Oh Look, Viral Video On YouTube Boosting Sales... And Reputation For Chris Brown

from the take-it-down! dept

Thu, Jul 30th 2009 12:38pm — Mike Masnick

By now, you've probably seen the video of the wedding party entrance for the wedding of Jill Peterson and Kevin Heinz (if not, go check it out). It's been seen by many millions of people, and the number just keeps on growing. The wedding party entrance is choreographed as the entire wedding party dances enthusiastically to Chris Brown's song Forever. The video, of course is almost certainly copyright infringement. Even if we assume that the church in St. Paul where this took place paid its public performance license, that would only cover the venue, not the eventual rebroadcast on YouTube. Now there are some who will insist that every streamed version of this song should require that a fee be paid. But, of course, if that were the case, this video almost certainly would not have been put on YouTube and would not have been seen by so many millions of people.

And what would have happened then?

Well, JohnForDummies notes that the success of this video is having a major impact for Chris Brown (who's reputation is, reasonably, in tatters for assaulting his then girlfriend, the singer Rihanna). Not that we advocate supporting someone who assaulted his girlfriend, but the video is having an impact. The song Forever has jumped into the iTunes top 10, despite having been released over a year ago. Also, the video itself has greatly outpaced an attempt by Brown to create a viral video "apologizing" for his actions.

It's not clear how the record label (in this case, a subsidiary of Sony Music) feels about this (see update below) -- though, I will note that embedding has been disabled on the video (Update: Embedding enabled again, so I'm adding the video below) and there is a link to buy the song on the YouTube page. At the very least, this suggests that Sony (which has a good relationship with YouTube, unlike some others...) worked out a deal to take advantage of the publicity around the video. Though, the disabling of embedding seems rather pointless. Embedding the video would likely guarantee far more views, and with it, more purchases.

Update: Thanks to a bunch of folks sending in the news that Google is now promoting this as a case study of a rights holder taking control over content.

Update: Embedding has been re-enabled, so here you go:

Also... there's already been an amazing spoof video of the couple's "divorce" proceedings:

I don't think Sony's "taken control" of this one yet...

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: chris brown, monetizing, music, viral videos, wedding
Companies: google, sony music, youtube

27 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 12:44pm

they should allow embeds, but keep some small portion of the video screen as "Buy this song on iTunes". That way, every single page that it's embedded on is a true advertisement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  Exactly. Sometimes I wished that rights holders would just send an email to the poster. It could be something like this:
  
  "Hey, I saw your video on YouTube, and it seems you don't have a rights agreement with us established. Because it's a great video and we want to promote the artist, we'll give you rights if you contact YouTube and and allow us to sell links to the music on your video."
  
  What a simple solution. Win-Win-Win.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - zcat (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 2:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They don't even have to.
    
    Google have the framework in place for rightsholders to upload a sample of their own content, automatically identify all of the videos on youtube where that content appears (even if it's not bit-for-bit identical; even when it's just background music like in this video) and then choose what to do about that content. They don't need the assistance or permission of the video's uploader to do any of this.
    
    Sony have chosen to treat the video as a free viral advertisement for the music, adding a link so that people can buy the CD or mp3 download. As a result Chris brown is in the top ten on itunes and amazon, and everyone is making a shitload more money.
    
    Warner Music Group generally opt to take the video down or remove the soundtrack. as a result they get no advertising revenue or promotional benefit at all. Also everyone thinks they're a bunch of assholes, just read some of the comments on videos where the soundtrack has been stripped..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan J. (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 6:32pm
  
  Re:
  Not without getting the video owner's permission, they shouldn't.
  
  And if using an executive's picture on a wanted poster is fair use due to it's transformative nature, why isn't this fair use of the song?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
yozoo, 30 Jul 2009 @ 12:49pm

confused
I dont see how this video helps Browns reputation at all. Besides that though, if it did actually help his reputation in some way, Im not sure why that should be viewed as a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ryan, 30 Jul 2009 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re: confused
  People care less about your perceived personal faults when you're popular and in demand. Human nature.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2009 @ 4:29am
  
  Re: confused
  Good point yozoo. He might be a violent jerk, but at least he doesn't enforce copyright claims!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 30 Jul 2009 @ 1:06pm

I read this blog too much
The first thing that went through my mind when I heard about the video was that they would get a take down notice and the second thing I thought was if you would write about it. I guess I read this blog too much. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Cowherd, 30 Jul 2009 @ 1:06pm

Is the light starting to come on?
So instead of freaking out and demanding a takedown or huge fees, someone realized the promotional value of the video and decided to capitalize on it? And monetize it as well - sales of the year old song have surged appreciably. You have people making a video including the music for free, promoting the music for free and just now someone is figuring out how to take advantage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 1:09pm

Mike,
You mentioned "Not that we advocate supporting someone who assaulted his girlfriend."

Really? That's good. Additionally, that "We" and "I" thing really needs to be worked out.

