YouTube, mainly Google, has faced many lawsuits due to its sharing of mass videos online. Numerous music groups sue Google for allowing YouTube to give access to their copyrighted material, but recently, a major $1 billion lawsuit against Google was set by Viacom because Google has “turned a blind eye to teenagers’ illicitly uploading clips from Viacom properties, such as The Daily Show and MTV videos, onto YouTube.”  To counter this claim, Google said that they are protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

My question for you is do you think that YouTube should be able to host these copyrighted materials due to educational purposes and the provisions of the DMCA?  I am a fan of YouTube, and, similar to free music, I like free videos too.  For Viacom to sue Google because YouTube has given access to their videos is, to me, childish.  If anything, the YouTube videos would only produce more interest in what shows and media Viacom has to offer, would it not?  But, the modern media industry still clutches to its greed and selfishness.  Nothing is okay unless profits are being made.  The viewer has become second place to income, which, granted, is only good business.

I still think that YouTube, being a very popular unique website for video accessibility should be able to host copyrighted videos as long as they aren’t doing it for profit and they give credit to those who hole the copyright/created the video.  The Viacom case settled in favor of Google because of YouTube’s quick action to work with copyright holders in terms of removing copyrighted videos and other such media.  I do not, however, think this is the end of copyright lawsuits against YouTube but their fast actions to aide copyright holders are helping them host accessible videos for public use.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-prevails-in-viacom-youtube-copyright-lawsuit-appeals-on-deck/36229

http://nymag.com/news/media/30021/

This is obviously late news, and I am sure that we have all heard about the issue with Lady GaGa’s new song “Born this Way” sounding very similar to Madonna’s song “Express Yourself.”  The issue that arose was that GaGa’s backtrack to “Born this Way” (i.e. the chord progressions and the time signature and the key) is exactly mirrored from Madonna’s “Express Yourself.”  GaGa received a lot of criticism from both her fan-base and music critics about how her song was just a cheap knockoff of Madonna’s.  In fact, many of her fans were outraged because the buildup hype of “Born this Way” being a masterpiece pre-release was washed down the drain when the song sounded exactly like Madonna’s.  I for one was very disappointed in the song.  Sure, the lyrics present a very motivating issue of respecting who you are, but musically the song is very boring.

That being said, Madonna actually is supporting Lady GaGa’s new single.  In an interview with Jay Leno, she said,” The good news is that I got an e-mail from her people and her,” she says, “sending me their love and complete support on behalf of the single, and if the queen says it shall be, then it shall be.”  This, to me, was not that surprising because Madonna tries to send the same messages that GaGa does.  However, GaGa did face a few lawsuits over the song being copyright infringement.  E-Tribe, a South Korean production company, is suing her for copyright infringement because they state that her song “Born this Way” sounds exactly like one of their represented girl band (SNSD) songs “Be Happy” (Source 1), (Source 2).

To continue on with what I have said, I doubt that GaGa would produce a song with the intention of copyright infringement.  There are a handful of songs that share similarities with “Born this Way” including “Express Yourself,” “When Love Takes Over,” and I am sure any other song with a three base chord progression.  I find the case a bit ridiculous considering the fact that the fan-bases of both GaGa and SNSD are highly different and based in two different countries. But, I suppose that since the record company is such a greed-ridden business that any sort of similarity with singles produces controversy and lawsuits.

However, my main question of discussion is not whether or not you think that the lawsuits placed on GaGa are viable, but instead whether her “country” release of “Born This Way” was a counter to all the crap she got over copyright infringement.  The “country” song version has an entirely different sound, tempo, and chord progression, and I think that her main goal was to produce a song with the same meaning but a different sound due to controversy.  I think it was a smart move for GaGa to release an entirely different version of the song, but I do not think that the country version will be as popular as the original.  Well, at least not as popular with her mainstream, pop culture fan-base that is.

Is “Born This Way” a “rip-off” of “Express Yourself” (Source)

“Born This Way” (Listen Here)

“Express Yourself” (Listen Here)

“Be Happy” (Listen Here)

“Born This Way” Country Road Version (Listen Here)

“When Love Takes Over” (Listen Here)

After posting that blog to Diigo, I continued to read pages and pages of alleged infringements. I found myself thinking about all sorts of ideas, mostly how close is inspiration and just plain copying. However, one post really got me thinking… Between all the lawsuits of Mr. Brainwash and Shepard Fairey and those sorts of things, can graffiti art be copyrighted?

