Ed Sheeran Vs. The CopyBots: Artist Goes To Bat For Musician That Covered His Song On Facebook

from the good-guy dept

In our recent conversation about Ed Sheeran's rise to fame, we chiefly focused on his claim that music piracy helped him be discovered by the public and his generally lax views on filesharing of his music. While that modern view on how music is consumed is refreshing, we focused less on another chief part of the equation: Ed Sheeran is really good to his fans. Between engaging with them directly via social media, having a generally congenial attitude towards them, and producing music his fans love, he's built up quite a connection with his listeners.

But he appears to want to go above and beyond simply connecting with his fans, as well. He's even willing to go to bat for them with his label, Atlantic/Warner. He demonstrated this when a musician in the UK had a short video of herself covering a Sheeran song not only taken down from her Facebook account over a copyright claim, but had her account briefly suspended.

With two crowd-sourced albums under her belt, UK-based full-time busker Charlotte Campbell is regularly in touch with the public through performances on the London Underground. She also uses Facebook to keep up with fans, but a few days ago her entire experience came to an abrupt halt after she was banned from the platform. Charlotte’s crime was to post a 15-second snippet of her cover of Ed Sheeran’s song Castle On The Hill, together with a link to the full track on her YouTube channel.

“I love Ed Sheeran’s music and always cover his songs for my busking repertoire,” Charlotte informs TorrentFreak. “I find them easy to learn because I play them on repeat at home so I know all the lyrics by heart.”

Atlantic/Warner flagged the video for copyright infringement, leading to it being taken down and Campbell's account suspended for three days. She was additionally warned that if she did it again, she could be perma-banned. This all came without prior warning or communication, for reasons that she would discover once Ed Sheeran himself got wind of all of this and got involved.

After Charlotte was banned from Facebook, some of her fans took to Ed Sheeran fansites to complain that after paying tribute to the star, Charlotte’s reward was to lose her voice online. Amazingly, word reached Sheeran himself, who dropped in on Charlotte’s Facebook page to give his support.

“Just seen your video, [the ban] definitely has nothing to do with me. I bloody love seeing people cover my songs. One of the best things I get out of this job is seeing other people find enjoyment too,” Sheeran wrote. “I asked what’s gone on and apparently it’s a bot that Warner have that works on some weird algorithm (I have no idea what that means) but it’s just bad luck that it was your video,” he explained.

Sheeran went on to say that he was going to have a word with the label to get everything sorted out. This sort of thing works on so many levels. First, Sheeran is doing all of this at least in part at the behest of his dedicated fans, who discussed this on a fanboard. That's the kind of direct connection and interaction that can only serve to ingratiate Sheeran to the very people that love his music enough to support him. On top of that, being willing to go to bat with his own label in defense of a fellow musician that is covering his music is perfect in convincing the public that Sheeran is far more interested in the wider music ecosystem than he is in either being a copyright bully or milking every last dollar for his work.

The reaction from his fans and Campbell herself shows how well this works.

“I’m not sure I’ve really processed it, to be honest, I still feel like I’m dreaming!” she tells TF. “I felt so relieved that it wasn’t Ed Sheeran who had personally rejected my cover! And it really restored my faith in humanity and in Ed himself.”

And now a fellow musician that could have been miffed at the actions of his label is instead a firm ally for Sheeran, while the fans that complained about all of this have all the more reason to be supportive of his work. It's hard to imagine how a musician could connect with his fans better than this.

Filed Under: charlotte campbell, connect with fans, copyright, cover songs, ed sheeran
Companies: facebook

Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright

from the seems-to-be-missing-the-point dept

As you may have heard, there's a new movie opening today about a transformative year in Jimi Hendrix's life, called Jimi: All Is By My Side. The story sounds pretty interesting, but there's one big element that's missing: Jimi Hendrix's original music. As we noted two years ago, the Jimi Hendrix Estate denied any and all attempts to license his music unless they could have some control over the production (which the producers felt was out of order), meaning that the movie is, in fact, lacking any original Hendrix music. Instead, the only thing you'll see Hendrix performing if you watch the movie, is cover songs of other bands, which the movie's producers were able to license.

I'm just going to repeat what I said two years ago, because it still applies: This is, in many ways, ridiculous. Part of the point of recording and retelling our cultural heritage is the use of the actual music that made it happen. Even the Hendrix estate finds the moviemakers' position confusing (though, it doesn't indicate if it would license the songs without creative say in the flick). Part of the problem is the ridiculous setup of music licensing today. You can do a cover song with compulsory licenses (i.e., without permission), but that's only for audio. Doing video gets you into sync licenses and other issues that require permission. And this is what you get in a society that locks up culture: a movie about Jimi Hendrix that features exactly none of his original music.

