YouTube Star Hit With Copyright Lawsuit

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Lawsuits asking for $150k per song are just dumb. The morons that think they aren't going to get sued for making YouTube videos that feature other people music without permission are dumber.

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.
Click to expand...
 
If its copyrighted content, then they should ask Youtube to remove it.
Every time a song is released there's 500+ people uploading themselves singing/ playing it.
Dick move.
 
As long as you make a penny for anyone else's work, you should be forced to pay a substantial cut.
But if all you do is embarrass the crap out of yourself that should fall under the fair use act. As long as the content is not objectionable in any way.
 
She claims that Ultra had given her permission to use their stuff and plans to counter sue. Not to mention the fact that one of the artists is on her side although there's no telling the pressure that they might be able to exert on the label. Maybe some, maybe none.

Sad thing is that she's exposing those artists to millions of people every day which is tons of free advertisement for that label and they call it irreparable harm.
 
Quick google of her name would show she has enough traffic that being on her stuff probably a promotional plus than a harm. Dumb move as much as a dick move.
 
Seems that according to the article the record companies are upset, but some of the musicians are actually proud that she chose their music. But due to the way that record companies operate, they can't stop their record company from suing her.

There are more articles on the net with artists trying to stop record companies from suing people using their music. Seems those artists see the use of their music in videos going out to millions of people as free advertising and the record companies see it as a chance to collect another check. The record companies in those cases also refuse to listen to the artists.
 
SGA76 said:
If its copyrighted content, then they should ask Youtube to remove it.
Every time a song is released there's 500+ people uploading themselves singing/ playing it.
Dick move.
Click to expand...

I like seeing these Youtube stars dragged through legal mud. It's sad how people make so much money posting fucking homemade videos of themselves doing nonsense and raking in the ad revenue from it.
 
My understanding is permissions was granted by the artists involved but the label is going ahead with this anyway, some of those artists are against the action taken.
 
Wierdo said:
My understanding is permissions was granted by the artists involved but the label is going ahead with this anyway, some of those artists are against the action taken.
Click to expand...

That's correct. My wife watches her a lot and she produces professional grade content and has her own lawyers on retainer; This lawsuit won't go anywhere.

It's also disheartening to see so many people upset over people creating content on YouTube. Most of the people using songs in their videos are not fully aware of the rules surrounding the content and the few that are are quickly routed.
 
shade91 said:
I like seeing these Youtube stars dragged through legal mud. It's sad how people make so much money posting fucking homemade videos of themselves doing nonsense and raking in the ad revenue from it.
Click to expand...
:confused:Why? These "Youtube stars" make money in direct proportion to how many people watch their crap. In her case, she instructs girls on how to put on makeup. I think it is great people can make money doing that. Granted, I think Youtube games the system by internally selecting people to promote, but they are just trying to maintain a certain level of click bait.

As for the case it wouldn't surprise me if she got permission from someone at Ultra and the lawyers didn't get the memo. I am pretty sure this will be a case settled out of court. Like a lot of these places the legal department is a fragmented mess that isn't directly in touch with the rest of the company.
 
shade91 said:
I like seeing these Youtube stars dragged through legal mud. It's sad how people make so much money posting fucking homemade videos of themselves doing nonsense and raking in the ad revenue from it.
Click to expand...

You like to see people go through significant hardship, because you think their videos are stupid? Do I need to elaborate on why this is a terrible thing to want?
 
What a bummer. I was a fan of Ultra Records, at least the music they released. :(
 
If I was a musician, I would be proud as well to have popular content creators using my song in their videos, or in their gaming stream or whatever. It's not like people will stop buying my music just because they can listen to it in these videos. Instead, it gives me exposure to the viewers out there

Looks like those musician got it, but the record label went full retard.
 
SGA76 said:
If its copyrighted content, then they should ask Youtube to remove it.
Every time a song is released there's 500+ people uploading themselves singing/ playing it.
Dick move.
Click to expand...

