Copyright Fight Ensues Over Rebecca Black's 'Friday'

from the friday,-friday,-friday dept

Thu, Apr 7th 2011 7:33am — Mike Masnick

Well, I had happily kept this blog entirely free of stories about Rebecca Black and the song "Friday." If, somehow, you've been living under a near total pop culture rock for the last few weeks, you can catch up on the basics of the 13-year-old girl whose parents paid Ark Music Factory to produce a professional-looking (and I use that term loosely) music video of a song that was written by Clarence Jey and Patrice Wilson of AMF for exactly this type of person. This is, you see, what Ark Music Factory does. In most cases, that doesn't raise too many issues, because some parents pay a ridiculous sum of money, some tween girl gets a music video she can show her friends, and life goes on. But, of course, in the case of Black, her video went viral in a big, bad way.

And then people remembered copyright law.

A few people sent over the story of how Black's parents and Ark Music Factory had started sniping at each other concerning who owned the copyrights on the song. I was going to write up a longer legal analysis of the situation, but thankfully, THREsq had a real lawyer do so. Aaron Moss does a nice job highlighting the issues (tossing in enough humorous asides to keep it interesting), which really show (yet again) how screwed up copyright law is today.

The brief summary is that Jey and Wilson held the original rights to the composition, while Black probably holds the copyright on the recording itself (though, there may be some questions about the musicians who played on the track). Then there's the rather unclear issue of the contract that was signed. The Rolling Stone Report on it says that "the agreement that she signed with Ark in November stipulates that Black has 100 percent ownership and control of 'Friday,' including the master recording and the music video." Of course, that probably includes the copyright on the composition, but it might not, if the contract isn't explicit. Who owns the master recording and the video is meaningless to the copyright question. If the contract only focuses on that, then Jey and Wilson conceivably could still hold the copyright on the composition.

Also, while Wilson seems to indicate that there's no issue and he's fine with handing over the copyrights to Black, his partner, Jey, isn't so quick to agree (also, Wilson and Jey are apparently fighting, with Wilson locking Jey out of the company's website), claiming that Ark was the "record label" here, and handled distribution and promotion, and thus deserves to keep the copyright on the composition and the recording. Ark Music Factory's lawyer, Barry Rothman, seems to be itching for a fight, noting that:

"The agreement was not court-approved," Rothman said. "They say they own the composition. Nothing could be further from the truth. If they go forward and license it or attempt to copyright it in their name, that would be copyright infringement and we'd act accordingly under the circumstances."

Of course, the whole "court approved" bit is meaningless. You don't have to have contracts court approved. In the end, I would imagine a lot of this may come down to the specific wording of the contract. If it wasn't written carefully (and it would not surprise me if it were not well written at all), then there may be a lot of open legal questions, meaning we can look forward to a series of entertaining legal fights if the parties don't reach some sort of agreement quickly.

In the meantime, of course, it's (yet another lesson) in what happens when you have incredibly messy copyright laws that are duct taped together every time Congress tries to add another layer to deal with some technology, rather than actually comprehensively reforming the law. And, of course, it's yet another lesson in what happens when everyone gets greedy. Copyright becomes a tool for people to fight over the cash.

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, friday, rebecca black

49 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Christopher Gizzi (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 6:46am

Promoting Art
Perhaps this is one example of copyright promoting art in a reverse (and perverse) sort of way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike C. (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 6:55am

California contracts and minors - court approval
Mike, I believe that in California (where Ark is located), contracts with minors MUST be court approved (my Google-fu indicates California Civil Code �36(a)2, et seq.). The apparent goal is to (a) require some of the income be set aside until they are of the age of majority and (b) prevent unreasonable contracts by parents looking to make money off their kids.

Chances are, the lawyer is taking the standpoint that if Rebecca Black copyrights the song in her name and she's a minor, the contract assigning her the rights must have been approved by a court for it to be valid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:42am

Re: California contracts and minors - court approval
Judging from the article, it would appear the contract would be between Ark and Black's parents (those sons of bitches that are responsible for this garbage).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:45am

Can't we all agree that the song is so awful that anyone who claims the copyright to it should feel ashamed of themselves for wanting to "own" such an insipid, horrid piece of what can loosely be considered "music"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Warren, 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:47am

Wonder if all the other rich parents are taking heed of this mess ?
There is more to parenting than chucking cash over to pleae their kids.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cc (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:48am

I say we turn this around. Whoever has the copyright is put away for crimes against humanity. Okay? So, who wants it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:52am

what money?
how on earth is there any money to be made from this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:54am

This is what happens when one bone is tossed to two dogs. Way to go Copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:55am

Re: what money?
Never underestimate AC trolls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xenomancer (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:56am

Re:
If that horrible arrangement of bits is considered music, its a wonder no one has been able to copyright digitized white noise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hiiragi Kagami (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:57am

Black should give all the rights up...
...find a new recording studio, present them with a song she wrote and performs, upload it to YouTube, and ride the coattails of "Friday, Friday" to push her new released titled "Unadulterated Theft, Unadulterated Theft (Says the vice prez)"

80 million views will be a drop in the bucket.

