Vimeo Sued For Lip Dub Videos
from the ah,-copyright-law dept
Three years ago, video hosting site Vimeo got a lot of attention for itself with a "recruiting" video of sorts that was one of the first popular "lip dub" videos, which are now quite popular. In it, pretty much the entire Vimeo staff is seen singing and dancing to the song Flagpole Sitta by Harvey Danger. However, it looks like that particular lip dub may now get Vimeo, and parent firm InterActive Corp. in a bit of trouble. Copycense points us to a new lawsuit filed against Vimeo by Capitol Records (really, EMI) alleging copyright infringement. The way they're getting around the DMCA safe harbors and the Veoh ruling is pointing to Vimeo's own lip dubs and its apparent encouragement that others should make lip dubs as well. Of course, it's difficult to argue that lip dubs damage the labels in any way. The popular lip dubs seem to do a lot to expand the recognition of a song and an artist, and some musicians have been known to encourage such things. But, of course, that's not how the major record labels tend to view things...Lip Dub - Flagpole Sitta by Harvey Danger from amandalynferri on Vimeo.
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: copyright, inducement, lip dubs
Companies: capitol records, emi, vimeo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News from August 31, 1920...
Young guy: Have you heard the news, there's this new thing called radio. They're going to play and promote our music for free. People will start buying our music by the bushel.
Old idiot: Free?! So they're not paying us anything?
Young guy: No, you don't get it. They're giving us free advertising. People across the nation will hear our label's music and will buy it. We'll make a fortune!
Old idiot: I don't know, we'd better have the lawyers file a lawsuit against this "radio." It sounds like they're leaching off of our hard work.
Young guy: No, you're still not getting it. Right now no one is hearing our music. We have to spend a fortune promoting our artists to get the word out, but these radio folks will do it for free. We'll make more money if we let them play it.
Old idiot, on phone to legal department: Have you guys heard about this new thing called radio? I want you guys to sue them into the ground. In fact, sue the individual owners personally too, because they're just as guilty.
Young guy: Face palms in disbelief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: News from August 31, 1920...
Young guy: What do you mean?
Old Idiot: If we don't get any income, you lose your job fool.
Young Guy facepalms in understanding of his situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: News from August 31, 1920...
Oh, wait, the music industry actually went bankrupt. It was a nice try, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: News from August 31, 1920...
Thanks for succinctly explaining the logical fallacy of the straw-man argument.
I made an argument about how radio helps artists. You know, how radio helped Frank Sinatra, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Abba sell billions of records.
Well, you ignored that argument and brought up a very weak argument that I never raised, that if you give away everything for free, you get nothing. But, like I said, while that's certainly true, the contrary was never argued by me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
personally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: personally
> of the video over and over
She kinda reminds me of Pam from "The Office".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: personally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I don't find it at all strange that we see a lot of lawsuits coming from EMI's direction. It's an easy way to make lots of money fast, and if you think about it, suing Vimeo is a cut-and-dry case: just the vid you linked to has over 2m views! EMI doesn't care if the lip dubs bring it recognition because they don't bring it any cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People always lose jobs during transitional periods. But that's a good thing. The fact that these jobs are lost really means that no one was willing to pay someone to perform the work. Those types of jobs should disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody can deny this outcome is entirely their own fault. They simply shouldn't have borrowed 2.5bn, and they should have found a way to cut costs. It's not as if they are flailing because they aren't making enough money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed, and you did a great job explaining the purpose of EMI's actions. But I was merely pointing out that in the grand scheme of things, their current actions are nothing more than a sand castle built to withstand a tsunami.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-- Henry VI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes...both are InterActive Corp...along with like 40 other sites I think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While not addressing any points made, just thought that would be an interesting way to side-skirt the issue entirely. I doubt the video would have gotten 2mil views that way, but seems a lot more interesting than just having someone lip sync to a song ... which seems rather boring to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad
All I can do is shake my head at the stupidity.
@Ima Fish thank you for the morality tale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm
Now that I've seen the video, gonna go have a sniff at what else they've done and perhaps do something crazy like buy a f'n CD if I like what I hear enough to warrant blowing $15?
I hope that the fantastically ignorant twats at Capitol Records get everything they want. The sooner they get it all their way, the sooner the entire business (and hopefully the entire business model) will die off.
You know, the rip-the-band-aid-off model. Put up with an short period of pain where the RIAA gang gets it all their way and then they disappear with a brief whimper when all the artists and all the consumers go elsewhere looking for a model that actually works.
I doubt that I'm the only one who was introduced to a new band/artist today thanks to some high school kids having fun with one of their songs. Give a rat's butt who gave them the inspiration (vimeo or the strange gruel served at the school lunch counter), the band gained a listener from the exposure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, Flagpole Sitta was a big 90's hit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you know two different things can be promoted at the same time? Amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't need to pay any rights because everything is in the US and there is a fair use clause in the US for parody. And of course, all the other copycat videos are parodies of the 1st video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As is their right, just as it is a consumer's right to take their business elsewhere if they do not like what any particular label is doing.
While you may suggest that they are being pennywise and pound foolish, they are certainly entitled to view such acts in a different light and proceed accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. Nor have I ever suggested otherwise. But in the same fashion, I am free to explain why doing so is a particularly shortsighted move.
I'm not sure what your comment means other than to suggest that I shouldn't have even brought it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]