Insanity: Romney's Ad Featuring Obama Singing Al Green Shut Down Via Copyright Claim
from the seriously? dept
YouTube campaign videos get pulled over bogus copyright claims with alarming regularity. And now, as we're entering silly season for the US Presidential campaign, it means we'll be seeing more high profile takedowns. Back during the 2008 campaign, the McCain campaign even sent YouTube a letter trying to explain fair use to the company (seriously), and suggesting that Presidential campaigns should get special treatment to prevent videos from being pulled down. Of course, what might be better is if the Presidential candidates spoke up about how they'd fix the "shoot first, ask question later" aspect of the DMCA takedown procedures, but no one seems willing to do that yet. Back in the 2008 primaries, Mitt Romney also had to explain fair use to Fox News, so he should be ready for this issue again.In fact, he appears to be the first "fair use victim" this time around. Romney's campaign had posted a web video ad on YouTube that included some of the well-known footage of President Obama singing a single line of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." Apparently, that triggered BMG to issue a takedown on the Romney ad.
One hopes that Romney, who spoke out against SOPA during the primaries, will start to realize that perhaps he should take a stronger stand in favor of digital free speech rights and against copyright excessiveness, now that he's (yet again) a victim of such things. But perhaps that's just wishful thinking.
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: al green, barack obama, copyright, fair use, mitt romney, politics, youtube
Companies: bmg
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Outrage fatigue
Now censoriship is just normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Outrage fatigue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Outrage fatigue
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/105-1998/s137
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like that's going to happen...
What, and cut off possible funds from Hollywood? Like that's going to happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like that's going to happen...
The core problem is that Romney is a stooge.
Romney throws his hat in the ring—climbs in after it—and takes a beating.
He'll make out handsomely, never worry. Oh, I don't mean looks: After a pro boxer has bashed your face in, you never quite look the same. But he'll still make out handsomely for taking the beating. Taking a fall in the ring. That's what a stooge does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like that's going to happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Like that's going to happen...
Who wins is likely to be determined by who will polarize most. Obama seemed worse to the other side than Hillary, and McCain was sane. That's why his advisers threw the Palin ball at him.
The extremism in the GoP and the polarization of Americans is very desirable to a select few, as is the ineffectualism and lip-servicism of the Dem Party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like that's going to happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like that's going to happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Penalty for perjury, etc... on DMC takedowns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Penalty for perjury, etc... on DMC takedowns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Penalty for perjury, etc... on DMC takedowns
With you up to this point, but WHAT law about false takedowns? There is NO repercussions for filing a false/fraudlent takedown.
NONE.
Oh its in the law, but it has NEVER been enforced, and will never, EVER be enforced unless its against an ordinary individual and not a corporation or politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it just shows how quickly the labels will jump on anybody doing more than eight bars (the fair use limit, IIRC) in something even vaguely resembling commercial use.
If Romney could actually sing, Obama ads with him doing so would be shot down equally-quickly, boy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no fixed fair use limit. the only way to determine if the amount used is fair is for a court to make that determination. It is entirely possible to use all of a song and still have it considered fair use.
Of course, finding out whether or not you've guessed right is going to be expensive, especially if you've guessed wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> anybody doing more than eight bars (the fair
> use limit, IIRC) in something even vaguely
> resembling commercial use.
Oh, nonsense. It's Obama's buddies in Hollywood using copyright law as a way of silencing the competition for him.
One only has to look at the fact that the *only* video BMG has complained about is the one Romney's campaign made. There are dozens of *other* videos on YouTube of Obama singing that song that BMG (coincidentally, I'm sure) has no problem with. They certainly haven't issued takedowns on them. Just the Romney version.
This is just a bright line example of how copyright is being used as a censorship tool more and more every day..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're both corporate shills of the highest order. Hell, at least Romney is consistent in portraying himself that way. Obama fakes populism on occasion. I vote Pirate Party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You just described both of the dominant parties. It's just different, but often overlapping corporations that they shill for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Obama administration's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Ms. Victoria Espinel, has coordinated a $35 price fixing scheme from the Whitehouse.
In previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, price-fixing agreements have been just as illegal as agreements to knock over a liquor store—it doesn't matter whether you actually put a bullet in the liquor store clerk while you're grabbing the cash out of the till—the agreement itself is a crime.
Yet Mr Romney doesn't look like he's going to make that $35 Whitehouse-brokered price-fixing agreement into a campaign issue.
The game is rigged. Both candidates are playing for the same team. Romney is just a stooge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6uHR90Sq6k
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Daily Caller, you really are a special kind of crazy.
But, really? Really? Here's what The Daily Caller wrote:
"But just imagine what they would be saying if Romney’s turnaround book had been published by a multinational conglomerate with ties to Nazi propaganda."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They think "That's a silly law. Who do I have to pay off to buy personal immunity from that law?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WHAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank God that Americans are told constantly that they have ...
Lets not forget that the whole country is based on the "biggest screwer wins" principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank God that Americans are told constantly that they have ...
America is a porn studio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thank God that Americans are told constantly that they have ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thank God that Americans are told constantly that they have ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thank God that Americans are told constantly that they have ...
Now neither you nor the clone will be virgins!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bwahahaha
You reap what you sow, assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bwahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back when Obama was elected I truly believed things would change at least to some degree. Well they did. And we are now worse than we were, specially when we think about freedom of speech. The US are flirting more and more with fascism. Corporations have so much control over the politics that even Senate/Congress has issues to control what's going on behind the curtain of renewed and heightened secrecy that covers Obama administration.
