Slashdot Mirror
Prince DMCAs YouTube To Block Radiohead Song
Enigma2175 writes "CNN is reporting that videos from the Coachella music festival showing Prince covering Radiohead's 'Creep' have been removed by Prince's label, NPG records. Thom Yorke of Radiohead, when told of Prince's action, said 'Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our... song.' No comment from YouTube or Prince yet. Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually the copyright holder and this seems to be just another example of DMCA abuse." As the article points out, Prince seems to have a love-hate relationship with the Interwebs.
Radiohead's ownership of the song's copyright, Prince's ownership of the performance copyright, and the video recorder's ownership of the recording copyright. Prince asked for it to be pulled on his claim. Radiohead could sue him if he didn't properly license their song, though.
Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually the copyright holder
So let me get this straight, some person or group of persons could go and put a claim on every video on Youtube now and they'd have to take them all down...since they're not required to verify the entity making the request? That seems a bit silly doesn't it? What's stopping someone from mass emailing them with requests for a huge chunk of videos?
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
The performer of a song has a copyright protecting that performance, although obvs. not in the underlying song. Unlike a songwriter (who cannot block covers because of the compulsory license) a performer can block reproduction of the performance. So it seems as if Prince is acting within his rights to assert a copyright over the performance, at least under U.S. law. Whether that copyright trumps fair use, etc., I don't know. But it's not correct to say that Prince has no copyright because he didn't write the song. Like most Slashdotters, I hate the DMCA, and I think it's madness for Prince to try to block this stuff, since it's good advertising and he'll sell more albums if he doesn't, but there it is.
Later... I hate this web stuff, these Intellectual Property burglars are taking food right out of my childrens mouths. WHAAA
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Didn`t they sell the rights to the label? Wouldn`t that mean that the label could do whatever they want with it (including pulling it of Youtube)?
Obviously Prince is going to challenge him to a game of basketball and the winner gets their way :D btw if you don't know where that's from, trust me, it's funny!
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
um i got lost after 'The'
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
Radiohead is an English group, and I'm not sure if what you're saying is true under English law. Radiohead may have a case for distributing Ponce's version without his permission.
Radiohead owns the copyright of their original copy of the song (if they own the master media onto which it was recorded, and didn't release it from copyright control). That gives them "performance copyright", which lets them require permission from the first other person to "perform" their original recording (either a reenactment of producing the song using new instruments, or just playing back the original recording over speakers in the air to a large crowd or over other broadcast media like radio or TV soundtrack). But after they release the first public performance, anyone can perform the song, provided they pay the pre-set "mechanical" royalty rate (determined by the number of listeners in the venue's capacity, not necessarily those actually hearing the performance, though webcasting is per actual listener). The mechanical rate is low, like under $0.001 per listener, designed for repeated broadcast at rates recoverable by whatever commerce is operated using the performance.
But Prince does own his own performance of that song. He owns the copyright of his own performance, though not of the song he's performing. He's merely performing a song that copyright law lets him perform so long as he's in compliance with the royalty laws that pay Radiohead. Unless Prince was the first person other than Radiohead to perform it publicly, Radiohead doesn't have control over the public performance of the song, just the right to collect the royalties when it is played by whoever wants to.
Copyrights are fairly simple, if taken step by step. That doesn't stop them from being bullshit, especially when practiced by musicians, who always use copyrighted content from other artists without respect to the "original's" copyright.
When someone does something in public, I have the right to see it. I have the right to remember it. I have the right to record what I see and remember, even if the law these days is wrong and can stop me (like most copyright laws, and of course the Hollywood-written DMCA). And if I recorded it, I have the right to show it to anyone I want. This is a freedom of expression that copyright infringes. And since YouTube promotes Prince's commerce much more than it competes with it, no copyright is promoting "progress in science and the useful arts". In fact, this DMCA abuse is killing that progress, right when it could be exploding, but instead miserly copyright owners are pretending they represent "progress", when all they represent is profit.
--
make install -not war
Can you direct me to the Coachella Valley and the giant carrot festival.... therein?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
http://inversehiphop.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/prince-creep-live-video/
/. blocks links... so searching fro "prince creep" ... 2nd link at "inversehiphop" has it.
Not sure is
I normally love price when he does covers... not feeling this though.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
im seriously considering whether i should have your babies or not. and im a heterosexual male. go figure.
