Dance Reality Show Barred From Doing A Michael Jackson Tribute

from the pay-up-to-honor-MJ dept

Mon, Jul 13th 2009 2:05am — Mike Masnick

Krharrison alerts us to the news that the popular reality TV competition show "So You Think You Can Dance" was barred from doing a planned tribute to Michael Jackson on its most recent show because someone (exactly who isn't clear) refused to give permission. What a great society we live in when you need permission to do a tribute to someone's music.

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

Filed Under: michael jackson, so you think you can dance, tribute

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ilfar, 13 Jul 2009 @ 3:12am

Not so bad really
With all the other tribute stuff going on, did we really need one more anyway? :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 3:27am

Re: Not so bad really
While you may believe that we didn't need another one, that really wasn't the point. The point was that someone shouldn't need permission to do a tribute, but in today's society, it seems we do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 3:50am

Not really odd. Everyone and their dog is trying to cash in on "Michael Jackson is dead" right now, and honestly the right holders are probably very smart not to agree to everything.

Again, without details of who turned down what or refused what, you have no idea what the full story is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 3:51am

Michael Jackson was inspired by a Peruvian Tinamou.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnp4YXU6JQ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 3:58am

Re:
No. It's not a Tinamou.

It's actually a Red-capped Manaki, which is native to Peru, but man... You got to get your birds right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 3:59am

Re:
No. It's not a Tinamou.

It's actually a Red-capped Manakin, which is native to Peru, but man... You got to get your birds right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kse (profile), 13 Jul 2009 @ 4:17am

Michael Jackson Tribute
It's a show that has sponsors, so, maybe one of them didn't support it.

Besides that, haven't we had enough of MJ for a while? Plus, in the coming weeks will will be bombarded with autopsy reports, investigations, and who will get control of the children, who will get his money, provided there is any, etc.

MJ was an awesome artist and a 'trailblazer' in music. His music will live on,forever. What I am most anxious to see is those artist that put together tribute acts.

--end
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Ahlquist (profile), 13 Jul 2009 @ 4:22am

Re: Re: Not so bad really
Umm normally I agree but in this case it was more likely not a tribute to the man, the star, or his career, but...

Hey lets make some money off this dead guy, if we act all pious we can capitalize on his success for free!

If they want to do a tribute show a quick dedication at the start of the show is all it takes. If they want to use the mans music they should pay the same fees they would have a month ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 4:33am

Re: Re: Re: Not so bad really
Ah! So you are that one person who decides what a tribute is and what it is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 4:44am

Re: Re: Re: Not so bad really
aren't all tributes made to cash in on the popularity of the person in question?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 4:50am

Ironic that now that MJ is dead he's probably worth ten times what he would be if he were still alive. Ten years from now his estate will be worth a billion or so. Elvis made way more after he died than he ever did while alive. When Elvis died, one industry pundit quipped 'good career move.' Financially he couldn't have been more right. I had a coworker who talked about how she cried when she went to Graceland because of how much Elvis meant to her and the effect he had on her life. The funny part? She was like five years old when he died.

Also MJ gets to join the "died while still young and famous" cult of celebrities whose sins are all forgiven and are canonized forever, along with Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Princess Diana, and even Kurt Cobain.

And the real irony is that MJ is the OLDEST (at death anyway) of that bunch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 5:11am

From the know-it-all in copyright matters, it's indeed very odd that you posted that article.

But I will have to agree that we already had too much of MJ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 13 Jul 2009 @ 5:30am

Maybe the racist Reverend Al didn't approve of it. Because you know, he's the spokesman for everything Michael Jackson related.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 13 Jul 2009 @ 5:38am

Obviously from the Prince style of "thank you so much for the tribute!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2009 @ 5:42am

not that i would watch a dance show anyways...BUT, can we shut the fuck up about Michael jackson, before he died everyone did nothing but make fun of him being a child molester and so and and so on, now...he is just some legend...I dont realy care, i am just sick of him trumping some real news out there

he is dead, get over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rbry, 13 Jul 2009 @ 6:11am

Dance
That is to bad. I was really looking forward to all the dancers being in white face and dressed like Frankenberry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rbry, 13 Jul 2009 @ 6:13am

Dance
That is to bad. I was really looking forward to all the dancers being in white face and dressed like Frankenberry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scarr, 13 Jul 2009 @ 6:32am

Doesn't this make sense?
Isn't this just the copyright holder controlling who can use their work for what purposes? Is this any different from stopping a car dealership using "Beat It" to advertise their lot's low price guarantee?

Unless my copyright knowledge is way off, as long as you pay the relevant fees to the author, you can cover any song you want, and nobody has rights of refusal. They can only refuse using the copyrighted sound recording, which must be what the TV show wanted.

