Techdirt. Stories filed under "will.i.am" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "will.i.am"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:44:39 PST Still A Dumb Trend: Pop Star Endorsements Pretending To Be 'Creative Directors' Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130131/01412021836/still-dumb-trend-pop-star-endorsements-pretending-to-be-creative-directors.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130131/01412021836/still-dumb-trend-pop-star-endorsements-pretending-to-be-creative-directors.shtml mocked the ridiculous trend of big companies hiring famous pop stars as "creative directors." Polaroid had hired Lady Gaga to be "creative director" while Intel had named Will.i.am as "director of creative innovation." The latest example of this trend is Blackberry (they're no longer RIM!) announcing that known iPhone user Alicia Keys has been "hired" as "Global Creative Director." She claimed that she'll be working with app developers and providing various ideas.

As we said two years ago, it is a good thing that celebrity endorsers actually become more involved with the products they're endorsing, but it's somewhat insulting to suggest that these pop stars are actually being hired on as "creative directors." In fact, it's insulting to actual creative directors and the amazing work that they do on a daily basis. The value from a Lady Gaga, Will.i.am or Alicia Keys is in the publicity they bring, not in any sort of creative direction they provide (if any). It's also insulting to the intelligence of the public and the press who follow these things. If these were, say, music services, the position might be real, but in the three most high profile cases, it seems abundantly clear that this is just a way to make an endorsement seem like a bigger deal than it really is.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> how-often-will-she-be-at-the-office http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130131/01412021836 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:15:00 PDT When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement... Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120417/16432118532/when-kids-major-label-execs-get-accused-infringement.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120417/16432118532/when-kids-major-label-execs-get-accused-infringement.shtml the most important one). Not surprisingly, Iovine has a bit of a history of being something of a copyright maximalist. A few years back, he specifically called out the evils of children infringing:
"Rip it, burn it--the last few years parents and children have been given a pass when they knew in their hearts that [what they were doing] was wrong," Iovine said.
Indeed, he seems to suggest that parents share some of the blame for their kids infringing:
"(Piracy) is hurting kids because kids are learning a disrespect for the basic relationship between creativity and ownership. It's hurting parents because they are in on the sham."
So, one would assume that Jimmy Iovine's kids are squeaky clean, right? Especially, say, if they were professional DJs whose websites indicate they're a part of the Interscope/Universal Music family, right? Yes, that's the website of DJ Eye -- also known as Jamie Iovine, son of Jimmy Iovine. Jamie actually has a really good reputation as a DJ but, like many DJs, he releases mixtapes/remixes/etc. And, recently, it appears, Jamie's Soundcloud account was shut down due to copyright infringement:
If you can't see that, it says:
My soundcloud is temp disabled due to some copyright bullshit. Getting it cleared up and should be re activated soon
His account is now back but a recent remix has gone missing. It was a remix that included Will.I.Am (Interscope Artist) along with Jennifer Lopez and Mick Jagger (not on Interscope).

None of this is to suggest that Jamie did anything wrong here. In fact, it looks like he did something completely natural and certainly very common: remixed some music in a cool way. But the way copyright law often works, you can now get in lots of trouble and owe lots and lots of money for doing something completely natural. Perhaps his father will realize that these issues aren't always so black and white, and even if your children are brought up in a house where they're taught repeatedly just how totally awesome copyright law is, it doesn't mean they won't, someday, discover how copyright law limits them, and get accused of copyright infringement.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> oh-look-at-that http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120417/16432118532 Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:58:00 PST An Explanation For Why UMG May Be Right That It Can Pull Down MegaUpload's Video [Updated] Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explanation-why-umg-may-be-right-that-it-can-pull-down-megauploads-video.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explanation-why-umg-may-be-right-that-it-can-pull-down-megauploads-video.shtml See the update at the end

The legal fight between Megaupload and Universal Music Group keeps getting more and more... odd. After the court gave UMG basically a day to respond, the company filed its response and made a rather surprising point: that a deal with YouTube/Google lets it take down videos it has no copyright over. This seems odd, and lots of people are screaming about some crazy clause that lets UMG censor anyone's videos. But I think I understand what's going on here -- and it's a very specific situation, where UMG sorta used a loophole -- so read on for the details. UMG is still being questionable, sleazy and short-sighted... but probably legal.