Read radical news here
Unless the UK has a compulsory performance license, which I don't believe is the case, the only thing they could gain from the difference in US and UK law would be the right to refuse distribution of the video.
And in any case, YouTube isn't in England.
It really depends on whether Prince had any license to cover the song. ;)
If Prince had no right to cover the song, he can't copyright it.
Basically, Prince has no legal rights over what he's stolen
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
You haven't taken into account a sidereal day, which is 86164 seconds
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
It's Radiohead's song, but it's Prince's performance.
On the other hand, if it was Radiohead doing a cover of Prince's song, I don't think Prince could stop them because of the compulsory license. They'd probably have to pay some license fees to do so, but they can probably afford it.
.... doesn't mean they don't also own copyrights in the US.
As Kevin Smith once revealed:
t's 3 in the morning in Minnesota. I really need a camel . Go get it. - Prince
(Yes, I know it was partly farcical, but the basic premise is sound - he's a loon.)
"Powers. I have them."
I can see both sides of the issue here.
One on hand, this is an ugly example of DMCA abuse and goes against the wish of even the copy right owner.
One the other hand it's one less Prince recording on the internet.
I'm inclined to side with Prince here since the public welfare outweighs the individual IP.
... never trust a man with a dog's name.
Can you back your purported "performance copyright" by some references? AFAIK, copyright only applies to ideas expressed in tangible form like a book, recording or sculpture.
Are the video reviews of games on YouTube at risk? As well?
It's been a while since I read up on this, but I seem to recall that performers have no rights unless stipulated by a contract.
I.e, whether a studio guitarist gets a royalty or just gets paid by the hour has to be agreed upon, and is not defined in the copyright convention.
The concept of performance rights is just a contractual practice so to speak. Not law.
1) YouTube is American, based in America, subject to US copyright law. It doesn't matter a damn where Radiohead is from, because the jurisdiction that counts is the one where the law is being applied. The DMCA is a 'merkin invention, being used on a 'merkin site. Ergo, Radiohead's country-of-origin is irrelevant.
2) Performance right is recognised in UK copyright law. So Prince is entitled to copyright in his performance of the song, even though he does not hold the copyright in the lyrics or the musical score.
If Prince failed to get the appropriate licence to perform the song, as others have noted Radiohead have a course of action for breach of copyright in the lyrics and/or score. They have no grounds to get the video restored, because they don't hold the copyright in the performance and that's the right that the video infringes.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
If Prince doesn't want the free publicity, give him what he wants and ignore him. Then continue to ignore him when he releases a new album or comes to town. There are plenty of great musicians who aren't so dogmatic and naive about copyright issues.
... song:
You're much better off watching Radiohead perform their own
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpblnsJEWM
That's right; over there it's called YouKayTube.
Seriously, though, since they're part of Google, don't you think they've got infrastructure--and administrative offices--in JOE?
The CB App. What's your 20?
OCILLA, the part of the DMCA dealing with takedown notices, requires the copyright owner to make an affirmation under penalty of perjury. Perjury is more likely to be a crime than petty copyright infringement, which is far more often treated as a tort.
> Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually
> the copyright holder and this seems to be just another example of DMCA abuse.
Under the DMCA the person who put the material up can file a counter-notice asserting that they have the legal right to distribute the item. YouTube can then put it back up with complete impunity and the only way Prince can get it taken back down is to file a copyright infringement suit (within 30 days) against the person who put it up and convince a Federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction. There are criminal penalties for filing a false DMCA takedown notice, and the target could also claim damages.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
But, but, but... Crystal Skulls?
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
He is still around? And we care what he wants why?
He's just milking this to get free press to help save a long dead career. Ignore him (?) and he will go away.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> As the article points out, Prince seems to have a love-hate relationship with his fans.
Fixed
The DMCA is working exactly as intended. To help stamp out alternative methods of distribution and protect the entrenched publishing industries. The only abuse here was committed by the people who voted for and reelected the politicians who enacted this law. I don't get it. You people wanted near infinite copyright. You want 100 years of war. Well now you'll get it. You have been given what you want, and now you're complaining about it. A more schizophrenic bunch I've never seen. The government is acting on the will of the majority. All this blathering about corporate and government conspiracies is just so much bull. Quitcherbellyachin' and vote them out if you don't like it! That or admit once and for all that majority rule is a miserable failure.
