Still Waters Posted July 22, 2014 #1 Share Posted July 22, 2014 A leading YouTube entrepreneur is facing legal action for alleged copyright infringement in her videos. Ultra Records, which has musicians Kaskade, deadmau5 and Calvin Harris on its books, is suing Michelle Phan. The label and its publishing arm claim she has used about 50 of their songs without permission in her YouTube videos and on her own website. http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-28418449 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post XenoFish Posted July 29, 2014 Popular Post #2 Share Posted July 29, 2014 If I was a musician and people used my stuff for in their youtube videos, I'd consider it free advertising. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmeh Posted July 29, 2014 #3 Share Posted July 29, 2014 If I was a musician and people used my stuff for in their youtube videos, I'd consider it free advertising. I wouldn't be surprised if the musicians do consider it free advertising, but at the end of the day its the company not the musician that makes that decision. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenceMinisterMishkin Posted July 29, 2014 #4 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Copyright law exists for a reason and you really don't want to find yourself on the wrong end of a dispute. Although in this case there is nothing to dispute, she is clearly in the wrong. I know what it's like to have your work leaked online and distributed through P2P, torrents and file hosting links..etc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted July 29, 2014 #5 Share Posted July 29, 2014 A leading YouTube entrepreneur is facing legal action for alleged copyright infringement in her videos. Ultra Records, which has musicians Kaskade, deadmau5 and Calvin Harris on its books, is suing Michelle Phan. The label and its publishing arm claim she has used about 50 of their songs without permission in her YouTube videos and on her own website. Hve never heard about that lady but wiki helped. First to say is that she is using the music in one of her key marketing tools, YT clips. All she is doing there is of pure commercial content and with the aim to make money. There is nothing wrong about making money but if she use copyrighted music than she have to pay for so that the artistst get money for their "products", thats for what copyright is for. I`m sure that she already had made millions with that "beauty" trallala and she has own cosmetic products under the brands of L'Oréal and Lancôme on the market, plus "beauty" books. I think it is quite likely that Phan/Ultra Records may agree on an extrajudicial settlement, including signing a confidentiality agreement about the amount of copyright fees to be paid. But in a nutshell, it was quite naive to use copyright protected music for years and ignoring the possible consequences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted July 29, 2014 #6 Share Posted July 29, 2014 If I was a musician and people used my stuff for in their youtube videos, I'd consider it free advertising. I am a musician and I agree with your statement with one stipulation. If someone does use my music, I at least want some credit for it. I've had my music used in a few indie movies and the producers were quite stunned when I said they could use my music for free as long as I get a copy of the movie and I see my name roll in the credits. They were very thankful. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orcseeker Posted July 30, 2014 #7 Share Posted July 30, 2014 She apparently did get permission from the artists but at the end of the day it's the publishers that truly own the content. She's gonna have to cough up big time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted July 30, 2014 #8 Share Posted July 30, 2014 She apparently did get permission from the artists but at the end of the day it's the publishers that truly own the content. She's gonna have to cough up big time. Well, then it sounds like the artists are at fault here. She could probably sue the artists if she was a lowdown, dirty rotten person. That is exactly why every musician needs to learn about copyright laws. I would never in a million years give up the publishing rights to my own songs if a major company wanted to 'sign' me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orcseeker Posted July 30, 2014 #9 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Well, then it sounds like the artists are at fault here. She could probably sue the artists if she was a lowdown, dirty rotten person. That is exactly why every musician needs to learn about copyright laws. I would never in a million years give up the publishing rights to my own songs if a major company wanted to 'sign' me. Maybe they misinformed her but at the end of the day she didn't consult the right channels and therefore the fault still lies with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmeh Posted July 31, 2014 #10 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I'm not an expert in such legal things, but if she was to somehow get the actual artists to testify that they believe they actually benefited from her use of their material, do you think she might end up getting away with it to some degree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemagegod Posted July 31, 2014 #11 Share Posted July 31, 2014 She apparently did get permission from the artists but at the end of the day it's the publishers that truly own the content. She's gonna have to cough up big time. The Music Industry Publishers are the Youtube Nazi's when it comes to "Copyright". I have heard of stories where people singing Happy Birthday and music playing in the background and it is considered "Copyright". These videos get taken down all the time. It's compleat bull ****. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orcseeker Posted July 31, 2014 #12 Share Posted July 31, 2014 The Music Industry Publishers are the Youtube Nazi's when it comes to "Copyright". I have heard of stories where people singing Happy Birthday and music playing in the background and it is considered "Copyright". These videos get taken down all the time. It's compleat bull ****. Yeh Time Warner own that one don't they. The problems are all linked. We play a part in it ourselves in there. Stop watching movies in the cinema under these companies, stop buying their DVDs or any product they provide. We are all to blame on this and the insane pursuit of profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted July 31, 2014 #13 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) A leading YouTube entrepreneur is facing legal action for alleged copyright infringement in her videos. http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-28418449 Leading entrepreneur? thats a bit of an over statement and an insult to entrepreneurs. She is just another wannabe entrepreneur who has not got a clue about the law...leading **** more like. Edited July 31, 2014 by freetoroam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted August 1, 2014 #14 Share Posted August 1, 2014 The Music Industry Publishers are the Youtube Nazi's when it comes to "Copyright". I have heard of stories where people singing Happy Birthday and music playing in the background and it is considered "Copyright". These videos get taken down all the time. It's compleat bull ****. I get extremely frustrated whenever I try to find an original Prince video on youtube. That's a nearly impossible task. Some artists baffle me as to why their music isn't even