Jerusalema: The Aftermath
February 16, 2021 1:20 AM Subscribe
Warner Music strikes back. Warner music is now demanding that companies and organisations, including hospitals and other health service organisations, pay licensing fees for taking part in the Jerusalema dance challenge. (previously).
German Police have already paid up. (Spiegel link in German).
This has unleashed a controversy (Focus link in German). Should Warner Music cash in on something that people around the world have made into something bigger, that gives joy and optimism in the face of a global pandemic?
Warner maintains that organisations who have used Jerusalema to promote themselves should be prepared to pay licencing fees, and the artists deserve to be paid for their work. According to Warner, they are aware of the nature of the dance challenge and are therefore offering staggered fees (down to token amounts) depending on which organisation they're addressing.
German Police have already paid up. (Spiegel link in German).
This has unleashed a controversy (Focus link in German). Should Warner Music cash in on something that people around the world have made into something bigger, that gives joy and optimism in the face of a global pandemic?
Warner maintains that organisations who have used Jerusalema to promote themselves should be prepared to pay licencing fees, and the artists deserve to be paid for their work. According to Warner, they are aware of the nature of the dance challenge and are therefore offering staggered fees (down to token amounts) depending on which organisation they're addressing.
Has Warner Music never heard of the Streisand effect ?
posted by Pendragon at 4:25 AM on February 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Pendragon at 4:25 AM on February 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
Also:
"In these difficult times, it is more important than ever that artists and performers are paid for their music when it is used by third parties to enhance their reputation" the spokesman said.
I wonder how much money Master KG gets from Warner Music.
posted by Pendragon at 4:28 AM on February 16, 2021 [18 favorites]
"In these difficult times, it is more important than ever that artists and performers are paid for their music when it is used by third parties to enhance their reputation" the spokesman said.
I wonder how much money Master KG gets from Warner Music.
posted by Pendragon at 4:28 AM on February 16, 2021 [18 favorites]
The German cops may well be better than American cops, but Warner has a point. It's one thing for private civilians to do their thing to a song meme. It's another for a police organization to use the song to promote themselves.
posted by explosion at 5:27 AM on February 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by explosion at 5:27 AM on February 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
It's another for a police organization to use the song to promote themselves.
So, cops can't use the song to promote themselves but hospitals can ? I would say the distinction is civilians versus organizations. Doesn't matter if it's a police organization.
posted by Pendragon at 5:36 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
So, cops can't use the song to promote themselves but hospitals can ? I would say the distinction is civilians versus organizations. Doesn't matter if it's a police organization.
posted by Pendragon at 5:36 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
I get and am generally on board with "Corporate IP law sucks"; but, within our current timeline, this seems like a non-issue.
Organizations are using another corporation's IP to promote themselves, and the IP-owners exercise their rights to restrict and/or profit from this. Nothing new here so far.
The fact that it's a popular meme-challenge-dance thing is irrelevant, IMO, except as an incentive to clickbait headlines.
The fact that some of the organizations are health care providers and we're in a pandemic has some emotional heft to it. The IP-owner might benefit from donating or discounting their IP. Or they might not.
It's mostly something for the lawyers / accountants / PR flacks to resolve among themselves.
posted by signal at 6:13 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
Organizations are using another corporation's IP to promote themselves, and the IP-owners exercise their rights to restrict and/or profit from this. Nothing new here so far.
The fact that it's a popular meme-challenge-dance thing is irrelevant, IMO, except as an incentive to clickbait headlines.
The fact that some of the organizations are health care providers and we're in a pandemic has some emotional heft to it. The IP-owner might benefit from donating or discounting their IP. Or they might not.
It's mostly something for the lawyers / accountants / PR flacks to resolve among themselves.
posted by signal at 6:13 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
Warners doesn't care much about cashing in or making money from this fad. Their main priority is to ensure that no exceptions can be allowed to their control over distribution. That's why they're charging token amounts: they'll let you off this time, but they still make sure to preserve the principle that you always have to pay, no matter what the use.
This is all too common today, in both business and politics: powerful individuals and organizations are willing to take any kind of damage to their interests and reputation, and inflict all kinds of damage to others, as long as it helps them reinforce their control over their part of the system. If you threaten to open a loophole in that control, they will respond with disproportionate force.
posted by fuzz at 6:26 AM on February 16, 2021 [11 favorites]
This is all too common today, in both business and politics: powerful individuals and organizations are willing to take any kind of damage to their interests and reputation, and inflict all kinds of damage to others, as long as it helps them reinforce their control over their part of the system. If you threaten to open a loophole in that control, they will respond with disproportionate force.
posted by fuzz at 6:26 AM on February 16, 2021 [11 favorites]
Copyright Infringement Remains Your Best Entertainment Value
posted by SansPoint at 6:30 AM on February 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 6:30 AM on February 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
Are all of the *cough* defendants here groups who have collected money? If there is no material benefit to the groups, what does Warner lose?
