Even Lawyers Are Confused About What's Legal Or Not In The Prince/Radiohead Spat
from the wait-a-second... dept
We were just discussing how copyright has been stretched and twisted so many times that it really just isn't designed properly to handle internet communications -- and a good case in point may be the funny little spat we covered a few weeks back between Prince and Radiohead. If you don't recall, Prince performed a cover of a Radiohead song at a concert. Someone in the audience videotaped it and put the video on YouTube. Prince's representatives demanded that the content be taken down under a DMCA request -- raising all sorts of questions. After all, Prince didn't own the copyright on the song. That's owned by Radiohead, whose lead singer wanted the video back online. Prince didn't own the copyright to the video either, since he didn't take it. So how could he use the DMCA to take down the video?But, it's not that simple, apparently. As Ethan Ackerman details, as lawyers began to think about the situation, the more confused they got, noting that maybe there was a right under anti-bootlegging laws. Only, then things got more confusing, because it turns out that anti-bootlegging laws aren't actually a part of the copyright act (though it does fall under the same "title" just to add to the confusion), and the DMCA (under which the takedown occurred) only applies to copyright law.
However, again, we're left in a situation where the "law" is hardly clear at all, and even those who follow the space were somewhat confused over whether or not Prince had any sort of legal standing here. A law is not useful if the boundaries of that law are not clear, and if someone has no clue if their actions go against the law. In the internet era, copyright certainly falls under that category of laws in which it is no longer clear what is and is not legal -- and that should be seen as a problem.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Am I first.......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weird
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A phtographer doesn't need the consent of a celebrity to snap their picture and sell it to a magazine.
Increasinly it seems that copyright is being abused simply as a means of controling business interests, not artistic rights or as an intentive to innovation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So what now
Through all of the changes that have been written over the years we're now at the point where even the lawyers don't know what the issues are. How can the average person be expected to know whether they are doing anything wrong. Ignorance of the law does not excuse is a principle of our legal system. So where does that put us when even the lawyers are ignorant of the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bootlegger
Copyright protects a fixed work, such as a recording or written song. So Radiohead can hold copyright to any recording which they make, or pay to have made of themselves singing their song. They could also hold a copyright to the actual sheet music of the song. "Covering" a song is a derivative work, almost the textbook case. A recording of someone covering a song would be copyright for the person doing the recording, unless they were a paid employee. If the recording occurs without the consent of the performer, then you're into bootlegging, since the concert was a private event.
So Prince could go after the video poster, and try to get them prosecuted for bootlegging, but no one's copyright seems to have been infringed. Since there is no infringement going on, this becomes just another case where people use the DMCA to remove content because they don't like it. Radiohead should not even have been involved, since their work was fairly used. Them having any kind of say would be a dangerous precedent which could lead to all kinds of derivitave works coming under fire from the original content producers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: weird
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fair use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bootlegger
I also agree that Radiohead really doesn't have a say here. But I do think the video should be put back up seeing as how this does not seem to fall under the DMCA so therefor the takedown notice should be null and void. So in a way Radiohead would get their way anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bootlegger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should DMCA have been involved
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Should DMCA have been involved
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
Assuming this is correct, and it is certainly how the system almost invariably works, then P in his own right would hold a copyright in his performance of the RH song. RH likely holds a dominant copyright in both the lyrics and score, but P would hold a subordinate copyright re his performance as an authorized derivative work.
The consequence of this is that P would have every right to call for the clip to be removed, and RH would have no right under law to try and compel a different outcome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
I have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prince-Radiohead Fight
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
If you aren't making it up, would you please cite the US law that supposedly defines something called a "subordinate copyright"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bootlegger
Moreover, and assuming that the provisions of the clause are effective as a broad, all-encompassing, license of copyright, does that license grant sublicensing rights. I say the answer is clearly "no", but am always open to opposing views with a clear summation of why.
Furthermore, and assuming that the a work is subject to the provisions of either the Export Administration Act or the Arms Export Control Act, can such a work be registered and are there any limitations of what can appear in the deposited best editions of the work?
I look forward to your response.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Special Judges With Technical Backgrounds
Of course, you also have big businesses who like it this way. Currently, many large businesses love coming into courts to fake out judges and juries who have no clue, such as with the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), in the disastrous explosion of webcaster fees.
Think about it- a judge making decisions on Internet based copyright law, with no technical knowledge whatsoever. Quite simply, 'Stupid'.
Bill Wilkins, CEO
Melted Metal Web Radio
http://www.meltedmetal.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Special Judges With Technical Backgrounds
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Special Judges With Technical Backgrounds
[ link to this | view in thread ]
f
[ link to this | view in thread ]