Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...

[MikeA]

That dude can belt it out!

[bernie's bender]

Schon did what he was permitted to do (since he owns the rights) which I would support. Journey is, effectively, his band, his property to do with what he wants. I'd support that.

I know several folks here love tribute bands, I'm not particularly a fan, but there is room for everyone....

Journey has become an oldies band and with the addition of the copycat guy, they are unique because they have effectively become their own copy band...

It will be interesting to see if the new guy can come up with a "Faithfully"... I'm betting against it... but, you never know.

Like most people, I enjoy a rags to riches story, but again, the story is often used to cloud the issue. To me, the rightful owner gets to decide how he/she wants to use his/her property... in this case Schon saw value for his brand and his product, but he could have decided differently and been just as justified.

The new singer provides a solution to a problem of viability for his band... now they can tour the oldies circuit, county fairs etc and continue to entertain fans... it seems like a win for all involved in this instance.

[bernie's bender]

Your definition of vanity involves a lot of subjective judgments. Is it only vanity if the person is somehow unworthy (not talented enough, creative enough, etc.)? These are categories that, of course, the person making the judgments would not put himself into.

Vanity never sees itself...

Also, who defines art? Are the Marilyn prints by Andy Warhol art?

http://www.moma.org/collection/objec...bject_id=79737

Most would argue yes, but Marilyn Monroe never gave her permission. She was dead. Warhol's art was recreating altered versions of a publicity photo which was a still for a movie - basically, an official "screen shot." He did it for photos of Elvis, too, and other pop culture figures. He was lauded for it and his works hang in museums and sell for millions.

His painting of an existing photograph is very comparable to someone covering an existing song.... only he did his for profit, unlike some poor kid covering a song for fun, posting it on YouTube to share it with his friends, and never making a cent off of the original work (nor taking a cent from potential sales of the original artist).

But, one argues, Warhol's work was "great"! Those other guys aren't a fraction as talented - they're just wannabes! How dare anyone compare the two!

The only problem is that if we define "vanity" by whether or not a person is "talented" and if they have truly created "art," we fall into a trap. The subjectivity of art is undeniable, so using it to make moral judgments, using it to measure whether or not someone's behavior is "wicked".... that's very questionable, to say the least. Person X is more talented than Person Y, so Person X's actions aren't vain while Person Y's are... sorry, not buying it.

you work with language. you understand the limits of language and the subjectivity of it. dictionaries are written by a group of people who make subjective, qualitative judgements and decide what words mean, but the larger culture also drives how those judgements are made.

In the case of the Eagles writing, recording and producing the song "Hotel California" a reasonable person can quickly and easily come to the conclusion that that effort required skill, talent, and creativity to a very high degree. Folks who would debate whether or not that piece of work was the work of gifted folks would be dismissed as people who are just refusing to see the obvious.

In the case of making a tribute video collage by collecting pictures of a famous person and then pairing them with a song that has no connection to the famous person (either historically or known to be an important song to the historical person) and wear the 'author' is just taking a pre recorded song and pictures found through googling the internet and then tossing them together... I think that a reasonable person if asked to compare the two creative efforts could reasonably question the second one as derivative and, while for the fans of the song or the famous person, they might find it mildly entertaining... I'm not sure most would call it art. Are video montages on ESPN art? For the purposes of rhetoric, some folks would try to make the argument, but it is pretty specious if we are just trying to be honest.

So, if it is primarily for entertainment... then what is the purpose of this entertainment? If the 'work' was found to be counter to the purposes of the musical artist and/or the famous person being 'tributed' then who benefits? And if the orginal artists object to the use of their work and their image... what difference does it make... doesn't it just make the 'artist' another Devore?

Marilyn Monroe is nearly as iconic as a visual figure as George Washington. Joe Paterno, while legendary is not. Those judgements are, to a degree, subjective, but a reasonable person would conclude the same thing.

While I think it is terrific to be a fan and to want to make tributes to our heroes and celebrate them, if the orginal artists or the figures to whom I make my tribute or their paid agents ask me to knock it off.... it might hurt my feelings a bit, but I think compliance is the respectable thing to do.

[EagleLady]

It still doesn't seem fair to those who take the time to create the video in tribute to said person.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Yeah - the issues of copyright and the internet are complicated for sure. I can definitely see both sides here, and it is understandable that it is such an emotional issue. While I believe strongly that an artist has a right to protect their intellectual property against misuse on one hand, there does seem to be an absurdity when Cass County Music removes a video from YouTube of a youngster singing Hotel California in their own living room. I have faith that the legal system will be able to sort it all out in time, and come up with a common middle ground. Sometimes it's hard to remember that in the grand scheme of things, the internet is still in its infancy and there is still a lot of uncharted territory that is just beginning to surface. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the years to come.

[bernie's bender]

It still doesn't seem fair to those who take the time to create the video in tribute to said person.