People are allowed to do covers of songs without paying. That's covered under fair use. What isn't covered under fair use is actually using the artists recording itself. Whether it is a "dick move" or not is arguable but it certainly isn't legal to use the actual recording in your video. I can make a cover of a song and make a mint from it and nobody can say boo over the issue. What I can't do is make my own video with their song in the background and make a mint from it, at least not without a legal document in place. Also, as noted, the artists can give all the permission they want ... their opinion doesn't count, legally, because they gave control of their music to the record companies.
 
EchtoGammut said:
:confused:Why? These "Youtube stars" make money in direct proportion to how many people watch their crap. In her case, she instructs girls on how to put on makeup. I think it is great people can make money doing that. Granted, I think Youtube games the system by internally selecting people to promote, but they are just trying to maintain a certain level of click bait.
Click to expand...

There are TONS of these so-called "Beauty Gurus". Youtube gets directly involved with the more popular ones by coaching them, providing marketing advice and higher-end video gear. There is one my wife watches who went from being a screeching-voiced idiot to a completely fake bimbo w/ a forced video act that makes me wonder why women are still watching her. I can't stand hearing them in the background as they all give the same advice and all sound fake.
 
Ididar said:
People are allowed to do covers of songs without paying. That's covered under fair use. What isn't covered under fair use is actually using the artists recording itself. Whether it is a "dick move" or not is arguable but it certainly isn't legal to use the actual recording in your video. I can make a cover of a song and make a mint from it and nobody can say boo over the issue. What I can't do is make my own video with their song in the background and make a mint from it, at least not without a legal document in place. Also, as noted, the artists can give all the permission they want ... their opinion doesn't count, legally, because they gave control of their music to the record companies.
Click to expand...

Actually, covers aren't covered under fair use. Go hang out on musician centric forums for a while and see just how many instructional videos and cover videos are getting taken down due to copyright infringement and you'll get the idea. The RIAA also sends C&D letters to clubs with live music for allowing the bands to play covers without paying for licenses of the songs they play.

You'd think that buying sheet music (the official stuff that gets money to the artists) would be enough to grant you the rights to play said music in a public venue but it's not.
 
Fair use limitations are a bit of a gray area. You are allowed to use a small portion of a song, but how small is not defined. Using a whole song or even half of a song is a no-go.

I think they'll settle out of court and she'll end up signing a licensing contract.
 
madmat said:
She claims that Ultra had given her permission to use their stuff and plans to counter sue. Not to mention the fact that one of the artists is on her side although there's no telling the pressure that they might be able to exert on the label. Maybe some, maybe none.

Sad thing is that she's exposing those artists to millions of people every day which is tons of free advertisement for that label and they call it irreparable harm.
Click to expand...

Its because she is making money and they are not getting cut.

The other thing that bugs me is being an artist they basically screw you. You can have written that whole song yourself but as soon as you get a label its now their music and you need their permission for your own work its so backwards its not even funny.

I hope all those rec exec's DIAF.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88vOQGywhWg

those tmz lawyers are insightful.

I randomly browsed through some of michelle's older videos, and it appears she promotes the music she uses through links in the description.

and then I thought..... girls are lucky to hide the ugly with make up.
What do we ugly guys get? mustache and beard.
 
dr.kevin said:
and then I thought..... girls are lucky to hide the ugly with make up.
What do we ugly guys get? mustache and beard.
Click to expand...

Dunno, that tends to just exacerbate the problem most times.

Guys get big houses, fast cars and fat wallets. :cool: :D
 
madmat said:
Sad thing is that she's exposing those artists to millions of people every day which is tons of free advertisement for that label and they call it irreparable harm.
Click to expand...

funny and ironic that the irreparable harm is being caused by this legal action more than the videos themselves.

Makaveli@BETA said:
Its because she is making money and they are not getting cut.
Click to expand...

