This is a spin-off from this thread in the wedding video section:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/wedding-event-videography-techniques/239661-i-hope-i-can-film-wedding-like-one-day.html

I'm interested in reading other discussion on this topic so I'm starting a new thread.

YouTube - JK Wedding Entrance Dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0)

This YouTube video now has close to 7 million hits and a link has been added to purchase "Forever" on iTunes. "Forever" has rocketed up to #6 on iTunes in songs purchased in all genres combined. Obviously the money earning opportunity has been embraced by recording artist's company.

I read one commenter's reply that said something to the effect of, thank you for resurrecting Chris Brown's career.

As a casual observer I think this is quite interesting from the standpoint of when copyright infringement becomes a bonus for the infringed upon. How many times does this happen? And did the endorsement of this video by Chris Brown's people come before or after it was shown on CNN and the Today Show?

Well, it's a valid point and an interesting discussion, but it's also a discussion that's been had so many times here, and with every conceivable opinion on this already posted, that you might get what you're looking for just by going back through the threads.

Bottom line is it doesn't matter what our opinion of copyright law is. Should the laws be changed? Sure. Does that give us the right to ignore them because we think they're stupid? No.

Well, it's a valid point and an interesting discussion, but it's also a discussion that's been had so many times here, and with every conceivable opinion on this already posted, that you might get what you're looking for just by going back through the threads.

Bottom line is it doesn't matter what our opinion of copyright law is. Should the laws be changed? Sure. Does that give us the right to ignore them because we think they're stupid? No.

Well, sorry then. I've been on the board a while and haven't noticed this particular type of situation being discussed.

BTW, I don't happen to think copyright laws should be changed. I haven't had videos stolen that I know of but I sure have had pictures stolen and had the offenders make a profit. It may be harder to keep up with copyright infringement now, but that doesn't make the harm any less to the people being stolen from.

Here are a few recent threads that get into this debate:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/wedding-event-videography-techniques/238798-music-license-trouble-stupid-me.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/techniques-independent-production/238546-music-real-estate-virtual-tour.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/taking-care-business/237682-media-rights-advice.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/documentary-techniques/237185-items-public-domain.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/wedding-event-videography-techniques/234970-wedding-march-copyrighted.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/taking-care-business/234916-fair-use-credits-help.html

Interestingly, you'll notice that Chris has killed many of these discussions because they just seem to go around in circles...

Sorry if I misinterpreted your OP. It just seemed to me that's what your thread title was implying/advocating.

Denise -
Usually these discussions pop up in the wedding/event section, often become heated (thus shut down). The first one Adam mentions stayed "live" as it remained "on topic" and thoughtful.

AND you have noted the interesting conundrum of "infringement" that actually benefits the IP holder through added exposure... we touched on that briefly when Guns N' Roses came up...

The probable "legal answer" would be the use of the tune was likely unauthorized (private event, but for entertainment of the "audience" - but who's going to complain?), the capture to video "might" have been incidental (though it sounded farily clean and I believe was the entire tune, so maybe was sync'd in post? It also was specific to the performance.), had it been only for "personal use" it would probably not have been a big deal...

OOPS, almost forgot that we live in a new digital age, where quite literally all the worlds a stage... the posting on You Tube would definitely qualify as a PUBLIC re-distribution of the original tune which was now an integral part of the "derivative work", now a pop icon in the digital revolution.

I think based upon that analysis "infringement" is pretty clear cut in this instance, YET...

I doubt there will be any "prosecution", as it would be so high profile and distasteful that I think there would be backlash... and if they've linked to a download of the tune and the artist is selling like hotcakes, "damages" would be really hard to argue... yet it IS infringement beyond a doubt IMO. The fact that Mr. Brown is probably smiling ear to ear because it "caught on" and went viral to his benefit doesn't change that.

I don't know if the story would be the same if instead of it getting picked up and going big it had been spotted by a copyright enforcer (or software spider doing the same thing) and "cease and desist" letters and a threat for damages going out. Interesting box this Pandora of "digital media" opens up, eh?



It's a real pickle, because as we've discussed ad nauseam, "the law" makes an "innocent" party a potential criminal if they happen to fall on the "wrong" side of something like this, and this is why the thoughtful discussion (when it stays that way) of such things is trying to grab onto and find a reasonable approach/compromise to the "problem". If you take a while (long thread!) to read through the first thread Adam posted, it will give you some things to think on - sadly there aren't any clear definitive "answers", but a good thoughtful discussion.