The key part of the company's legal response likely is accurate and probably kills MegaUpload's case. There are a few different ways that content can be taken down off of YouTube concerning copyright claims. One is via ContentID, the automated system that matches fingerprints. One is via a DMCA takedown notice. And one is via YouTube's Content Management System. This last one doesn't get much attention and isn't that well known, but it's basically halfway in between the other two (loosely speaking), granting partners the ability to spot and block videos that aren't matched by ContentID, but without sending a DMCA takedown. If you're familiar with the details of the system (which it appears MegaUpload and its lawyers were not), it was actually easy to tell this was a CMS block by the message that appeared on the blocked video. It said "This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." That's the message that shows up on CMS blocks. DMCA takedowns say that the video is "no longer available."

So, on that point, UMG may very well be correct in its filing, that it's not subject to DMCA sanctions because it didn't actually file a DMCA notice. This is kind of a weak excuse, frankly, and really calls into question how YouTube's CMS system works, more than anything else. In theory, this also means that the only retribution that can happen for UMG wrongly taking down the videos of others is that Google cuts them off. But seeing as Google has a big partnership with UMG to build and run Vevo, that's unlikely to happen. That's a bit scary, but it suggests UMG more or less has a free pass to shut down certain videos it doesn't like without much recourse (well, beyond public ridicule).

That said, a part of UMG's explanation isn't entirely clear, but I have some guesses as to what happened. UMG claims that its agreement with YouTube goes beyond just copyright, and that it's allowed to pull videos for other (unnamed) reasons. This is new, in a sense, because YouTube has always suggested that CMS is for copyright issues -- and, in fact, the original message on the video, did, in fact, say that it was a copyright issue. YouTube later changed that message to say it was a terms of service issue. And that provides a clue.

I believe that part of the Vevo agreement is that UMG gets to "pull" videos of its own artists from YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo. That's the intention anyway. I know when Vevo launched, that was part of the deal. All the YouTube videos of UMG artists magically jumped over to Vevo. So, I'm guessing that UMG basically used this loophole, which was supposed to be about taking videos off YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo, and realized it could just "take the videos off YouTube" as long as they had UMG artists in them, without ever putting them up on Vevo.

In other words, due to the specific nature of the Vevo agreement -- which was intended to move videos from YouTube to Vevo -- UMG can pull videos that show its artists off of YouTube. Of course, in this case, it used it for an entirely different purpose, which was to try to censor this ad. That backfired in all sorts of ways, and it sounds like YouTube told UMG to knock it off, knowing that this was not the intention of the agreement at all. And, for what it's worth, UMG has stopped getting the video blocked, and says it will allow it to stay up for now.

This situation is messy and silly, but it seems like an unintended result of contract language over Vevo that UMG exploited. It may be legal, but in the end, it was pretty dumb by UMG. This whole thing, in true Streisand Effect fashion, actually drove a lot more attention to the ad. And even if it was legal, it sure makes UMG look petty and vindictive.

Update: Received a response from a YouTube spokesperson which makes this a little more interesting.
Our partners do not have broad take-down rights to remove anything they don’t like from our service. In limited cases, if they so choose, and based on exclusive agreements with their artists, partners can take down live performances.
That confirms some of what I thought: that UMG does not have the right to take down any videos (as people keep implying), but that it may be able to take down some videos. The new bit of info is that it's just live performances. So, that would suggest UMG is even slimier. They tried to claim that those video clips of artists in the MegaUpload song were "live performances." That's clearly bogus.

Update 2: And... MegaUpload has conceded that its restraining order request is moot, and so the judge has denied it (pdf), while giving the company the right to file for a preliminary injunction and for discovery. So, not much of anything, but the case will likely continue.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> but-it's-still-sleazy http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111216/01463417102 Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:13:32 PST UMG, MegaUpload Case Gets Even Stranger; Will.i.am Says He Didn't Authorize A Takedown Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/18263517094/umg-megaupload-case-gets-even-stranger-william-says-he-didnt-authorize-takedown.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/18263517094/umg-megaupload-case-gets-even-stranger-william-says-he-didnt-authorize-takedown.shtml say nice things about Megaupload, which the company turned into a song and video. Universal Music flipped its lid and issued a takedown, claiming that there was a performance from singer Gin Wigmore, which they held the copyright on. MegaUpload then sued Universal Music. At the same time, singer will.i.am's lawyer claimed that will.i.am sent a takedown also, saying that the singer had never agreed to the project.

