Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 23, 2011 @12:24AM from the gang-fight-gang-fight dept.

Joren writes "Bad Lip Reading is an independent producer known for anonymously parodying music and political videos by redubbing them with his humorous attempts at lip-reading, such as Everybody Poops (Black Eyed Peas) and Gang Fight (Rebecca Black). According to an interview in Rolling Stone, he creates entirely new music from scratch consisting of his bad lip readings, and then sets them to the original video, often altering the video for humorous effect and always posting a link to the original off which it is based. Although his efforts have won the respect of parody targets Michael Bublé and Michelle Bachman, not everyone has been pleased. Two days ago, Universal Music Group succeeded in getting his parody Dirty Spaceman taken down from YouTube, and despite BLR's efforts to appeal, in his words, 'UMG essentially said "We don't care if you think it's fair use, we want it down."' And YouTube killed it. So does this meet the definition of parody as a form of fair use? And if so, what recourse if any is available for artists who are caught in this situation?"

10 of 298 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's only fair use if you go to court... by Darkon · 2011-10-23 00:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

...and argue that it is, which a private individual rarely has the resources to do.
Got to love the legal system.
1. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Seumas · 2011-10-23 00:35 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sadly, that's absolutely right.
  I had a non-profit service and community that I ran online for close to a dozen years and someone came along and replicated the exact same thing (though not as well) and even took the name and domain and everything else and catered to the exact same niche community (well, niche meaning we had about 100k members) . . . only they changed the name of it by one letter. After this, people were constantly getting confused. I'd get complaints about my site and members and service and everything else, that was clearly meant for the other site and I'd often be tagged for their failings, because of the confusion by the name.
  Unfortunately, I'm just a dude and this wasn't a for-profit commercial enterprise of any kind. So, while I was clearly in the right to take legal action, there was absolutely no way I could have afforded the extreme costs that would have been involved.
2. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by purpledinoz · 2011-10-23 00:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Everyone has to face that the fact that in the US, legal rights are only available to those who can afford to hire a good lawyer.
3. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Ihmhi · 2011-10-23 01:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "We... settled out of court. The way the system appeared to work to me was... Lady Justice had the scales, and you piled cash on the scales. And the one that piled the most cash on the scales and hired the most experts and the ones most willing to tell the biggest lies... that was the winner. That's... that seems to be how our justice system functions now. It's terrible. It's terrible. How can a farmer defend himself against a multinational corporation like Monsanto?" -Troy Roush, Vice President of the American Corn Growers Association, commenting on how Monsanto uses legal action to bully farmers into settling when they are accused of "stealing" Monsanto's IP (genetically modified seeds). From "Food Inc."
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
4. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by bondsbw · 2011-10-23 01:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The need for lawyers who have studied for years or decades indicates that our legal system is too complex. There are so many laws, there exist laws that even the best lawyers are unaware of. There is a huge amount of case law that many times, but not always, provides direction in cases that are ambiguous in the law. We have laws from 2011 that override some part of laws from 2003 that override some part of laws from 1987 that override some part of laws from 1972, etc. to the beginning of time. I don't know the solution to all of this, but I think there has to be one.
  And the free lawyer is rarely as good as the paid lawyer. Otherwise, they would be working for higher pay in the private sector.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
5. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Qzukk · 2011-10-23 01:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And if you are accused of a crime
  Violating copyright isn't a criminal case in most cases. And you don't get a free lawyer for civil court cases.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Fucking hell. by Dunbal · 2011-10-23 00:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Closer to the truth than you think. The federal government has ignored quite a few laws recently, effectively invoking this "we don't care" clause, with absolutely no reaction from anyone.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Counter notice? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-23 00:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Can't he just file a counter-notice? I though in that case Youtube would be obligated to put it back up and instead force UMG to sue if they don't agree?
Re:Kickstarter that badboy. by icebraining · 2011-10-23 01:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google has no right to decide whether it's a parody or not. That's up to the courts. If they receive a DMCA complaint, they have to take it down. If they didn't, Youtube wouldn't exist by now.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:The Video is not Down by julesh · 2011-10-23 01:45 · Score: 5, Informative

It seems another youtube user who had downloaded a copy reposted it, and the original author added it to his playlist. See: http://www.facebook.com/badlipreading/posts/296640680348638