Denise -
If you take a while (long thread!) to read through the first thread Adam posted, it will give you some things to think on - sadly there aren't any clear definitive "answers", but a good thoughtful discussion.

Thanks for the reply. I actually did read that recent long thread (tho not in one sitting).

My interest in starting this thread was in an infringement that turned into a clear and substantial benefit to the copyright holder. As you said, it easily could have gone the other way. However, as it stands, the copyright holder is now endorsing the infringement.

Apologies to all if this specific topic has been beaten to death.

It does raise some interesting questions, though. As I understand the law, the use of the song in the original video is probably illegal because there's too much of the song used for it to be considered "incidental use." For that matter, the whole notion of incidental use itself is still in a state of flux because the copyright law itself doesn't explicitly make such an exception per se and the case law is still evolving. But the use of the music in the rebroadcast of the video by NBC and CNN would be legal since it would fall under the journalism exemption of the Fair Use doctrine.

This is almost the exception that proves the absurdity of the rule...

I too doubt "incidental" would fly here, and posting to You Tube, where it was no doubt "picked up", would be a clear infringement... and isn't You Tube supposed to pull videos that are infringing? Or does that only apply when they aren't getting millions of eyeballs?

Yet BECAUSE it "went big", and actually resulted in a benefit to the artist... and made broadcast (or at least snippets thereof) as a "news item", NOW it's "OK"... hmmmm...

Is it any wonder that the average layperson finds this incomprehensible?? And at least a little bit unreasonable... even to someone reasonably well versed in this area, this thing sort of flys up it's own backside when you put it up against "the law"!

Wouldn't surprise me if there was a herd of attorneys somewhere trying to figure out how to slap a band aid on this, so as not to allow the continued existence of the exact paradox we're talking about!

This is exactly the scenario I have long contended - private use at a private function, captured on video tape for private use... which I believe to be "fair use" in practical terms, if not legal ones.

What makes it really interesting is that the video went completely viral when posted to a "public" forum, yet while the infringement is pretty blatant, it apparently isn't an issue because it's "popular", and the added exposure helped the artist... and You Tube, etc., etc.

Have to wonder how this would have gone if they'd used a song by "the artist formerly known as whatever...", who in protecting his IP sued a mom for a "viral" video of her baby dancing to "his" tune...

Oh what a tangled web, this internet thing!

Exactly, Steve and Dave.



Wouldn't surprise me if there was a herd of attorneys somewhere trying to figure out how to slap a band aid on this, so as not to allow the continued existence of the exact paradox we're talking about!



It wouldn't surprise me either. I have no doubt the original video posted to YouTube was infringement, although I believe the people involved had no idea it was. Then, although CNN and the Today show had protection under fair use, they also more or less legitimized the video by showing it in the positive light they did. Now the copyright holder endorses the video and "it's all good."

So what defensible position does YouTube now have with the many, many other people doing pretty much the same thing on YouTube but getting their videos pulled or worse?

In the early days of radio the record companies tried to stop records being played on the radio as they thought that nobody would ever want to buy record if they could listen to music for free. They were clearly wrong & came to a reasonable accommodation with the radio stations that even paid the record companies for what were in effect advertisements for their records.

This case sounds the like it's the same old story. This video may be technically infringing but has worked out as a great promo for the record (or iTunes download).

What is amusing is that in some countries e.g. UK & Australia it is possible for videographers to pay a small fee that licenses them to use copyright works in wedding videos. However I believe that this license is for effectively personal use by the bride & groom & a small number of copies. It explicitly does not cover broadcast to the whole world via YouTube. So you could have had the situation where our videographer licensed the music correctly but the customer violated that license which accidentally benefited the copyright holder who had already been paid.

Well, consider that YouTube would have no way of knowing in advance if the poster had properly licensed the song or not, they wouldn't be just pulling everything discovered to contain material whose copyright is owned by a third party. I'd think it would require a complaint from the copyright owner that the music was unlicensed and its use infringing to trigger the removal.

"...captured on tape for private use" ... Yes, except this isn't that. "Private use" would mean your personal viewing pleasure in your own home or shared with friends at a party, etc. The original purpose of the video would probably indeed be a private use. But the couple posting the video on YouTube or some other public venue or the wedding videographer posting it as a sample on his web site or YouTube/Vimeo/etc takes it completely out of the realm on "private use" IMHO. It's now a public performance in the first case and defintely commercial use for advertising and promotion in the case of the videographer doing the posting. When the wedding videographer posts the video containing the track on the web, it's really no different from Ford running a national network television ad using the music in the soundtrack.