Don't get me wrong, Bush was just as bad. The difference is that things were a bit more subtle with him and the ones before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They (US + Fascism) have been in bed together for forty years or more. Its just that the fresh kids in DC are too puerile and have too much unmitigated self-importantance to be able to maintain a ruse.
The War on Drugs cemented fascism as a cultural heritage for Americans. Yep, its a bad bad thing dealing drugs. Yep, it was actually much worse and much more harmful to Americans to curtail anyone's legal rights.
Possession doesn't hold 1/10th the sway of precedence in US law. Yep, fascism (while it may have lost its 'edge' as a word) is exactly what we're up against here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree, Pirate Mike. The argument that it's not fair use, and thus is copyright infringement, is stronger than you let on. See Henley v. DeVore, 733 F.Supp.2d 1144 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that political campaign's use of copyrighted songs was not fair use).
One hopes that Romney, who spoke out against SOPA during the primaries, will start to realize that perhaps he should take a stronger stand in favor of digital free speech rights and against copyright excessiveness, now that he's (yet again) a victim of such things. But perhaps that's just wishful thinking.
Always pulling on the heartstrings of the U.S. Constitution. (I'm saluting the flag as I type this, so I'm cool.) Free speech is alive and well. Both sides can say whatever they want. They just can't use other people's property for certain things. I know you can't process this, but it is what it is. Don't blame the messenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, you should read the case he cites. I'm afraid that US District Judge, James Selna (R) (Bush W appointee) was quite serious.
Fortunately, district court opinions are not binding precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> doesn't mean it's fair use.
And you're missing the point that whether it's fair use or not, the Romney video is the *only* video out of dozens on YouTube of Obama singing that song that BMG had a problem with. They haven't sent takedowns on any of them, nor have they complained about Obama himself originally singing that song without permission in a public venue. Yet the moment Romney puts it in an anti-Obama ad, suddenly it's copyright infringement?
Give me a break.
This is nothing but someone using copyright as a convenient way of silencing the competition and paying back political favors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I totally agree that this is a serious matter requiring firm action. Obama's outstanding performance of this song, even in truncated form, has obviously devastated the market for the song, and has simply crushed the original artist's... oops sorry, copyright holder's ability to ever make any more money from it, despite the remote possibility of actually increasing general awareness of it. Income streams will be slashed, legacies destroyed, children's futures jeopardised. Oh the humanity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, I did see that case as counsel instructed, and I find it's applicability extremely lacking. In that case, both instances under review included direct recordings of either the music and/or lyrics performed by Henley. That isn't the case here, where (unless we're talking about different videos), Obama is singing A Capella.
Secondly, in that case, DeVore relied on a Fair Use argument hinging on his campaign adverts being parodies, which was stupid. If he had simply said the use was used as commentary, likely they would have prevailed.
Unless I'm missing something and Romney has already claimed "parody fair use" in this case, I find your citation to be of little to no relevance and ask the court to summarily "de-sack" you as punishment....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ACTA and SOPA were negotiated mostly in secret, with details only trickling down little by little as time went on, and politicians were hell-bent in passing that legislation, no matter what, without any sort of public consultation.
Only the threat of an electronic civil war put a stop to them. I don't know about you, but, to me, this doesn't seem like free speech in action. I shouldn't have to take a knife to your throat to get my point across in a Democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have a partial point, in that the court found a political satire to be infringing. However, in that case:
"Relevant to this inquiry is the fact that the Defendants have taken the entire musical composition and have changed a minimal amount of lyrics."
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7727335254602921725&hl=en&as_sdt=2&a mp;as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
But in THIS case, it features Obama singing a single line.
I would also note that BMG has not sued Obama for his apparently unauthorized public performance, and has not taken down the video linked above of Obama singing it despite it being up since January. I'm starting to really think BMG only did this to spite Romney. If Obama gets to sing the song for free but Romney can't use the EXACT SAME clip of Obama singing it, doesn't that constitute a campaign contribution to Obama by BMG? Have they properly reported this to the FEC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
According to the FEC, "Anything of value given to influence a Federal election is considered a contribution." Clearly, the rights to the song have value, and taking down a political ad influences the election. The question is whether purposely allowing Obama to use it and not allowing Romney to reference Obama's use constitutes "giving" it to Obama. If I had to guess, after carefully reading the law, I would say that it would not be considered a gift. "The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution." But, they didn't really "provide" it so much as it was taken from them. Honestly, if it ever went to court I'm not sure how the ruling would go.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/100.52
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
note: I feel dirty now for defending Romney who I believe is just another moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is BMG stupid?
The only way this makes sense for them is if they REALLY want Obama to be elected and would therefore issue the takdown just to disrupt Romney. On the other hand, who says it has to make sense? They probably just said "oh, our music" and issued the takedown without thinking anything through at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If none of our presidential candidates plan on fixing our broken IP system and use that as part of their campaign message then they deserve to be stifled by it more than anyone else. So I do agree that they should get special treatment, they should have all of their videos indefinitely pulled and replaced after the election or at least the amount of time it took Dajaz1 to get their site back up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Highest form of censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Highest form of censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Pirate Mike loves Pirate Romney. Neener neener whine, nanner nanner pirate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does this work? Does he now go about arresting himself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He Doesn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA Takedowns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA Takedowns
"And you West, not every situation calls for your patented approach of shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, and when everybody's dead, try to ask a question or two."
Sounds a whole lot like Hollywood's approach, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What copyright infringement are you referring to? I don't see any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Insanity Will Get Worse
Irrespective of who wins the election, I expect a re-emergence of proposals for ever "stronger" legislation to protect so-called "intellectual property".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mitt Romney ad and video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]