My thought process began when I noticed a post about someone using Banksy’s art to make a profit, and again when a graffiti artist known as SMEAR was upset that Bee Movie placed his graffiti on a truck in the movie (Source). But, I thought to myself, graffiti artists often work anonymously (aside from illegally) so don’t they forgo basic copyright claims? I feel like the problem is very similar to the Google Books conundrum except that the creator is willingly unidentifiable and therefore, unable to collect royalties.

Another example is that of Tats Cru, who are upset that their work is being reproduced in photographic form in books and movies about graffiti (Source). In an article from the New York Times, one member of the crew claims that movies and TV shows often call him to sign releases in scenes where the work appears. In some ways, this even made me mad… why should Tats Cru see royalties from artwork that was placed on a public space illegally?

Dr. Peter Rothstein, who is being sued for his book that contains the work of Tats Cru, argues that his photography of graffiti in public places is fair use, much like how taking a picture in a public place does not require waivers or copyright clearance. However, Tats Cru and their lawyers note that their work is marked by a small © sign, making their work unable to be photographed. I feel that this is controversial as well. Can Tats Cru just decide to copyright their illegal art? (What if Girl Talk tried to do that?)

Honestly, I feel that the graffiti artists are in the wrong in these scenarios. They create public art and are then angered when they cannot make the profit from it. While that may be unfair, there are many legitimate roads of artwork to travel to make a profit. I think that even if the artists got permission for many of their murals, then their claims of infringement would be valid.

The circumvention of the recording industry is being celebrated by many advocates of the egalitarian Internet ideal. We celebrate how their music is now available to more people. Fewer people feel the need the pirate the music, because of the lower prices, and we’re happy the money goes strait to the artist, instead of recording industry executives, sitting dark conference rooms with 100 dollar bills for wallpaper and glowing red eyes.

We vilify the record companies, but they serve a purpose. Groups like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails made a mint while selling fewer albums, but they did it after the record companies invested millions of dollars into marketing and developing their work. Plus, it’s the fame that the recording industry gave them that allows them to make a fortune from their live performances.

Before you try to refute the idea that the record companies are responsible for major artistic development, read this article.

There may be groups like Girl Talk who have become big without a recording contract, but even Girl Talk needs to give a lot of his notoriety to the recording industry. If it weren’t for the controversy surrounding whether or not he is committing copyright infringement, his media attention would likely be relegated to Pitchfork.com reviews.

Artists absolutely have the right to leave their labels after their contracts are up, but it’s the equivalent of leaving home after spending 18 years consuming your parents time, energy and resources and never talking to them again.

When people hear the word  “art”, many think to paintings, sculptures, and things of that nature. But in recent years, graffiti has been thrust into the category as well. What was once considered underground art is becoming more and more mainstream. Enter Mr. Brainwash, an artist who was featured in the Banksy documentary. Fame isn’t all its cracked up to be for Mr. Brainwash, who is currently tasting the unsavory side of being famous. A couple of weeks back, almost a month ago to be exact, Mr. Brainwash was hit with an image rights lawsuit. Glen Friedman, the photographer who took one of the most famed pictures of Run DMC sued Brainwash for unauthorized appropriation of the famed image, which was used in the 2008 exhibit “Life if Beautiful” (shown in the Banksy documentary).

This is very similar to a case we discussed in class recently, the one involving AP (Alternative Press) and another graffiti artist, Shepard Fairley. Shepard Fairley argued that his usage of a picture of President Obama fell under “fair rights” because the U.S permits the reproduction of images in limited quantities. Mr. Brainwash is using the exact same argument in his Run-D.M.C case.

A few discussions have come up in regards to the case of Mr. Brainwash. Some people argue that the notoriety Mr. Brainwash gained after being in the Banksy documentary is part of the reason Friedman is suing him. Is the rise in the popularity of graffiti art the reason more lawsuits are ensuing? With the popularity of graffiti art on the rise, should we be paying more attention to the images graffiti artists use?