What?
Unless the performance has creative elements which stand on their own, i.e. the arrangement, the guitar solo, the intonations chosen when singing the lyrics, etc. Of course, that would technically be a composer's copyright, but that sounds confusing, so most groups that deal with legal fan-made recordings (i.e. the Internet Archive's Live Music Archive) usually just refer to it as a performance copyright. Basically, what it boils down to is that Prince's performance constitutes a derivative work, and unless Radiohead is now releasing their music under a copyleft, they have no say in the matter. The most they could do is ask the fan to remove the creative elements from the derivative work that Prince owns and release whatever is left, but the result would probably be incomprehensible, assuming that such removal were even possible. (Alternatively, they could try to prove that Prince's additions to his arrangement were too minimal to justify copyright protection, but that's likely to be very difficult.)
;)
My god. Somebody on slashdot understands copyright. I'm stunned!
No, because Nintendo, Sony, EA, even MS realize that reviews help people buy games much as how music videos help people choose which music to buy. Because there is more competition, unlike in the record business, the companies usually are more sane. For example, Nintendo will most likely never go after someone downloading ROMs like the *AA will for people downloading songs, even though proportionally Nintendo loses more money per ROM download then the *AA loses per music download (A song costs $.99 or less usually while a game costs $5 for a NES game on the Wii).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Prince is such a douche. Can we just all decide to stop listening to his whiny effeminate voice now? Although I do like what he did to Paris.....
We should start a reality show where Prince is the lead singer of Metallica. They can all whine and be douches TOGETHER!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Video being uploaded again in 5...4...3...2...
By 100 people now, instead of just one. Just out of spite.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Except by performing another person's copyrighted work, Prince is creating a derivative of that work.
And as far as I'm aware, the copyright owner also owns the rights to decide who can make derivatives. If Prince did the song at a concert where people paid money, without Radiohead's permission, then he's put himself in a bind.
IANAL, but that's my understanding. You can't just go out and perform someone else's protected works. I know covers are common but generally people doing a cover either have some sort of permission or they're not being dicks about doing it. Prince didn't have permission and he's being a dick about it.
I was speaking mostly to a criminal infringement rather than a simple civil infringement.
Simply releasing a work that was intended for commercial release before it was released is a criminal infringement. Does that stop it from happening? Last I checked, DVD screener rips still exist.
Similarly, false DMCA notices, to the best of my knowledge have been and will continue to be filed with little or no penalty.
And Google doesn't have to follow Chinese law in China, right? By your logic, they'd be home free.
You're missing the most important point: who the hell wants to listen to Prince?
Sadly though, the companies who have already commited such acts (false takedown notices) have not yet (to my knowledge) been charged with perjury, nor have any penalties been levied for time/labor spent or other damages to the parties who were "required" to take down the content.
Perjury is more likely to be a crime than petty copyright infringement, which is far more often treated as a tort.For now... keep in mind, as many forget here, there is a Criminal Copyright Infringement law -it's just not often used (but has successfully been used recently - either by the MPAA or RIAA - forget which, but you can find it on Groklaw and here).
The next step by the **AA and others, will be to try prosecuting under both angles (civil and criminal)... Winning them penalties and jailing miscreants.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
What does he hope to accomplish by this? What would he have lost if he had not done this? Does he think there is value to this performance that he can charge for? I don't mind seeing people do covers of other bands, but it's not really something I want to pay money for. Does he not realize that people seeing his performance maybe might want to purchase his album?
You can see both the Video or hear just the audio over at imeem.com. Since they filter all their stuff they might actually have this up there legally.
>he prohibited the standard arrangement of allowing photographers to shoot near the stage during the first three songs of his set.
As a photographer this pisses me off.
#1 the only people who really call this are old as fuck and want to preserve an image. If the standard pit access is closed then you are wrinkly as fuck and need TOTAL control over image. i.e. marched up to production office for the managers to review you pics and delete anything they don't like (as if you couldn't recover them). In this last year I've been surprised who has used this. Not rock'n'roll.
#2 annoying to be kicked out now when people less than 2 feet away at the front of the audience have kit slightly under yours and can snap away. yet they don't get booted out. this "3 songs you're out" is a 20th C anachronism from the time when it took money and investment to photograph gigs. I can't see many people asking for it, its a "bouncer" thing. They've always done it that way and they will continue in the face of it being obsolete.
