Bohemian Rhapsody Video Taken Down Again, This Time By The Drunk Guy Himself

from the easy-come-easy-go-indeed dept

Tue, Apr 3rd 2012 1:01pm — Leigh Beadon

Well, this is a fun twist. We just wrote about the story of now-world-famous drunk guy Robert Wilkinson, his poor Freddy Mercury impersonation, and the resulting takedown and reinstatement of the video by EMI. Now a commenter points us to the fact that ~~the video has been taken down again~~ a different version of the video has also been taken down, thanks to a copyright claim by... Robert Wilkinson:

The claim is, of course, bogus. Wilkinson doesn't have rights over anything in the video: he didn't film it, and the song belongs to EMI. It's likely that he just wanted to stem the tide of this embarrassing video, and knew that he could do so in a few steps with YouTube's takedown tool. Whether or not he believes he does have some copyright stake here is unclear, but hopefully he knows better than to pursue things further, because he could end up facing liability for copyfraud. Unfortunately, this is how notice-and-takedown systems work: free speech can be easily censored, at least temporarily, by anyone for any reason.

Copyright does not exist to save people from embarrassment, nor does it even apply in this case—but in the ownership culture of intellectual property, the average person seems to think they have some innate right to control every use of their image or even any reference to their existence. It's not like this will make a difference anyway: plenty of people have surely made copies of the video by now, and it'll be back soon enough (possibly with autotune, or synced to My Little Ponies clips). Sorry Robert Wilkinson: there's no escape from reality.

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: bohemian rhapsody, queen, takedown notice, youtube
Companies: emi

46 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:03pm

Well, he does have some control over his likeness. I am not sure that cop car video is considered "public place" video, and as a result, the police might not actually have the right to release it. Copyright? Not sure it's the right thing, but certainly it is the expedient way to get a takedown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:10pm

Copyfraud?
"..but hopefully he knows better than to pursue things further, because he could end up facing liability for copyfraud."

Bwhahahahaha

Thats a good one. Everyone knows there is zero practical reprecussions for filing false takedowns on material you dont own. Or does that only work in favor of the big media corps, and not the individual? Ah right, high and low court, I forget that all the time. One rule for the Lords, one rule for the Serfs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:11pm

Re:
I am sure it is public record. The newspapers everyday have arrested people in there. Mug shots are released all the time. Video is released as well.

"but certainly it is the expedient way to get a takedown."
Without the right to do so. So while it may be fast, it is wrong. And that's the point. Anyone can have free speech removed in a heartbeat, but it takes much longer to get it re-instated, and the damage to society has already been done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:17pm

Re:
Even assuming he does have a right to have the video removed the DMCA only applies to copyrights, not 'any right.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:23pm

"...now-world-famous drunk guy Robert Wilkinson..."

To be fair, he's possibly sober at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:29pm

Actually he does
Arguably he does have a sound copyright in the performance - so he can take the video down. (Not saying I approve - just my reading of the law).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Randy, 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:33pm

Sounds like he should go for a "publicity rights" claim instead. He is famous for being famous just like the Kardashians and so many others
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:41pm

Re: Actually he does
Arguably he does have a sound copyright in the performance - so he can take the video down. (Not saying I approve - just my reading of the law).

Possssibly.... but considering it was an unauthorized performance, done on a cop's camera (so on the public record) it seems unlikely that any claim there would hold up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
W Klink (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:42pm

Why wouldn't he have copyright on his performance?
He may not have copyright on the lyrics or possibly even the video of the performance, but I don't see why he wouldn't have a copyright on his performance itself. If I take video at a concert, the band doesn't suddenly lose their copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:45pm

Pretty good case, actually
I think you could make a pretty good case that he does actually own the copyright to the recording. Was it a creative work? Certainly: it's a creative reinterpretation of the song (aka a derivative work), and drunkenness does not preclude the creative element.

Was it fixed in tangible form? No question: the camera in the cop car took care of that.

Was the drunk guy the creator? I don't see any other candidates, and it certainly wasn't a work for hire. Maybe you could argue that the police officer had a hand in the creation through the act of turning on the camera, but at most Wilkinson and the officer would be co-creators.

The only real issue is that, as a derivative work the holder of the rights to the original also has an interest. But that's an issue to be settled between EMI and Wilkinson, as they would both hold different parts of the copyright to the viral video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:45pm

Down?
If it is taken down, why is the embed in the original article still working???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:48pm

Re: Copyfraud?
>>Everyone knows there is zero practical reprecussions for filing false takedowns on material you dont own.

