Universal Music Demands $42,000 From Danish Mayors For Gangnam Style Parody

from the ridiculous dept

Last year, we noted that one of the reasons why Psy's Gangnam Style video and song had become so incredibly popular was Psy's decision not to crack down on copies at all. Instead, he's mostly celebrated the copycats and parodies, talking about how awesome they were. But, of course, once a major record label gets involved... TorrentFreak reports that Universal Music is demanding $42,000 from four mayors in Denmark who teamed up to produced a video of the four of them dancing to the song.

The mayors have said that the use is clearly parody and covered as fair use, but Universal Music argues that because they're elected officials and there's an election coming up, they have to pay. I don't see how that makes a difference at all. Even more bizarre is that Universal's calculation seems to be that they should pay four times the "normal" license of $10,500 because there's four of them. But, as the mayors point out, they just used the song once, as it's all four of them appearing in a single video. And, making matters even more ridiculous, is that Universal gave them until today to pay up... or they claim that it will be "a real action for infringement... so the amount will be completely different."

Sometimes I wonder if Universal Music and the major record labels have just given up, and now are actively trying to make themselves look as ridiculous and out of touch as possible. In the meantime, the mayors have replaced the video with another one using... um... some sort of salsa music, which just comes across as somewhat creepy and weird.

Filed Under: copyright, denmark, fair use, gangnam style, license, mayors, psy
Companies: universal music

UK Music Licensing Agency Says You Can't Use Its Music In Your Podcast Without First Purchasing A License It Doesn't Even Offer

from the pretty-much-like-the-movie-'Brazil,'-only-with-stylish-electronics dept

The nightmarishly intertwining world of music licensing is a popular topic here, especially considering the past outlandish actions of various performance rights agencies. On top of this, there's the multitude of different licenses, each one applying specifically to certain formats or outlets. If it's streaming on Youtube, it needs x license and y license. If it's streaming at Spotify, it needs x license and z license. If it's a radio station simulcast at the station's website, license x, y and z are needed, along with license aa. And so on.

Podcasters in the UK are running into licensing problems when attempting to clear music for their broadcasts, as PPL (who covers performance rights for recorded music, like SoundExchange in the US) is causing problems. PPL has a history of questionable over enforcement, and they just can't let up, apparently. Phil Satterly sends in this rather sad story of a long-running Progressive Rock podcast (DRRP Radio) that is going "off the air" thanks to PPL's thoroughly impossible demands.

Launched 18 months ago, we've produced 83 shows that have been downloaded over 30,000 times. We've covered bands from every type of prog. We've done special features on independent labels and festivals plus interviews with the likes of Clive Nolan, Steven Wilson, Gazpacho, Steve Hogarth, Riverside, Sean Filkins, Mystery and Godsticks. We have regular listeners from as far away as New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, Cuba and The Shetland Isles!

Unfortunately three weeks ago our service provider stopped enabling downloads of the shows. The move followed pressure from the PPL – the organisation in the UK which provides broadcast licences for the recording copyright holder (i.e. record companies).

PPL is doing what collective rights organizations do best: shut down as many artistic outlets as possible. The organization is looking for a payout, but can't even be bothered to let people pay them, as Andy Read (one of the podcast hosts) points out.

Music licensing is a complex issue and it took quite some find to find a way to legally do DPRP Radio in the first place. We have a broadcast licence, we have a streaming licence and we have a podcast licence for the PRS – the body representing the songwriters. We do not have a podcast licence for the PPL who are now threatening legal action against podcast providers. We would happily buy a podcast licence from them… but they do not offer one!

DRRP isn't the only podcast being asked to do the impossible by PPL. The UK Folk Music podcast host quotes the PPL website's wording on the broadcast licensing it does offer.

As a broadcaster you would have to obtain permission from potentially thousands of record companies before being able to play the recorded music – a PPL licence gives you this permission and allows you to play virtually all recorded music readily available in the UK simply, quickly and legally. PPL then passes these licence fees, less our running costs, onto the performers and rights holders, similar to royalties.