#3 "3 songs you are out" is a pain in the arse when they let "fan club" members into the pit to photograph their lust target. they are all over the place with shit cameras getting in the professionals way.
Doesn't the musician formerly known as Prince have anything better to do with his free time? Write some new music, dude.
Prince wanted the Video removed.... In case his fans realised how Crud his music was compared to Radiohead's work...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
I work for the IP department that would handle this if I worked for google, but I don't work for google.
DMCA takedowns are no-questions asked "Under perjury, I own this, remove it, NOW" legal letters that range from "I am sueing you for 10,000 euros for every 30 seconds it's visible" to "this person has something that only looks like mine, but I want it removed."
In the case of something that Prince has covered, he doesn't own the copyright on the original song, but does on the performance. So he could request it be removed.
I regularly see stuff from Prince's lawyers, who also do stuff for other independent artists, but it appears Prince is the only one that gets attention for it.
If it's wrong, send a counter notice, counter notices are valid in the US as long as the issue is about copyright. In which case be prepared to goto court and sue the otherguy.
He got a Lifetime Achievement Award Webby and had a website in the 90's.
Ergo, he is not a douche and understands the web.
at once proving that you can't remove things from the internet and that even Prince can't beat Thom at his own game:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x58nz5_creep-a-coachella_creation
This aspect is what's really interesting. There probably aren't enough data points yet, and we are plainly in a transition period for music distribution technology. The intersting thing to study is to rate artist's approaches to the 'net based on one or more criteria, and attempt to correlate them to success or failure.
I think it would be difficult, if not impossible to come up with any real answer though. First, art is not a commodity so you can't compare Prince as a producer of "1000 barrels of music per day" vs. Radio Head as "1000 barrels of music per day". Secondly, the overall economic climate for musicians may be in decline, and the falling tide may be sinking all the yachts, whether they play on the 'net or not. Whether this decline is due to the the 'net or not is a separate issue that's really rather moot: the cat's out of the bag. The more practical quetion, from the PoV of the musician, is "do I have more to gain by participating in the old model or the new". The answer (pure speculation on my part) probably depends a lot on how you got started. Artists who's careers span the pre-Internet era might be well served by sticking with the old model, whereas new artists might be better off paying less attention to the old model, or maybe even ignoring it totally.
Once we enter a stage where all the currently performing artists started their careers post-Napster, the picture should be more clear.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
That's awefully convenient for the "DUNT BE TEH EVEL!!11!!" guys. They can just shrug and say they take down anything they are asked to.
If Prince doesn't pay Radiohead their due, then they can totally block him from profiting from it. In fact they can prevent him from profiting until he pays for the use of their copyrighted song. So they could totally DMCA his site, until he pays for the use of their copyrighted work. However they have no copyright in his performance and yes performances are copyrightable, and anyone not will to read and understand copyright law shouldn't be commenting on this.
Also, if the music event they were at allowed fans to record the performances, and the artists performed knowing this, then it is fair to say that the performances were released to the public domain. Because they gave permission to the public to "fix" the performances on their own media. In which case Prince and the fans havw no standing to file a DMCA and have no copyright interest, except to say the videos are not copyrightable as the performance is PD. This is unlikely though, and fans really should stop posting these illegal copies on the internet. It's disrespectful of the artists you are "fans" of.
What logic? I was merely pointing out that they actually are in England, and if anything I was trying to imply that they may indeed be beholden to more than just US law.
The CB App. What's your 20?
"Prince owns the performance he gave"
No. You and everyone else saying things that amount to this are wrong. Copyright applies to things that may be copied, which performances are not. You cannot hold a copyright on a performance. You can hold a copyright on a recording. You can take legal and/or technological steps to ensure nobody records your performance that doesn't assign you the copyright to that recording. But the performance and the recording of it are different things, and the performance cannot be copyrighted because it cannot be copied.
The words to a song can also be copied, and can be copyrighted. There are two copyrights possibly at play here, and Prince owns neither of them.
This isn't the first time the artist formerly known as "the artist formerly known as 'prince'" has raised a stink affecting other artists when it comes to his image. Apparently enough so, that "Weird Al" Yankovic mentioned him specifically in a recent interview with the Biography channel as being continually unapproachable when it comes to obtaining his permission to produce parodies of his work.