Somehow, I don't believe that is the case since they could have ordered youtube to take down the video but they didn't (a point that can be brought up in court when they claim "irreparable harm")

Makaveli@BETA said:
The other thing that bugs me is being an artist they basically screw you. You can have written that whole song yourself but as soon as you get a label its now their music and you need their permission for your own work its so backwards its not even funny.
Click to expand...

yup, hence a lot of independent artists support Kim Dotcom's new music platform which helps the artists directly.

Makaveli@BETA said:
I hope all those rec exec's DIAF.
Click to expand...

ditto
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
Its because she is making money and they are not getting cut.

The other thing that bugs me is being an artist they basically screw you. You can have written that whole song yourself but as soon as you get a label its now their music and you need their permission for your own work its so backwards its not even funny.

I hope all those rec exec's DIAF.
Click to expand...

What record labels do is beyond "screwing you", they basically rape you while burning everything you own. There's a few good industry insider write-ups. A lot of stars who sign onto labels end up oweing the label hundreds of thousands of dollars. They act like you're being taken care of when everything from the meals they offered to the bus they drive is being loaded on the back end as a "loan" that must be repaid. Of course, that repayment comes out of your cut, which is after they've paid all other expenses and taken their cuts.
 
Legality aside. I see a lot of people complaining about people making money by posting youtube (and other similar media outlet sites). Not only is it cool that these people found a little niche. If they have followers, and are making money off of it, good for them. We're going to see a lot more of this as we (hopefully) approach a new renaissance. The more the world becomes automated, run by corporations, etc. and the less manual labor is needed, middle management to supervise said labor, etc. etc. what are people going to do? If we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that point, we're going to see more arts, more self-employed people, more entertainment, and lifestyle oriented work. This is only the beginning unless it all ends in a big flash.

I see these people as having enough guts to stand in front of a camera, put such production values as they're able into it, and hopefully get something out of it (whether monetary or otherwise). I have a ton of things I feel qualified enough to teach people, and I do pretty well one on one. You put me in front of a camera, or in front of a group though, and not so much. I admire people who can get up there and do this sort of thing. (whether or not I like their content or message)

That said... ...there are a LOT of fucking idiots on youtube...
 
On one hand, the whole $150k per song thing is just crazy stupid and needs to be amended out of copyright law. On the other hand I despise "youtube stars" so hard to make a judgement on this one :)
 
With approximately 2.8x10^14 (280 trillion) different sequences of sixteenth notes available in music, but only a margin of those actually sounding truly melodic to the human ear, I'd expect music to soon be 100% R&D on a computer prior to any development or release of a song on any label so as not to "infringe" on other works.

Cases like these are only going to multiply in the coming years and get even more nasty until Governments (or business) force some rational change.
 
beowulf7 said:
You wouldn't spank this?
Click to expand...

And cause a massive dustcloud in the process? Nope. :D

0115pow11_zps8c9a3562.jpg~original
 
$150k per song is stupid and injust. Record companies never pay that amount when they get caught violating copyright law. They only end up paying normal licensing costs.
 
J3RK said:
We're going to see a lot more of this as we (hopefully) approach a new renaissance. The more the world becomes automated, run by corporations, etc. and the less manual labor is needed, middle management to supervise said labor, etc. etc. what are people going to do? If we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that point, we're going to see more arts, more self-employed people, more entertainment, and lifestyle oriented work. This is only the beginning unless it all ends in a big flash.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is complete non-sense. Optimistic (naive) economists and others have been saying exactly this since the 1930s. In fact, back then it was predicted that by 2030, our productivity would be so high that every single person in every single fully-developed nation in the world would be able to afford a comfortable life by working only 15 hours per week. Any additional work would be strictly voluntary in the pursuit of luxurious wealth.

What has happened instead? Work hours just to KEEP your job are sky-rocketing. Sure, the unions and government of the past (both of which no longer are what they once were) reduced exploitative blue collar work hours between the late 30s and early 70s, but now we are quickly going back to the way it was for blue collar workers. And once upon a time most white collar jobs had a somewhat reasonable work-life balance without union/government intervention. Now work-life balance is rapidly disappearing for almost all white collar workers as well.