Handy, I guess, except that PPL does not offer a license specifically for podcasting. Podcasters need a very limited license if using PPL's music because the podcasts are able to be downloaded and stored. This distinguishes them (and moves them into another area of copyright protection) from radio broadcasts or other streaming services whose offerings are transient. (Not that these can't be "trapped/downloaded." Anyone remember cassette tapes? Yeah, same thing. Only with software.)

PPL's lack of a podcasting license punts the ball back to podcasters and other music bloggers. If they can't get a blanket license, they'll have to do it the hard way: "obtain permission from potentially thousands of record companies before being able to play the recorded music."

Obviously, this is an impossibility. And for those of you saying clever stuff like "just use original music by artists not represented by this agency?" Well, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Rights groups like PPL and PRS will still try to collect from you. In their minds, no one plays music anywhere (not even in their hardware store/ hotel room) without playing a bunch of their stuff. It's a self-serving distortion of reality.

And for those hoping the artists that split from PPL to form their own rights group (EOS) will result in a brighter, smoother future for all concerned? You can pretty much kiss that rosy picture goodbye. EOS has already attempted to shutter a few radio stations. The end result is another venue for artist exposure being shut down by the "white knights" of the artistic community. These agencies don't really care about the artists on their roster. They just want to find a way to insert themselves, hands out, between the artists and their supporters.

Filed Under: license, music, podcasts, uk
Companies: ppl

Universal Music Settles Key Fight Over Eminem Royalties... With Secret Agreement

from the of-course dept

For years, we've been covering a key legal fight in the music business, involving Eminem's producers, FBT, and Universal Music, over how much was owed on iTunes sales. The key issue: is an iTunes purchase a "sale" or a "license." Older music contracts that predated the internet era tended to focus on sales, in which artists tend to get about 15% royalties. "Licenses," on the other hand, tended to be for things like commercials or movies, but commanded around 50% royalties. But when you talk about iTunes songs, you can make somewhat compelling cases that it's either a sale or a license, depending on which details you focus on. Universal Music, of course, insisted that it was just like a CD sale. FBT argued it was just like a license. There are a ton of other similar lawsuits ongoing, but after losing at the district court level, FBT won on appeal. That resulted in a somewhat insane and contentious fight over how much Universal would have to pay up, with a judge slamming Universal for hiding revenue with tricky funny money accounting, and even trying to expense the cost of this very lawsuit back against what they owed.

However, the damages phase of the case was set to go to trial in the spring, and it would have (1) revealed an awful lot about the blackbox of Universal Music's accounting practices and (2) given a roadmap for the many other similar lawsuits against Universal Music (and the other major labels). Given that, it should come as no surprise that Universal Music scrambled to come up with a way to get FBT to settle... with the terms of the settlement being secret. This almost certainly means that UMG paid through the nose, with the hope that it makes it more difficult for other artists to get similar rewards, and while allowing Universal to keep its secrets secret... for now.

Filed Under: eminem, license, royalties, sale, settlement
Companies: fbt, universal music

Turns Out When Random House Said Libraries 'Own' Their Ebooks, It Meant, 'No, They Don't Own Them'

from the words-have-meaning dept

Earlier this week, we talked about how publishing giant Random House had very explicitly stated that when libraries buy their ebooks, the libraries "own" those ebooks, rather than license them. They left no doubt about it. Skip Dye, Random House's VP of library & academic marketing and sales was explict: "when libraries buy their RH, Inc. ebooks from authorized library wholesalers, it is our position that they own them... this purchase constitutes ownership of the book by the library. It is not a license."

This raised some questions, such was whether this was true of everyone else who purchased Random House ebooks. Peter Brantley asked a bunch of questions and finally got Dye on the phone for a discussion, where he learned that when Random House says "own," they mean "not own." In fact, at best, when they say "own" they mean "if you fit into this limited category, you have the right to move your ebooks from one approved platform to another approved platform." This is, contrary to Dye's claim, a license. It is not ownership.