Another question to arise from this situation is whether or not the usage of the Run-D.M.C picture was fair use? Does the fame/popularity of the picture play any role in this case?

To see the art work follow this link: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Street-artist-Mr-Brainwash-sued-over-copied-image/23237

Once in the Public’s Hands, Now Back in Picasso’s

Nine years ago, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about whether Congress was free to add 20 years to the copyright life of works that had not yet entered the public domain. But during these sessions, another question came to the forefront – could copyrights be restored to those works which had already entered the public domain?

In Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), the Court ruled that copyrights could be extended. But now, they have agreed to address the other question that was raised during that case. Back in 1994, Congress restored copyrights in many famous foreign works, including Hitchcock films, Woolf novels, Stravinsky symphonies and Picasso paintings. This new case, which goes to court this month, questions the constitutionality of these actions from 17 years ago.

The lead plaintiff in this new case, Lawrence Golan, a conductor and teacher, feels that those actions harmed orchestra conductors, teachers and film archivists who had relied for years on the free availability of works in the public domain that they had performed, adapted and distributed. He agrees that artisans should be given financial incentives to create, but withdrawing those seminal works from the public domain did “great harm to the cultural life of small communities for no good reason.”

This is where I start to question what he is trying to argue. Something has been taken away from him, and now he is upset about it. Let’s say that a child is repeatedly given candy bars, without having to pay a dime. And the child REALLY likes candy bars. And then one day, he doesn’t get any more candy bars for free. Naturally, the child is going to be sad. But is this considered an injustice? Sure, the candy bar was really great, and it really enriched the child’s life (or at least his taste buds). But the fact of the matter is, he was given access to something non-essential – purely enriching. And now that he would have to pay for this access, does he have a reason to take this to the Supreme Court?

Golan’s lawyers try to frame his pleadings into legal terms, stating that the Constitution meant to create incentives, not monopolies. Naturally, Picasso himself isn’t getting cash in his pocket anymore from people licensing Guernica. But the world of copyright is so broad that certain overreaching statues and limitations need to be put into place. Additionally, the government added that the 1994 law is simply treating these foreign works as if they had attained copyright status at their inception. Once their copyright runs out, they will go back into the public domain. One question is this – is it more important to recognize the copyright potential for foreign works that have had a significant impact in our country, or is it more important to appease the local symphony conductor, who will now instead have to choose from countless other musical options for his repertoire? Symphonies by Stravinsky and Profokiev deserve copyright just as much as John Doe’s folk song that he wrote in the back of a diner. Just because that copyright came a little later in the game shouldn’t instigate backlash from people who had become accustomed to using the famous, yet-to-be-properly-copyrighted works.

DVD pirates running rampant in China

It is perfectly well-known that China is a hotbed for pirated DVD’s, often coming out with versions of new releases only days after their theatrical release. What is less often considered is the reasoning behind the illegal industry that brought in $6 billion last year, as opposed to the $1.5 billion from the traditional Chinese movie industry.

There are two factors that are cooperatively increasing the profits brought in by pirated movies. Firstly, Chinese consumers are showing more and more interest in Hollywood films, due to globalization, rising incomes and the spread of the Internet. Simultaneously, the Chinese government imposes strict sanctions on the movie industry, allowing only about 20 foreign movies into movie theaters each year. Censors block many popular American films, including Black Swan (for explicit sex scenes) and The Social Network (for its prominent – and illegal in China – subject matter, Facebook). In order to circumvent these regulations, Chinese consumers often turn to pirated DVD’s, which oftentimes are extremely well produced and packaged, rather than the common stereotype of grainy footage from a handheld camera in the back of a movie theater.

Clearly, in their efforts to keep foreign influence outside of their country, the Chinese government is fueling the fire. Additionally, one has to question their regard for global copyright. Clearly their concern for the homogeneity of their country is paramount, but by only legally allowing a very small percentage of new releases into the country, they are inspiring the undercutting of copyrights of hundreds of new movies every year. Let us say, for a moment, that we are the Chinese government, and all of a sudden, we have a change of heart, and copyrights become a very important issue to us. But we absolutely cannot start letting more and more movies into the country legally, because obviously that would lead to our downfall. What are some possibilities that we could explore to help preserve international copyrights of movies, without simply allowing them be shown legally in our movie theaters?

