Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time, Because Viacom Couldn't Have Him Sing Four Words: 'We Are The World'

from the copyright-insanity dept

Tue, Feb 9th 2010 10:36am — Mike Masnick

Copyright insanity continues. Stephan Kinsella posts an email from Luke Mroz, who recently attended a Comedy Central taping of some standup comics, that is going to be used in an upcoming TV show. Mroz explains how copyright law got in the way and forced one comedian to have to come back out and tell a joke a second time:

One of the performers was one of my favorite comedians named Robert Kelly. He told a really good joke about how he rarely used the word love because it loses its strength if you use it to much. When his wife tells him she loves him, he shrugs it off. When his father told him he loved him, for the first time in his adult life when he graduated high school, he feigned breaking down into tears and acting like an emotional wreck. While doing this, he feigned being hugged and sang the phrase "We are the world". He then went on to his next joke.

After another comedian, the taping ended. We were informed that the crowd had to stay put because Bob Kelly had to come out and re-film a joke. It was the joke I just mentioned. They said it had to be re-taped because Comedy Central didn't have the rights to the song "We Are The World".

Remember, all he did was "sing" the four words in the title once. He didn't break out into a full rendition of the song. Just "We Are The World." That's it. And he had to come back out and tell the joke a second time to avoid Comedy Central (really: Viacom) having to clear the rights on that song -- a song that was written for charity. But copyright isn't stopping free expression?

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: comedy central, copyright, jokes, we are the world
Companies: viacom

66 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 10:47am

Copyright giants such as Viacom are certainly not going to argue fair use because they hate fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 10:48am

only 1 song in the world?
why does he need to pick that song? there are plenty of songs that are either in the public domain, or the rights holders don't care what you do with their song.

but he doesn't want one of those songs. he wants this specific song because the rights holders spent millions making sure that everyone not under a rock has heard it... this specific song which was only created copyright could be used to recoup expenses. that's the only reason we have this song in the first place. if viacom doesn't want to help out in recoupment, that's their fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 10:50am

Getting sued is no laughing matter. Unless you're getting sued by a clown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 9 Feb 2010 @ 10:53am

Re: only 1 song in the world?
"why does he need to pick that song? there are plenty of songs that are either in the public domain, or the rights holders don't care what you do with their song.

but he doesn't want one of those songs. he wants this specific song because the rights holders spent millions making sure that everyone not under a rock has heard it... this specific song which was only created copyright could be used to recoup expenses. that's the only reason we have this song in the first place. if viacom doesn't want to help out in recoupment, that's their fault."

Um, perhaps its because if he sang the chorus to a song no one knew, the joke wouldnt work? Really, you are stretching now.

Your TAM is showing...

Or was that all sarcasm? Because I cant believe even TAM could be THAT thick...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 10:55am

Re: only 1 song in the world?
You, sir, should be nominated for outstanding troll of the year award....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SteveHedberg, 9 Feb 2010 @ 10:56am

It really highlights just how silly most copyright laws are, as its not like he was signing the entire song and making money off it. Almost seems like fair use would have applied no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:07am

Re:
I think fair use only applies to three words/notes/chords or less. That's totally fair!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doctor Strange, 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:12am

This was almost certainly a fair use. That fair use has been ill-defined and (or perhaps because) that lawyers choose to avoid the issue entirely is a problem. If someone wants to extend the indictment to the entirety of copyright because of this, that's his/her prerogative, though it is a little extreme.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:22am

Hey! You have to secure permission and then pay to sing four words from my song. Then, due to all of the publicity, that song may see a resurgence in sales and then I will get paid again!! Woo-hoo...

So which is better:
Getting paid to have your song used in some way.
Allowing the song to be used for free in exchange for free advertising.
Not having the song used at all.

Does a TV series like "Glee" need to pay to use the songs they sing in show? Because most of the songs that appear in Glee, end up being best sellers on iTunes the next day.

The more I visit this site, the more pissed off I get about the ridiculousness of copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:26am

Re:
They almost certainly do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:30am

Re:
"Does a TV series like "Glee" need to pay to use the songs they sing in show? Because most of the songs that appear in Glee, end up being best sellers on iTunes the next day."

Would assume so, since malcome in the middle season 2 plus can't come out on DVD becuse it would cost to much to get the rights....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_in_the_Middle#DVD_Release
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:30am

Re:
You're right. But Viacom's refusal to recognize this shows us how fair use will die. The major copyright players will simply ignore the fair use defense and act as if it doesn't exist. They'll get clearance for anything that remotely infringes copyright, because that's what they expect everyone to do for their copyrighted material.

