Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Prince DMCAs YouTube To Block Radiohead Song

Posted by kdawson on from the purple-power dept.

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.

19 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. There are 3 copyright claims in play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play by Dan541 · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Prince seems a little desperate for spotlight attention these days.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    2. Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether all that is true or not, its moot.
      The DMCA is the Digital Millenium Copright Act, not the Digital Millenium Privacy Act.
      There is no such thing as a DMPA takedown notice.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play by void* · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Performance rights for other parties must be negotiated and licensed

      That sounds a lot more like 'If I write a song, you have to get a license from me to perfom it' than it does 'If you perform a song, you automatically have the rights to any recording anyone happened to make of the performance (unless, of course, you wrote it)"

      and the derivative work then falls under the control of the licensee per the terms of their agreement.

      Assuming the agreement gives the licensee control - which it doesn't necessarily have to. Most agreements probably would, but I don't see anything stopping anyone from saying "Yes, you can perform my work, but I get the rights to any recordings".

      If Prince didn't ask if it was ok to perform it, and if Radiohead still owns the copyrights, then it sounds like Radiohead gets to say what happens to any recordings made, even if Prince (or anyone else) made them.

      --


      Code or be coded.
    4. Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play by Xtifr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A performance cannot be copyrighted. 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.)

      (If Radiohead's works were released under a copyleft, then Prince would have to choose between allowing fans to distribute his versions or not performing Radiohead compositions at all, but since they aren't, he doesn't.)
    5. Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play by 2short · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And maybe it wasn't really Prince, but Elvis, back from the grave, so the copyright really rests with the aliens who resurrected him!

      How about we restrict our analysis to the facts as best we know them, rather than making up whatever unsupported hypothetical situation it takes to make your post make sense. (Not that one could actually file a take down notice even under the situation you describe, but that's beside the point.) I see no reason to believe the facts or legal situation are anything other than what the reporter who actually researched the story presents them to be. The idea that Prince filed a takedown notice despite not having any right to do so is both perfectly possible, and sadly consistent with his history.

    6. Re:There are 3 copyright claims in play by SillyNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RTFA. Prince's rendition was recorded in a fixed medium as authorized by Prince. That's the whole nature of this issue--unauthorized derivative recordings.
      I did RTFA. He may have a copyright on that recording (depending on his license from Radiohead), but still not the recording made by the fan. The recording made by the fan was not derived from the recording made by Prince and so is not a derivative work of such.

      If there hadn't been a professional recording crew with him, you'd be closer to having a point.
      What kind of crew Prince had with him makes no difference in US copyright law.
  2. Wait a minute... by sgant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Wait a minute... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Falsifying a DMCA claim is a federal offense - you really don't want to get caught doing that. Yet, this is far from the first time a BigCorp as issued a DMCA takedown notice for material is clearly did not own the rights too. But I've never heard of a single prosecution over such fraud.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Wait a minute... by SeekerDarksteel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The penalty of perjury for DMCA notices is with regards to you claiming that you are authorized to speak on the behalf of the holder of the copyright you are claiming is violated. If you claim that your copyright is being violated incorrectly, that's simply an incorrect DMCA notice. So if a lawyer for a record company sends a takedown for a video that they incorrectly believe to violate their copyright, there's no penalty. If I, however, sent a takedown notice for, lets say, a Radiohead song on YouTube claiming I owned the copyright that is being violated, that would be perjury.

      --
      The laws of probability forbid it!
  3. Re:let's settle this by Matt+Edd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was going to mod this funny but when you feel you have to explain your own comment is a joke then it's no longer funny.

  4. Crime > tort by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Tough call by Zorque · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Disregard that, I'm a dumbass.

  6. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What stuns me was already that somebody at all understands it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. I'm amazed nobody said it yet by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. DMCA easily abused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Prince has a performance copyright under U.S. l by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
  10. You cannot copyright anything that can't be copied by 2short · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  11. Compulsory licensing and GPL by bipbop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.