Copyright Infringement Part 3
By kenya on Sep 18, 2007 in Copyright, Music, YouTube
Last week I heard in the news that Prince was cracking down on YouTube and eBay for not protecting his copyrights. What I am reading in the news is that he is removing grainy videos of his concert in the UK as well as pirated music and videos. There has been no mention of the lip-syncing videos or those where someone else is singing one of his songs.
I used his song in a video and it was taken down. The fact that my video was removed from YouTube still doesn’t sit well with me. Last week or so, I contacted YouTube to find out who to contact regarding my video. They gave me the name of Robert Allen at Universal Music Publishing Group and today I decided to contact him as I felt that there was some misunderstanding about the content of my video as I wasn’t sure about who actually looked at the video to get it removed. This is what I wrote:
From: Kenya Allmond
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:53:13 AM
To: robert.allen[email omitted]
Subject: Questions Regarding Video Removed from YouTubeMr. Allen,
I was given your name by YouTube as a contact person regarding my video that was taken down being accused of copyright infringement. The video was of my boyfriend lip-syncing to Prince’s Kiss. We were driving along and the song came on the radio, he got really into the song so I took my camera out and recorded it. I thought he was really funny so I posted it to YouTube primarily for the purpose of sharing with friends and family. This was a home video.
While I understand that Prince’s song was in the video (it came on the radio) and was the point of the video since my boyfriend was lip-synching to it, I don’t understand why the video from removed. Under what circumstances is a home video considered to be infringing on copyrights? Am I as a consumer required to license the music in a lip-sync fan video? How much would such licensing cost?
Please provide guidance as I am confused that my video was removed and would like to know what course of action to take.
kenya allmond
kenyaoa[email omitted]
vm/f 202.478.0490
Below is the response I received.
From: Allen, Robert
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:21:35 AM
To: kenyaoa[email omitted]
Subject: Re: Questions Regarding Video Removed from YouTubeUnder U.S. Copyright law, the copyright owner of a musical composition has the right to permit or deny the synchronization of that musical composition in any audio-visual work. Many of the writers administered by Universal Music Publishing encourage the synchronization of their musical compositions in audio-visual works displayed on YouTube; however, others do not. We respect these decisions by our writers and act accordingly.
Best regards,
Robert Allen
I just love canned responses that don’t answer my questions. Prince is not mentioned by name even though I know that he wrote this song per my legally purchased CD at home. While I know that a copyright holder “has the right to permit or deny the synchronization of that musical composition in any audio-visual work” this email does not specify if it is even possible to even get permission as I asked in my email. His response also specifically mentions YouTube. So does that mean that I can put the video up on some other video sharing site? I won’t but I’m just asking.
At any rate, if Prince does not want fans lip-syncing his songs (or singing them) then I will have to respect that. But I will also have to accept that perhaps I shouldn’t listen to them anymore for fear that I or anyone around me might be tempted to sing them.
This is my personal opinion. I wonder how the rest of the internet especially those who have had videos removed are reacting. I think most people are upset with YouTube but this is not a YouTube issue. Imagine the implications of video recording a wedding, party or other gathering where music is played. An artist might think it is infringing on his/her copyright if posted to YouTube or the scores of other video sharing sites out there.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comment(s)
I love these posts about copyright infringement. I think our kids are going to look back and think what a weird time we were in. These laws just don’t fit what the technology, and our creativity, desire.
I don’t really let Youtube off the hook though. They are big enough to stand up for creators. They could do a lot better job spreading awareness, instead of simply yanking videos and sending out lawyer speak. They need to be the creators’ advocate. The creators are their bread and butter.
I used to love Prince. Maybe he’s just old and tired now, surrounded by lawyers.
I used to love Prince too. I thought he was creative, thought he was innovative. There is nothing genius or innovative about what’s going on now though. It seems that he has become part of the corporate music machine that he sought to distance himself from back in the 80s and 90s. Whenever a Prince song comes on the radio (several times a week) I am left with a sour taste in my mouth.
I don’t know for sure that is Prince because I don’t know if he owns his older music. If he does, then I don’t care if this is his lawyers or overzealous interns as anyone acting on his behalf is essentially him. In the end, he is going to alienate a lot of fans.
I think YouTube was standing up for these types of issues before they were bought my Google.
I just want to thank you for visiting my blog.
In regards to posting videos with copyrighted music in the background, it’s one of the reasons why I haven’t posted any videos. I want to use music but I’m afraid to use what’s in my music library. I discovered Podsafe music but I haven’t come across music that I like.
I guess I’m going to have to create my own music.
Prince is an idiot, he’ll alienate his fans and achieve nothing positive for himself or for anyone else. Fans are doing him a favor for giving him free publicity, but he doesn’t seem to care. Just avoid using his songs in your videos, use songs from artists that actually care about their fans. BTW, I think labels are paying him to put his name on this lawsuit, they just needed an excuse to bring another lawsuit against Youtube, and they got one.
I think that you should pursue it further, and call the video a parody.
A parody:
(as defined on law.com, so I do not get into trouble)
n. the humorous use of an existing song, play, or writing which changes the words to give farcical and ironic meaning. Parodies have been challenged as copyright infringements on the original works, particularly since some have reaped terrific profits. Recent decisions favor the parodies and say they have an originality of their own and, thus, are not infringements. There is a free speech issue involved in these decisions since parodies traditionally have social and political significance.
Us Allmond’s have to stick together!
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.