As many surmised, the key phrase in Random House’s communications is “authorized library wholesalers.” In the context of the LJ article, Random House was using a definition of “ownership” that you won’t find in Webster’s dictionary, conveying rights where none exist. In fact, Random will not sell directly to libraries or library consortia, although Mr. Dye reiterated that they continue to evaluate many alternative library business models. RH’s approach in the library market is to vet potential library market distributors for auditing, accounting, security, and other business functions, and then permit libraries to acquire titles from that short list of approved bureaus. In Random’s view, libraries “own” the titles they purchase to the extent that they should be able to migrate their ebook catalogs from one platform, such as Overdrive, to another, such as 3M.

That’s very nice. It’s just not ownership. It’s licensing, with benefits. Library customers of RH titles do not have the ability to transfer their titles to an unapproved platform, such as Califa or Open Library; they cannot resell or donate their ebooks; and there is no mechanism for libraries to receive ebook donations directly from consumers. All that libraries “purchase” from Random House is a verbal commitment to assist libraries in moving their Random House ebooks from one approved commercial platform to another. This is the kind of “perpetual license” that academic libraries have traded for ownership. Academic libraries now employ licensing specialists, and see the world through the lens of contracts. In consequence, faculty have begun to develop open access models that revolutionize scholarly communication from within.

In other words, Random House's claims were a load of bull. That's not surprising, but still disappointing. Brantley goes on to say what kind of ownership should be allowed for libraries when it comes to ebooks:

Public libraries seek a different kind of ownership – the kind that appears in the dictionary. The Internet Archive, Douglas County Libraries, Califa, and a growing number of other library systems are running their own ebook platforms, providing their own auditing, accounting, and security. We want to keep ebooks in our communities, run our own services, safeguard the privacy of our users, and be free from overreaching licensing regimes that threaten our services. And increasingly, we are finding publishers who are willing to sell to us directly, seeing the benefits of handing management of digital titles to libraries. Libraries can market e-books to the people that want them, and gather usage statistics in a privacy-protecting manner to help inform other libraries – as well as publishers – about what titles are popular, and where. These are rights and responsibilities that publicly funded libraries should not hand over to commercial distributors that must navigate between the Scylla of publishers and the Charybdis of Amazon. Readers First is an example of the larger movement articulating libraries’ desire to re-forge a partnership between publishers and libraries.

Of course, I'd also argue that this goes way beyond just libraries. Users want to own their own ebooks as well, just like they own physical books. That means they don't want to worry about having the company they bought their books from suddenly lock them out of their collection for reasons they won't explain. It means they want to be able to move those ebooks from platform to platform without permission. It means they want to be able to lend those ebooks to a friend. Some smaller publishers get this, provide DRM free ebooks, and make it easy for this to happen. Random House, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand the issue at all.

Filed Under: copyright, ebooks, libraries, license, ownership
Companies: random house

Random House Says Libraries Own Their Ebooks, Really

from the but-what-about-users dept

We've discussed, many, many times, how copyright holders in the digital age like to play fast and loose with the definition of what is "sold" and what is "licensed." Just today, we've seen Amazon wipe out a woman's ebook collection. As we've joked, many copyright holders like to play Schrodinger's download in which they'll argue that it's a license in some cases, and a sale in other, based on what benefits them the most at that instance. So it's a welcome surprise to find out that publishing giant Random House is unequivocal in making the statement that libraries who buy Random House ebooks own those ebooks. Michael Kelley, at the Library Journal, spoke to Skip Dye, Random House's VP of library & academic marketing and sales, and Dye left no doubt about it:

"We spend a lot of time discussing this with librarians, at conferences and elsewhere, and it’s clear that there is still some confusion out there around whether libraries own their ebooks," Dye said. "Random House's often repeated, and always consistent position is this: when libraries buy their RH, Inc. ebooks from authorized library wholesalers, it is our position that they own them."

He went on to make clear the distinction with licensing:

"This is our business model: we sell copies of our ebooks to an approved list of library wholesalers, and those wholesalers are supposed to resell them to libraries. In our view, this purchase constitutes ownership of the book by the library. It is not a license."

