Techdirt. Stories filed under "madonna" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "madonna"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Thu, 2 Aug 2012 08:07:00 PDT If It Takes You 20 Years To Notice Madonna Sampled Your Songs, Perhaps It's A Transformative Use Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120713/06494319686/if-it-takes-you-20-years-to-notice-madonna-sampled-your-songs-perhaps-its-transformative-use.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120713/06494319686/if-it-takes-you-20-years-to-notice-madonna-sampled-your-songs-perhaps-its-transformative-use.shtml Ima Fish alerts us to the news that Madonna is being sued for copyright infringement over samples in the hit song "Vogue." That song, you may recall, came out in 1990. So you might think that it's a bit late to claim copyright infringement. Why did it take so long? The copyright holder, VMG Salsoul, claims that Madonna and collaborator Shep Pettibone, used samples of its song, "Chicago Bus Stop (Ooh, I Love It)(Love Break)" and then hid them in Vogue. Yes. Hid them. Here's Chicago Bus Stop:
And here's Vogue:
If you said the two sound nothing alike, you win. Salsoul claims that Pettibone intentionally "hid" the samples:
The portions of "Love Break, which have been copied into Vogue and all its various "mixes," remixes," videos, YouTube versions, etc. are numerous but intentionally hidden. The horn and strings in Vogue are intentionally sampled from "Love Break" throughout.
The lawsuit notes that, prior to working on Vogue with Madonna, Pettibone had, in fact, worked for Salsoul, doing remixes -- and had remixed that exact song. However, the fact that it took 22 years for Salsoul to even notice certainly raises significant questions about whether this is copyright infringement. One of the issues looked at in determining fair use, of course, is whether or not the work is transformative. You would think, if the original copyright holder didn't recognize its own sample, found in one of the most popular songs of the 90s, that's a pretty good indication that it's "transformative." It certainly isn't a substitute for the original.

Of course, the law around copyright and sampling is a complete mess, thanks to some incredibly questionable rulings, such as the Bridgeport ruling in the Sixth Circuit that claimed "get a license or do not sample." That case did not look at the fair use issues at all, and had various other problems, but these issues rarely come up in court, even in other circuits, because people (on all sides) are afraid of how it will come out. This case, for what it's worth, is not in the 6th Circuit.

There are also questions about the statute of limitations -- and that's another area where copyright law is a mess, but it certainly seems like that would not stop this particular lawsuit, based on a variety of factors.

Either way, the fact that it took so long for the copyright holder to even notice seems like it should be evidence enough to dump this lawsuit in the first place, though that's unlikely to happen.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> just-saying http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120713/06494319686 Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:43:00 PDT Madonna Sued For For Selling Clothes Under 'Material Girl' Brand Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/10202210706.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/10202210706.shtml Madonna has been sued by a clothing designer for Madonna's new line of "Material Girl" clothing. Madonna, of course, had a hit song called "Material Girl" and has been referred to as the "Material Girl" for years. However, another company, LA Triumph, actually got the trademark on Material Girl when it comes to clothing, and it's been using it since 1997.

If you head over to the USPTO, you'll find that there have been 15 applications for trademarks on "Material Girl" or "Material Girls" (well, and one with "Material Girlz"). Most of the trademark applications are dead, but five live on. They cover a variety of different things, and since most are held by holding companies, it's a bit tricky to figure out who actually has the rights to what. However, it does seem clear that different companies have applied for, and received, trademarks on "Material Girl(s)" for clothing, cosmetics, personal care products and even a television show. This is a reminder, of course, that when you apply for a trademark, it's only supposed to cover the specific area in which you're doing business -- which can cause problems in cases, like this one, where people expand into other fields of business.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> we-are-living-in-a-trademarked-world... http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100820/10202210706 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:33:35 PST Live Nation's Strategy Looking Even Worse As It Has To Cough Up Extra $$s For U2, Madonna Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081218/0409153165.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081218/0409153165.shtml skeptical of Live Nation's model. The company, which is mostly known as a concert promoter, has signed huge deals with some big name musicians to get them to leave their record labels and do everything through Live Nation -- including music sales, concerts and merchandise. Live Nation gets a cut of it all. On the whole, such a model does make a lot of sense, because with one entity managing all of the different revenue streams, the company is much more likely to tweak the knobs. If it realizes that it can make more money in those other products by giving away the music, it (in theory) won't hesitate. That doesn't happen when the record label only gets a cut of music sales.

The problem, though, with Live Nation's model was its decision to focus on just a few huge names, and to pay them tremendous upfront amounts. Now, it turns out, the deals are even worse than what Live Nation expected. Apparently, it paid a portion of what it owed both U2 and Madonna in stock. That, by itself, is fine. It lets the musicians share in the risk a bit. Except, for some bizarre reason, the folks at Live Nation took away all of the downside risk for the musicians by promising how much the stock would be worth. With the stock market in freefall, that's now going to cost Live Nation a ton. For example, it gave a bunch of stock to U2, and guaranteed the stock would be worth at least $25 million. In actuality, it's worth $6 million. That means the company now needs to cough up an additional $19 million in cash and give it to the band. Madonna is apparently in a similar situation, with a similar guarantee about to come due.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> how-not-to-run-a-business http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081218/0409153165 Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:13:00 PST Can Concert Promoters Become The New Record Labels? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1910593046.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1910593046.shtml signing a deal with Live Nation, a big concert promoter, to handle pretty much everything having to do with her business, including releasing new CDs. The WSJ Magazine is running a long feature story about Live Nation, its founder and its ongoing strategy, wondering if it's the new business model for the recording industry. Basically, the guy behind Live Nation knows that there's good money in concert promoting, but that the margins are low. So, he's betting on a few of these "360 deals" where he gets a much larger margin on all other aspects of the business.

It's an interesting strategy that appears to be a step in the right direction, but it's unclear if it really is the future of the industry. Live Nation's strategy seems pretty risky. It involves huge upfront payments for a small number of star performers (whose older, more well-known, music is still under the copyright of earlier labels). It also doesn't seem to do much to embrace new technologies and distribution methods. Instead, it's just this guy making a grab for some big names, and trying to consolidate all their sources of revenue, taking a cut of each one. There's something to be said for that, but it would probably work better in combination with newer technologies and music distribution means -- and without those huge upfront costs that may sink the whole operation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> time-to-find-out http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081207/1910593046 Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:51:34 PDT Next Up To Ditch Record Label: Madonna Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/005432.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/005432.shtml announcement, a bunch of other bands have all been publicly ditching record labels in order to embrace the new business models that the record labels insisted were dangerous to the industry. In retrospect, it looks like they were just dangerous to the record labels (gee, who could have predicted that?). The latest huge name to ditch a record label appears to be Madonna, who is apparently signing a huge deal with a concert and merchandise promoter instead for over $100 million. She'll still be putting out albums through the promoter rather than the label. There's no indication if she's going to use this to free up some music, but the point should be pretty clear. The money is in concerts and merchandise -- the stuff that the music makes valuable -- not in the music itself. While EMI's new owners have made some noises that maybe they understand what's going on, there's a good chance that it's way too late for the old labels. They had their chance to embrace fans, new technology and the music itself -- and they spent 8 years suing the fans and the technology instead. It's reached the point that college kids are now organizing to protest the RIAA. It's becoming increasingly clear that the labels weren't helping musicians very much either -- and now it appears to be payback time. This isn't the "fault" of piracy. This is the fault of shortsighted recording industry executives who had every chance to understand the economics at play and instead chose to attack everyone (and there were lots) who pointed out to them where the market was going.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> quite-a-week http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071011/005432