Which Crazy Copyright Holder Took Down Katie Ledecky/Carlos Santana 'Smooth' Mashup First?

from the who-gets-the-gold? dept

Mon, Aug 15th 2016 10:41am — Mike Masnick

By now you've probably seen or heard about the somewhat amazing world record and race victory by swimmer Katie Ledecky in the 800 meter freestyle, in which she came in first by a rather astounding 11.38 seconds. There are some photos floating around showing her basically all by herself in the pool:

Katie Ledecky, pictured with the 7 next best swimmers in the world. pic.twitter.com/3C08xu9DL7
— Rodger Sherman (@rodger_sherman) August 13, 2016

Of course, since you can't actually show any video anywhere, the NY Times created a graphic representation of Ledecky's amazing race showing just how dominant it was:

🇺🇸 @katieledecky broke her own world record, and won by over 11 secs, in the 800m freestyle https://t.co/sGZvx9919C pic.twitter.com/lB0tuhe2uI
— NYT Graphics (@nytgraphics) August 13, 2016

It seems kinda pointless that you can't use the actual video for that, but welcome to a world where intellectual property locks down everything.

Either way, various people were creating other ways of showing all this, and a guy named Jimmy Donofrio created a video that I think showed the end of the race synced up to the opening of the famous song "Smooth" by Carlos Santana, featuring Matchbox 20's Rob Thomas. You've heard the song. It's basically impossible for anyone to not have heard this song (or at least that opening guitar riff) at some point since it was released in 1999. Apparently, if you start the song just as Ledecky finishes, it gets all the way through the opening and up to Thomas saying, "Man it's a hot one...." before the 2nd place finisher touches the wall. The mashup video started to go viral. MTV News reported on how awesome it was.

But, if you go to that tweet now this is what you see:

Someone -- either the Olympics or whoever holds the copyright to the song -- issued a takedown. This is ridiculous. The use here was almost certainly fair use. But when you have two of the most aggressive copyright aggressors around -- record labels and the Olympics -- I guess it's no surprise that they would ignore fair use and take down content like this, which is the kind of content that would likely only get more people interested in either the Olympics or the music. But, no, copyright is apparently more important than that.

Separately, it's disappointing and somewhat ridiculous that Twitter agreed to take this down. I get that it doesn't want to lose any DMCA safe harbors -- and perhaps it doesn't want to piss off the Olympics -- but seriously, get a backbone and stand up for fair use.

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: carlos santana, copyright, fair use, jimmy donofrio, katie ledecky, rob thomas, smooth, takedowns, the olympics
Companies: olympics, twitter

28 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2016 @ 11:06am

Ad hominem
Mike, ur on twitter accusing others of "personal ad hominem attacks" on you but continue to use insults and name-calling as a routine part of your schtick here ("crazy copyright holder"). Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 15 Aug 2016 @ 11:12am
  
  Re: Ad hominem
  I don't think you understand the meaning of "ad hominem." For one thing, "insults and name-calling" are not, in and of themselves, ad hominems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 15 Aug 2016 @ 11:19am
  
  Re: Ad hominem
  Would you prefer 'short-sighted'? 'Too greedy for their own good'? How else would you refer to someone who demanded the removal of something that only stood to benefit them with additional interest in their music/event?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 15 Aug 2016 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: Re: Ad hominem
    I am going to agree with the OP here.
    
    We need to stop insulting people with mental disorders by calling record executives "crazy". Crazy people do not deserve to be insulted like that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 15 Aug 2016 @ 1:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ad hominem
      That's fair, people with mental disorders have it bad enough without being lumped in with record execs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I.T. Guy, 15 Aug 2016 @ 11:48am
  
  Re: Ad hominem
  Would you not describe someone trying to jump off a bridge as crazy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2016 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: Ad hominem
  You have no idea what ad hominem is. Just sayin'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2016 @ 4:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Ad hominem
    forget adding hominem, needs more cowbell...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Aug 2016 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re: Ad hominem
  Mike, ur on twitter accusing others of "personal ad hominem attacks" on you but continue to use insults and name-calling as a routine part of your schtick here ("crazy copyright holder"). Just sayin'
  
  That's not an ad hominem.
  