Of course, this raises a question: does that also apply to the public? It would seem inconsistent if it were just for libraries. If I buy a Random House ebook, do I "own" it, or have I licensed it? And... then how does that fit with various ebook retailers, such as Amazon, whose terms seem more like a license? Either way, it's good to see a company like Random House take such a clear position on this matter, when most big copyright holders prefer to avoid the question entirely.

Filed Under: ebooks, libraries, license, ownership
Companies: random house

Amazon Wipes Customer's Account, Locks All Ebooks, Says 'Find A New Retailer' When She Asks Why

from the kafka-would-be-proud dept

Techdirt has been warning people for several years that they don't really own the ebooks they have on their Amazon Kindles. The most famous demonstration of this was the sudden disappearance of ebook versions of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm (you can't make this stuff up.) But that's nothing compared to what an Amazon customer in Norway now claims the company has done: shut down her Amazon account permanently and locked her Kindle -- all without explanation.

When her ebooks became unavailable, Linn Jordet Nygaard, the customer in question, contacted Amazon to find out what had happened. She received the following reply:

We have found your account is directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies. As such, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed and any open orders have been cancelled.

But the account holder claims to know nothing about any other account, and so she wrote back asking for more details:

As previously advised, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed, as it has come to our attention that this account is related to a previously blocked account. While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts, please know that we have reviewed your account on the basis of the information provided and regret to inform you that it will not be reopened.

Please understand that the closure of an account is a permanent action. Any subsequent accounts that are opened will be closed as well. Thank you for your understanding with our decision.

Unhelpfully, then, Amazon simply re-iterated that the newly-closed account was "related" to another, previously blocked account, wouldn't say why, and emphasized that this was an irrevocable ban, even to the extent of refusing to allow the person accused of this unspecified transgression to open any other account at any point in the future.

Again, Jordet Nygaard not unreasonably sought to find out what the problem was so that she could try to address it. This time, she received an email that is not only willfully unhelpful, but positively insulting thanks to a cheesy veneer of bogus sympathy that has been added for good measure:

We regret that we have not been able to address your concerns to your satisfaction. Unfortunately, we will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.

We wish you luck in locating a retailer better able to meet your needs and will not be able to offer any additional insight or action on these matters.

Of course, this is a totally Kafkaesque situation: found guilty of a crime you are not allowed to know, with no way to appeal. Over on Boing Boing, Cory Doctorow has an interesting theory about what might be the issue here:

I'd further speculate that the policy violation that Linn stands accused of is using a friend's UK address to buy Amazon UK English Kindle books from Norway. This is a symptom of Amazon's -- and every single other ebook retailer's -- hopelessness at managing "open territory" for ebooks.

That sounds very plausible, and means that Jordet Nygaard is essentially being punished for the publishing industry's incompetence when it comes to operating in a global online market, where national boundaries make no sense. Bad as that is, it's only a side issue here. What's most troubling is that Amazon not only closed down Jordet Nygaard's account, forbade her from ever opening up one again, and refused to discuss any aspect of its actions with her, but that it apparently has the capability to lock her out from all Kindle ebooks on any device -- and did so.

If you didn't take the hint when Amazon erased a couple of Orwell's books back in 2009, maybe this latest case involving the alleged remote lockout from all ebooks will finally get across the key message here: those Kindle ebooks you thought you had purchased, are actually only rented to you, and can be denied to you without explanation, and without recompense, any time Amazon wants to. The only ebooks you will ever truly own are those stored in open formats without DRM, which therefore allow backups to be made, and used anywhere.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: customer service, ebooks, kindle, license, own
Companies: amazon

Once Again Apple Uses Image It Didn't License: This Time Photographer Sues

from the don't-they-have-lawyers? dept

Lawyers for big companies tend to be notoriously careful to make sure the companies license images they use for marketing purposes, for obvious reasons. And yet... Apple seems to keep using unlicensed images. It's really quite surprising. A couple of years ago, we wrote about how the default wallpaper for the iPad was used without licensing it. In that case, the photographer, Richard Misrach, was thrilled, saying that he was sure that a contract was on the way, and whatever was in it would be fine: "I'm sure they'll send me [a contract] quickly now. But I'm very happy, I'm sure it's fine, and the terms are good." I don't know if that experience made Apple confident it could do the same sort of thing again, but Misrach's response is not quite the norm. And Apple is now discovering that as it will have to deal with a lawsuit from photographer Sabine Liewald.

