In
an article about Prince, dated January 30, 2014, the artist and his legal team
filed copyright infringement suits against 22 individuals alleged of
“bootlegging” his concert recordings. Prince explained that his priority is to
provide a “high quality experience for his fans” and that these versions were
simply not up to that standard. The article states that locating the links to
the videos shared on Facebook were how the perpetrators were tracked down. Each
defendant was facing $1 million in fines unless they removed said content. As
you may have guessed, all 22 bootleggers cooperated by removing their
unauthorized recordings of his concerts from the Internet.
I
agree that artists have every right to prevent unauthorized distribution of
their work. I understand why Prince wants only the highest of quality when
representing his brand. I wonder how come more artists haven’t taken this route
because it would clear up many of the user-uploaded videos that often clutter
YouTube search results with lower quality material. In doing so,
viewer-generated traffic would be more focused on “authorized” uploads, as views
would certainly increase. I understand the want to make the concert experience
so exclusive that you have to show up in order to experience it. This will keep
the demand for the artist’s concert tickets to remain high. On the other side
of the coin, I can also identify with the other artists who would rather their
music be shared with everyone. I can relate with those who really don’t mind
how many people share their video recordings of their concerts across the
Internet. The more people/fans that upload videos of their favorite artists in
concert should translate to more views and more potential fans, right? I would
certainly think so. If artists don’t wish footage of their concerts to be
uploaded to the Internet, then make it known that this event/concert prohibits
camera use, unless a press pass is present. I’m sure there are always
exceptions to this rule as there will always be people sneaking in recordings
however they can. It’s difficult to decide where I stand on this topic.
The
next article that I read was about the copyright infringement suit between
Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams, and rapper T.I. against the family of Marvin
Gaye. Thicke’s 2013 single, “Blurred Lines” has been declared as infringing
upon the intellectual property of Gaye’s songs, “Got to Give it Up” and “Sexy
Ways. “ Upon reading and reviewing a few articles on this matter, I’ve decided
that it’s one big mess. Apparently, the Gaye family also pursued a lawsuit with
Thicke’s record label, EMI, as well. The EMI case was dismissed in January of
2014. Both the family of Marvin Gaye and EMI, came to an agreement including that
this case cannot be brought forth to court again in exchange for an undisclosed
amount of money. What’s odd is that reports of the lawsuit between Thicke and
the Gaye family remain active.
I
feel that in order for a work to be found to infringe on copyrights, it needs
to be blatantly obvious. I can clearly hear the similarities between works and
would have taken legal action as well. This song should have never made it as
far as it did without first clearing any sort of use of someone else’s
intellectual property. This is the fault of the artist and the record label as
this act is definitely considered to be a legal liability.
The
final article that I read is about the band Maroon 5. In the summer of 2012, a
cover-version of a song they hadn’t officially released yet cracked the British
top ten charts. This action compromises the intellectual property of the band
and record label as well as depriving them of any monetary gain they may have
lost out on while song wasn’t officially released yet. This is in every way
copyright infringement as the musician(s) who made the cover version of the
song is (are) benefitting from the sale of it across Internet platforms like
iTunes and Amazon. Some fans may not even realize that what they purchased is a
replication of what they were actually looking for. During the week that this
cover song reached the top ten, they reportedly sold 34,492 downloads.
I
believe musicians should not be able to sell a cover version of a song without
paying the majority of that money to the copyright owner of that song. That may
sound ridiculous but that cover song would not exist if it weren’t for the work
of the writer, composer, and copyright owner of that recording. Copying songs
in order to make money from them doesn’t sound too legitimate to me. In fact,
it sounds like a legal liability.
Works Cited:
Fekadu, M. (2014). Marvin gaye’s
family & robin thicke’s label settle in ‘blurred lines’ dispute.”
Huffington Post. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/marvin-gaye-family-robin-thicke-label-settle-blurred-lines_n_4601388.html
Herzfeld, O. (2013). The blurred lines of copyright law: robin thicke v. marvin gaye’s estate. Forbes. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/08/20/the-blurred-lines-of-copyright-law-robin-thicke-v-marvin-gayes-estate/
Leach, B., & Lusher, B. (2012). Maroon 5 and the new phenomenon baffling the music industry. The Telegraph. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/9367019/Maroon-5-and-the-new-phenomenon-baffling-the-music-industry.html
Riemenschneider, C. (2014). Prince stirs another controversy with $22 million lawsuit. Star Tribune. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/music/242495671.html