Such idiocy. Does anyone in Congress actually read stories like these? Perhaps someone donate their copy to Senator Leahy (and the other clueless co-authors).

By the way: I'm under that rock. I can proudly state I've not heard the song, and this seems to be a blessing in disguise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:03am

Musicians
"there may be some questions about the musicians who played on the track"

What is your evidence that any actual musicians were involved?

I put myself through the painful process of listening to the track and it seemed that the "music" was well within the scope of purely electronic "programmed" production - apart from the voice - which is obviously autotuned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:06am

Re:
If people need to be ashamed of owning the copyright on awful songs, we have a very long list of musicians and labels that should be ashamed.

I think we can start with the Hanson brothers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:08am

Re: Musicians
"electronic "programmed" production"

If you program the music, are you not a musician? Who gets to say the computer is not an instrument?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:09am

Re:
Oompa Loompa doompa dee do...
I got another puzzle for you...
Oompa Loompa doompa dee dee...
If you are wise, you'll listen to me...

What do you get when your kid is spoiled?
Taking advantage of all of your toil?

You get crazy laws that influence greed
All because of a rot-ten seed!

That sure is some bad damn luck,

Oompa Loompa doompa dee da...
If you're not greedy, you will go far.

You will live in happiness too,
Like the Oompa Loompa doompa dee do!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KilburnMat, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:18am

Composition Copyright
If the Agreement stipulates "that Black has 100 percent ownership and control of 'Friday,' including the master recording and the music video" it would be fair to assume that publishing rights are not covered, separate deals for Master and Publishing are standard practice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:20am

Re: Re: Musicians
If you program the music, are you not a musician? Who gets to say the computer is not an instrument?
Of course you are - but the resulting rights would be composition rights rather than performance rights - I'm assuming that the backing track for song was "generated" directly by Jay and Wilson.

The computer is not an instrument in the sense that when you program it to produce music you generated what is in effect an "executable score". The act of typing that score in doesn't get you a new copyright.

If I create a Lilypond file of a Beethoven piano sonata by manually copying a paper score it creates a performance (the midi file) but I don't think that should entitle me to a performance copyright. (Not least because anyone else who did it would get an identical result.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:22am

Re: Composition Copyright
What do you mean by "publishing rights?" She isn't planning to release sheet music is she?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike C. (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: California contracts and minors - court approval
That may be so, but look at this from the point of view of a lawyer trying to get the original contract tossed. If you can convince the court that a minor is "involved", you might be able to play the "not court approved" card to invalidate it. I see his statement as more showing a planned avenue of attack than a serious threat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:39am

Re:
Can't we all agree that the song is so awful that anyone who claims the copyright to it should feel ashamed of themselves for wanting to "own" such an insipid, horrid piece of what can loosely be considered "music"?

Every once in a while, Mike will say something like, "If you haven't heard this, you've been living in a cave." Every time he says it, I'm always glad not to have heard the thing in question.
Life under a near total pop culture rock is pretty good, actually.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:44am

Re: Re:
Careful, the legal team from Warner Bros. owns that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:54am

Re: Re: what money?
First you claim that some people pirated the song. Then you threaten to sue them for $10 million each, but offer to let them settle out of court for $1000 each. None of them want to spend a fortune on a lawsuit (and presumably none of them would want to be even loosely associated with this song), so they pay up. Presto! Instant profit.

(...I came up with that entirely offhand.)
(what have you done to me, techdirt)
(WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ME)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Silent Bob, 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:55am

Re: Re: Re: California contracts and minors - court approval
The linked Aaron Moss article deconstructing the legal issues addresses this specific point in detail. The court approval is needed to make the contract binding on the minor... even without court approval it is binding on the non-minors (the recording studio). Read up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:05am

Apparently, her video is sh......oh.....you said "sheet music"....never mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:07am

Re: Re:
However the Colbert/Falon version is awesome!
*awaits with baited breath to see how THAT turns out*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:18am

As if this was the first time this happened... Most answers can be found here.