Well, big media companies seem to be immune. Never underestimate the power of the US legal system to throw the book at someone for doing the same thing that big companies do with total impunity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:48pm

Damn! I'm glad I watched it before he took it down!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:56pm

Re:
Usually requires that the person's image was used without consent, for commercial purposes. My understanding was the main post of the video was at his direction. Dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:15pm

Re: Down?
I was about to ask the same question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:17pm

Re: Re: Actually he does
I don't see how authorisation affects anything here. After all he did not authorise the cop's filming - which makes the cop's actions "unauthorised". The cop would, of course have copyright exceptions and fair use that would allow him to use his video for law enforcement purposes - but not for commercial artistic exploitation.

I believe the law is quite clear here. He performed a work - and that performance has sound copyright that is his and cannot be used (as an artistic performance) without his permission (and a compulsory licence from the owner of the compsition - presumably the estate of Freddie Mercury or the record label )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PlagueSD (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:25pm

Re: Pretty good case, actually
If I take a picture of something, or someone, I own the rights to said picture. Same thing goes for video. Rights go to the "creator" or the person that takes the video. Since this was in a police car, and they can't claim any rights on the video (public record) the video is in fact public domain.

There was an article similar to this where some monkeys got ahold of a photographers camera and took some pictures. There was a big discussion on who owned the rights to the pictures. Since animals can't claim rights, I think the pictures ended up in public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:26pm

Re: Actually he does
I don't think so. Copyright doesn't exist until the work is fixed. You can have the right to create a performance of a previously fixed work. You can have a copyright on a recording of a performance, but the performance itself is not fixed, so there can't be a copyright on it.
Unless there's a written agreement to the contrary, the copyright to the video would be held by the operator of the camera, not the performer.

Which leads to another question. Given that the camera is fixed in place, and operating totally automatically, is there enough creativity in the recording to qualify for any copyright at all? It looks to me like there's a good case to be made that the only copyright involved is the songwriter's copyright on the original music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:49pm

If he was unaware that he was being recorded, weren't his rights to privacy violated by the camera in the police cruiser. If not then certainly when the video was made public. Is this something that happens in Canada often, that the police release the videos from inside the vehicle? This just screams breach of privacy to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:50pm

Re:
im a world famous scientist in the field of drunkalogy, my profussional opion is that he is not yet sober

-- dr. monkyyy phd
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:53pm

Re: Down?
Aha - it appears it was a different upload of the same video that he had taken down. Post is updated!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sehlat (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:54pm

Cue Streisand Effect in 3 ... 2...
Going to youtube and checking "Robert Wilkinson", you get at least half-a-dozen links to copies of the video.

I wish the man a happy game of "Whack-a-Mole."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:55pm

Re:
You are correct about the likeness part except for one thing, if the publisher of the video has the copyright to the video itself and it is deemed news. News doesn't require a release. Otherwise it would.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re: Actually he does
The right to film and the right to distribute are 2 different things. Just because it was filmed doesn't mean it can be distributed. If it's not News, then they would have to have a signed release to use his likeness EVEN IF they own the copyright to the film itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:01pm

You've gotta be kidding me. An April fools joke would have a hard time outperforming this joke. Like another commenter pointed out, when reality is this ridiculous, the onion needs to try harder to come up with something relatively ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:06pm

Re:
Well, he does have some control over his likeness.

The notice was for copyright, not publicity rights. Separately, any "likeness" rights would not apply to such a video.

Copyright? Not sure it's the right thing, but certainly it is the expedient way to get a takedown.

By expedient, you mean totally against the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re: Pretty good case, actually
But everyone owns the rights to their individual likeness. Except in the case of News or something like a crowd scene where no individual likeness is distinguishable, the photographer owns the copyright to the work itself but has to have a release to distribute the work. As this sort of thing would hinder the press from being able to report the news in a timely manner (or sometimes not at all) News organizations are not required to get releases from a subject to publish the news. However the news loophole as it is know is abused by tabloids when they run paparazzi images of celebrities claiming that because they are famous the story is "news".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:09pm

Re:
Unlikely, he's Canadian.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kobe wild, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:14pm

well all you've down now is attract attention to it.
well now all he's done is draw attention to the video.
At first I didn't care.
now that the clip was a target of a take down I spent about 10 seconds and found the clip posted elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christina, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:30pm

Re: Re: Actually he does
No, that's not how it works. The producer of the fixation of a performance might have additional rights of their own, but that doesn't negate the performer's rights over the fixation or his/her performance. This is basic Rome Convention. Moreover, copyright in a performance is entirely possible: among others, performers are vested with the exclusive rights to authorise or prohibit the fixation of their performace without their permission and the communication to the public of any fixation.

