Comments on: Mother protects YouTube clip by suing Prince

Pennsylvannia woman sues Prince after he demands that her home movie posted to YouTube be removed for violating his copyright.

[macdannyk1]

That's it?

That's the big 'inappropriate use?' - a radio playing in the
background? WTHeck? Sheesh...

[sunk818]

Music integral to this video, but still...

This is not incidental music. It would be one thing if a family was talking around a table ignoring the music in the background. But clearly the music and child is the center of attention. Still, if amateur porn is any indication (model age on file not required) - I think there's an expectation of being able to broadcast private home videos without adhering to legal requirements. For example, big companies are expected to license the song from Prince for broadcasting, but a mom filming her kid dancing to the song would be exempt.

[SpecialServci]

This is wrong! [read how and wherefore] .... beware YouTube, your time is

coming....

Why?> Any owner of I.P. (intellectual *Property*) should be able to control access to songs or video works created by the entity, and expect payment .... if there isn't a standard system or due-process enabled by commonlaw, or if publishers don't consider all background 'sounds' *before* publishing, then this can and will be abused by unethical partners, who think they can push the boundaries, or assign discrete words to assign to "evidence" of the fact, or otherwise. Everyone must be paid. Otherwise, a poverty mentality and lower standard of living and economy will always continue to exist, until the next president comes into power and changes that fact. best wishes..................

[rdupuy11]

You don't get it

You don't get it, friend. He isn't demanding payment. There is no mechanism to pay for this stuff. The studio's agree that there is no market here.

The question is whether music is part of life, and whether incidental music that may be part of your baby video's can be posted to your website, or whether studio's have the right to demand their removal.

Fair use says, they don't. Others may think they do...but at least talk about the issue. Your ramble has nothing to do with the issue.

[bdplaid]

you are wrong!

Your understanding of copyright and fair use is glaringly deficient.

It's just not as simple as you describe. Artists function within a society, and concepts of fair use and public domain exist to ensure that pubilc access to privatively-owned works is maintained.

Another thing that courts look at are market impact and how both sides have been injured or rewarded. In fact, Prince has been rewarded in this action through advertisement of his brand, so his getting any money in court is slim.

As a PR issue, Prince is an idiot for doing what is - but then he's never been called a brain trust. He's getting free advert from the appearance on YouTube, although one might say he's getting much more from this flap. But in a negative way. He should have made some statement of support about how "cute" this reinterpretation of his work is, and let it go at that. I see he's still the stuck-up, takes-himself-too-seriously musician that he always was.

But anyway, copyright and fair use are especially complicated when they get into court.

And I, as a multiple-copyright-holder and student of media law, believe the music in this case is merely incidental, and can be defended on fair use grounds.

But once it hits court, it's even money as to what will happen.

[birdtford]

Parents, Grandparents and Toddlers

I've a 3 year old grandson that likes to dance. When I grab my video camera to film HIM, I don't first stop and think about what is playing in the back ground. I'm filming my grandson, and if I want to share that video, I really don't think anyone is really listening to who is playing the music. To me Prince is being Prince and thinking he is a god and can do what he likes with no regaurd to others delight. This is stubid!!

[rdupuy11]

It's not about the Web

Some people get confused and think this is an internet issue. The web is just the mechanism. This isn't about the web. Whether this movie was shown to friends on the internet. Or whether she played it her friends and family in her own home. Or whether she was absolutely the only person to ever look at it...

the question is, when something has no commercial value, and is incidental...is it allowed?

Fair use says: yes. Prince says: No.

whose right?

Well, it cannot be Prince, geez.

[Kissmyne]

...

Ya I totally agree.. Honestly Prince should be glad he has a fan.. but instead he has to act like a good for nothing wash out...

[Renegade Knight]

Good for Her

The simple truth is music is part of the mosiac of our lives. It's roots come long before copyright laws were even invented to rob us of our natural use of music in our lives.

I'm glad my forefathers didn't argue copyrights when they invented music or it would have never gotten off the ground. Instead of singing we would have just invented legal yelling.

[bdplaid]

derivatives

Then what about derivative works? There are different kinds of specific licenses available that will allow a 3rd-party to reinterpret the original artists work - for a fee. This then creates a new work.

This is the law.

Man, you need to stop ranting about stuff about which you know nothing.

[amerist78]

Jury of your peers

Any jury with half a brain amongst them would find this to be a perfect example of fair use. Universal and its ilk have obviously overstepped their bounds and hopefully an example will be made of them in this case.

[bdplaid]

History

Actually, the history of the great composers is that most of them were paid for their work - by wealthy patrons who hired them to write music for spefic things. Bach was in the service of the catholic Church, and was charged with composing an original mass for each Sunday. Hence the reason why there is so much of his work around.

But as to ownership - as I recall, the Church claimed ownership, but i don't know when the issue of copyright reared its head. It's an interesting question.

I've written about this - Personally, I feel that copyright is too restrictive. At some point, ALL works need to enter the public domain, but right now with the law written as it is, media can remain protected into perpetuity. And that's bad for society, and only good for corporations.