It's just funny to see more random people blindly suing. God bless the USA. Without all these pointless and useless lawsuits, how would the economy ever survive? Oh wait... what economy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:20am

Re: Re:
Ditto. With such crap coming out, how can one be happy to see it? I bet this will cause mass suicides.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:42am

Re: what money?
The Stephen Colbert and The Roots cover of it is going to be a huge hit, so the composition rights matter!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:49am

Re:
I thought it was funny. And educational: now I know the cool kids have no emotion or facial expressions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 10:27am

Let me see if I got this right.
Some vapid teen makes a horrifyingly bad video of a horrifyingly vapid song, which is almost universally condemned as the worst piece of recorded music ever, and now there's a copyright fight over it? I think that this must be the sign that the end of any form of civilized society in the USA is nigh, and deservedly so. For an audience to have developed for this type of swill is the worst indictment of public taste imaginable. America! What a country!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
johnny canada, 7 Apr 2011 @ 10:38am

Work For Hire
I thought that this 'Friday' thing was work for hire.

You pay them money, the write the song, and record it.

You pay , you own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChrisB (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 10:57am

Re: Re: Re: California contracts and minors - court approval
Typically, contracts with "drunks and minors" are only invalid if the drunk or minor wants it to be. Otherwise, the contract is enforcable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 11:31am

I say give it to Black because that song was absolute garbage, even if Black decides that she wants to do anything else with "Friday" it's not like many people would buy into it (i would like to think).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:13pm

Just what does Ark Media Factory hope to gain from this? Are they really so obsessed with keeping ownership over the copyright of a terrible, unmarketable song that they're willing to sue their own customer for it?

If they go ahead with this lawsuit, I predict that all the spoiled princesses with rich parents in America will soon be finding a new company to make their crappy music videos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:37pm

And, of course, it's yet another lesson in what happens when everyone gets greedy. Copyright becomes a tool for people to fight over the cash.

Is there any law that creates a private right of action that you COULDN'T say this about? Maybe the law's not the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:44pm

Re:
Apparently money since they are advertising on the video that they are selling the single and ring tone on iTunes. Good luck with that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy., 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:57pm

The title of this post I believe it could read something like:

Hilarity ensues over Rebecca Blacks - Friday

ps: I'm a rock dweller, definitely, exiled under the rocks of Jamendo but that is ok.

Also that silly song is stuck in my head for some reason, maybe is the repetition of "Friday, friday, friday, friday, friday, friday", OMG, could it be that somehow I like that kind of music unconsciously? no that can't be, what kind of man that would make me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:29pm

Re:
I agree - let's not have any such laws - they are too great a temptation to human nature's faults.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy, 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:33pm

Rebecca Black - Friday (CHARLIE SHEEN OFFICIAL REVIEW REACTION)

Oh God, please take me now I can't laugh at it anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nicedoggy., 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:39pm

Songify This: Winning - a Song by Charlie Sheen

Catching! Winning!
Rockstar from mars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joseph, 7 Apr 2011 @ 5:40pm

iTunes
The song has been selling well on iTunes. Who is getting the money?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 6:45pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbWr6Njf1TM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 8:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'll pay them as much as I made to make it up. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ian (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 2:16am

"This is what happens when one bone is tossed to two dogs. Way to go Copyright."

Correction: Much like copyright law itself, this is what happens when multiple dogs work together to create a single turd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Miso Susanowa, 8 Apr 2011 @ 5:14am

Gang Fight!
Absolutely the best video takeoff of Friday -

Gang Fight! Friday interpreted by a bad lip reader
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JR, 8 Apr 2011 @ 3:18pm

Friday copyright, master right
Generally the band, producer, or anyone at the recording session from the gofer who gets coffee to the studio owner may participate in the Master rights�depending on contracts. None of them (usually) have any interest in the music copyrights. Who owns the video copyright depends on the contract. Absent a "work for hire" clause it usually belongs to the cinematographer with the DP and director possibly having an interest.

See "Music Copyright for the New Millenium by
David J. Moser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frank O, 8 Jul 2011 @ 9:24pm

Re: Musicians
You don't have a clue. If music is "performed" by a synth or sample even via MIDI, that's still a musician.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frank O, 8 Jul 2011 @ 9:25pm

Re: Re: Composition Copyright
Publishing isn't limited to print publishing. Any time a composition is made available to the public via internet, CD, film, etc that's published.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Black Friday Sales 2011, 26 Oct 2011 @ 11:02am

Re: Composition Copyright
Thanks for sharing, really appreciated it.
Black Friday Sales 2011
[ link to this | view in thread ]