As detailed at the Patently Apple site, Liewald has sued Apple, claiming that it used her photograph as part of the marketing around the MacBook Pro's promotion for its Retina Display. The first link above, to the MacObserver story, notes that Apple is now using a different (though similar) image of an eye. However, Liewald claims that Apple had requested Liewald's image from her Factory Downtown page, but for layout purposes only. It sounds like someone then got confused over whether or not they had actually licensed the image. Again, it's really surprising that Apple isn't a lot more careful about this kind of stuff. Liewald is apparently claiming that she's entitled to both "actual damages including defendant's profits" and statutory damages. That sounds like a lawyer just trying to push the company to settle faster -- and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple cuts Liewald a decent check pretty quickly to make this go away. I can't imagine that it pays to fight this lawsuit.

Filed Under: copyright, license, retina display, sabine liewald
Companies: apple

Band Calls 1st Amendment A 'Buzzword' In (Plagiarized) C&D To Mitt Romney Over (Licensed) Use Of Song

from the campaign-supernova dept

It's election season, people. You know what that means. It means irritating and/or hysterically innaccurate advertisements. It's the time of year when roughly ninety percent of your social media "friends" become "fully vetted political pundits" to the point where you want to "throw them out of a five story window if only you could reach through your computer and get to them." And, because any creator you might believe in apparently understands that we need a little comic relief at times like this, it's that special time when politicians use tunes at campaign events, resulting in angry musicians (because they're also "fully vetted political pundits" to the point where you want to...well, you get the picture).

The list for this kind of nonsense runs long. There was that time when Heart insisted McCain stop introducing Sarah "Barracuda" Palin with their well-known song. Then there was a magical moment where former-Eagles guitarist Joe Walsh sued Republican Congressional candidate Joe Walsh (...seriously) over the use of one of his songs. Tom Petty went after Michelle Bachman. Survivor's Frankie Sullivan went after Newt Gingrich. Even Hollwood Ronald Reagan got into it with The Boss by hillariously using Born In The U.S.A. as some kind of pro-America rallying cry (when the song's message is the exact opposite).

Which brings us to Mitt Romney, who apparently played Sliversun Pickups' song Panic Switch at a campaign rally (again, hilarious) only to find a cease and desist letter in his mailbox. 

The rock band Silversun Pickups this week served Romney's campaign with a cease-and-desist order after it says Romney's campaign used its song "Panic Switch" at an event earlier this month.

"Seems as if the GOP is once again whimsically ignoring our great nation's laws to do whatever it wants to do, and shooting itself in the foot in the process," band representative Ken Weinstein said in a statement.

Interestingly, as with many of the aforementioned examples, Romney may well have done nothing of the sort. Most of these campaigns have a blanket license to use such music and, while the cease and desist letter reportedly also included a mention of Trademark law, they're likely covered on both ends. The blanket license takes care of copyright, and the fact that I'm fairly certain Mitt Romney is not about to launch a new career venture which in any way involves him performing as a musician should nix the trademark issue. Even if the band disagrees with Mr. Romney's politics, that isn't cause for them to exclude his campaign from using what is covered by the license for which they paid.

For what it's worth, this isn't the first time Romney has had to deal with this kind of thing, either. Both Al Green and K'naan have had recent scuffles over the use of their music. For you young kids out there, Al Green made the music your parents were listening to as you were being conceived. And for you older folks, K'naan, judging solely by his name, is apparently an alien from Rob Reid's Year Zero universe.

In any case, from the band's perspective, given the speciousness of their claims, they probably would have been better served simply voicing not only their disagreement with the Romney campaign's politics, but pointing out the absurdity of using a song with a title that is the very antithesis of a campaign working feverishly to demonstrate that it is in control. What they should not have done is hire an attorney who wrote their cease and desist letter, full of smug educational quips about copyright and trademark law, and that referred to such serious topics as the First Amendment and Fair Use in this manner:

"We anticipate that you, or your general counsel, may respond to this letter with a letter of your own using all those neat lawyerly words like “First Amendment,” “fair use” and “parody.” Please know that none of those buzzwords (or the law they represent) works for you here."