Fair use will only be used by the little guys. And they'll only be able to use it as a defense at trial. But they won't get a trial because there is no way a little company or person could possibility financially survive litigation against a company the size of Viacom or Disney.

Because the concept of fair use will not be addressed by trial courts, it will not be addressed by appellate courts. In a few decades the concept of fair use will be considered antiquated, out of date, and out of step of (what will be considered) modern copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zegota (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:32am

Seriously?
I could have sworn that titles are not eligible for copyright, which is why you can write a book that mentions "$Character broke out into a few chords of 'Hey Jude.'" But I guess if he actually sang the title to the tune of the song, that's enough to damn him.

So screwed up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:32am

Don't worry, I heard young Sam helped Bobby get over the pain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mjb5406 (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:42am

Isn't there an excemption for...
Parody? If there was not, people like Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart woule be sued left and right.

Or maybe Sumner Redstone is just being an asshole (big surprise there).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 11:47am

Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
Sorry RD, it wasn't me.

However, I will say this. Even a song that is user for Charity is subject to copyright, performance, rights, etc. The rights are administered by Warner/Chappel Music, one of the largest of it's kind. This is not the first time that We Are The World has been in the copyright spotlight.

For me, it sounds like Viacom didn't want to pay a license for musical performance, so they nixed it. Otherwise, they would have been paying an extra license on a TV show that probably isn't all that profitable to start with.

It's just one of those things. There is no much leeway on "fair use" which it comes to public performance and TV distribution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 9 Feb 2010 @ 12:08pm

Isn't there a running "8 notes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 9 Feb 2010 @ 12:18pm

Isn't there a running "8 notes" joke on songs...
On radio stations and the Tonight Show and stuff they always joke about "don't sing more than 8 notes" because the courts have ruled that less than 8 notes is pretty much always fair use.

So what's the problem here with 4 notes? Doesn't Viacom have hundreds of shows already playing up to 8 notes as an intro, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lux (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
"For me, it sounds like Viacom didn't want to pay a license for musical performance, so they nixed it" So, let me get this straight. If you just say the title of a song, it counts as a musical performance. In that case, every post above you owes royalties to the parent record company, and each comment should be taken down via DMCA-style. Yah buddy, you nailed it alright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan Gerow (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re:
Usually they would pay the music writer's association a blanket fee to cover songs by member artists in their organizations for cover performances. Since they didn't use a recording they don't need to worry about the copyrights on the recordings, but they need to cover the licenses for the song's content from the writers. If they use a recording then they generally have to secure rights from the recording copyright holder.

As was MTV's case in the '90s, they had a blanket right to use a library of music for use on their shows. The State was able to use this library, but did not have rights for DVD distribution on those songs, and many of them had to be replaced with different tracks.

It's all just ridiculous since people aren't going to watch the Comedy Central show instead of purchasing "We Are The World" and people aren't going to watch the Comedy Central show because the title for "We Are The World" was sung a bit. Its use is not infringing on anyone's ability to make money off of "We Are the World", nobody is profiting off of someone else's work, and it just shows how copyright strangles our shared culture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 9 Feb 2010 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
"For me, it sounds like Viacom didn't want to pay a license for musical performance, so they nixed it" So, let me get this straight. If you just say the title of a song, it counts as a musical performance. In that case, every post above you owes royalties to the parent record company, and each comment should be taken down via DMCA-style. Yah buddy, you nailed it alright."

Yep. Thats how TAM and his Big Media butt buddies operate. The think that EVERY use must be paid. There is NO FAIR USE. FAIR USE is a DEFENSE, not an EXCEPTION. NO ONE has to consider fair use for ANYTHING, since its not a RIGHT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
Seriously, you have no problem with restricting speech in this manner? We can argue about fair use of clips and recordings another time. Right now, we're talking about a guy singing 4 words. Do you truly feel that's sane to attempt to restrict and require a license for?

