<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;clearance&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:04:38 PST</pubDate>
<title>Universal Music Album Recalled... For Infringing Content?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/02311717803/universal-music-album-recalled-infringing-content.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/02311717803/universal-music-album-recalled-infringing-content.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Probably the most aggressive major record label, when it comes to supporting ridiculously overaggressive attacks on infringement and things like taking down websites, would be Universal Music -- the company whose ex-CEO once gleefully declared to the world that he was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/011720.shtml">too clueless</a> to hire someone who understands technology (he has since moved on to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110304/01540513361/sony-music-hires-ceo-who-has-admitted-he-doesnt-know-how-to-run-modern-record-label.shtml">lead Sony Music</a>).  Of course, we always discover that the most aggressive copyright maximalists are later caught infringing themselves...  So it's not surprising to hear that the release of the album for Universal Music recording artist Tyga has <a href="http://dajaz1.com/2012/02/19/umg-artist-tygas-album-gets-pulled-for-unauthorized-mlk-speech/" target="_blank">run into some copyright problems</a>.  While the album had been sent to retailers and was available for pre-order on iTunes, it was yanked off iTunes, and a note was sent to retailers telling them to "pull and return" the album.
<br /><br />
The issue?  Apparently the title track, "Careless World," has some sound clips from a Martin Luther King speech... and no one bothered to clear it.  Oops.  Of course, many of us think that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/00402117411/how-ip-laws-have-locked-up-martin-luther-kings-brilliance.shtml">locking up</a> MLK's works are a travesty, but his heirs have been incredibly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090521/0346544960.shtml">aggressive</a> over the years in claiming that they deserve to get paid for any attempts to honor MLK.  Of course, if Universal Music wasn't such an extreme copyright maximalist we might have a bit of sympathy for their plight.  But given that they've made this bed, there's a bit of irony in noting that they now have to lie in it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/02311717803/universal-music-album-recalled-infringing-content.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/02311717803/universal-music-album-recalled-infringing-content.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/02311717803/universal-music-album-recalled-infringing-content.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seize-'em!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120220/02311717803</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:38:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Ridiculousness Of Copyright Clearances: Fight Club Producers Had To Pay Off Marla Singer?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/0220477961.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/0220477961.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last August, we wrote about the sheer insanity that movie makers need to go through to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0319025726.shtml">make sure no "unauthorized" brands</a> appear in a movie.  The process of clearing every single right is mind-boggling, and appears to serve only one purpose: to transfer money from creators to lawyers.  I'm reminded of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100111/2220247711.shtml">massive spreadsheet</a> Brett Gaylor showed when he discussed his movie, and the process of trying to secure insurance for it.  It went on and on and on and listed every single thing in the movie, and whether it was cleared or not.  The more you learn about this stuff, the more ridiculous it seems.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://blog.ryjones.org/">Ry Jones</a> writes in to let us know that he transcribed a part of the <i>Fight Club</i> Director's commentary by David Fincher, where he <a href="http://blog.ryjones.org/2010/01/28/david-fincher-on-copyright-clearances/" target="_blank">discusses the insanity of rights clearance</a> for that movie.  He mainly discusses two key points, both of which seem ridiculous.  First, with the character of Marla Singer, they had to do a search and find out if there are real Marla Singers who might be upset and claim that the movie is about them.  If there are lots of Marla Singers, no problem, since they can just say "hey, not you."  But if there's one, then it becomes an issue.  Guess what?
<blockquote><i>
There's only one Marla Singer in the continental United States, in Illinois somewhere, of course, as soon as attorneys get involved, the whole thing gets completely fucked up. Somebody called her and told her there's this book, and we're making a movie based on this character that had her name. All of a sudden, her attorneys are calling and we have to pay this person off.
</i></blockquote>
On top of that, they had wanted to base the movie in Wilmington, Delaware, which is where the book takes place.  But, apparently, that would require all sorts of rights clearances as well, to the point that they <i>weren't even able to show the Delaware state flag</i> because it would require a new set of rights clearances.  How does this make any sense at all?  Unlike the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100126/0554507894.shtml">Aboriginal flag of Australia</a>, the state flag of Delaware certainly should not be covered by copyright, and it makes little sense that there would be any requirement at all for clearing the rights.  If the book can take place in Wilmington, Delaware without rights clearances, why can't a movie?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/0220477961.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/0220477961.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/0220477961.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-first-rule-of-copyright-clearance:-you-don't-talk-about-copyright-cleara</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100128/0220477961</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>