A zero-dollar license with a one-page web form would demonstrate that it was about legal continuity of their license and not a desire to extract value at every last opportunity.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:32 AM on February 16, 2021 [8 favorites]
A zero-dollar license with a one-page web form would demonstrate that it was about legal continuity of their license and not a desire to extract value at every last opportunity.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:32 AM on February 16, 2021 [8 favorites]
Has Warner Music never heard of the Streisand effect?
Barbra is signed to Columbia Records, so no.
posted by JoeZydeco at 6:50 AM on February 16, 2021 [7 favorites]
Barbra is signed to Columbia Records, so no.
posted by JoeZydeco at 6:50 AM on February 16, 2021 [7 favorites]
Has Warner Music never heard of the Streisand effect?
They probably have and figure this is a good way to get free exposure for their willingness to enforce their IP.
posted by signal at 6:51 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
They probably have and figure this is a good way to get free exposure for their willingness to enforce their IP.
posted by signal at 6:51 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm confused by this. I'm a musician who has stuff on YouTube, so I should probably know more about this. but these videos are on YouTube. Couldn't Warner Music issue a copyright claim to YouTube to have these videos taken down, or at least demonetized? Some of these videos have many millions of views, so there's already income that Warner could. lay claim to.
If these organizations were making commercials that featured the song, they'd need to license it; but if they're just on YouTube, there's already a mechanism for the rights holder to get paid. Is Warner trying to claim that these videos are indeed commercials for the organizations who uploaded them? I'm all for musicians getting what they're entitled to (and more), but A. the amount that the artist will get out of this is minuscule, and 2. this is a really weird grey area where it seems like it's up to the rights holder to decide whether the use of the song is being used promotionally and could make it REALLY difficult for anyone to use a song, since they might not know until much after the fact that they're all of a sudden going to have to pay some additional fee.
posted by jonathanhughes at 7:06 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
If these organizations were making commercials that featured the song, they'd need to license it; but if they're just on YouTube, there's already a mechanism for the rights holder to get paid. Is Warner trying to claim that these videos are indeed commercials for the organizations who uploaded them? I'm all for musicians getting what they're entitled to (and more), but A. the amount that the artist will get out of this is minuscule, and 2. this is a really weird grey area where it seems like it's up to the rights holder to decide whether the use of the song is being used promotionally and could make it REALLY difficult for anyone to use a song, since they might not know until much after the fact that they're all of a sudden going to have to pay some additional fee.
posted by jonathanhughes at 7:06 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
Yeah, these days most platforms for viral videos have a way of pre-licensing music that is used. If Warner has a deal
with YT for Jerusalema (and it looks like they do), they can claim all posted videos, run their own ads on them, and collect a penny per play that way.
I *guess* they can try to shake down organizations for more money in exchange for not taking down the videos, but because copyright has been gamified in this way the orgs can't be said to have done anything illegal. They can't sue or anything.
posted by anhedonic at 7:24 AM on February 16, 2021
with YT for Jerusalema (and it looks like they do), they can claim all posted videos, run their own ads on them, and collect a penny per play that way.
I *guess* they can try to shake down organizations for more money in exchange for not taking down the videos, but because copyright has been gamified in this way the orgs can't be said to have done anything illegal. They can't sue or anything.
posted by anhedonic at 7:24 AM on February 16, 2021
My point of view is largely coloured by the fact that I've seen several international airlines join in on the fad and produce professional looking videos of their employees doing the dance challenge. And my own employer, a PR-agency, asked employees to perform the dance challenge in a video, too, for marketing and exposure reasons (but not enough of us volunteered).
Capitalism already sucked the air out of everything viral about this long before Warner Music stood up and cleared its throat.
posted by Omnomnom at 7:35 AM on February 16, 2021 [11 favorites]
Capitalism already sucked the air out of everything viral about this long before Warner Music stood up and cleared its throat.
posted by Omnomnom at 7:35 AM on February 16, 2021 [11 favorites]
since they might not know until much after the fact that they're all of a sudden going to have to pay some additional fee
Just to kind of repeat myself and expand on the point, YouTube in particular has turned copyright into a game with rules. You benefit because you get instant licensing of someone else's copyrighted material. The copyright holders have their own rights within the game (running ads on the video you posted, or asking that it be taken down.)