It's all just ridiculous since people aren't going to watch the Comedy Central show instead of purchasing "We Are The World" and people aren't going to watch the Comedy Central show because the title for "We Are The World" was sung a bit. Its use is not infringing on anyone's ability to make money off of "We Are the World", nobody is profiting off of someone else's work, and it just shows how copyright strangles our shared culture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 12:50pm

Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
For me, it sounds like Viacom didn't want to pay a license for musical performance,
What? For 4 words?
Gawd you copyright maximalists are greedy and dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re:
Copyright law should be dead by then, or severely reduced.
I don't know anyone in my generation who feels that copyright is good and great, aside from a few aspiring musicians who hope to have a hit song or two and not work the rest of their lives. Welfare seekers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: Re:
But unfortunately we don't make the laws. Corporations such as Viacom pay for our laws to be written and enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 9 Feb 2010 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
Except that 4 words from a song is clear fair use and does not constitute a performance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
Whatever, shut up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 1:33pm

"retell" + "2nd time" = 3 times...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 9 Feb 2010 @ 1:38pm

Re: only 1 song in the world?
Because if copyright law continues to be incorrectly applied like this and remains unchallenged (because the cost of litigation is so expensive (and justice for all continues to be just lip-service)) how long do you think it will be before any kind of speech at all needs to be cleared by a team of copy-right litigators. Of course the lawyers want it this way...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 9 Feb 2010 @ 1:43pm

Re:
@Dr. Merkwürdig(liebe): "...that lawyers choose to avoid the issue entirely is a problem."

Not for the lawyers. Ever think an elite group of, say, LAWYERS, might have the power to put into place a system that actually enriches them? Nahhh...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
someone who actually knows what he's talking about, 9 Feb 2010 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
it's not like there's some copyright squad ready to jump out and fine you for merely saying those 4 words in normal conversation. but that's not what this guy is doing. he's singing 4 words in the syncopation and melody of the specific song, specifically intending to remind you of the song.

again, if he's not gaining any value from this particular song, why can't he pick any of the other billions of songs out there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
Because those billions of songs are also "protected" by copyright? Because that particular song is the punchline to that particular joke?

It's a good thing copyrights protect artists who want to make with the jokes.

Kidding!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ElSteevo (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:04pm

"Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time"
The Department of Redundancy Department wants to know why he told the joke three times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan Gerow (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:21pm

Re:
Well, presumably on-stage was not his first time telling it, so the stage performance would be a retelling. So, he's probably actually told the joke a lot more than three times, unless he doesn't get booked a lot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
"again, if he's not gaining any value from this particular song, why can't he pick any of the other billions of songs out there?"

Sorry, but that's the same kind of sophistry that "if you're doing no wrong you have nothing to fear" is made of. It's crap, because it completely avoids the issue at hand, which is that having to get a license for a comedian to sing four words of a song in his joke is batshit retarded....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:33pm

so shoot me
I don't get the joke? If some in the audience did get it and laughed at it the first time, they were expected to laugh again the second time? Let the crowd go home. Edit in the crowd reaction to the first telling. They probably had to anyway because nobody laughed the second time. I would have got up and walked out if they told me to stay for a retelling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
someone who actually knows what he's talking about, 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
what are you talking about? you have a constitutional right to privacy. you don't have a constitutional right to directly exploit... someone else's constitutional right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:36pm

*singing* We Are the World *singing*

Please send DMCA takedown notices to go@fuckyourself.com.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:), 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:44pm

Every 10 years.
And that is why piracy will continue to rock maybe in 2020 things change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bugsy, 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:49pm

Heading?
"Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time," No, he has tell the joke second time-or he has to retell the joke. Get it?
Editor please! And BTW, who gives a shit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
RD, you really are like a broken record. Once again, I am not in the music or movie industry. Let it go already. Get that stupid idea out of your head.

Fair use is something that more of less has to be asserted. It is incredibly hard to call fair use when someone is standing there giving a performance that includes singing (even for a short period of time). Maybe it is fair use, maybe it isn't. Why would Viacom want to fight it? Why would the producer of the show risk wasting a night worth of recording because part of the show can't be used?

I can really tell that you have never run a business or been in upper management (except maybe a McShiftManager), because you can't seem to think past your nose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 3:13pm

Exception for parody?
Yes, there is an exception for parody. For those who miss the 80's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMKkjRNcWtY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 3:13pm

im failing to see how this is not covered under parody since he was making a joke which parodied the extent of how well known, over-used and saturated that particular song has become.

If 2live crew's pretty woman can be protected as a parody by the supreme court, i fail to see how a comedian using 4 words from a song with NO instruments to back him up at all in that would be any issue that would need to be trifled with.

but of course, the real problem is, if Viacom does fight for fair use it would undermine any efforts down the road to clamp down on someone else using the same reasoning with something that they own the rights to. and we just couldnt have that could we now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 3:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
So glad that when the Constitution was written it nipped slavery right in the bud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMenach (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 3:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
Fair use is something that more of less has to be asserted. It is incredibly hard to call fair use when someone is standing there giving a performance that includes singing (even for a short period of time). Maybe it is fair use, maybe it isn't.