While not entirely unusual in itself after the whole "Amish Paradise" conflict with Coolio, it is strange that someone who's made a career of being highly flamboyant and outrageous would turn down someone that the 1980's version of Micheal Jackson had no problem doing similar business with.
On a completely different note, "Weird Al" has come to embrace the YouTube community (versus shunning it like many other artists) and even used it as point of a distribution for his "White and Nerdy" parody video.
8==8 Bones 8==8
This kind of stuff from Prince is the reason I put my earplugs in and went to bed - which actually worked out good because I got a good night's sleep before the 3am hippie drum conga line kept me tossing and turning, and I was up in time for the Plastiscines who are terrible but as beautiful as they are terrible. I'm talking Scarlett Johansson beauty here.
When people like Flea, Metallica, and Gene Simmons complain about mp3s and such, nobody gives a shit because they suck - but Prince is actually not a terrible musician. Fuck you Prince. You do it to yourself, and that's what really hurts.
You can copyright a performance in the US. perhaps you are not in the US and were not aware of this.
In the US, you can even copyright choreographed works, without any recording or written record of the choreographic performance. A musical performance, affixed to a media or not is still under US copyright. If you aren't convinced even bitlaw agrees with me on this particular issue.
If someone records my performance, without my permission, they have violated my copyright. It does not matter if I was performing another person's song. If I performed another person's song without their permission then they could come after me, of course.
If Radiohead wants to enforce a rule that if you make a performance using one of their songs that it has to be free (like a Creative Commons license for example). They are certainly free to do that. And they are certainly free to revoke Prince's right to any future use of their music. But I assume Prince's label and membership in various music organizations have granted him a (very limited) license to use Radiohead's song.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
(The artist once formerly known as) Prince also seems to have a love-hate relationship with copyrights in general.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When an in-depth understanding of copyright law is just practical knowledge for creative professionals, there is something terribly, terribly wrong with the system.
What a creep, what a weirdo, what the hell is he doing here?
http://www.dailymotion.com/related/8946133/video/x58nz5_creep-a-coachella_creation
If radiohead licensed Prince to do a cover, they have a license grant with Prince. If this is not licensed in the US, where Prince made the accusation, then Prince is guilty of breaking the license (he has no rights to the song in a country where he has no license to make a cover).
Secondly you then argue against yourself by saying that the UK law grants this after saying this is the US so UK law isn't applicable.
While you're bent over like that, make sure Prince's nads are nice and clean...
Or at least it was until one day I arose to found () multiple parties issuing this thing called a "DMCA: *notice". Tell that bitch to fuck off, thank you. Fucking cheap ass bitch hoes ripping off Indian costumes, fireman helmets, police badges, and blah blah blah, I hereby submit that this shit of a post must hereby be taken *down*, H^A^R^D^.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA_(song) "DMCA" is also the name of a group dance with cheerleader D-M-C-A choreography invented to fit the song. One of the phases involves moving arms to form the letters D-M-C-A as they are sung in the chorus:
D - Arms outstretched and raised, middle finger extended
M - Made by bending the elbows from the 'D' pose so the fingertips meet over the chest[2]
C - Arms extended to the left
A - Hands held together above head What STUPID?
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
I don't think they do, in entirety. Music is subject to compulsory licensing. Now, compulsory licensing may not have come up in this particular case, but the GPL and compulsory licensing are not compatible, so Radiohead licensing their work under the GPL wouldn't have the effect they think it would.
IANAL, and I don't claim to understand copyright law, either, but you can look up compulsory licensing on Wikipedia, which links to the relevant text of the copyright code. Of course, the code is interpreted by case law and such, so that's not enough to really "understand copyright", but that's all I've got, I'm afraid. Worse yet, I can't even assert that only US law applies, though in this case I think it's true.
Judging from the discussion here, most of the comments that come across as confident or assertive are made by people who don't really understand what they are talking about. I wouldn't describe everyone's comments that way, and I've got nothing against confidence backed by actual knowledge, but on the whole I think Slashdot would be better off with a dose of humility.
Thank goodness that Prince issued this ridiculous DMCA stunt, for a moment there I thought he had become an irrelevance to modern pop music scene. This will definitely make me buy his records now.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Who?
