Dance Reality Show Barred From Doing A Michael Jackson Tribute

from the pay-up-to-honor-MJ dept

Krharrison alerts us to the news that the popular reality TV competition show “So You Think You Can Dance” was barred from doing a planned tribute to Michael Jackson on its most recent show because someone (exactly who isn’t clear) refused to give permission. What a great society we live in when you need permission to do a tribute to someone’s music.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Dance Reality Show Barred From Doing A Michael Jackson Tribute”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
33 Comments
Richard Ahlquist (profile) says:

Re: Re: Not so bad really

Umm normally I agree but in this case it was more likely not a tribute to the man, the star, or his career, but…

Hey lets make some money off this dead guy, if we act all pious we can capitalize on his success for free!

If they want to do a tribute show a quick dedication at the start of the show is all it takes. If they want to use the mans music they should pay the same fees they would have a month ago.

kse (profile) says:

Michael Jackson Tribute

It’s a show that has sponsors, so, maybe one of them didn’t support it.

Besides that, haven’t we had enough of MJ for a while? Plus, in the coming weeks will will be bombarded with autopsy reports, investigations, and who will get control of the children, who will get his money, provided there is any, etc.

MJ was an awesome artist and a ‘trailblazer’ in music. His music will live on,forever. What I am most anxious to see is those artist that put together tribute acts.

–end

Anonymous Coward says:

Ironic that now that MJ is dead he’s probably worth ten times what he would be if he were still alive. Ten years from now his estate will be worth a billion or so. Elvis made way more after he died than he ever did while alive. When Elvis died, one industry pundit quipped ‘good career move.’ Financially he couldn’t have been more right. I had a coworker who talked about how she cried when she went to Graceland because of how much Elvis meant to her and the effect he had on her life. The funny part? She was like five years old when he died.

Also MJ gets to join the “died while still young and famous” cult of celebrities whose sins are all forgiven and are canonized forever, along with Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Princess Diana, and even Kurt Cobain.

And the real irony is that MJ is the OLDEST (at death anyway) of that bunch.

Anonymous Coward says:

not that i would watch a dance show anyways…BUT, can we shut the fuck up about Michael jackson, before he died everyone did nothing but make fun of him being a child molester and so and and so on, now…he is just some legend…I dont realy care, i am just sick of him trumping some real news out there

he is dead, get over it.

scarr says:

Doesn't this make sense?

Isn’t this just the copyright holder controlling who can use their work for what purposes? Is this any different from stopping a car dealership using “Beat It” to advertise their lot’s low price guarantee?

Unless my copyright knowledge is way off, as long as you pay the relevant fees to the author, you can cover any song you want, and nobody has rights of refusal. They can only refuse using the copyrighted sound recording, which must be what the TV show wanted.

You can argue how long copyrights should be held (which is currently way too long), but the idea of a copyright holder determining usage of his/her work in that period is completely acceptable to me.

hexjones (profile) says:

I happen to like So You Think You Can Dance. They wanted to honor MJ’s music and DANCING. The show is all about dance – elevating and showcasing the art. It just so happens that dance is very intertwined with music. MJ had a HUGE influence in the world of dance.

So no, I don’t think it is so simple as just “cashing in”. There was genuine disappointment when they announced that they wouldn’t be able to do the tribute.

scarr says:

Re: Re:

MJ didn’t refuse use of anything because he’s DEAD.
Thank you for that clarification.

I never claimed the copyright holder is the artist. If someone else paid for the copyright, s/he purchased control of the work. Again, I’m not arguing the length of copyrights or whether record companies are predatory in taking copyright from the artists. I’m simply saying that a lawful holder of a valid copyright should have the right to refuse permission for their work to be used verbatim in a context like a TV show, movie or commercial.

(I’ll add that I’m not talking about a transformative work either, which is a different issue.)

minijedimaster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I never claimed the copyright holder is the artist.

Really? You claim this but then say:

I’m simply saying that a lawful holder of a valid copyright should have the right to refuse permission for their work

Somewhat of an oxymoron there when it comes to the vast majority of copyright situations out there. Tell me, why should I have to pay Michael Jackson or his relatives to be able to play a Beatles song? Seems kind of stupid to me. But yet that’s the case. Point is, copyright as it stands today is completely broken and needs to be redone in a bad way from the ground up.

scarr says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I meant “their work” as in “the work of art they own”. Perhaps it wasn’t the clearest choice of words, but I’d just finished saying “if someone else paid for the copyright, s/he purchased control of the work.” I thought that’d be clear enough.

In your opinion, should people not be able to sell copyrights? Jackson might’ve been a jerk for buying his friend’s music, but being a jerk isn’t a legal or economic differentiator. Being the original creator doesn’t overrule fair trade.

I’m not arguing that copyright isn’t severely messed up. It is. I’m only claiming that one purpose it properly serves is letting the rights holder control certain usage of that material. Usage on a TV show definitely falls under that umbrella. Whether it’s smart for the owner to restrict that usage is another issue, but that’s a choice for the rights owner to make, not anyone else.

mobiGeek says:

Re: Re: Re:

lawful holder of a valid copyright should have the right to refuse permission for their work to be used verbatim in a context like a TV show, movie or commercial

Why?

No, seriously. Why?

State the logic behind having such “control” over something like this? You have made a rudimentary claim, but I question your reasoning.

scarr says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That’s a fair question. It creates an association between the two, and uses one to market the other.

I gave the example of “Beat It” being used in a car dealership ad. It promotes the image of the place by using a popular song, and would create a negative association for the song if the place is disreputable. Without restriction, any group could use anything for any purpose they wanted.

It’s easy to see how being associated with, or helping promote (by association, or the power of music/art) religions, political causes, or other organizations might not be what someone wants to do. An artist should be able to create works without worrying about how they could be misappropriated.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...