Finally, originality (creativity is not a legal term) is not a factor in related rights, only in copyright.

Guy has every right to ask YouTube to take down the video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:48pm

Well this was already on TV in the US on "World's Dumbest" last week. The guy will be seeing himself over and over for the rest of his life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:02pm

Re: Re:
Mike, his performance, albeit in a police car, is immediately by definition "copyright". His recorded performance is his.

By expedient, I mean "faster than fighitng 5 years in court to try to prove a point".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

No.

No. No. No.

If anyone controls the copyright to the video of the "performance", it's the person who put it into a fixed medium. The cops.

I swear, there should be a basic copyright and economics test to complete before you can post without registering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 6:05pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fqymcJRSbxI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 9:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The copyright at best would be shared. He has rights. You might not like them but he has them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 9:18pm

Re: Re: Down?
Maybe he wants to keep the other video from stealing views :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 10:00pm

Re: Re: Copyfraud?
I don't think the media companies would appreciate this goofball getting punished and setting a precedent.

There will be no consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 11:24pm

Re: Pretty good case, actually
"you could argue that the police officer had a hand in the creation through the act of turning on the camera, but at most Wilkinson and the officer would be co-creators."

That would be Director & Principle & they'd have to have signed with the Film Actor's Guild. Otherwise they are auteurs and it's guerilla cinematography or a scab production.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2012 @ 1:08am

Re: Re: Re:
He does not, because EMI owns the song. He doesn't get a copyright over someone else's copyright, even if he was the performer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 4 Apr 2012 @ 3:59am

Sorry Robert Wilkinson: there's no escape from reality.

He could always work for the MPAA/RIAA/USG where reality is at minimum suppressed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 4 Apr 2012 @ 4:07am

Re: Pretty good case, actually
Wasn't this filmed by a public utility for the purpose of safety and/or evidence in any futire proceedings and therefore owned by the State (??) and under the US Open Access rules (do you lot have privacy rules at all??) therefore owned by the Public for any use?

Also the idea that the guy has copyright on the film is bogus since he self evidently was incapax at teh time of performance and had no concious notion of what he was doing at the time, not to mention that the camera, whether fixed or otherwise, was not being controlled by himself either personally or for hire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Walter Riker, 4 Apr 2012 @ 4:27am

The perfect solution
Have you been Wilk rolled?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 4 Apr 2012 @ 4:51am

Re: Re: Re: Actually he does
In other words, it's all insanely and unnecessarily complicated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 4 Apr 2012 @ 5:57am

Sounds like the dude is a bit embarrassed
That being said, it doesn't give him the right to take down a video of his embarrassing moments. Stupid is as stupid does, and you can't fix stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 4 Apr 2012 @ 9:03am

So, when is the CPRS (Canadian Performing Rights Society) going to sue this guy?
I severely doubt he paid the appropriate licensing fees before performing said public performance. Since he is claiming copyright over said performance, it seems like it would be a slam dunk (drunk) given that he has given CPRS all the evidence it needs by claiming said copyright on a work he doesn't own or have the rights or licenses to perform in public.

Point:
If we don't stop drunks from unauthorized singing in public, what's next? I'll tell you: public solicitation, public intoxication, public inebriation, public debilitation and finally public urination. There ought to be a law against such crimes against humanity.

Counterpoint:
Think of the children of all the unauthorized, unlicensed drunk singers who will rely on the copyright of their fathers (or mothers) and count on the residual income of that performance for many, many years to come, long after their inebriated parent has passed away. Come on people, didn't the children of said parent suffer enough not to be able to reap the financial reward that comes from such a tragic recording?

Too bad David Hasselhoff didn't sing during this, his daughter could have still been making thousands off of the copyright long after he is gone.

How profitable would it have been? I believe this video could prove the point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 4 Apr 2012 @ 10:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The copyright at best would be shared.

Nope. Absolutely not. Photographer gets the copyright. Not the subject.

He has rights. You might not like them but he has them.

Sure he has rights, just not any concerning this video or copyrights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]