[felgercarbnaysay]

Learn YOUR history!

Bach was Lutheran. Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door in Wittenberg over 100 years before Bach was even born!

[imacpwr]

The has-been formally known as Prince.

This is pathetic, if I hadn't of read that the music playing in the
background is Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" I'd never have noticed it..!!
Not only is Prince a has-been he's a looser as well..!!!

[bdplaid]

Juries

Yes, but where does one propose to find such a jury? Certainly not in California.

This is one more example of the greed of those in the corporate music world.

back when i was a full-time musician, I remember how liberal and free musicians were on their way up. after they "made it," the greed set in and they wouldn't give away a damned thing.

We're seeing that now, on the corporate level.

Another example: If artists are being hurt so badly by illegal downloading and copyright infringement, then how come so many of them still become multi-millionaires overnight?

The question then becomes, does the infringement hurt, or help?

I think the answer is obvious.

[felgercarbnaysay]

Learn YOUR history

Bach was Lutheran. Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door in Wittenberg over 100 years before Bach was even born!

[felgercarbnaysay]

Learn YOUR history

Bach was Lutheran. Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door in Wittenberg over 100 years before Bach was even born!

[Mousefinger]

Learn How To Post A Reply Once

*plonk*

[mitchcu]

Where to hear new music to buy...

I feel that the music industry has missed the boat with their restrictive edicts on when and how music can be heard. I personally have not heard Prince's music in years because there are so many restrictions concerning music use. Cafes don't play music anymore because of costs, radio in my town is unlistenable top whatever that plays the same songs again and again, so I have to count on NPR interviews and Rolling Stone reviews to find out about new music. This is tedious, I feel that studios should pay youtube and cafes etc., to expose people to new music. I support this mom, the background music is incidental to this video, and very hard to even attribute to Prince.

[Stating]

Don't Rappers Do This?

Don't Rappers take existing music, mash it up, and sell it as their own work. I guess if 25 Cent does this it's OK, but if a soccer mom does it she lands in jail.

[crue24]

Say what?

For the last comment, when "25 Cent" as you put it, uses a clip,
he pays for it. Totally different story here.

To the people saying the artist should be paid...are you out of
your mind? You can barely tell what the song is. This isn't an
mp3 or video being made available that the artist could get paid
for otherwise. It's also not someone using the music for any
type of commercial purpose. If you're going to sue for this, you
might as well sue for a person singing the song in a karaoke
machine. It's totally ridiculous.

What surprises me most though is that it's Prince that started
this. He was one of the first artists to embrace the net for those
of you who haven't followed this drama since the beginning.
Way back before napster was even shut down Prince was in
favor of the web and was one of the artist against the lawsuits,
unlike Metalica, Madonna, etc.. That's the biggest shock to me.

This is a lousy quality home movie with audio that is just barely
distinguishable. In no way is this copyright infringement. Any
of you arguing that the artist should be paid for this are out of
your mind.

[mamacita2]

Has he lost it?

I applude the mother for suing Prince. Why should she pay because it took me awhile before I really understood what the song was? What if she had of been watching one of his movies and he son started dancing to it, whould she have to pay for that to? I think Price should be honored that people still like playing his music.

[turultan]

It is clear Universal has a right to raise a lawsuit against Mrs. Stephanie Lenz.
It is completly within the right of the company to ask Mrs. Lenz to remove the video.
Universal clearly represents Mr. Prince and his monetary interests, and the company is contractually obligated to threatan Mrs. Lenz. The video was not about the toddler, but about promoting a music clip, that was not her property. The music is the property of Mr. Prince, who could sue Universal if the company did not take action against Mrs. Lenz and the toddler (when he turns 18). The other toddlers appearing in the video are assisting in the making of the video - clearly they could be implicated in the suit - and increases the possibility of the suit being financially viable. One must not take all of this lightly. Law is law and it is must be enforced. It is the foundation of society - or else there will be chaos.

JUST JOKING!
(you thought I was serious? :)))

It's incredible what bull **** you can come up with when you try to put yourself in the shoes of an attorney. To think like them is just plain crazy. It's all intellectual mode without heart. So here is what I think (and feel). Read below.

WHAT IS HAPPENING

The recording industry is in self-destruct mode! Good for them, good for us. It's all about committing business model suicide. Let them do it. Let them sue everybody, and when there is nobody left to sue, they can look around and survey the damage. By then the rest of use will still be listening to our favorite music, as most normal musicians and actors and writers and artists, etc.. , will be living in some other business model we are all willing to support. So I say to Universal and the rest of them: KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

With regards from Budapest.

(I wrote this last part after seeing the video and before writting the legal stuff at top).

turultan at gmail dot com

[SailorJason]

So basically, if I get this correctly.
It's perfectly ok to listen to Prince's crappy music on the radio,
but you can't videotape a baby dancing to it and showing it to people for free on the internet.

Nice job Prince, the artist formerly known as significant, way to take down that mom!
Terrorist execution/propaganda videos? GOOD.
Baby dancing to a prima donna's archaic pop? BAD.