This is how we lose out on culture. Culture thrives by sharing it, building on it, doing new things with it not by locking it up and demanding permission or control for everything. Indeed, looking over the reviews of the movie, many are specifically calling out the lack of Hendrix's music as a big part of the problem with the movie. How can you tell the story of an iconic rock star without his music? The music and the star go hand in hand, but you can't have that here. Thanks to copyright.

Filed Under: all is by my side, copyright, cover songs, jimi hendrix, licensing

Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee

from the social-mores dept

We've talked about Jonathan Coulton and his embrace of the internet and new business models plenty on Techdirt -- as well as his nuanced arguments concerning copyright infringement. He's not "pro-piracy," but recognizes that the overall growth of the internet that has resulted in more infringement has also created tremendously valuable tools and services that made his music career possible. Thus, recognizing that the two things go hand in hand, he notes that it's better in the long run. So what does he do when someone infringes on his rights? Well, he goes public.

As some have noted, Coulton has called out Fox for apparently copying his arrangement of Sir Mix-a-Lot's "Baby Got Back" in the TV show Glee. You can see his version here: And then there's the Glee version, which is quite similar, and includes a few of Coulton's own additions: Yes, his is a cover song, but he introduced some variations that appear to be directly copied in Glee. Is there a potential copyright claim here? Well, that depends -- and the copyright law here is complex. You can cover a song by paying compulsory license fees, and Fox likely did that to whoever holds the copyright on the original. But they copied specific changes (and possibly the music) that Coulton added, which could potentially be covered by his own copyright (of course, whether or not he registered them could also impact what he could do about it). And let's not even get into the issue of things like sync licenses for video, and the (still open) question of whether or not Glee actually used part of Coulton's own recording.

In the end, though, almost none of that probably matters. Because Coulton seems unlikely (we hope) to go legal here. Instead, he's just going with the public shame route -- with a simple tweet about the situation, which has set off "the internet" to help him make his case and embarrass Fox and Glee.

Internet sleuths immediately went to work on the question, creating side-by-side comparisons of the audio (which are very convincing) and even unearthing an official Fox version of the as-yet-unreleased single in the Swedish iTunes store. While the track is not currently available in the American store, gaming blog Kotaku claims that it “was available earlier and was pulled by Fox.” Despite calls from Twitter and multiple media organizations, the network has yet to make a statement as of this afternoon, but, all things considered, it’s looking pretty bad for Glee.

Of course, as a public storm of support rises behind Coulton, it seems likely that Fox/Glee producers will step up, apologize and probably cut Coulton a check of some sort. All of that seems a lot more efficient -- and it didn't require copyright law at all. Just a bit of public shaming for a bad actor. Of course, just imagine if the situation had been reversed, and Coulton was caught making use of a News Corp.-owned song. In that case, you'd have to imagine that the cease and desist letters and lawyers would have popped up quite quickly....

Filed Under: copying, cover songs, glee, jonathan coulton, licenses, permission, public shaming
Companies: fox

Def Leppard Covers Its Own Songs With 'Forgeries' To Fight Back Against Universal Music

from the well,-that's-one-way-to-do-things dept

As we recently noted, there are compulsory licenses for doing cover song recordings, such that you don't need to ask for permission. It appears that the band Def Leppard is now taking advantage of that in an attempt to fight back against Universal Music (who they feel owe them royalties) by re-recording their entire back catalog (sent in by a bunch of you) and re-releasing them. They're referring to their own re-recordings as "forgeries."

With newly recorded "forgeries" of "Pour Some Sugar on Me" and "Rock of Ages" now available, the quintet has begun a series of re-recordings of its catalog material and "wrestled control of our career back" from the Universal Music Group, which frontman Joe Elliott says the band refuses to deal with "until we come up with some kind of arrangement" over compensation, especially for digital downloads.

"When you're at loggerheads with an ex-record label who...is not prepared to pay you a fair amount of money and we have the right to say, 'Well, you're not doing it,' that's the way it's going to be," Elliott tells Billboard.com. "Our contract is such that they can't do anything with our music without our permission, not a thing. So we just sent them a letter saying, 'No matter what you want, you are going to get "no" as an answer, so don't ask.' That's the way we've left it. We'll just replace our back catalog with brand new, exact same versions of what we did."

