Time Warner Cable: We Can Record You, But You Can't Record Us

Prince Sends A Takedown Over Six Second Vine Clips

from the fair-use? dept

Wed, Apr 3rd 2013 7:53am — Mike Masnick

Ah, Prince. The purple-loving musician has built up an irrational hatred for all things internet over the years, mostly focused on his belief that he should have 100% control over everything he has ever done. He's gone after companies and fans for posting pretty much anything. His music is also at the heart of the (still ongoing) Stephanie Lenz case, in which Universal Music Group issued a copyright takedown on a 29-second video with some Prince music in the background. In that case, the court said that UMG needed to take fair use into account before sending the takedown.

Given that, it seems rather surprising to find out that Prince is targeting even shorter clips -- including six second clips on Vine, the Twitter offshoot/acquisition, that allows people to post short video clips no longer than 6 seconds. Vine has built up a decent following pretty quickly, and it's difficult to see how anyone could argue that music appearing in such a Vine video wouldn't be either fair use or de minimis use (or both). But don't tell Prince that.

The DMCA takedown comes from NPG Records, which is Prince's personal record label, and names eight Vine clips, which apparently have all been removed. The notice was just sent on March 26, meaning we're still within the time frame in which someone could have filed a counternotice. One hopes that counternotices are being filed, and (perhaps) that someone is willing to challenge Prince on claiming that such videos are not fair use. Would he honestly claim that such a video harms the market for his music?

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, de minimis use, dmca, fair use, prince, takedown, vine
Companies: npg records, twitter

37 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:01am

Call creative works property, and some owners will want to control all and every use of their property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymouse, 3 Apr 2013 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  When you look at how irrelevant Prince has become in the music scene it is strange that he would be so controlling over music people don't actually want to normally listen to, in all the games and clashes he has had with his fans i am surprised that anyone would even want to post his music.
  
  I had enough a long time ago and vowed never to listen to his music creations ever again and i suspect with all the negative publicity he has gained over the years he would be encouraging people to post clips of his music, even if it is just to make him a little bit relevant in the internet age.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:02am

Well, once an organization is large enough...
then it can expend resources without regard to sanity, and yet prosper. SO, as a matter of FACT -- which you fanboys always object to my even stating -- the artist who became "Prince" can pretty much control ALL of his work, yes.

That, however, is an argument for limiting how much people get from making entertainments, so that they can't just do ALL that they please. Again, the solution you want -- not that Mike ever offers a solution -- is to go Populist.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike daily proves the value of an economics degree.
04:01:31[f- 2-4]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- S. T. Stone, 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:06am
  
  Re: Well, once an organization is large enough...
  the artist who became "Prince" can pretty much control ALL of his work
  
  �Music is everybody�s possession. It�s only publishers who think that people own it.� ~ John Lennon
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digitari, 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:06am
  
  Re: Well, once an organization is large enough...
  well the only way Prince or YOU can control what you make is to NOT release it, or monetize it in anyway. if you sell it in ANYWAY, you loose control. that is just a fact of life.
  
  I can poop on princes album covers all day long, not a whole lot he can do about it, and not only that I can then take pics of it and call it "art" and claim full copyright
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re: Well, once an organization is large enough...
    How much for the Poop Prince album art?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well, once an organization is large enough...
      I dunno; I would've thought that the original album art was already pretty shitty.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bt Garner (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:19am
    
    Re: Re: Well, once an organization is large enough...
    Generally, we'd say yes, that your derivative work is "new" and can claim full copyright protection. However, if you are defecating on Prince's most recent albums, the answer would be no, as no one (not even an idiot in a hurry) would not be able to tell the difference between the derived shitty record, and the original shitty record.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - IronM@sk, 3 Apr 2013 @ 1:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Well, once an organization is large enough...
    *lose control.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:28am
  
  Re: Well, once an organization is large enough...
  SO, as a matter of FACT -- which you fanboys always object to my even stating -- the artist who became "Prince" can pretty much control ALL of his work, yes.
  
  That's not a fact.
  
  If that was a fact, we wouldn't be discussing infringement, derivative works or fair use, because they wouldn't exist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:22am

Nice to see Prince working so hard to stay irrelevant in the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- matt C, 3 Apr 2013 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  next to that superbowl appearance its the only work he has done is 10+ years!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:22am

When was the last time this fossil had a hit record? The ignorance of some artists! Their fans post things that amount to free promotion and they freak out and get it taken down. Gee, I was going to buy that Prince CD but now that I have a couple 6 second clips I don't need it.

P.S. Is he still the "Artist formally known as Prince" that changed his name to that weird symbol? What a nut case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:32am
  
  Re:
  He changed it back to Prince. The change to a symbol was the result of a dispute with his label. He wanted to release more music than his label did, but his contract prevented him from doing so. He could, however, release music under a different name. Thus, he changed his name to the symbol until the contract expired.
  
  Crazy, perhaps, but no more crazy than many other legal shenanigans.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wiki verifies that. Learn something new every day. One question, if all he needed was a different name couldn't he have chosen anything, maybe just using his middle name? Instead he does something that makes him look like a real nut case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 1:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That particular symbol is one that he'd been using for a long time before he made it his "name," and it has particular personal meaning for him (he calls it "the love symbol". I also suspect that it was a bit of a "fuck you" to the music industry in general. He'd commented at least once that he enjoyed the fact that industry reporters had problems knowing what to do with it.
      