  You should learn what words mean.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 15 Aug 2016 @ 5:21pm
    
    Re: Re: Ad hominem
    Mike,
    
    Learning what words mean would require reading. Not sure AC has unlocked that particular skill yet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2016 @ 11:11am

I'd like to know what happens when there are many different copyright holders, such as a songwriter and record label on the audio portion, and another one or two on the video portion -- in a situation when most of them want to monetize a video but one demands a DMCA takedown, thereby taking money out of the pockets of the other copyright co-holders?

How are such issues settled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 15 Aug 2016 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  The record label controls all of it.
  
  They own everything.
  
  Stop trying to steal from them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 15 Aug 2016 @ 1:05pm
  
  Re:
  jim sterling on youtube has an interesting idea of how to force this issue into the light.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM&index=20&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0E1Id3NHchFaxikv CvAVQe
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2016 @ 10:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    The high demands labels place on their artists are unconscienable and should never stand up in court except for the bias which is already ruining the justice system.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 15 Aug 2016 @ 11:16am

Wow, I remember that song. back when it came out, all the radio stations played it zillions of times. Not quite as ridiculously over-played as that horrible thing from Titanic, but... yeah.

Despite that, between the singer's tendency to mumble and the intelligible parts being a big jumble of word salad, no matter how many times I heard it I never did attain the slightest idea of what the song is actually about, beyond "gimme your heart, make it real, or else forget about it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2016 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  oh, you mean lyrics might have some message, some content or import beyond mere sound ?
  huh, who knew, since you cant understand 75-80% of the lyrics, and most of what you can understand is fluff, or pointless, or me-Me-ME!!!!!
  now, get off my song !!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 15 Aug 2016 @ 12:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, most songs have some sort of message or meaning. A good number of them even tell some sort of story.
    
    And then you've got meaningless jumbles of word salad like this one and American Pie.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam, 15 Aug 2016 @ 11:22am

Are we?
Are we still talking Olympics? The organization that's made itself irrelevant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 15 Aug 2016 @ 12:03pm

I think the video meant to show how much faster than the IOC/labels Katie is. She got over 10 second ahead of the DMCA takedown! Shame on you, copyright holders, shame o you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2016 @ 12:56pm

By now you've probably seen or heard about the somewhat amazing world record and race victory by swimmer Katie Ledecky in the 800 meter freestyle,

Well I have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 15 Aug 2016 @ 1:10pm

All a matter of incentives
Separately, it's disappointing and somewhat ridiculous that Twitter agreed to take this down. I get that it doesn't want to lose any DMCA safe harbors -- and perhaps it doesn't want to piss off the Olympics -- but seriously, get a backbone and stand up for fair use.

Growing a backbone with regards to the DMCA opens you up the possibility of insanely expensive legal fees and fines, whereas caving has no penalty whatsoever. The incentives provided by the law are entirely on the side of content removal, while the penalties are entirely on the side of keeping content up, so it's not surprising that most companies and individuals would weight the two options and go with the first more often than not, as taking the route of content removal is the much safer option.

It may be disappointing and disgusting that so many companies simply fold any time a DMCA claim is made, but with the law written to be entirely one-sided it should never be surprising, as it's working entirely as designed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2016 @ 3:15pm

Repost it...
Let's have someone repost the video with the music changed to Happy Birthday. Then the IOC can get on with issuing the takedown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2016 @ 6:18am

Well, they've succeed, I no longer care.
Olympics? What Olympics, all I see are barriers, obviously they they don't want anyone to know about it. Guess I'll just read a book or something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First of All, 16 Aug 2016 @ 9:56am

Get rid of all the lawyers
I guarantee it was a lawyer who took this video down. Carlos would not have minded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2016 @ 10:00am
  
  Re: Get rid of all the lawyers
  Yeah, they do hang on every truly creative artist's ass like the bloodsuckers they are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2016 @ 10:06am
    
    Re: Re: Get rid of all the lawyers
    Maybe we could make it a crime to be a lawyer!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2016 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re: Get rid of all the lawyers
    Its not as if the video poster was using the song to make money off of it. That money from commercial use of Carlos's songs goes straight into the pockets of lawyers. THAT MAKES ME SSSICK!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lastly, 16 Aug 2016 @ 10:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Get rid of all the lawyers
      Carlos get what? $.03 for each play with which to divy out to his entire band and crew? HA that is a travisty.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]