If Warner asks you for money in exchange for letting your video stay up, I guess you have two choices - you could pay (and god knows how that plays out when some other arm of Warner's team takes down your video anyway) or you can shrug and say "easy come, easy go."
posted by anhedonic at 7:50 AM on February 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
Just to kind of repeat myself and expand on the point, YouTube in particular has turned copyright into a game with rules. You benefit because you get instant licensing of someone else's copyrighted material. The copyright holders have their own rights within the game (running ads on the video you posted, or asking that it be taken down.)
If Warner asks you for money in exchange for letting your video stay up, I guess you have two choices - you could pay (and god knows how that plays out when some other arm of Warner's team takes down your video anyway) or you can shrug and say "easy come, easy go."
posted by anhedonic at 7:50 AM on February 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
IIRC I saw a news story about American police playing copyrighted music when they see somebody filming them, so that YouTube won’t allow the film to be posted.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:01 AM on February 16, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:01 AM on February 16, 2021 [11 favorites]
Omnomnom: Capitalism already sucked the air out of everything viral about this long before Warner Music stood up and cleared its throat.
Dang, I didn't realize the cycle time for "organic fun turned into corporate schlock" had gotten so short! That's dispiriting. :7(
posted by wenestvedt at 8:05 AM on February 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
Dang, I didn't realize the cycle time for "organic fun turned into corporate schlock" had gotten so short! That's dispiriting. :7(
posted by wenestvedt at 8:05 AM on February 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
It seems to be about half a day now. I'm extremely online as the saying goes and usually some corporate entity will have made a reference to a meme before it gets to me. Probably because many memsters (sorry) are working in corporate online marketing.
posted by dominik at 8:08 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by dominik at 8:08 AM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
or you can shrug and say "easy come, easy go."
Yes, and when you get three copyright strikes your account is terminated.
posted by Pendragon at 8:08 AM on February 16, 2021 [4 favorites]
Yes, and when you get three copyright strikes your account is terminated.
posted by Pendragon at 8:08 AM on February 16, 2021 [4 favorites]
... YouTube in particular has turned copyright into a game with rules.Data point: my thirteen-year-old, for a couple of years, has been using "copyrighted" as a verb with the meaning "removed from public view due to a claim by a rights-holding organization." A sample sentence would be "I saw a neat video yesterday, but I can't show it to you because there was background music and the video got copyrighted."
I find this linguistic inversion deeply troubling.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 8:36 AM on February 16, 2021 [22 favorites]
Another argument in favor of pirating everything.
posted by dazed_one at 8:45 AM on February 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by dazed_one at 8:45 AM on February 16, 2021 [6 favorites]
I find this linguistic inversion deeply troubling.
May I introduce you to the phrase: "no copyright intended”?
posted by signal at 9:25 AM on February 16, 2021 [9 favorites]
May I introduce you to the phrase: "no copyright intended”?
posted by signal at 9:25 AM on February 16, 2021 [9 favorites]
I saw a news story about American police playing copyrighted music when they see somebody filming them, so that YouTube won’t allow the film to be posted.
More to block live streams, but close enough.
posted by Candleman at 9:36 AM on February 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
More to block live streams, but close enough.
posted by Candleman at 9:36 AM on February 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
Data point: my thirteen-year-old, for a couple of years, has been using "copyrighted" as a verb with the meaning "removed from public view due to a claim by a rights-holding organization." A sample sentence would be "I saw a neat video yesterday, but I can't show it to you because there was background music and the video got copyrighted."
I find this linguistic inversion deeply troubling.
I think that's brilliant and I may start using it. It may not be using copyright "correctly" but it sure as heck captures the spirit of abusive and overreaching takedowns. If people start thinking of copyright as something that "takes things away", that's not the fault of the people who make that association. That's language evolving in accordance with peoples' lived experiences.
posted by treepour at 12:00 PM on February 16, 2021 [10 favorites]
I find this linguistic inversion deeply troubling.
I think that's brilliant and I may start using it. It may not be using copyright "correctly" but it sure as heck captures the spirit of abusive and overreaching takedowns. If people start thinking of copyright as something that "takes things away", that's not the fault of the people who make that association. That's language evolving in accordance with peoples' lived experiences.
posted by treepour at 12:00 PM on February 16, 2021 [10 favorites]
My 20 month old daughter doesn’t like it that she has to have extra clothes on to go outside, which in the midst of a Finnish winter is very much the case. One of the few things that is guaranteed to hold her attention long enough to get all the necessary layers on her is this version of the Jerusalema challenge.