It's obvious that you, once again, need to be reminded that there actually is a real definition of fair use. It's not some mysterious, abstract, or ambiguous term. So here it is, according to the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law:
"fair use: a use of copyrighted material that does not constitute an infringement of the copyright provided the use is fair and reasonable and does not substantially impair the value of the work or the profits expected from it by its owner"

Now, I could understand that in some situations it may be a little unclear if fair use applies or not, but this is not one of those situations. This use does not, in any way, impair the value of the original or the profits expected from it's owner.

It's also very interesting how you like to revert to insults to finalize your comment. And you wonder why people here are often hostile to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 9 Feb 2010 @ 3:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
"RD, you really are like a broken record. Once again, I am not in the music or movie industry. Let it go already. Get that stupid idea out of your head."

"I can really tell that you have never run a business or been in upper management (except maybe a McShiftManager), because you can't seem to think past your nose."

Ah, then, so neither have you. Which makes you no more or less qualified than me or, well, ANYONE really, to be asserting what is or is not valid in copyright and Big Media matters.

"Fair use is something that more of less has to be asserted. It is incredibly hard to call fair use when someone is standing there giving a performance that includes singing (even for a short period of time). Maybe it is fair use, maybe it isn't. Why would Viacom want to fight it? Why would the producer of the show risk wasting a night worth of recording because part of the show can't be used?"

Well, there is this think called "parody", you should look it up, as it applies DIRECTLY to this particular article. And no, you do NOT need to "assert" it for it to fall under fair use, its de facto (much like using it for the purposes of news reporting, commentary and criticism, etc).

You really should understand the issues before you speak out so strongly against them, since it makes you look like a child playing at being an adult.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 4:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
That's our TAMMY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ant anti mike, 9 Feb 2010 @ 5:22pm

boy you dont get it
"However, I will say this. Even a song that is user for Charity is subject to copyright, performance, rights, etc. The rights are administered by Warner/Chappel Music, one of the largest of it's kind. This is not the first time that We Are The World has been in the copyright spotlight."

so then lets end copyright for charity if you do it for cahrity then ITS PUBLIC DOMAIN 100% , that those guys having done that didn't shows you the real evil behind evreyhting they did. SICKENING. Berlin wall falls and they are making money off the suffering that went on. YUP another reason to get rid of copyright....

"WE ARE NOT ANTI-MIKE"
everybody now....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Landry (profile), 9 Feb 2010 @ 6:45pm

"I broke my copyright man......I broke my copyright....."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
athe, 9 Feb 2010 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
"specifically intending to remind you of the song"

So what he's doing in fact is adding value to the song, not gaining from it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2010 @ 10:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
The Anti-Mike, respecting others 24/7.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Devonavar (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 1:27am

Re: only 1 song in the world?
"Maybe it is fair use, maybe it isn't. Why would Viacom want to fight it? Why would the producer of the show risk wasting a night worth of recording because part of the show can't be used?

I can really tell that you have never run a business or been in upper management (except maybe a McShiftManager), because you can't seem to think past your nose."

I think the issue here is that the system as it stands means it makes sense for upper management to make a decision like this. Copyright lawsuits are a bitch, and it's understandable why a company would want to avoid them. There's no question in my mind that the retelling was done as a hedge against liability (probably on advice from an overpaid lawyer), not because there's any question of *actual* liability.

In management terms, the decision is simple: a 2 minute retelling (plus 5 minutes of discussion time, 10 minutes of lawyer's fees, etc.) is cheaper than filing the paperwork necessary to shrug off or settle a frivolous copyright lawsuit. That doesn't make it a right decision, but perhaps it is a rational one from a business perspective.

I would tend to think that such ridiculous risk aversion is a trait of middle, not upper management ... it's certainly not an entrepreneurial attitude...

The problem is not that upper management is making the wrong decision, it is that deciding whether or not singing four words is a copyright violation should not be a question in the first place. Any claim of copyright infringement for four words should be laughed out of court. I'm aware that this isn't the world we live in, but you can't blame me (or the rest of Techdirt) for being upset that it's not or wanting to change the world so that it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 4:57am

Re:
Umm Not having the song used at all and not getting paid for it is the way to go. Wake the hell up. DUH. If you can't bleed every cent you can at the highest rate for something, it just isn't worth the effort.

