Bohemian Rhapsody Video Taken Down Again, This Time By The Drunk Guy Himself
from the easy-come-easy-go-indeed dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
By expedient, I mean "faster than fighitng 5 years in court to try to prove a point".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re: Copyfraud?
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyfraud?
There will be no consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair, he's possibly sober at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-- dr. monkyyy phd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually he does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually he does
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually he does
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually he does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually he does
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually he does
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually he does
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why wouldn't he have copyright on his performance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty good case, actually
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 chronology ]
Re: Pretty good case, actually
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Pretty good case, actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pretty good case, actually
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 chronology ]
Re: Pretty good case, actually
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 chronology ]
Down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cue Streisand Effect in 3 ... 2...
I wish the man a happy game of "Whack-a-Mole."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well all you've down now is attract attention to it.
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He could always work for the MPAA/RIAA/USG where reality is at minimum suppressed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The perfect solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like the dude is a bit embarrassed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, when is the CPRS (Canadian Performing Rights Society) going to sue this guy?
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 chronology ]