Almost none of this made sense. We'd heard from various sources that Wigmore doesn't even appear in the video at all and had nothing to do with the song. Furthermore, the will.i.am stuff was really confusing. First of all, if he hadn't agreed to this, why did he say things about how wonderful MegaUpload is on video? He must have agreed to do that. Second, even if he didn't agree to it, at best there's a contractual claim there and/or a publicity rights claim. There's simply no copyright claim. His words are not his to copyright, as they're not fixed in any medium. Whoever made the video would hold the copyright -- which, in this case, is MegaUpload. Even more ridiculous was the notion, floated by some in our comments, that will.i.am's contract with Universal grants them automatic copyright, which is why UMG could issue a takedown. Again, this makes no sense for a variety of reasons. First, the same reason as above, without the works being fixed, there's no copyright in those words for will.i.am to assign to Universal. Second, UMG can't claim copyright on everything someone says. Third, even if this preposterous claim was true, will.i.am still would have no right to send a takedown, because he wouldn't own the copyright either. UMG would.

MegaUpload, has now hit back. It notes that Gin Wigmore does not appear in the song, did not write the song, and has absolutely nothing to do with the song. The company had apparently spoken to her about participating, but eventually went with Macy Gray instead. So the claim that this is under UMG copyright because of Wigmore doesn't appear to be true. Furthermore, MegaUpload provided the contract signed by will.i.am (embedded below), allowing them to make use of his words... the company's boss claims that will.i.am personally insists that he did not authorize a takedown. That raises questions about whether or not will.i.am's lawyer was confused or if he was just acting on his own.
"On December 12, 2011, I spoke directly with will.i.am about this issue, and he personally advised me that he absolutely had not authorized the submission of any takedown notice on his behalf."
In the meantime, it looks like the judge is skeptical. Judge Claudia Wilken has given UMG until the end of the day to respond and explain the takedown...

Either way, this is going to remain quite the fascinating case to watch.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> so-what's-going-on http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111214/18263517094 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:50:26 PST Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/12122617050/megaupload-sues-universal-over-questionable-video-takedown-as-william-says-he-sent-takedown-too.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/12122617050/megaupload-sues-universal-over-questionable-video-takedown-as-william-says-he-sent-takedown-too.shtml in support of Megaupload (and then putting those quotes into a song), Universal Music Group started issuing questionable takedowns for the video. We've heard numerous theories as to why UMG might think it can do so, but none seem to hold up to much scrutiny. The music in question is not UMG's.

TorrentFreak reported that MegaUpload is preparing to sue Universal Music for the bogus takedowns, while THResq has the details. You can also see the actual lawsuit here (pdf or embedded below).

Universal is claiming that one of its artists, Gin Wigmore, had unauthorized work appear in the song, though it's unclear where or how. Megaupload continues to insist that it owns all of the music. Where it gets more bizarre is that apparently will.i.am, who appears in the video saying that he uses Megaupload to "send files across the globe" also sent his own takedown:
But we've also learned that Ken Hertz, attorney for Will.I.Am, also filed a takedown request last week with YouTube. What's going on here?

Hertz says that like many of the artists who appear in the video, his client had never consented to the "Megaupload Mega Song."

UMG echoes that sentiment. “This is an on-going dispute that surfaced several weeks ago with respect to the unauthorized use of a performance from one of our artists," a UMG spokesperson tells us. "We heard from a number of our other artists and their representatives who told us they’ve never consented to being portrayed in this video."
Now this is where things get interesting. If this is true, it certainly appears that Hertz is admitting to a bogus takedown. Even assuming that what he states is true -- that will.i.am did not give permission -- that's not a copyright claim. It would be a contractual issue. Furthermore, it seems like a pretty strange claim. It's pretty clear that will.i.am did, in fact, state that he uses Megaupload to send files across the globe. Megaupload insists it has clear contracts with all the artists in question, and I'm sure the details will come out as things move forward, but it still seems like Universal (and, now, will.i.am) have a lot of explaining to do.

And, of course, it seems really bizarre that UMG would think this was a prudent course of action, when the only thing it's really done is driven a hell of a lot more attention to Megaupload. Congrats, UMG, you just spent your efforts increasing the power of Megaupload's marketing campaign.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> this-could-get-interesting http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111212/12122617050 Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:22:28 PST A Bunch Of RIAA Label Artists Endorse MegaUpload... As RIAA Insists It's A 'Rogue' Site Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/11491817023/bunch-riaa-label-artists-endorse-megaupload-as-riaa-insists-its-rogue-site.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/11491817023/bunch-riaa-label-artists-endorse-megaupload-as-riaa-insists-its-rogue-site.shtml trotting out stats about how much traffic these sites get. Yet, as we noted recently, a huge percentage of the traffic that bill supporters keep insisting is "rogue" is from the sites MegaUpload and MegaVideo. So, it seems noteworthy, as TorrentFreak has revealed, that a large group of the biggest RIAA music stars have all performed on a song/video endorsing MegaUpload and how useful it is:
Among the stars taking part: P Diddy, Will.i.am, Alicia Keys, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown, The Game, Mary J Blige , Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather and Jamie Foxx.
“When I got to send files across the globe, I use Megaupload,” declares Will.i.am, an artist signed to labels owned by RIAA-members Warner and Universal.