Well, it is awkward and it can absolutely hurt the feelings of the giver, but, it isn't as though the 'gift' was requested or asked for...

I think the producers of such things just need to accept that their 'work' may or may not be acceptable to the owner... if it isn't, it just seems right to accept their authority and move on.

I have a bunch of big festivals we're playing this summer in a couple of bands I play in. We're doing 3 cds to sell at gigs (for fun and profit) 2 of them have original songs and one has covers of songs we do... I've had to contact the Harry Fox agency and get the proper information so that folks can get paid etc... not that we'd 'get caught' but because we are benefitting from using the songs and while it won't amount to much money, I just don't like the idea of not doing the right thing by the original authors....

Now, if I record Hotel California in my living room, I can license it, pay the fees and leave my youtube up and I won't be hassled. The fees aren't a huge amount of money but show the legal respect required to avoid getting flagged.

Everyone acts like there is a huge expense to all this, and there isn't. It is a small bureaucratic process and not expensive... it just isn't 'free' and it involves actual 'work'....

So, can you record "Hotel California" in your living room and post it to youtube and not get it flagged for violation? Yep. You sure can. You just have to follow the requirements...

[Ive always been a dreamer]

So, can you record "Hotel California" in your living room and post it to youtube and not get it flagged for violation? Yep. You sure can. You just have to follow the requirements...

I agree - and if I had to look into a crystal ball, I'd predict that one of those 'requirements' will be that sites like YouTube will have to begin charging a fee to upload certain material. It will be up to the general public to decide if they are willing to pay. I'm betting they will - iTunes seems to be doing just fine even though downloads aren't free any more. After all, in our capitalist society, it's all about supply and demand, and the bottom line.

[bernie's bender]

I agree - and if I had to look into a crystal ball, I'd predict that one of those 'requirements' will be that sites like YouTube will have to begin charging a fee to upload certain material. It will be up to the general public to decide if they are willing to pay. I'm betting they will - iTunes seems to be doing just fine even though downloads aren't free any more. After all, in our capitalist society, it's all about supply and demand, and the bottom line.

check it out. simple. legal. just requires an informed, responsible, non lazy person.

[sodascouts]

We're just going around in circles with regard to the art aspect. Perhaps some people are just a little more open-minded with regard to that kind of thing.

Here's something interesting I came across that really highlights the absurdity of some of the enforcement going on here:

Artist Finds His Own Material Removed from YouTube

[bernie's bender]

I agree about the round and round thing.

I'd disagree with the term open mindedness though.

There are simple, legal ways to post your 'works' on the internet.

There are instances of folks reporting users that are not in violation... But, the ratio of the two are in no fashion commensurate. Most of us know that anecdote + anecdote ≠ data, but about the same number know that there are enough people who don't know that which allows them an avenue for using anecdotal evidence which gives the appearance of an actual argument.

I'll leave you with this: If a student were to take part of a work by one researcher, and parts from 3 or 4 other researchers, sew it together in a 'new media' format, like, say, a podcast and call it "Michael talks about new energy" and says nothing else, no express credit given to the authors who did the actual work, just him speaking... would that be okay? If he typed it up and turned it in to his 201 writing course, would that be okay?

If this person became a guru and an expert in energy policy from his viral podcast, would we be in the best of hands?

For folks who make their living from their creativity and intellectual work... when people appropriate it for their own purposes without credit or context and without the appropriate credit given and fees paid... it is a threat to them that will fight for.

There is always a price to pay for anything. When something appears to be 'free' there is ALWAYS a catch. This isn't about open mindedness, this is about a new economic model... in most cases, most of us are simply consumers. When work is posted on youtube, a poster's role may be changing from consumer to producer depending on the makeup of the video. When we become producers our roles, responsibilities and rights change dramatically.

My last example: if you ever watch those shows like overhaulin, trucks, muscle car etc where a project vehicle is modified radically for a lucky person.... Those cars usually don't return to the customer for months and months and months after the show because of all the tests and procedures that have to be done to make sure that it is safe for the person to drive.

likewise, I can weld and wrench on my project truck or write custom applications or fab stuff for myself and a few friends and have a blast... but, if I try to provide it to the public... I have a whole new host of tests and vetting to do before I can do that.

If the 'thing' is important enough and the creator of the thing believes in it enough... they'll go through the procedures (in this 15.00 worth of registration) to get it right and get it out legally.

If a producer keeps it to his friends and on a local basis, no trouble. If a producer takes it to a potentially wider market, you are a vendor and play by those rules.

People who don't want to do those things will call them names and say the world has changed. Essentially, they are saying 'I want to have consumer rules for my production' and that may come to pass, I'm certainly open to that! I'd like to play by the same rules! Currently, it is a very weak claim that does not stand in a court of law... Soda, I think you should sue and create the precedence that 'brings the man down'! You go girl!