The unstated bit of info here is that Prince was obviously having his performance recorded professionally. He, the venue, the promoters, video company, etc. would be the only ones allowed to make a legal recording of the performance. Prince has a legal right not to have his performance recorded because of likeness rights. He didn't license these fans to record his performance and I'm sure the fans were probably made aware of that well before/while going into/at the concert. Ergo, Prince is right, legally, because this recording could jeopardize earnings on his legit copy. Now, Prince is right, but he's wrong. He's wrong because we all know from personal experience that whether this video was shot or not it really won't do anything to dent Prince's DVD/bluray sales.
Radiohead however is completely wrong. Once you release things for public consumption as far as a song goes, anyone can cover the song in a performance. All you have to do legally to do it is pay a statuatory rate. Asking permission like most bands do is, in fact, a courtesy. Also a fact: cover songs, because of the statutory rate, and their prevalence in the music industry are one of the best music oriented ways for an established act to make money. I suspect Radiohead is trying to make a point . . . that they need more publicity and think people will see this as controversial. I'm sure both Radiohead and Prince by now have an understanding of how everything works. Prince, as we know from his name changing episode understands contract law (and probably likeness rights and copyrights very well). Radiohead is getting progressively more media hungry and pretentious all the time and at this point would probably whore out their own mothers if they thought that it would get their names into print for a solid week.
And my last point. All this empasizes how copyrights suck and don't work. With the prevalence of cameras and other recording devices today it is impossible to prevent unauthorized recording, and because of that it's almost impossible for copyright law to be enforced these days. Look at simpsons episodes online, or south park. Videos get yanked all the time for infringement and they're back up sometimes only hours later.
I just watched the video on YouTube (Streisand effect, anyone?) and found that aside from the original solos that Prince added (which were on-key and quite good), his actual singing of the song was feeble/weak, the song lacked its climaxes at the chorus, and he was off-time when singing the song's verses; he totally bastardized the song. If I were Prince, I would want it taken down too, out of embarassment for how bad the cover was.
Prince owns the performance he gave"
No. You and everyone else saying things that amount to this are wrong. Copyright applies to things that may be copied, which performances are not. You cannot hold a copyright on a performance. You can hold a copyright on a recording.
Ok, then how do MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. get away with the "any recording, rebroadcast, written or other accounts of this game..."? They claim that because *they* made a recording (or authorized a TV net todo so) nobody else can record and distribute? Where exactly is the copyright limit?
(not to mention that every now and then someone claims any photo of, say Michael Jordan in uniform, is violating Mr. Jordan's personal trademark of his own likeness. Ditto for the Flatiron Building).
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
These days? I was under the impression that all along he's been a self-centered attention-whore (i.e., what in a forum we'd call "troll"), who's been trying to milk every drop of attention and sympathy he could get. To pick on just a random example of what's been wrong with him, don't tell me that the whole changing his name to a symbol noone knows how to pronounce and the "the artist formerly known as Prince" bullshit has been anything else than trolling for attention.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You cannot hold a copyright on a performance.
True.
You can hold a copyright on a recording.
True.
There are two copyrights possibly at play here, and Prince owns neither of them.
False. Prince owns a partial stake in the recording.
Have you ever been on TV? I did one of those TV talent shows about 5 years ago, and I had to sign a contract granting my share of the mechanicals for my recorded performance to the TV company. A person has a stake in any recordings he is in, unless he A) waives that right (either by signing it away explicitly as I did, or by performing where he is aware filming is taking place) or B) is incidental to the recording (eg a passer-by walking past an on-scene TV reporter doesn't own the news program).
Prince presumably knows all this, so is in the right.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Ok, then how do MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. get away with the "any recording, rebroadcast, written or other accounts of this game..."?
They don't. That's why a FTC complaint was filed against those organizations and a few others last year for overstating their rights and misleading consumers regarding their own.
As far as the Flatiron Building goes, I guess they're not familiar with 17 USC 120(a):
"Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I was trying to imply that they may indeed be beholden to more than just US law.
Doesn't matter. US law is the one that's got the slack you'd need in it, and that slack runs the wrong way for it to make any difference. Unles, as I pointed out, UK law has some kind of compulsory license that's a kind of complement to the US license, there's nothing to force Prince to allow his performance to be distributed.