Since the industrial revolution we have multiplied our food production capabilities unimaginably, yet children still go hungry in America, the wealthiest and most technologically advanced nation on earth.

Productivity, total economic output, technological progress, and business profits are at the highest point in human history, and yet we are gradually moving towards the greatest economic inequality since the Great Depression.

You asked what will people do, if at some point things become so automated that they struggle to find something productive to do that pays adequately for them to survive. The answer is as it has always been and still is today. They will greatly suffer and/or die.

Economic and technological progress does absolutely nothing to advance the overall quality of life of the non-privileged, unless that progress is accompanied by moral/ethical, political, and social justice progress. The privileged never decide they have enough to spare. No matter how much excess output there is, every economic class will keep it all and demand as much work as possible for as little cost as possible from anyone of an economic class lower than them, with complete disregard for any unjust or destructive consequences.

Now what you are describing IS possible for humanity to achieve, but until humanity prioritizes social justice as the #1 concern, above economic, technological, scientific, and various other issues, your vision will never occur. It does not matter how long humanity survives without the "big flash," it simply will not occur in any society that has not prioritized social justice above all else.
 
Record companies might be biting off more than they can chew with Internet superstars like this. With her loyal fan base and crowd funding, it would be trivial to raise enough money to fight and win. Hopefully it'll establish some case law for how much a media powerhouse makes a record company in sales, versus damages claimed.

shade91 said:
I like seeing these Youtube stars dragged through legal mud. It's sad how people make so much money posting fucking homemade videos of themselves doing nonsense and raking in the ad revenue from it.
Click to expand...

I don't see why people hate on YouTube entertainers so much -- they spend time doing what they enjoy and make a liveable wage on it.

SocialBlade estimates Michelle Phan at $100 to 803k yearly earnings off of her channel on YouTube alone. Let's go ahead and low ball it, and say she makes $100k/year off of this -- it probably takes her 4-8 hours minimum to come up with an idea and record a video, with multiple takes and screw ups along the way. Then however long it takes her to do the post processing of the video, then the encode time, then babysitting the upload to make sure it finishes, then making sure there are no quality issues on YouTube. Then spending vast amounts of time dealing with negative comments on YouTube, as well as keeping her fan base engaged via Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Her private life is basically non-existent compared to a regular 9-5 person, and that in itself is something that is very undervalued. For what she is doing -- "so much money" is very relative. She is making so little money compared to converting that time into an alternative earning potential, and she is paying more in taxes than the average corporate hired employee would.
 
Look at it this way. She's making Google and Dr. Pepper commercials promoting her videos. She's even on billboards and buses in some major cities. She isn't an amateur anymore, she's a legitimate celebrity. So it makes no difference if the artists are OK with it, the label wants it's cut. Basically this will go away when they settle with some type of licencing fee for each song she uses.
 
If she is profiting from copyrighted material, then yes she should pay something. But 150k PER SONG? There is no way ANY song is worth 150k in and of itself, let alone how much she is profiting from each of these songs.

What should she pay REALISTICALLY? 1k-2k/song maybe??
 
QwertyJuan said:
If she is profiting from copyrighted material, then yes she should pay something. But 150k PER SONG? There is no way ANY song is worth 150k in and of itself, let alone how much she is profiting from each of these songs.

What should she pay REALISTICALLY? 1k-2k/song maybe??
Click to expand...

Depends if the labels have licensed the songs for similar use in the past. If they have, then a similar fee plus a penalty for not asking permission first(otherwise, why ever bother asking for permission?) If they haven't, then who are you to say how much she should pay? This isn't just someone sharing something they like, this is someone using someone else's work to make money.
 
shade91 said:
I like seeing these Youtube stars dragged through legal mud. It's sad how people make so much money posting fucking homemade videos of themselves doing nonsense and raking in the ad revenue from it.
Click to expand...

As apposed to big-name Hollywood individuals making shit movies like Transforms 2-4 and Avatar?
Oh yeah, that's TOTALLY better. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top