allowed on YouTube. I once used an Arlo Guthrie tune for some background audio for a video tribute to my father and they stripped the entire audio from my YouTube video... and it was just a short clip of the song 'City of New Orleans'. The worst part about it is that song isn't even Arlo's tune. Steve Goodman gave it to him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSS Posted August 1, 2014 #15 Share Posted August 1, 2014 It's rule 101 in song copyright - who owns the original material, who owns the performance rights, which artists version are you using. If you are using lesser known bit-samples, loops, hooks etc, you'll probably be fine...infact such cases rarely get anywhere since an agreement is reached with the artist and label in question if infringement is found out (most artists don't care though). She however, doesn't have a leg to stand on, she has broken all 3 rules by just ignoring them....she is going to have a very large bill to pay because "he said I could use it" means diddly-squat in the eyes of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted August 1, 2014 #16 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Yeh Time Warner own that one don't they. The problems are all linked. We play a part in it ourselves in there. Stop watching movies in the cinema under these companies, stop buying their DVDs or any product they provide. We are all to blame on this and the insane pursuit of profits. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemagegod Posted August 2, 2014 #17 Share Posted August 2, 2014 I get extremely frustrated whenever I try to find an original Prince video on youtube. That's a nearly impossible task. Some artists baffle me as to why their music isn't even allowed on YouTube. I once used an Arlo Guthrie tune for some background audio for a video tribute to my father and they stripped the entire audio from my YouTube video... and it was just a short clip of the song 'City of New Orleans'. The worst part about it is that song isn't even Arlo's tune. Steve Goodman gave it to him. I don't search for a lot of music videos on Youtube. I like watching more animated stuff on Youtube. Whether it be clips/full length. Don't care but its the same tune. I have a Youtube account that is from 2007 and decided to upload the American Dad theme song. This was back when i didn't know **** about Copyright. I realized there were other clips of the song on other people's youtube channels that have like 600,000 views+. The video barely got 50 views and i got a strike against my channel. For like 6 months. I was baffled and still am. As to why my video got taken down where other peoples videos were still up. I wasn't making any money off it and i wasn't claiming it was mine and the quality was terrible as well. I researched some ways to get "past" youtube copyright software and i found a couple that actually worked. I started a new channel(so i didn't get banned ) and just put the disclaimer down. I was even linking to the original company's website and youtube channel. I was able to reach over 1 million + Views. And the Videos are still there. This is the channel that i started as a test: (And yes i am a DBZ fan). http://www.youtube.com/user/Stevemagegod1/videos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted August 3, 2014 #18 Share Posted August 3, 2014 It a weird business. John Fogarty was once sued by a former publisher who owned the rights to his CCR stuff for--get this--plagarizing himself! He was making a ton money with his new stuff and new publisher and they were suing for damages. He won, but that's how silly it gets. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFO_Monster Posted August 3, 2014 #19 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Along with what you guys have brought up already, videos with copyrighted music can be struck down by companies that do not even hold the rights to said music. It is believed that companies such as The Orchard Music and Rico Management (the latter having absolutely no web presence, leading to suspicions that it doesn't even exist) have falsely made claims on YouTube, saying that they own certain pieces of music that they are not known to own. There's a guy named Kevin Macleod. He makes royalty free music. The Orchard Music has been known to claim ownership of his music, which is obviously false. My point is, I think that using any music at all in YouTube videos could potentially lead to trouble. Doesn't matter if it's completely original. Copyright is such a mess in the realm of YouTube and Google that it's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StRoostifer Posted August 3, 2014 #20 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Things like this are why so many bands, musicians and writers are going DIY. I have a huge love for music and am constantly searching for new, raw bands to get into and a lot of them are buying their own mixing equipment or they know of someone that has the equipment and the band pays a fee but the music is still the bands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffSplitkins Posted August 4, 2014 #21 Share Posted August 4, 2014 It a weird business. John Fogarty was once sued by a former publisher who owned the rights to his CCR stuff for--get this--plagarizing himself! He was making a ton money with his new stuff and new publisher and they were suing for damages. He won, but that's how silly it gets. I remember that when it happened. I remember thinking to myself that each musician usually has their very own unique signature sound and Fogarty couldn't help it if HE was the main reason that CCR sounded the way it did. What was he supposed to do, change the way he's played and written music his entire life just to move on as a solo artist? The Prince case has baffled me even more. He HAD to change his name to that weird image thingy that he used for a while because his label outright owned EVERY song that he wrote as 'Prince'. I'm not sure if he had a legal battle with them or his contract finally expired but he eventually went back to being 'Prince'. He obviously still holds a grudge about it because he doesn't want people to use his older music at all. The entire music industry is one ravenous monster that will eat you alive if you go into it blind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted August 4, 2014 #22 Share Posted August 4, 2014 One of the best CCR (style) songs wasn't even recorded by CCR. It was Long Cool Woman In A Black Dress by Allan Clarke and the Hollies. It was a big hit and an instant classic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaikou Posted August 18, 2014 #23 Share Posted August 18, 2014 I'm not an expert in such legal things, but if she was to somehow get the actual artists to testify that they believe they actually benefited from her use of their material, do you think she might end up getting away with it to some degree? As much as I hate to say it, probably not. While it's true that the artist would gain a little more notoriety, The label would be more concerned about the fact that they didn't receive a portion of money for the song being played. For example, remember the viral craze of rick rolling? Well one of the big wigs behind the song was furious about how many views the song had verses how much he made from it. Yet the artist gained a lot more recognition and I'm sure it made some impact on digital/cd sales too. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/5130427/Pete-Waterman-I-was-exploited-by-Google.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now