Here’s hoping that these random people in Boise, Idaho, enjoying grilled food while dancing don’t get taken off YouTube, at least not until spring arrives.
posted by Kattullus at 1:55 PM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
Here’s hoping that these random people in Boise, Idaho, enjoying grilled food while dancing don’t get taken off YouTube, at least not until spring arrives.
posted by Kattullus at 1:55 PM on February 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
The kids trying to dance along, but always a few beats behind wins that one for me...
posted by Windopaene at 2:22 PM on February 16, 2021
posted by Windopaene at 2:22 PM on February 16, 2021
Here’s hoping that these random people in Boise, Idaho, enjoying grilled food while dancing don’t get taken off YouTube, at least not until spring arrives.
Read the post again, paying close attention to the word "organizations." Unless it's a promotional video for the Boise Barbecue Brisket Brigade®, Warner doesn't care.
If Warner asks you for money in exchange for letting your video stay up, I guess you have two choices - you could pay (and god knows how that plays out when some other arm of Warner's team takes down your video anyway) or you can shrug and say "easy come, easy go."
To be clear, Warner Music Group is not connected to any other branch of Warner Media. It was spun off decades ago into a separate corporation, and has been through a few horse trades since.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:06 PM on February 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
Read the post again, paying close attention to the word "organizations." Unless it's a promotional video for the Boise Barbecue Brisket Brigade®, Warner doesn't care.
If Warner asks you for money in exchange for letting your video stay up, I guess you have two choices - you could pay (and god knows how that plays out when some other arm of Warner's team takes down your video anyway) or you can shrug and say "easy come, easy go."
To be clear, Warner Music Group is not connected to any other branch of Warner Media. It was spun off decades ago into a separate corporation, and has been through a few horse trades since.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:06 PM on February 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I think we all know how poorly some YouTube algorithms have run in the past, so I would not trust these particular corporate decision makers. Download that one while you can. You can still give them the views as long as it remains up, but you have insurance if it does get removed.
posted by soelo at 4:26 PM on February 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by soelo at 4:26 PM on February 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
Should Warner Music cash in on something that people around the world have made into something bigger, that gives joy and optimism in the face of a global pandemic?
Are they cashing in? The artists, songwriters etc. will be getting the money too and they also have to survive (people and businesses in the arts are struggling to stay afloat right now). I'm surprised Warner is behind this and not collection societies like Soundexchange or BMI. I work for a similar organisation and we're considered not-for-profit. Warner is one of our members and we would not consider them to be cashing in. I understand the performers are providing joy to a lot of people during this difficult time but I wonder if there is ever a time when it would be considered ethical to ask hospitals to buy a license, yet they are frequently asked to do so. If the workers want to get that money back they can join the collection societies as performers (or a collective hospital performance group) so they can claim it. Lots of charities do this.
I don't know what is right or wrong but this is just normal practice.
posted by ihaveyourfoot at 7:02 AM on February 17, 2021
Are they cashing in? The artists, songwriters etc. will be getting the money too and they also have to survive (people and businesses in the arts are struggling to stay afloat right now). I'm surprised Warner is behind this and not collection societies like Soundexchange or BMI. I work for a similar organisation and we're considered not-for-profit. Warner is one of our members and we would not consider them to be cashing in. I understand the performers are providing joy to a lot of people during this difficult time but I wonder if there is ever a time when it would be considered ethical to ask hospitals to buy a license, yet they are frequently asked to do so. If the workers want to get that money back they can join the collection societies as performers (or a collective hospital performance group) so they can claim it. Lots of charities do this.
I don't know what is right or wrong but this is just normal practice.
posted by ihaveyourfoot at 7:02 AM on February 17, 2021
I'm pretty sure SoundExchange and BMI don't handle synchronization licenses.
That's nice. No they don't. I'm coming at this from the opposite angle but in any case it still stands that they can recuperate some of that money by joining a collection society provided that YouTube and whichever platform carry a new media or broadcasting license. The hit shouldn't be that severe.
posted by ihaveyourfoot at 10:43 AM on February 20, 2021
That's nice. No they don't. I'm coming at this from the opposite angle but in any case it still stands that they can recuperate some of that money by joining a collection society provided that YouTube and whichever platform carry a new media or broadcasting license. The hit shouldn't be that severe.
posted by ihaveyourfoot at 10:43 AM on February 20, 2021
There are actor and dancer roles roles in the SCAPR database for some societies yes. Whether or not they are making any audible contribution whatsoever, they can't claim from my particular performer society as we don't pay out for those roles. You would have to check with the societies that do. As I remember it, they are roles accepted by the North American societies and I don't know how a dancer's contribution is judged. You would need to check with them if you're looking to get paid.
posted by ihaveyourfoot at 12:33 AM on February 25, 2021
posted by ihaveyourfoot at 12:33 AM on February 25, 2021
« Older An iteration on the right to prioritze money over... | Death from not enough pillows Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Paul Slade at 3:01 AM on February 16, 2021 [6 favorites]