Should Wedding Party In Viral YouTube Video Get A Cut Of Music Sale Profits?
from the questions,-questions... dept
Yesterday, we had the story of the incredibly popular viral wedding video, talking about how the music in that video, despite being over a year old and being sung by someone with massive reputation problems (Chris Brown, who assaulted his then girlfriend), was suddenly back in both the iTunes and Amazon top 5 downloads, almost entirely because of the video. Soon after the post went up, we saw that Google had just put up its own post highlighting it as a case study of a copyright holder monetizing an opportunity. Basically, Google allowed Sony Music to:claim and monetize the song, as well as to start running Click-to-Buy links over the video, giving viewers the opportunity to purchase the music track on Amazon and iTunes. As a result, the rights holders were able to capitalize on the massive wave of popularity generated by "JK Wedding Entrance Dance" -- in the last week, searches for "Chris Brown Forever" on YouTube have skyrocketed, making it one of the most popular queries on the site.But... as some in our comments began to wonder, shouldn't the folks in the video (or, perhaps the person who shot it) get some of that monetizing as well? After all, if we base our thinking on traditional RIAA-style thinking, the whole reason why there are suddenly so many new sales and renewed interest in Brown and this song is entirely due to this wedding party and whoever shot the video. Now, they might not want or care about the money, but just the fact that Google is hyping up the monetizing of the video... doesn't something seem wrong that the actual copyright holder of the video in question isn't getting any of that money? At the very least, shouldn't there be some sort of "referral bonus" or some such?
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
wedding gift maybe?
Maybe all the people monetizing on the video send a wedding gift?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps you think that American capitalism should be replaced by a system based on charity - any body who makes money has to make voluntary contributions to those who may (or not) have toiled in a manner which facilitated the money making ?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't even tell if you're serious or not. Copyright is all about enforced charity. Hell, listening to the maximalists, it's a charity for the rightsholders' grandchildren.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then again, under the RIAA's thinking, this video is obviously stealing profits from the real song, should be taken down, and the owners of the video should be slapped with a hefty lawsuit as well as the venue that this was performed at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone holds the rights to that video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The people have the rights to any commercial exploitation of their image under the law and the videographer who took the images has copyrights to those images.
If youtube/google is smart (and they are getting there as evidenced by their implementation of this monetize rather than remove copyrighted content system they set up) they will go further and implemente a revenue share system between those who make new uses of old copyrighted content like mashups and music uses in videos that draws new sales of it and the holders of the original copyrighted content.
Actually once youtube monetized that video then the usage changed from casual fun to commercial and every person in the video could make a claim to some of that unauthorized use (unless the videographer was smart enough to get model releases from all the dancers and even audience members who would not have presumed their face would appear in a public performance unless it was noted on the wedding invitation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Sigh*
Honestly, I think there's no reason they should expect a cut in any profits...
Although, it would be nice to get money for that--and if money for your viral vid becomes popular everybody will go from an amateur film-maker to an amateur music/commercial video maker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Sigh*
So, who deserves money made off of this? Some would say that if you changed the song but kept the rest the same, it would still be as viral, but if you changed everything but the song, it would have never been noticed at all, so the couple/wedding party/etc should get money, for it was their creativity that brought all the hits, not the song.
And they have a point.
I, however, think that such thinking is just as foolish as if Sony had demanded the video be taken down.
More to the point, no one involved in this story *deserves* to get paid. This is **exactly** what Techdirt and like-minded folk have always said the Labels *should* do, and I applaud them. Also, the couple have a chance to make money off of this, they've already been on TV a few times, I'm sure they'd at least get hired to plan a wedding if they played their cards right. But they don't deserve anything.
In the same way, Sony didn't *deserve* to make more money, but by not over-reacting and demanding the video be taken down, they did make money. Maybe this will start the gears turning and this will be the first step into the Labels' realization that not all unsanctioned use of their IP is bad for them.
Just my thoughts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *Sigh*
You're giving Sony too much credit. The Internets just move too fast, and people started handing them money before they could get their legal guns loaded. If not for that this vid would have been silenced like all the others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *Sigh*
Or they could have sent the artist to beat the bride?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are monetizing it
http://www.jkweddingdance.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure if you are a Poe or not, but you realize that dance choreography is also a copyrighted form of IP, right? As is the video. Warner and Google are capitalizing on other people's protected IP, so there is no "charity" involved in remunerating those involved with the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, with all the publicity and public appearances and exposure I'm sure direct and indirect monetary gain was had by all involved, perhaps they should contribute to monetizing the video. I'm sure there some corporate attorney types looking into damage this video has caused to corporate america.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you know the guy taking the video isn't a pro? And what does it take to be called a "pro"? Is there something in an attached or related article that I didn't see that said he absolutely was not compensated for taking he video? And that he had never worked in professional photography before?
"These people aren't doing this for a corporation so why should they get anything?"