You can argue how long copyrights should be held (which is currently way too long), but the idea of a copyright holder determining usage of his/her work in that period is completely acceptable to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hexjones, 13 Jul 2009 @ 7:06am

I happen to like So You Think You Can Dance. They wanted to honor MJ's music and DANCING. The show is all about dance - elevating and showcasing the art. It just so happens that dance is very intertwined with music. MJ had a HUGE influence in the world of dance.

So no, I don't think it is so simple as just "cashing in". There was genuine disappointment when they announced that they wouldn't be able to do the tribute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
minijedimaster (profile), 13 Jul 2009 @ 7:08am

but the idea of a copyright holder determining usage of his/her work in that period is completely acceptable to me.
Unfortunately for your argument, you assume the copyright holder is the artist, which both in this case and most others is NOT true. MJ didn't refuse use of anything because he's DEAD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scarr, 13 Jul 2009 @ 7:39am

Re:
MJ didn't refuse use of anything because he's DEAD.
Thank you for that clarification.

I never claimed the copyright holder is the artist. If someone else paid for the copyright, s/he purchased control of the work. Again, I'm not arguing the length of copyrights or whether record companies are predatory in taking copyright from the artists. I'm simply saying that a lawful holder of a valid copyright should have the right to refuse permission for their work to be used verbatim in a context like a TV show, movie or commercial.

(I'll add that I'm not talking about a transformative work either, which is a different issue.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hexjones (profile), 13 Jul 2009 @ 8:02am

I really think that "transformative samples" are total BS. So if they gave a song of Jackson's to some "DJ" (audio editor), cut up and rearranged it, that would be ok to use?

How is that any different than just using the original songs to begin with? I think using the originals is also much more appropriate for a tribute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
minijedimaster (profile), 13 Jul 2009 @ 8:15am

Re: Re:
I never claimed the copyright holder is the artist.
Really? You claim this but then say:
I'm simply saying that a lawful holder of a valid copyright should have the right to refuse permission for their work
Somewhat of an oxymoron there when it comes to the vast majority of copyright situations out there. Tell me, why should I have to pay Michael Jackson or his relatives to be able to play a Beatles song? Seems kind of stupid to me. But yet that's the case. Point is, copyright as it stands today is completely broken and needs to be redone in a bad way from the ground up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scarr, 13 Jul 2009 @ 8:43am

Re: Re: Re:
I meant "their work" as in "the work of art they own". Perhaps it wasn't the clearest choice of words, but I'd just finished saying "if someone else paid for the copyright, s/he purchased control of the work." I thought that'd be clear enough.

In your opinion, should people not be able to sell copyrights? Jackson might've been a jerk for buying his friend's music, but being a jerk isn't a legal or economic differentiator. Being the original creator doesn't overrule fair trade.

I'm not arguing that copyright isn't severely messed up. It is. I'm only claiming that one purpose it properly serves is letting the rights holder control certain usage of that material. Usage on a TV show definitely falls under that umbrella. Whether it's smart for the owner to restrict that usage is another issue, but that's a choice for the rights owner to make, not anyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 13 Jul 2009 @ 8:55am

Re: Michael Jackson Tribute
But you miss the point. Someone wants to do a tribute to *anyone*, why do they need permission? Should they need permission to do a tribute to the Beatles? Elvis? Obama? Jesus?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 13 Jul 2009 @ 8:58am

Re:
This article is not about Michael Jackson. It is about the rights of people/organizations/companies to do their own performances of non-private works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 13 Jul 2009 @ 9:05am

Re: Re:
lawful holder of a valid copyright should have the right to refuse permission for their work to be used verbatim in a context like a TV show, movie or commercial

Why?
No, seriously. Why?
State the logic behind having such "control" over something like this? You have made a rudimentary claim, but I question your reasoning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen, 13 Jul 2009 @ 9:27am

wrong show
Too bad "To Catch a Predator" isn't doing a tribute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scarr, 13 Jul 2009 @ 9:48am

Re: Re: Re:
That's a fair question. It creates an association between the two, and uses one to market the other.

I gave the example of "Beat It" being used in a car dealership ad. It promotes the image of the place by using a popular song, and would create a negative association for the song if the place is disreputable. Without restriction, any group could use anything for any purpose they wanted.

It's easy to see how being associated with, or helping promote (by association, or the power of music/art) religions, political causes, or other organizations might not be what someone wants to do. An artist should be able to create works without worrying about how they could be misappropriated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fiercedeity (profile), 13 Jul 2009 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not so bad really
Yes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fiercedeity (profile), 13 Jul 2009 @ 2:55pm

Re:
"How is that any different than just using the original songs to begin with?"

It's different because the DJ cut it up and rearranged it. So the result is a transformative expression of the original. In other words, not the same song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
john, 14 Jul 2009 @ 12:00pm

Re:
he died? when? how?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Denice, 13 Aug 2009 @ 1:07pm

Michael Jackson
This message is to Wrong show Stephen and the many other MJ critics. If you don't want to hear about him don't watch it!!!! but let us who loved him watch it without all your negativeness. I agree the media did bash him all the time even though he was proven innocent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]