      Wow, I know way, way too much about Prince!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, about the symbol -- because he'd already been using it in relation to his music for quite a while, including on album covers, making it his new name actually makes good marketing sense -- his existing fanbase would already associate the symbol with him, minimizing confusion.
        
        Using a different name that's unfamiliar to everybody would have been a larger risk.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymouse Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 7:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, what's crazy is using loopholes in his contract to get more music out and then ignoring exceptions in the law to prevent getting that same music out. That's the artist currently known as whacked.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 10:25am
  
  Re:
  The last time I heard any of his music was 1999.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:43am

In fairness, it is HIS music and HE is keeping control over it. You gotta admire that. So many musicians willingly sign control of their work to their record labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Right? I'm seeing an awful lot of just blind hatred here in the comments. Obviously he's paranoid about the Internet, but the man made some pretty excellent music AND he was screwing over record labels before it was cool.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:44am

'it's difficult to see how anyone could argue that music appearing in such a Vine video wouldn't be either fair use or de minimis use (or both). But don't tell Prince that'

just tell him what he really is, that he's a prick who needs to remember how he got where he is and, like the entertainment industries, how fans are relied on for EVERYTHING and how they can make or break everything as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 9:14am
  
  Re:
  I just want to point out that Prince is a super old guy who can't walk without a cane. He's a geezer who doesn't understand the Internet, fine - but let's not pile endless hatred on him just for being out of touch. At least he's not trying to legislate the Internet, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - anonymouse, 3 Apr 2013 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually i am downloading all his music right now just so i can share it with others, even if i don't want to listen to it myself, there are some older folk that listen to it in memory of the days he was not completely obsesses with himself, it is a shame how wealth and notoriety can change a person so much that they become something to be disliked.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 4 Apr 2013 @ 2:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    "At least he's not trying to legislate the Internet, right?"
    
    He's attacking Vine with a (hopefully incorrect) reading of the current legislation, while UMG is on his behalf attacking YouTube. Both attacks depend on ignoring the fair use rights of the public and safe harbour provisions for service providers, and would be unlikely to be noticed, let alone fought against, if they were offline.
    
    He might not be trying to pass new laws, but he's definitely trying to use legal methods to shut down perfectly legitimate services - because they happen to be on the internet. If not him personally, he's definitely hiring those who are.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 8:46am

Really gives a whole new layer of meaning to "Let's Go Crazy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 9:24am

Bye Prince like I even care about you and your lame attitude !
Go Party like it is 1999 again.Better yet go Party like it was in 1979 !!! What an awesome year that was for Radical Government Hating Punk Rock Obscurities !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 5:59pm
  
  Re:
  but, but, but, what if somebody posts a whole movie to vine...6 seconds at a time?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 6:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    then somebody figures out how to string them together. Blue feel free to jump on this anytime
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forest_GS (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 10:00am

I can't imagine it being possible to infringe on Vine. Fair Use should apply to everything no matter what on there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 10:14am

I would be pretty happy if he goes to court with this one:

Either the court sides with him and de minimus is officially non-existent on the internet which would showcase the insanities inherent to the system.

Alternatively he will lose and the court will have taken a stance on where de minimus should be for music in videos.

Both would hurt the mans reputation, but at least he has made a judge set standards for some of the fair use and de minimus claims future sites can relate to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 11:03am

So long, it's been good to know you!
I was once a fan of Prince. I thought he did a lot of cutting-edge and really creative stuff. However, this sort of sh!t is just not acceptable. Sorry "Artist Formerly Known As Prince", but you won't be getting any of my hard earned lucre any longer! At least until you wake up and smell the (internet) coffee!

And FWIW, I purchase over $1000 USD in CD's and other music each year, as does my wife, and that doesn't count our frequent concert attendance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 6:02pm
  
  Re: So long, it's been good to know you!
  He is one of the best guitar players I have ever heard. Other than that he is a total nut job.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2013 @ 6:32pm
  
  Re: So long, it's been good to know you!
  Why should you be surprised? He used to be Prince, who you thought was cutting-edge and really creative. Now he's formerly known as Prince, formerly cutting-edge and formerly creative.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rocketism, 3 Apr 2013 @ 12:46pm

When I see stories like this it makes me want to blanket the net in these videos, and to get others to do it too. So that it is more trouble than its worth to fight all of them. It would have to cost something to have them removed, and at some level of volume that cost (in time, money or sanity) will be just too high. Lets call that the breaking point, where the cost benefit no longer works in your favor and you give up. Or maybe they don't give up, they instead sue me over the proliferation of videos.

How do you think that would shake out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
athe, 3 Apr 2013 @ 6:54pm

Harm
Would he honestly claim that such a video harms the market for his music?

6 seconds of Prince music is enough to make me not want to buy it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
velox (profile), 3 Apr 2013 @ 10:11pm

How it really works...
I seriously doubt Prince himself is trolling around the internet looking for supposed infringement. Almost certainly he signed a contract with a company that has promised to look out for his copyright interests so he doesn't have to personally worry with the details. The IP enforcement firm has incentive to find every miniscule scrap of music that can be attributed to their client. They must continue to keep proving their value in order to perpetuate their future paychecks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]