Well, this kind of clears things up for me:

YouTube - YouTube Content ID System (http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid)

I knew YouTube had upgraded their copyright infringement recognition to where an IP holder could submit their audio or video and YouTube would screen for it. I had no idea they then had a choice of what to do with the video. Like "Make Money" is one choice! Pretty smart. Chris Brown is making money and YouTube's butt is covered.

So there you have it. However, the great unwashed masses, some of whom think they avoid copyright infringement by claiming they do not own the content of their video, will not understand this.

they wouldn't be just pulling everything discovered to contain material whose copyright is owned by a third party.

Actually, they do... almost. As a rights holder (typically a record label,) you have the option to have your material removed immediately when detected by YouTube's fingerprinting software, or simply be notified of a possible infringement. Once notified, you can then decide if the video stays up or is removed. You can also decide to place an advertisement on the page (such as a link to download the song via iTunes or Amazon.)

YouTube has an appeal system in place if the original uploader feels their video has been unfairly removed.

I agree with Blackhurst, this is one of those viral videos which exploded, and thus a bit of an exception to the rule.

I wouldn't begin using songs in wedding videos or TV commercials with the reasoning being "..but more people will now download the songs off iTunes, thus benefitting the songwriter."

I agree with Blackhurst, this is one of those viral videos which exploded, and thus a bit of an exception to the rule.

I wouldn't begin using songs in wedding videos or TV commercials with the reasoning being "..but more people will now download the songs off iTunes, thus benefitting the songwriter."

And as for the argument that "It's good exposure for the artist" I don't think that Quebec's darling Celine Dion is going to value the "exposure" of using her "My Heart Will Go On" in your wedding video on YouTube very highly. Why aspiring filmmakers (or musicians, for that matter) who long for fame and recognition think established artists will still be hungry enough for the same recognition to give away their work for free I'll never know. And the sync licensing fees don't benefit the artists anyway, unless they self-publish (which not many do). The composer and his publisher are pretty anonymous - and have you ever seen "Lyrics and Music by Joe Jones, XYZ Music Company, Inc) in the credits where someone has used pop music with the excuse "I'm giving the artist free publicity" as it would have to show for anyone to know who the actual artist who created the song even WAS?

Well, consider that YouTube would have no way of knowing in advance if the poster had properly licensed the song or not, they wouldn't be just pulling everything discovered to contain material whose copyright is owned by a third party. I'd think it would require a complaint from the copyright owner that the music was unlicensed and its use infringing to trigger the removal.

"...captured on tape for private use" ... Yes, except this isn't that. "Private use" would mean your personal viewing pleasure in your own home or shared with friends at a party, etc. The original purpose of the video would probably indeed be a private use. But the couple posting the video on YouTube or some other public venue or the wedding videographer posting it as a sample on his web site or YouTube/Vimeo/etc takes it completely out of the realm on "private use" IMHO. It's now a public performance in the first case and defintely commercial use for advertising and promotion in the case of the videographer doing the posting. When the wedding videographer posts the video containing the track on the web, it's really no different from Ford running a national network television ad using the music in the soundtrack.

Steve -
I think Denise answered the question - You Tube has a rights program in place, interestingly enough with a provision to allow monetization (or REMOVAL) - the IP holder has options.

I think you missed something, or maybe you're just restating the argument? The wedding WAS a "friends at a party" situation, as I already stated. I think the "videographer" was NOT a professional (at least I'd hope not, good content, but really bad camera "technique", unless one is an amateur or shooting a Bourne sequel), so again I'd suspect an exception might apply, though "incidental" is REALLY stretching, but with it being a video for personal use... probably wouldn't be a problem or worth an IP holder even pursuing.

YES, posting to the "public" web is infringement extrordinaire... whoever does it. Period. Unless the IP holder has authorized it, and hopefully figured out and made arrangements for a way to monetize it, it's infringement/misappropriation of someone else's "property".

Adding "credits" isn't that unusual, but of no help other than perhaps showing an "attempt" to benefit the artist.

As an update, this video has over 20 million hits on YouTube and they now have a link up to donate money toward prevention of domestic violence. Meanwhile, Chris Brown is still in the top 100 of songs (all genres) on iTunes.

These poor people. She probably planned on using this song way before the Chris Brown/Rihanna disturbance. I bet she never dreamed they would end up under national scrutiny by dancing to this song at her wedding, having someone in the audience video it, and putting it up on YouTube thinking only the wedding participants would see it.