Of course, you'd have to imagine that someone else still holds the publishing rights, but if the new "forgeries" -- which apparently take quite some time to get exactly right -- sell well, the band could end up keeping a much larger share of the money. Either way, this seems like yet another story in a very, very long line of such stories, of bands reporting on the many ways in which the major labels have screwed them over. Makes you wonder if there are any acts who feel they weren't screwed over by their major label...

Filed Under: compulsory license, cover songs, def leppard, forgery, pour some sugar on me
Companies: universal music

Australian Gyms Swapping Out Pop Songs With Cover Versions To Avoid Ridiculous Royalties

from the and-that-helps-who-exactly? dept

Just recently, we wrote about how a ridiculous ruling by the Australian Copyright Tribunal, boosted the royalty rates that gyms needed to pay if they played any music covered by the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA). In some cases it went from less than $1 per class to $1 per participant per class. At the time, we noted that gyms were switching to music that wasn't part of PPCA, and apparently that includes swapping out popular songs for cheap cover versions. This is, of course, similar to what happened years ago with various music video games when record labels and bands demanded too much money to be in the games. Eventually, they figured out they were doing more harm to themselves by shutting themselves out of a market, but it's not clear if the PPCA is ever going to realize that.

Filed Under: australia, copyright, cover songs, gyms, licensing

REM Copyright Suit Against Danish Band May Backfire, Since The Dane's Song Came First

from the oooooops dept

Last year, the lawsuit between Joe Satriani and Coldplay got lots of attention, as Satriani accused Coldplay of ripping off one of his songs. Of course, Satriani's claims were greatly weakened when people turned up other songs from well before Satriani's that sounded quite similar as well.

It looks like REM and Warner Music may be in a similar situation. Michael Scott points us to the news that Warner and REM are suing the Danish pop band Hej Matematik, claiming that the band's song Walkmand copies REM's 2008 song Supernatural Superserious. There's just one (somewhat major) problem. Walkmand is a cover song. The original was by another Dane, Michael Hardinger, and was called Walk, Mand!!, and was recorded in 1981... seventeen years before REM's release. In fact, Hej Matematik got permission from Michael Hardinger before doing their version. I'm guessing REM did not. Feel free to compare all three songs below:

Filed Under: copyright, cover songs, hej matemik, michael hardinger, rem, songs
Companies: warner music group

Prince And Radiohead Fight Over YouTube Song

from the this-is-what-it's-come-to? dept

For years, Prince was the poster child for "getting" the internet and new media distribution opportunities. He experimented with a variety of different creative business models that suggested he got how the economics of music worked these days. It was working too -- with his efforts to give away his music helping him sell out concert after concert around the world. But then something changed, and Prince went ballistic, suing YouTube, The Pirate Bay and eBay and even threatening fan sites while demanding that even videos with tiny snippets of Prince music in the background get taken offline. The whole thing is quite surprising, and if he keeps this up, he's risking taking all that goodwill he built up for years, and turning himself into another Metallica. Becoming anti-fan is never a good idea.

The latest story, though, has a twist. Prince apparently did a cover of a Radiohead song at a recent concert. Someone filmed it and put the video on YouTube. Given his newfound hatred for YouTube, Prince demanded that the song be taken down. And here's where it gets interesting: Radiohead's Thom Yorke is demanding that it be put back online, noting that he owns the copyright on the song: "Really? He's blocked it?... Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song." Of course, as that LA Times report notes, in true Streisand Effect fashion, the effort to take down the song has only driven much more interest in people trying to find the song. If Prince weren't suing so many people, you might even think he was canny enough to have done this on purpose as a marketing campaign.

Filed Under: copyright, cover songs, prince, radiohead, videos
Companies: youtube

Guitar Hero Gets To Rock On For Now

from the can't-shut-me-down dept

Last month we wrote about how the 80s rock band the Romantics was suing Activision for a version of its video game Guitar Hero. That game used a cover of a Romantics hit, which was properly licensed. However, the Romantics claimed that the cover was too good and too close to the original and wanted to be paid for a full performance license, rather than just for the cover. Otherwise, they wanted to halt sales of the game. Luckily, a judge has turned down their request for a summary judgment, noting that an injunction right before the holidays would have a profound impact on Activision's sales of the game. The judge also noted that the band did not "show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the case." Apparently, the judge was less-than-impressed by the fact that the band's own lawyer admitted that this was "all about the money."

Filed Under: copyright, cover songs, guitar hero, romantics
Companies: activision