...based on an IP infringement issue, isn't he being a bit of a duchebag about all this?
- Since the recording was made by a fan, Prince does not own the copyright to the recording.
- If the recording was done from within a private venue, where the posted rules prohibited fan recordings, then Prince has a right to block publication based on privacy violations.
- If, however, it was a concert in an open, public place, where people not beholden to the terms of the event (i.e. non-ticket-holders) could make a recording without trespassing, his performance is public, and the fan has the right to record and distribute his/her recording as he/she wishes.
- The above points are made based on my understanding of US law. My point about YouTubes presence in the UK is that I do not know the laws there, but if they are different, it is certainly possible that Google/YouTube may have a different responsibility with regards to claims against publication of the content to UK viewers than they do to US viewers.
If you do something in public, where you have no right to expect privacy, anyone can take pictures or video, and do whatever they like with it. If you are in Central Park playing your guitar and singing, and I record it while walking by, I own that recording and can do whatever I want with it. Your only legal recourse is to notice the recording and quit performing so I do not have content to publish. You may not like it, but it is indeed the law.Now, if I use that footage in a for-profit venture (i.e. a commercial I'm making for a car company), you may be able to wrangle some civil redress from me, but if I just post it on YouTube and you issue a DMCA take-down notice, I could appeal on the grounds that it was *my* recording of a *public* performance, and your take-down would be itself a DMCA violation, and you might be in for some stiff penalties.
Of course, there's a lot of room for interpretation of the specifics, and a good lawyer would push for as much control for Prince as possible, or if the fan were his/her client, as much protection for the first ammendment as possible.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Your argument sounds convincing but I'd like to see some proof that copyright law in the US *or* the UK actually says what you're suggesting. But in any case, I'm not the one you should be debating that with: it's buelba's comment that goes into the issue of Prince's copyrights... I'm just responding to the suggestion that the fact that Radiohead is a UK band has anything to do with it.
Here's the sequence...
Radiohead is saying "that's our music, so we're saying it's OK".
In the US, Radiohead isn't in a position to say that, because Prince has a performance copyright. (buelba's message).
Then Threni claimed that this didn't matter, because Radiohead are a UK band.
My response was that (a) I don't think UK law differes from US law in a way that would matter here, and (b) Youtube aren't a UK company.
Your response was that YouTube did business in the UK as well.
My response was sarcastic, yes, pointing out that a company that does business in multiple countries is subject to all those countries laws. That should be obvious, so if Prince has a copyright in the US it doesn't matter whether he does or doesn't in the UK, YouTube's operating out of the country where he does.
So now... you're saying that Prince doesn't actually have a performance copyright. I don't know the particulars of the music festival, or whether the video was taken by someone who didn't have a ticket and thus was not beholden to any clauses in the contract (if that is even, as you argue, relevant). You may be right, I don't know, take that up with buelba. It's got nothing to do with me. I'm just the guy pointing out that YouTube has to follow US law, and if US law gives Prince the right to say it goes down, it's going down. No matter what the law in the UK says.
Sheesh.
Follow up to buelba, OK?
Correct: if US law gives prince the right to say it goes down, it's going down. I believe it's likely that it does, but not based on copyright. I think you and I are roughly in agreement; my bad for not getting your sarcasm. Have a great one.
The CB App. What's your 20?
TV companies like to cover their ass, so they have you sign away rights even though you probably don't have them. In any case, the rights you might have there are not copyrights, they are privacy rights. Prince had no expectation of privacy while performing at a massive music festival. At least that would be my read if the issue went to court, but regardless of that, the recourse Prince has to enforce the rights he might have is not a DMCA takedown notice, because his rights are not copyrights.
any slashdotter's takes or opinions - maybe with the exception of New York Country Lawyer's.
Prince may have his issues and oddities, but I would wager his musical artist and business acumen surpasses that of any of us here.
Preferably with an embedded player, maybe something that plays music that is looking for exposure (or am I coming up with a brilliant business idea here), if anyone steals this idea I had it first dammit, its on /. and I will subpoena CowboyNeal to say that I posted this first!
But seriously, has anyone heard of such a thing?
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
...based on an IP infringement issue, isn't he being a bit of a duchebag about all this? I think its a Napoleon syndrome.Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.