I hope she's getting some business for her dance studio because of it.

and they now have a link up to donate money toward prevention of domestic violence. .

OK, now herein lies the "rub": NOW, by posting a link to support for domestic violence, the well meaning poster MAY have really overstepped the bounds. He/she has now (in my opinion deliberately) made a link between the artist AND domestic violence. If I was the artist, I'd be suing. This is the same thing that cheap tabloid news does:

Shot 1: guys wearing cloth on their heads walking up a street
Shot 2: a building blowing up in a sandy country I've never been to

This INTIMATES that the guys wearing cloth on their heads were RESPONSIBLE for the building blowing up.

I would suggest that in this case, whatever monetary gains were made by the artist MAY have been negated by the loss of "credibility" and the online slandering of the artist by a well intentioned video poster. If I were the artist's lawyer, that is...

And THERE's the slippery slope of copyright.

I think most times when the topic comes up here, the poster is thinking "why would anyone mind if I used a tune on a nice wedding video for this nice couple?" But what if that video was of a different nature, say "adult entertainment"? Or how would YOU feel if somehow a clip of your work was used to promote a service or organization you are morally or ethically opposed to?? And without asking you or compensating for the use to boot?

The fundamental reasoning behind copy RIGHT is to allow the creator of a work to control its use, meaning they could GIVE it to one party to use if they so choose and document it, and charge the next party $1 million dollars.

Copy RIGHT is in the end no different from any other property RIGHT - you can use your house (presuming you're not breaking any laws) as you choose, you can rent it out, let a friend stay there while you stay at their flat in France, etc. The only difference is that IP is easy to "copy" using mechanical/electronic/digital means, so it doesn't register on the same level - plus there's the added complication that typically you're not "buying" a copy, but rather licensing that copy...

Yet it's still nothing more complicated that the "owner/creator" of a piece of property having the RIGHT to control the destiny of that propery, how it's used and how the owner/creator benefits from it.

And with the internet (remember banner ads that promoted something less than savory on someone's website, soomething they never would knowingly promote, but because it was part of some link exchange...), the risk of an unfortunate "association" for a "repurposed" chunk of 1's and 0's becomes even more "interesting"....

OK, now herein lies the "rub": NOW, by posting a link to support for domestic violence, the well meaning poster MAY have really overstepped the bounds. He/she has now (in my opinion deliberately) made a link between the artist AND domestic violence. If I was the artist, I'd be suing...



He plead guilty to beating up Rihanna. It may not be the best publicity for him. But it's not libel if it's true.

He plead guilty to beating up Rihanna. It may not be the best publicity for him. But it's not libel if it's true.

Civil suits are USUALLY won by the party most financially able to litigate. Guilty or not, if harm can be reasonably proven even a guilty party can cause an "offending" party IMMENSE financial hardship.

Two points...

#1 - TRUTH is only an "affirmative defense", which doesn't keep you out of Court, or reduce the financial burdens, even defending oneself when completely innocent can be ruinous, as Shaun points out.

#2 - I believe that when someone is a "public figure", the general standards for slander and libel become greatly reduced - otherwise the tabloids would have nothing at all to say. If Mr. Brown has as a matter of record pled guilty, it's public record, AND he is a highly public figure, so it's unlikely that he would go into a Court and find a receptive Judge... though anything is possible.

Arguing that he was libeled somehow by the association with a anti-abuse charity organization would be one heck of a stretch IMO. He'd be better to play it as his own idea to make things "right", and it'd be "money in the bank" to repair his image...

Again, Chris Brown's "Forever" re-enters the iTunes top 100 chart, currently at #24, after The Office, a popular US comedy show, does a take-off on Jill and Kevin's wedding video for Jim and Pam's wedding episode last night. The original YouTube video currently has over 27 million hits.

I wonder if this video would have had the same appeal if it had been professionally shot?

My take on Copyright laws:

It's a good thing.

And the arrangement YouTube/Google made with record companies is a good thing. YouTube avoids lawsuits and the recording industry makes a potential profit.

Copyright is all about protecting someones right to copy. Just look at the word! Since it costs a lot of money to send lawyers out to people, especially people who aren't really causing damage (in many cases of online videos there would be little monetary basis to sue upon) the compromise/solution that YouTube came up with (iTunes/Amazon.com links) is cool.

The YouTube user doesn't get slapped with a lawsuit/doesn't lose their YouTube account, YouTube/Google doesn't get slapped with an infringement lawsuit and the record company's/artists profit. Everyone wins.