Anyone else notice that MTV has started to finally issue more of the animated shows they did back when they were a music channel on dvd? The Maxx, The head, and in May Daria. Of course there is no telling how much music has been replaced by sound-a-likes or whatever because the orginal music rights owners felt that they were special snowflakes and should be paid more than they are worth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 10 Feb 2010 @ 6:45am

Re: Fair use
I have to agree that this fair use. Once upon a time, I used to be a professional musician. The operating rule of thumb was that any performance of a musical excerpt 4 measures or shorter was not an infringement. Under these current rules, you can't even TEACH music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 7:16am

Re: Re:
Ima:

You either do not get out much, or you are smoking a mind-altering substance.

Fair use is exercised on an incredibly regular basis by tons of people and organizations, many of them quite large. Mad Magazine may be the king of fair use parodies. The Onion and National Lampoon are more sources of parody. Even movies frequently use parody without paying for the source material (though you will note that when they make jokes about, for example, Disney, they will point out that Disney is trademarked in the credits).

Why did this one comedy club drop the line? Dunno. The line was CLEARLY used as parody, which falls under fair use. My guess is that the person reviewing the line either did not know what they were doing or they were overly cautious or there was some other reason that had nothing to do with copyright but they used copyright as an excuse (maybe the producer hates the song "We Are the World).

It just seems like there is a lot of to-do here because an entity that could have exercised fair use failed to do so and then claimed that that copyright made them do it. I feel like this whole thread is about ignorance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 7:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
All that, and you avoided the simple question:

"Maybe it is fair use, maybe it isn't. Why would Viacom want to fight it? Why would the producer of the show risk wasting a night worth of recording because part of the show can't be used?"

If you can't answer that, it is proof you never have run a business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 10 Feb 2010 @ 8:40am

it seems fairly obvious
Viacomm does not like fair use. If they were to claim it in this instance, everyone they sue for fair use violations would use this example as viacomm operating under two sets of rules. They would rather have to pay or retape, than use a claim of fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 9:34am

Let me add this into the discussion:

Was it Viacom filming, or is it a third party company? Perhaps the producer on scene decides it would be better to have both versions and allow Viacom upper management to choose which route they want to go. Rather than risking that the entire shoot is waste, just film an alternate version of that one piece, in case it needs to be replaced.

It isn't like there is a lawyer on scene making these choices right then and there, it is likely someone without the production pointed out that they didn't have a music performance license, and rather than risk having Viacom reject the episode, they decides to play it safe. It's sort of what happens when you have spent a crap load of money, have a live audience, and want to make sure you get a product you can use rather than flushing your money down the toity.

I wouldn't be shocked to see the singing version on the air, but I think the producers played it safe and played it right, they gave themselves options.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade, 10 Feb 2010 @ 12:26pm

You think thats bad? Just wait
There is a general consensus amongst the lawmaking corporations that the laws aren't strict enough. Soon we will be begging for the days when we had to retell a joke for singing 4 words of a song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 12:28pm

You think thats bad? Just wait
There is a general consensus amongst the lawmaking corporations that the laws aren't strict enough. Soon we will be begging for the days when we had to retell a joke for singing 4 words of a song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 10 Feb 2010 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
But will any money that gets recouped through copyright laws still go to that charity? It should, in my mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Epsyle, 10 Feb 2010 @ 4:03pm

Re:
Yay logic! Doesn't it feel good. :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Burns (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 12:52pm

Does this mean Judge Milian on The People's Court has to pay licensing as well? She sang the same 4 words of that song on an episode earlier this week! I had just read this and when the wife and I watched the show, we both yelled "Pay up, judge!".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2010 @ 12:45pm

Re:
Nick:

Have you read any of the comments above? Depending on the situation, Judge Milian's use of the limited lyrics was either protected as parody, or the network she appeared on has a license to use such works. In either case, there is no infringement, just as it was likely there was no infringement by the comedian, only ignorance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vesey, 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:36pm

we are the world
For all you people that thought "we are the world" was written and sung by a bunch of caring entertainers for a good cause now know the truth..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sage, 15 Feb 2010 @ 8:33pm

we are the world
There goes our freedom of speech people. Ripped from the Constitution and placed squarely in the hands of lawyers.

BUT I think the reason they're acting like such animals is because they are remaking "We Are The World", if some of you didn't know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]