As Public Knowledge rightly points out, these are not buzzwords. They are also not "lawyerly" words. The First Amendment is more of a Constitutionly term and Fair Use and Parody are Case-Law-ly terms. Snide degredation does not a good legal notice make.

On the other hand, perhaps the band's legal team can find respite from those snide remarks in the fact that their cease and desist letter may have been plagiarized from the attorney that wrote his letter for Joe Walsh when he was (I still can't belive this) complaining about Joe Walsh. Lest your sweet little minds think that this is too funny to be real, I give you this quote from Silversun Pickup's lawyer, Tamara Milgros-Butler:

"When I needed to write a cease and desist letter, I did what almost any contract lawyer does many times day and I looked at historic forms," she says. "I simply loved the tone of this language (in the Walsh letter). And geez, I looked back when my boss raised the issue and ran a red-line comparison. While the language isn't precisely the same, I borrowed liberally from Peter's letter."

Asked whether she regrets what she did, Milagros-Butler says "I regret not looking back or thinking more. I regret not thinking more backwards to see if it was our letter or someone else's. If I thought about it more, I would have realized that we didn't represent Joe Walsh."

God bless America (please don't send a C&D letter, Irving Berlin. I totally loved White Christmas. Also, you're dead, so you probably can't hear me.).

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, free speech, license, mitt romney, performance rights, plagiarism, silversun pickups

Calm Down Internet: Google Drive's Terms Are The Standard For Countless Websites, Including Gmail

from the oh-good,-this-again... dept

Remember when everyone freaked out about parts of Pinterest's terms of service? And how, slowly but surely, word got out that the same terms can be found on virtually every website and are mostly harmless? And then everyone learned a lesson and calmed down, and would approach future terms of service with new knowledge and understanding?

Wait, scratch that last part. TNW reports that the terms of Google's much-anticipated Drive service, which launched this week, have been treated to the same warm welcome from the Twitterverse. Someone spotted yet another variant of the "worldwide license" clause that all websites include, and before long the freakout flag was flying.

The clause in question, though admittedly scary-sounding, is routine:

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.

I hate to break it to the panicking masses, but Google is not planning on turning your spreadsheets into a touring art exhibit. A broad license like this is necessary to allow Google to operate such a service, permitting them to move the data around freely on their many servers all over the world, and display it to you (or the people you share it with) through a variety of devices and interfaces. The nightmare-labyrinth of international copyright law means that the most Google could do without such a clause is accept your data then immediately delete it—and even then someone would probably try to claim they made five unauthorized copies en route to the trash bin.

Perhaps most amusing is the fact that this piece of legal lingo doesn't come from the Google Drive terms of service, but from Google's overall terms for all their services. Meaning it already applies to everything from Gmail to Google Mars—so this might just be getting started. At this point, I suspect every social network and user content website online is waiting for the hammer to fall, since any one of them could be singled out at any time for yet another round. Oh well, I guess nothing beats a good freakout.

Filed Under: google drive, license, terms of service
Companies: google, pinterest

Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub

from the nice-of-them dept

Remember the Hobbit pub in the UK that was threatened with legal action from the Saul Zaentz Company (SZC) for infringing on the supposed rights SZC held in the Hobbit movie? The bad publicity resulted in SZC offering up a cheapo license, and now two of the actors appearing in The Hobbit movie -- the hugely popular Stephen Fry and Ian McKellen -- have said that they'll pay the license fee for the pub. Both actors had spoken out pretty early on about their disgust over the moviemakers bullying the pub this way, with Fry going so far as to apologize for his industry's actions. Taking it even further by agreeing to pay the license is certainly a nice gesture and shows (yet again) the value of actually connecting (and being human and awesome). It still amazes me that so many companies don't recognize how badly these kinds of things will backfire.

Filed Under: hobbit, ian mckellen, license, stephen fry
Companies: saul zaentz company