“When I’m sending my hits out I use Megaupload, ‘cos it’s fast. I can receive hits and I can send ‘em out,” declares P Diddy, an artist signed to Interscope, a label owned by Universal.

Kanye West, signed to Universal-owned Def Jam, likes to use Megaupload “…because it’s the fastest and safest way to send files – period.”

Alicia Keys, who is signed to Sony-owned RCA, says she uses Megaupload “….because I know that I can get my music safely and quickly -and you know that I’m serious about my music.”

Snoop Dogg, signed to EMI-owned Priority, uses it “…because it keeps the kids off the street,” and The Game (Universal) says that even his lawyers know he uses it, “…and I got plenty of them.”
And yet the RIAA, the MPAA and the US Chamber of Commerce are still insisting that MegaUpload is "rogue" and must be shut down? How's that work now?

TorrentFreak's article also reveals some other info about MegaUpload's plans -- some of which may be pretty controversial in other areas. For example, they want to get people to use a product called Megakey, which basically gives them access to "premium" services for free... but in exchange for having ads you see on other sites replaced by ads sourced from Mega. That's a lawsuit of a different nature waiting to happen. Replacing ads on other sites has resulted in lawsuits in the past. The details of how that actually work would be interesting, but I don't see how it doesn't end up tied up in court at some point.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> how's-that-working-out-for-you? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111209/11491817023 Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:55:00 PST Dumb Trends: Tech Companies Hiring Pop Stars As 'Creative Directors' Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/04303712833/dumb-trends-tech-companies-hiring-pop-stars-as-creative-directors.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/04303712833/dumb-trends-tech-companies-hiring-pop-stars-as-creative-directors.shtml hiring of Lady Gaga to be "creative director." Hayzlett smiled and responded along the lines of "Well, actually, that wasn't Kodak, but our competitor, and just the fact that you're confused about that is pretty much all I have to say about the wisdom of that decision." Of course, it was Polaroid who had made that "hire." At CES a few weeks back, one year after this announced "hiring," Lady Gaga debuted the results of her "job" at Polaroid to mostly unimpressed reviews.

Meanwhile, over at the Intel booth, I saw Will.i.am (and an entourage of folks) walking around and checking out the displays. Knowing that folks like Lady Gaga and Will.i.am don't just show up at CES for fun, I just assumed that he had some sort of endorsement deal with Intel. Now, comes the news that he's signed a similar "director of creative innovation" deal with Intel.

Now, to be clear, various reports claim that Lady Gaga was and has been actually involved in product design efforts. And, as an endorsement deal, there's something quite nice about that aspect to it. After all, lots of celebrities sign endorsement deals for products they don't even use or care about, let alone have at least some say in designing. But, does having a celebrity, who doesn't actually have any experience or knowledge about the specific business you're in, as a "creative director" really make sense? The Polaroid products announced by Lady Gaga at CES seemed sort of pointless -- sunglasses that take photos, a paperback book sized "portable printer" for photos (I've had a smaller portable printer in my bag for years, and only recently stopped carrying it around when I realized I never use it any more).

On top of that, the idea that these celebrities have "jobs" as "creative directors" is just silly. They're not creative directors at all, and it's actually something of an insult to people who actually do have jobs as creative directors. They're celebrity endorsers who are also advising on product ideas -- at best. I like the idea of celebrities actually being more involved with the products they endorse, but pretending they have a real "job" at these companies really just insults the intelligence of people.

Oh, and, did anyone notice that, in the photo of Will.i.am showing off his "Intel badge," it looks like he's wearing the "Polaroid sunglasses" that Gaga revealed at CES? Maybe they have some sort of "mutual celebrity fake creative director appreciation society" thing going on between them.


"But do HIS glasses take pics and have screens built in...?" -- caption and photoshop thanks to Notcot


Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> is-intel-the-new-polaroid http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110126/04303712833