....wow, I usually bitch about the corporatism of America, but normally it's at least well hidden enough that some folks can legitimately hold the opinion that I'm just some conspiracy theorist (in Germany in the 30's, we were called "alarmists", as an interesting fyi), but even I'M shocked at the level of apparent acceptance of corporatism in that statement. So, if I'm reading that comment correctly, unless they are doing something for a corporation (which doesn't = business, btw), it's illegitimate? Wow....just....wow.
"In fact, with all the publicity and public appearances and exposure I'm sure direct and indirect monetary gain was had by all involved, perhaps they should contribute to monetizing the video."
They did contribute to monetizing the video...to the label's benefit. Did you read the story?
"I'm sure there some corporate attorney types looking into damage this video has caused to corporate america."
Did I misread sarcasm for seriousasm? What damage? A corporation, in all it's apparent holiness, decided to take advantage of the video.
Or were you just being glib and I missed it? Sometimes on this site, it's hard to tell....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's short for "professional," so it essentially means that you get paid for doing this.
IOW, that argument is circular. If he didn't get paid, he's not a pro, so he shouldn't get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Try it. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tried it, but it didn't work. I still have the lingering feeling that someone is wrong on the internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just ask Gates ... all three of them.
Welcome to the United States in 2009.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I am remembering correctly ... video is automatically copyrighted if you made it legally.
Whats going to be funny is when companies really start monetizing the video's and people start feeling that same sense of entitlement that corporations do .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cease and desist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bigger picture here is...
Thus, not a single red cent will go to the copyright owners of the video.
Maybe the owners can submit a response to Floor 64 and hope to earn some cash back on another aspect of copyright ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're not entitled, but it's a logical step ...
What this has proven to me was that the people who have been saying that the music itself tends to promote the music have been proven right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't they be sued?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shouldn't they be sued?
From their site .....
"Public Performance or Performance Rights
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative."
ASCAP Lisc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shouldn't they be sued?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, as I understand things legally, while the documentarian may be free under fair use, perhaps the wedding party may be liable for not obtaining a performance license?
Not that I agree with this state of affairs, but I can't believe the people posting here claiming that the documentarian is 'amateur and has no rights consequently.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an idea
2. Issue copyright violation takedown letters for every time the video shows up reposted by someone else on YouTube and any other place you can find it.
3. Sue google when they don't do enough to protect your revenue stream by preventing others from uploading the vid again to youtube.
4. Settle for some pittance like a million that google won't think twice about throwing at you.
5. Regret not signing a prenup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No
otherwise they'd be just as bad as the RIAA/et al that we hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No
Oh, you missed the irony of the post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.” - Albert Einstein
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an idea
http://www.jkweddingdance.com/
Expect the takdown letters and lawsuits are already in motion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's that smell?
Real question though...
If RIAA represents musicians regaurdless of label, why would they allow something for one label (Sony) that they wouldn't allow for others? Shouldn't they be having a fit that the video is being hosted on youtube etc.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's that smell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Might not be infringing
The video was shot by them, the record industry got their initial payment; therefore all profits should go to the rights holders of the video. This would either be some family member who shot the video or a professional company that gets paid to shoot wedding videos and then sold the rights to the bride and groom. Either way the record industry deserves nothing. They made their profit and choose to profit on the ASCAP side of things. I think the video shooter has a very, very good case here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Might not be infringing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The song made the video
Maybe you've been under a rock for the last little while, but Chris Brown had been in exile since the Rihanna incident. People hated him. This video brought him back. The video made him a star again.
It would be cool to test, though. They should shut down the video, post a link to their site, take out the Chris Brown song and add in another song at the same bpm, and see if people go to the site to watch it anyway. I know I would still be showing it to people if it had been any decent dance song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The song made the video
And if they switched out Chris Brown's song for another song, then they'd just be mooching off of THAT artist. The people in the videos are nobody; the music artists are FAMOUS. You tell me who's taking advantage of who.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No matter how much it seems to make TechDirt get weak in the knees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are not buying the song so they can think about how much they enjoyed the video. They are buying the song to enjoy the song.
If they want to profit from the video they need to sell the video. Of course if they sell the video they will need to purchase the rights to use the song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, Look
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free promotion will cost ya
Way to go. Promoting our product for free will cost YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free promotion will cost ya
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How could this sound wrong
collect money from everyone and give none of it to the artist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How could this sound wrong
collect money from everyone and give none of it to the artist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No
They are not entitled to anything, nor did they want to be. They just wanted to have fun and post a video on YouTube. After that, record company/everyone thought it would be cool to buy the song, so they just made it easier to do so. End of story, no one is 'owed' any money for the video, or for the increased song sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has RIAA now participated in illegal commercial exploitation of the dancers rights?
Thus the music industry may have actually commercially exploited the videographers copyrighted content for advertising purposes without the videographers and dancer s permission which is exactly what they charged the pirate bay for doing right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough with this copyright nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's this video which made me my money idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]