Harry Fox Agency Claims Copyright Over Public Domain Work By Johann Strauss
from the of-course-they-would dept
The Harry Fox Agency (HFA) is the main licensing agency for mechanical licenses (i.e., actual reproductions of recorded works -- which is different from things like ASCAP who handle licenses for performances). While it doesn't get into as many ridiculous copyright scrapes as others, it still has been known to insert itself where it doesn't belong at times. The latest, courtesy of BoingBoing is that HFA made a copyright claim on a YouTube recording of Thailand's Youth Orchestra (Siam Sinfonietta) playing the Radetzky March by Johann Strauss. The work is 164 years old and clearly in the public domain. Furthermore, since HFA only covers mechanical licenses, and this is a new performance, not a use of a recorded song that HFA has rights over, the whole thing is completely ridiculous.I disputed this claim of course ... and in every case where I have disputed such a claim on youtube of ownership of a work clearly in the publc domain, the claim was released in a few hours.I'm sure this will end in some sort of apology, but shouldn't we be concerned that we keep seeing these kinds of things happening? Copyright holders have become quite lax in doing any sort of verification before silencing content creators. It's a huge problem.
I am amazed that Harry Fox Agency has reinstated the claim and that youtube now informs me that HFA may sue me or force me off youtube. The claim is patently absurd; Johann Strauss Sr. died in 1849.
Representatives of the Austrian embassy were at the concert from which the clip is taken and as this piece is practically a second Austrian national anthem, I am sure they would have objected to an improper violation against a national treasure.
Several well known music critics and artists have already written to you pointing out the absurdity of this claim as I tweeted a story about it.
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, johann strauss, ownership, public domain, radetzky march, somtow sucharitkul
Companies: harry fox agency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Apology???
I'm NOT so sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since the song is on their list they obviously hold a copyright on it, or else it wouldn't be on the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does the saying go? Ten deaths are a tragedy, but 100.000 are just a statistic? Something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the dinosaurs* don't want to fundamentally change the rules of how DMCA takedown works, then they should be required to police all misuses -- just as they seem to think Google should somehow magically police all infringement. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
This is why six strikes should work both ways. If a single party can't get their DMCA notices in order, correct, and legally in proper form, and signed under real penalty of perjury, then they shouldn't be allowed to file DMCA takedown notices. They would expect no less of everyone else filing DMCA takedowns against them. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
* if they don't like that name, then I should call them what they are: Pirates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Blasphemer!!!!!
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There really needs to be a penalty somewhere...
I have to wonder if they even had a real person look over the counter-notice, or if it was just a bot that filed the counter-counter claim. Perhaps captchas should be part of the process of these takedown/ownership claims, would probably cut down on these obviously wrong claims of ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
All they have to do is say the honestly believed they held the copyright, shrug their shoulders and say sorry it was just a mistake.
So I guess he really can sue them but it is pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So...
That's knowing. Therefore there is a good cause for perjury against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
Civil relief is likewise limited: 17 USC 512(f) only allows the uploader to sue for actual damages. But what economic harm did he suffer when the video was pulled from YouTube? Zero I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure this will end in some sort of apology
Apparently, it does.
Take a look at the second-to-the last comment in the thread over at BoingBoing. It's got a byline of “Somtow Sucharitkul” and it's marked “11/02/2012 11:52 PM”.
Can't vouch for authenticity, but looks legitimate to me.
Also note that this comment over at BoingBoing contains an additional followup (purportedly) from Somtow Sucharitkul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure this will end in some sort of apology
...so we have just set our Exchange server to auto-reply "Take it Down!" for all incoming messages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm sure this will end in some sort of apology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure this will end in some sort of apology
That's shameless, using that as an excuse. If the hurricane has impacted their ability to conduct business (and I don't doubt that it did) to the extent that they can't do due diligence, the default response should not be "take it down" -- twice. It should be "make a note of it, we'll check it out properly when we can."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure this will end in some sort of apology
I love the example of Hendrix, btw. A live arrangement played 42 years ago by an artist who died 43 years ago is the excuse for shutting down a 164 year old work - even though copyright at the time of the event (if I understand correctly) means that both works should be in the public domain. If that doesn't tell you how damaging and far reaching copyright has become, I don't know what does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm sure this will end in some sort of apology
This isn't our fault its Google's fault.
Content ID is flawed, and we want to make it better.
See also - Bird Song claimed by morons, who doubled down and claimed to have verified it only to be slammed harder on the net, and fell back on oopsie not our fault Content ID and a sad employee who can't tell music from bird song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure this will end in some sort of apology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyrights push us down the rabbit hole...
to paraphrase lewis...
this goes against the grain of all principles of 'fairness', and for what is -to society- a nothingburger...
these greedy bastards aren't upholding culture, they are locking it away and destroying it...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as I know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As far as I know...
Because only a "copyrighted performance" is worthy of applause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As far as I know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for a consumer 3 strikes policy
1st false takedown. Fair enough mistakes happen.
2nd false takedown on the same item. Warning
3rd false takedown on the same item. You have just surrended your protected work to the public domain. Forever.
If the takedown issuer is not the owner. Then the person issuing the notice does jail time. If hey try and hide behind a company, then the company goes into Chapter 7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, he can always adapt this experience into a Mallworld story...
I wondered why I hadn't heard of him for a decade or two. This has to be a lot more interesting than leaving warped messages on my answering machine. (Yes, it was really that far back the last time I spoke to him.)
I saw the name and had to DuckDuckGo it because I figured the odds of there being two of that name were rather long, and yes, it's the same guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that it makes a difference as to the ridiculousness, but HFA doesn't license recordings, they license musical works for the purposes of recording them, so the fact that this is a new recording isn't actually germane. However, not all mechanical licenses have to go through HFA, so even if it were a copyrighted work and they didn't have an HFA license, HFA still wouldn't have standing to sue anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like I keep saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://buffaloemploymentagency.weebly.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I received a Copyright Notice too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I received a Copyright Notice too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]