Google books: creating a digital library without Google’s money

Google’s efforts to create a global digitized library were dealt a serious blow when a New York federal judge threw out a 2008 settlement between Google and authors and publisher groups. Google co-founder Sergey Brin had described the plan to create such a library as a way of unlocking the wisdom imprisoned in the world’s out-of-print books. However, many felt that it was another example of a profit-driven entity trying to amass large quantities of other people’s copyrights.

Through Google BookSearch, certain snippets of books were visible to the public. Because many of these books were still under copyright, Google found itself the target of multiple lawsuits, but it managed to evade these accusations by invoking the fair use doctrine. This was an essential part of the 2008 settlement that seemed to calm the storm. But also within that settlement was the stipulation that would have allowed Google to continue scanning new entries and offering access to the results for a fee. The trickiest part of the settlement dealt with “orphan books”, or those books that were copyrighted but out of print, and whose rights holders could not be found or identified. Google decided simply to go ahead with their scanning process, rather than try to spend the time seeking out the rights holders and attaining their permission to do so.

One question that comes from this situation is this: if we are so eager for the idealistic global digital library, is it so important that one company is making it all possible while deriving a profit? One could argue that Google has established itself as a global superpower, and it has no real obligation to create such a library. Yet Google has decided to undertake the huge task, and if they skim a little off the top, is that harming the pedigree of the digital library? Even when dealing with “orphan books”, one has to admit that if a copyright holder cannot be readily found, then potentially the holder does not hold the copyright itself in high esteem, and they are not necessarily looking to profit from their own copyright.

New York Times writer, Rob Walker warns, it seems like “Girl Talk’s music is a lawsuit waiting to happen” (2008). However, Girl Talk has faced almost no legal action against his work. Claims such as Walker’s make the issue even more urgent. But, why hasn’t the record industry sued Girl Talk? The question, which is extremely relevant, brings with it, some sizable concerns about the United States Copyright Law, and its position as a protector of creation.

In Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, the Supreme Court decided that the use of the Betamax recorder was fair because it mostly allowed the copying of content that had been broadcast for free viewing. However, Girl Talk samples mostly commercial hits, which were released with the intention of making a profit on recorded music sales. None of the samples used on GirlTalk’s music intended to be academic or educational in nature. The use in the case of the Betamax was a “noncommercial and nonprofit” activity. Users of the technology were not economically benefiting from the copying, it was just a personal use. However, Girl Talk doesn’t do what he does just for personal enjoyment, he is a performer, and his mash-ups are his unique selling potential.

Moreover, Girl Talk uses the actual sound recordings of songs. In Bridgeport v. Dimension, the Sixth Circuit ruled that phonographic recordings couldn’t undergo the same analysis as the actual composition itself. It also ruled out the possibility of “de minimis” copying for sound recordings. Therefore, any amount of copying, no matter how small, could technically be infringement. On the other hand, one could contend that Girl Talk’s style of stitching together several short samples to create a larger piece, is unique to him. Girl Talk seems to be adding his own creative expression to the samples. This could possibly count as fair use. Adding to this, it is highly unlikely that the use of twenty to thirty second long samples would prevent people from going out and buying the original songs. To the contrary, one could argue that his mash-ups advertise, and therefore increase the sales of original songs.

This SXSW Panel, seems to hit the nail on the end. Watch out for DJ Spooky’s analysis of the “media cloud” we are surrounded by and constantly reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJdFYgdb0vU

The verdict seems unclear. Girl Talk satisfies some aspects of the fair use test, and fails others, and as a result his music falls in a grey area. But, even though he uses the fair use card to his defense every time, the big question here is whether the fair use test is even valid for an artist like Girl Talk. The current copyright understandings draw most of their matter from the 1976 legislation. Does it stand valid in the twenty-first century?

Interestingly, Girl Talk’s thoughts reflect some of the philosophical justifications behind U.S. Copyright Law. According to the statute, copyright protection should be limited because by creating something, one actually reduces “resources” available to others to create (McJohn). Essentially, what copyright aims to do is to protect artistic creation. This train of thought makes Girl Talk’s music seem flawless because it does not affect the market for the original works, and at the same time is a unique form of expression.