series on DVD and I remember him singing a lot. I can't say for sure that everything is there, but as Matthew said, it probably would have been discovered already.

Since most of the songs Fred G. Sanford (that's S-A-N-F-O-R-D, period) sang were old classics, I believe most if not all would be in the public domain by now.

A big thanks to the government for using our tax money to make up new rules about intellectual property rights, which were never in writers/performers contract- thus wasting our money to ruin DVD sets and make them more expensive!

And the "G" stands for, "Get your copyright infringement out of my face!"

I'm not sure about the songs being in the public domain. They are all indeed standards and probably date from the 20's-60's, but most of them would not be so old as to have expired copyrights.

The song "It's So Nice To Have A Man Around The House" was parodied in an episode ofTHE ADDAMS FAMILY with Morticia singing "It's So Nice To Have A Thing Around The House," and that was removed from the DVD because they couldn't clear the rights to use it. That was what led me to my question about SANFORD AND SON because of the numerous songs that are quoted throughout the series.

Perhaps it's possible that many of the songs already belong to SONY MUSIC?

For all their other crimes against the consumer, Sony is not too bad about the music thing generally. Except for the Rodgers and Hammerstein moment in Soap, I think they have a pretty good record (and the R & H estates are notoriously difficult about this kind of thing). I have all the Sanford and Son sets and I am sure almost all the incidental singing is NOT in the public domain. For one reason or another, many Sony sets have one or two syndicated episodes, but they do not seem to edit out music intentionally. All in the Family is another series with occasional, even frequent, singing and Sony has done the right thing with those, too.

Didn't they replace,or take out altogether,the "Love & Marriage" theme song on one of the Married....With Children sets?

They did, and as was explained by Gord and/or Dave, it was beyond their control. The song was so expensive it was either replace it or no more releases ever.

Thanks for the information, Lee.

It's nigh impossible for me to think of SONY ever doing the right thing, but apparently you are right about these releases and they did secure permission for all of Fred's interpretations of all those songs. I'm glad to hear the sets are near complete as the show is absolutely butchered on TV (B)Land.

That sort of thing always amazes me. While I enjoy Sinatra, he wasn't Mozart by any stretch of the imagination. The day will eventually come when the generation that loved him will have passed on and no one will really care about his music anymore. Then, of course, the rights holders will be begging for people to use the music.

Essentially, when they overprice something like this, they're just passing up free money. I don't get it.

For the last time, the Sinatra estate had nothing to do with it. He was alive during the entire run of MwC and seemed, at least publicly, not to be bothered by it. It's the publishers of the song who overpriced it.

The publishers, i.e. the rights holders. The R&H estate was mentioned, not the Sinatra estate. The point remains in either case, they are passing up a perfectly good opportunity for easy money. Sad, especially when the show in question is arguably as culturally significant as the song itself (or perhaps more so).

Edit: And Sanford and Son is clearly culturally significant. Any attempt to mess with it would be unconscionable.

I was wondering about this one..."Love and Marriage" may be an unusual case because by the time it was recorded in 1955, Sinatra did have a share in the publishing rights to all the new songs he sang. I'm not sure of the disposition of that share in the years since, but my real question is separate.

I always thought that original recordings required separate, and potentially more expensive clearances from song rights. That is to say, it is more expensive to clear a copyrighted recording of Sinatra singing "I've Got the World on a String" than it is to clear Fred Sanford singing a few bars of it. For Fred, you have to pay the music publisher, but for Frank you have to pay the music publisher AND Capitol Records. Is my understanding in error? If I am right, then it's another point in Sony's favor, as the Married With Children clearance could really have been usurious.

What is telling to me is that the Sinatra estate publicly distanced themselves from this whole debacle, saying on their website they had nothing to do with the negotiations going sour.

Rights for a PARODY use?! PARODY is Protected under fair use and the first amendment. It's one or two lines for goodness sake - it's not like it's a whole song.

Yes and no. Written parody lyrics, like the ones printed in MAD Magazine for years (and the object of one of these lawsuits), were protected because no part of the original song was being used. When the original melody is involved (as in a recording with the new parody lyrics), one must pay for that.