For Lady Gaga, Copyright Not About Music, But Her Image

from the it's-about-image-control,-not-business-model-control dept

A series of recent stories about Lady Gaga show an interesting view of copyright law from team Gaga. It quickly becomes clear that, contrary to the stated purpose of copyright law, Gaga doesn't view copyright as a way to incentivize her music creation or even to protect her music. Instead, it's all about protecting her image. A year ago, we noted that Gaga and her label made sure that her music was widely available for free (legally) to increase exposure, knowing that she would make money elsewhere (notably, Lady Gaga is signed to a 360 deal which gives her label a cut of touring, sponsorship and merch sales. That "job" she has as "creative director" at Polaroid? Yeah, Interscope/Universal gets a cut of that as well.) Lady Gaga, herself, has said that she doesn't care about piracy, saying that she knows that as more people download her music, she'll make it up on tour, saying "it's just the way it is today."

Okay, so she's good with free music and making money elsewhere. But she's still turning up as a copyright bully in certain cases. We just covered her silly complaint (not specified, but probably a publicity rights or trademark) against the makers of Baby Gaga ice cream, but in the comments to that article, it was pointed out that Gaga recently demanded that photographers at her concerts hand over the copyright to all the images they take. It also included strict limitations, saying that the photographer and his or her publication could only use the image for 4 months before having to take it down. The article notes that a few other bands -- the Beastie Boys among them -- have similar clauses in their photo release forms.

This clause has apparently gotten many photographers pretty upset, especially concerning some comments from someone who worked with Gaga who "questioned why photographers automatically own copyright on their work, since it's the artist who does the show."

While I won't step in between the photographers and the supporters of the musicians, what really strikes me about this is just how twisted copyright has become these days for folks like Lady Gaga. Reading through these stories, it's clear that she's not using copyright as an incentive to create music at all. Instead, it appears its sole purpose for her is to act as a tool for control over the use of her image. Perhaps that's fine, but that's certainly not the official reasons for copyright, and in an age when we hear about how important copyright is to artists, it seems worth noting just how much it's been twisted for totally unintended purposes here.

Filed Under: copyright, culture, image, incentive, lady gaga

Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream

from the oh-come-on dept

As a father of an infant, I can tell you first hand, that babies go through a phase where they say "gaga gaga" quite frequently. This is not new. So it's not too surprising that the makers of the somewhat controversial "breastmilk ice cream" that's been a controversial hit, decided to name it "Baby Gaga." However, now there are reports (as many of you sent in) that Lady Gaga is threatening the shop for violating her rights. Does this mean pretty much every baby ever can sue Lady Gaga for copying their schtick? Look, if you're going to pick a common baby phrase as your silly stage name, don't be surprised when others use it too. But don't go legal over it. It just makes you look like a baby.

Filed Under: baby gaga, breastmilk ice cream, gaga, lady gaga, publicity rights, trademark

Dumb Trends: Tech Companies Hiring Pop Stars As 'Creative Directors'

from the is-intel-the-new-polaroid dept

Last year, at Midem, one of the keynote interviews was with Jeffrey Hayzlett, who at the time was the Chief Marketing Officer for Kodak. Towards the end of the talk, someone in the audience asked Hayzlett if he could explain the thinking behind the hiring of Lady Gaga to be "creative director." Hayzlett smiled and responded along the lines of "Well, actually, that wasn't Kodak, but our competitor, and just the fact that you're confused about that is pretty much all I have to say about the wisdom of that decision." Of course, it was Polaroid who had made that "hire." At CES a few weeks back, one year after this announced "hiring," Lady Gaga debuted the results of her "job" at Polaroid to mostly unimpressed reviews.

Meanwhile, over at the Intel booth, I saw Will.i.am (and an entourage of folks) walking around and checking out the displays. Knowing that folks like Lady Gaga and Will.i.am don't just show up at CES for fun, I just assumed that he had some sort of endorsement deal with Intel. Now, comes the news that he's signed a similar "director of creative innovation" deal with Intel.

Now, to be clear, various reports claim that Lady Gaga was and has been actually involved in product design efforts. And, as an endorsement deal, there's something quite nice about that aspect to it. After all, lots of celebrities sign endorsement deals for products they don't even use or care about, let alone have at least some say in designing. But, does having a celebrity, who doesn't actually have any experience or knowledge about the specific business you're in, as a "creative director" really make sense? The Polaroid products announced by Lady Gaga at CES seemed sort of pointless -- sunglasses that take photos, a paperback book sized "portable printer" for photos (I've had a smaller portable printer in my bag for years, and only recently stopped carrying it around when I realized I never use it any more).

On top of that, the idea that these celebrities have "jobs" as "creative directors" is just silly. They're not creative directors at all, and it's actually something of an insult to people who actually do have jobs as creative directors. They're celebrity endorsers who are also advising on product ideas -- at best. I like the idea of celebrities actually being more involved with the products they endorse, but pretending they have a real "job" at these companies really just insults the intelligence of people.

