_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss <at> freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
From: Adi Kamdar [mailto:adikamdar <at> gmail.com]http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/06/prince-sues-to.html
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2008 6:48pm
To: discuss <at> freeculture.org
Subject: [FC-discuss] Prince sues cover artists
Yikes.
--
~Adi~
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss <at> freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Apparently, Prince has decided that copyright law should apply only when he wants it to.
Less than a month ago, Prince filed a DMCA complaint with YouTube to have videos of his performance of a
Radiohead song at a music festival taken down. Since only the copyright holder can submit a DMCA
complaint, Prince must have been taking the stance that the performer of the song, not the author of the
song, holds the copyright to a performance.
Now, he has taken the opposite approach. By suing the tribute artists, he is saying that the original author
of the song, not the performer, holds the copyright. This directly contradicts his earlier stance.
Admittedly, this is a somewhat simplified argument. You could make more complex arguments (based on any
rights that Radiohead may have granted Prince for his performance), but, based on Radiohead's reaction
to Prince's DMCA request, I am skeptical of anything that would imply that Radiohead granted Prince the
right to enforce copyright on the performance (this presumes that Prince takes the stance that the
original author maintains copyright, since, if he stated otherwise, his lawsuit would have no founding).
When it comes down to basics, though, consistency should be the presiding principle. Prince can't change
the law to suit what he wants at any given moment. If he wants to argue that he had the right to have the YouTube
video taken down, then he needs to accept that the tribute artists have the right to control how their work
is released. If he wants to be able to control the tribute artists, then he needs to accept/admit that he had
no right to request that the YouTube video get taken down.
Derek
Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces <at> freeculture.org [mailto:discuss-bounces <at> freeculture.org] On Behalf Of
Crosbie Fitch
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:05 PM
To: 'Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in particular'
Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Prince sues cover artists
If only they had 'allowed' it to be distributed via BitTorrent.
Didn't they learn anything from the Grey Album?
On the other hand, possibly the greatest gift Prince could give his most devoted tribute artists is to sue
them, for then they get incredible publicity - at considerable expense of Prince's reputation and
goodwill from his own audience.
There must be a better way - that doesn't waste money on labels or lawyers.
________________________________
From: Adi Kamdar [mailto:adikamdar <at> gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2008 6:48pm
To: discuss <at> freeculture.org
Subject: [FC-discuss] Prince sues cover artists
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/06/prince-sues-to.html
Yikes.
--
~Adi~
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1521 - Release Date: 6/26/2008 11:20 AM
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Kaser, Derek <derek.kaser <at> email.stvincent.edu> wrote: > Less than a month ago, Prince filed a DMCA complaint with YouTube to have videos of his performance of a Radiohead song at a music festival taken down. Since only the copyright holder can submit a DMCA complaint, Prince must have been taking the stance that the performer of the song, not the author of the song, holds the copyright to a performance. Not sure about that. If he holds copyright of the lyrics, he has rights over "public performances" of his work, which includes both distribution of his presentations of them, and cover artists. However, if his publishing company holds copyright, then they'd have to issue the DMCA. If the lyrics themselves are copyrighted by some other person, and licensed to Prince & Recording Company, only that lyricist could file. He can't file against the distribution of his performances, which are owned by whoever did the recording. But he can file against misuse of his lyrics & music. Distributing soundless videos would be legal. Or distorting the sound in some way. Or, very likely, only using the sound in clips, as commentary on a larger piece (i.e. a recording of "the concert," including conversations & interviews & crowd shots, and only occasionally letting his music be heard). I can see a reasonable argument that both distribution of his performances and cover performances are violations of copyright--against whoever owns the lyrics and music, not related to the visuals at all. OTOH, I agree that the biggest hurdle most artists of any sort face these days is not piracy, but obscurity, and he's given his cover artists a big boost in that area. And some enterprising fan should grab the contested videos and redub them with parody lyrics, which he'd have no (legal) way to object to. -- -- "I follow Eris blindly in all things. That She is the Goddess of Chaos simplifies this immensely." -- Christian the Pagan
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Kaser, Derek <derek.kaser <at> email.stvincent.edu> wrote: > When it comes down to basics, though, consistency should be the presiding principle. Prince can't change the law to suit what he wants at any given moment. If he wants to argue that he had the right to have the YouTube video taken down, then he needs to accept that the tribute artists have the right to control how their work is released. If he wants to be able to control the tribute artists, then he needs to accept/admit that he had no right to request that the YouTube video get taken down. What it comes down to is that the copyright model of a single source of value and a distributed cost does not work in contexts where there are distributed creators or any kind of cultural composting or even where there are tensions between the makers and the subject of the work. Think ultrasounds, photos etc.
Just to clarify, the point behind my post was not to create a debate about copyright model or the circumstances under which someone can enforce copyright. My purpose was to point out the contradictory stances that seemed to be behind Prince's actions. In the Radiohead incident, Prince seemed to take the stance that the performer controls the copyright over the performance. In the tribute album lawsuit, Prince seems to be taking the stance that the songwriter(/holder of lyrics' copyright) controls the copyright over the performance. My only point was that these stances contradict each other. In other words, Prince can't have his cake and eat it too. Derek
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Kaser, Derek <derek.kaser <at> email.stvincent.edu> wrote: > Just to clarify, the point behind my post was not to create a debate about copyright model > or the circumstances under which someone can enforce copyright. My purpose was to > point out the contradictory stances that seemed to be behind Prince's actions. Sorry--my bad. I misunderstood the background details; I missed that Prince thought he had the rights to his performances of someone else's works. (Had somehow thought he was objecting to vids of his own songs, not Radiohead's.) Yes, Prince seems to be trying to say "anything I do on stage is owned by me, even if someone else wrote it, and anything I wrote is owned by me, even if someone else performed it." Which, umm. No. We don't have copyright laws that say "Prince has copyright control over whatever he touches." > In the Radiohead incident, Prince seemed to take the stance that the performer controls the copyright over the performance. > > In the tribute album lawsuit, Prince seems to be taking the stance that the songwriter(/holder of lyrics' copyright) controls the copyright over the performance. > > My only point was that these stances contradict each other. In other words, Prince can't have his cake and eat it too. > > Derek > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss <at> freeculture.org > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- -- "I follow Eris blindly in all things. That She is the Goddess of Chaos simplifies this immensely." -- Christian the Pagan
> No. We don't have copyright laws that say "Prince has copyright control over whatever he > touches." I take it you're not familiar with the "Prince Midas Copyright Extension Act of 2008"?
RSS Feed