Because it seems to be bothering some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- some old guy, 30 Jul 2009 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re:
  You're fucking stupid if you think the CEO doesn't have the moral or legal right to speak for his organization.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 2:00pm

Lame
This is a great example of one way to monetize something free. However, shouldn't the folks in the video (and the perosn that made it) share in the profits? If not for the video there would be nothing to monetize. Seems really lame that Sony gets all the profit. The folks that made and appeared in the video deserve their cut too - directly from Sony. This is a double win for Sony, free advertising and lots of sales. The video is free to the world but when Sony starts to make money from it then it should no longer be free to Sony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 30 Jul 2009 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re: Lame
  @AC: "...shouldn't the folks in the video (and the perosn that made it) share in the profits?"
  
  No. Fair use doesn't mean "fair share of profits due the copyright holder." Now if the bride 'n groom (or the video shooter, whomeever) wrote their own song and added it to the video...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 2:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Lame
    We all agree that the video has promotional value. What is happening in the video adds value to the song, otherwise no one would care. Why exactly should Sony be the only party to profit?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ryan, 30 Jul 2009 @ 3:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lame
      Because the profit is coming from people buying the song. They are not buying the video; it was uploaded for free to YouTube by the couple. Google then has the right to put whatever promotional advertising they desire around it since it is their site, and Sony is entitled to all profits contractually afforded it. Now if Sony had entered into a contract with the couple to give them a share of profits prior to using the song, then in that case they would be entitled to profits. If people dislike this situation, they are certainly welcome to not promote songs on YouTube in the future...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 6:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Lame
        Fair enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 4:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Lame
    Sony should get their share of money for the use of the song. But Sony didn't make the video, didn't choreograph it, didn't act in it. Why shouldn't they pay the people who made the video for their use of it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 6:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lame
      Then at the same time it should not be considered 'infringement'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berry (profile), 29 Dec 2009 @ 9:31pm
  
  Re: Lame
  I agree with you Lame, what about the Video maker / Videographer and the rest of the participant in these viral videos or any other ones achieving great popularity but get no $$$ at the end.
  It could be that there was some kind of profit made, but not in a publicly visible manner because after all these are Sony and they don't want o makeup this sleeping giant.
  Imagine all viral video makers asking for money before anyone can use them to their own advantage. I found this website with a strange name www.GollyGoose.com (funny), if their mission works out I think it will become a reality that every viral video will become a major bargaining chip.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Philip (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 2:20pm

Embedding is enabled.
I'm not sure what video you're talking about, but the on you linked above has embedding turned on. I initially ran across the Google post through TechCrunch, which did have this video embedded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re: Embedding is enabled.
  I'm not sure what video you're talking about, but the on you linked above has embedding turned on. I initially ran across the Google post through TechCrunch, which did have this video embedded.
  
  Weird! They must have changed it. Last night it most certainly was not enabled... I'll add it to the post. Thanks!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
slackr (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 2:31pm

Donation
I realise that Sony and Chris Brown are the winners here and that their use and posting of the video on youtube is questionable. However while Sony may have found a way to monetise this viral video they should also consider the possibility that sharing any of this bonus revenue (they didn't count on it or invest anything but minimal effort to monetise it) with the newly married couple would further raise the value of the exercise. Whatever "payment" wouldn't need to be much but it is a golden opportunity to be seen as recognising that Sony aren't the originators of the popularity driving their sales. We enjoy the video for the visual content not just the audio.

Share the love Sony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yehuda Berlinger (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 11:46pm

Oh, the irony
The couple may not be making money off the video, but they created a web site: http://www.jkweddingdance.com/

Asking for donations to an organization that fights domestic violence!

Ah, the irony.

Yehuda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snidely, 31 Jul 2009 @ 7:34am

This song is an advertisement
What I found interesting was that the song was created for and used in a Doublemint gum ad (note the "double your pleasure, double your fun" line in the song and Chris Brown putting a stick of gum in his mouth in the opening of the actual music video). That's another example of an artist finding an alternate funding source for creating new music. Though this is clearly product placement, the placement is subtle and doesn't detract from the overall intent of the song.

On a separate note, the wedding video was the first time I heard Forever and I really liked the song and bought it from iTunes (before the ad link went up). I buy all kinds of music that I hear in TV shows, movies and on the internet. I don't understand how the big labels can be so clueless as to think that having their music played in the background is hurting sales. Quire the opposite actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carolyn Wood, 31 Jul 2009 @ 7:50am

Oh, Look
Let the uploader beware. The jury is still out on fair use regarding online video content.

No doubt, using Brown's music ups the odds of creating viral exposure. We play it safe when uploading content for the West Deptford Free Public library using licensed music from a variety of sources including the music of artists showcased in library performances.

BTW - I am still in search of the answer to the most important question. Are the dresses in the original video from J. Crew?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nelsoncruz (profile), 3 Aug 2009 @ 8:09am

I dont see buy links
Great videos. Very fun indeed. But I dont see any links to buy the song. Maybe it's just enabled for US users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
augustine fou, 4 Aug 2009 @ 6:07pm

video was real; viral effect was manufactured
does anyone else think that the viral effect was too large to be substantiated by the social intensity detected on the usual venues like digg, twitter, delicious, etc. ? here's the evidence which suggests the viral effect was faked - http://bit.ly/8K9pW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]