Oh, and, did anyone notice that, in the photo of Will.i.am showing off his "Intel badge," it looks like he's wearing the "Polaroid sunglasses" that Gaga revealed at CES? Maybe they have some sort of "mutual celebrity fake creative director appreciation society" thing going on between them.

"But do HIS glasses take pics and have screens built in...?" -- caption and photoshop thanks to Notcot

Filed Under: creative directors, lady gaga, will.i.am
Companies: intel, polaroid

Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring

from the the-business-model-of-today dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how Lady Gaga had leveraged free music as a huge part of building up her popularity, and turned that into money via sellout tours and corporate sponsorship. However, most of that article focused on "legal" free music -- such as the songs her label had put up on MySpace and YouTube and elsewhere. But what about the unauthorized kinds? Well, in a wide-ranging (and really quite fascinating) interview that Lady Gaga did with the Times Online in the UK (check it out before they put up the paywall), Lady Gaga admits she's fine with people downloading her music in unauthorized forms because she makes it up in touring revenue:

She explains she doesn't mind about people downloading her music for free, "because you know how much you can earn off touring, right? Big artists can make anywhere from $40 million [£28 million] for one cycle of two years' touring. Giant artists make upwards of $100 million. Make music -- then tour. It's just the way it is today."

Similarly, she knocks bands that don't really try to work hard to please the fans, and who just expect them to automatically buy each album:

"I hate big acts that just throw an album out against the wall, like 'BUY IT! F*** YOU!' It's mean to fans. You should go out and tour it to your fans in India, Japan, the UK. I don't believe in how the music industry is today. I believe in how it was in 1982."

Like Mariah Carey, it looks like Lady Gaga has realized that this concept of Connect with Fans and giving them a Reason to Buy works at the superstar level just as much as it does down at the indie artist level. The specifics of implementing a business model around the concept are very, very different -- but the core concept remains the same. Treat your fans right, learn to leverage what's infinite to make something scarce more valuable, and then sell the scarcity.

Filed Under: business models, economics, free, lady gaga, music

Australian Recording Industry Group Tries To Assert Copyright On A Picture of a Piece of Paper

from the we-like-the-law-when-it-suits-our-purposes dept

A site called Earsucker.com recently posted a couple of images of a leaked itinerary from pop artist Lady Gaga's Australian tour, detailing her (largely uninteresting) schedule for a couple of days, prompting a friendly letter from Australian music industry group MIPI, threatening legal action if they weren't removed. Unsurprisingly, the group claimed the images infringe some undefined copyright, as well as breach some confidentiality. Earsucker responded with some helpful legal education by pointing out that it's based in the US, where Australian copyright law doesn't apply (not yet, anyway), and that it can't be held responsible for some third party's breach of confidentiality with Lady Gaga or her management.

That's all well and good, but it misses two important questions: first, what in these images could be protected by copyright? Second, what the hell does MIPI or its backers gain from getting this piece of content taken down on a copyright claim? It's understandable that Lady Gaga and her management wouldn't want this sort of info appearing online for security reasons. But what's it got to do with MIPI (which stands for Music Industry Piracy Investigations)? This sort of episode, in which somebody uses the threat of a copyright lawsuit to get content they simply don't like taken down, reinforces the need for real repercussions for bogus takedowns and threats. Copyright laws and legal threats shouldn't exist as vehicles for record companies and their pals to stifle free speech, but when they can do so with no real repercussions, it's hard to imagine they'll actually stop.

Filed Under: copyright, earsucker, infringement, lady gaga, mipi

Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music

from the don't-knock-it dept

While Beyonce and Taylor Swift may have outshone Lady Gaga at the Grammy's, it doesn't change the fact that Gaga has become quite a music industry sensation. But similar to what we saw with Mariah Carey, the details behind Lady Gaga's business model success shows how even today's superstars are embracing more nuanced business models that make use of free music and focus on selling unique scarcities. When it comes to free music, apparently that's been a huge part of Gaga getting attention:

In fact, much of Gaga's audience got her music for free, and legally. They have listened to free streams--by the hundreds of millions--on YouTube and the other online services that Gaga currently leads, according to research firm BigChampagne. On MySpace, Gaga has had 321.5 million plays. By contrast, singer Susan Boyle tallied only 133,000 plays, despite scoring the No. 2 selling album of 2009.

And while she has been able to sell music, she's also making a ton of money from live gigs and corporate deals, including Polaroid and Estee Lauder -- which are examples of Gaga selling the attention of her fans, as well as some tangible goods (such as makeup, similar to Mariah Carey).

Again, nothing about this is revolutionary at all. But it again shows that even today's megastars are figuring out how that just selling music isn't the only way to make money these days, and, in fact, having the music available for free can often be quite helpful in getting even more attention in ways that aid the other parts of the business model.

Filed Under: business models, economics, free, lady gaga, music