Brian May With An Awesome Response To Reports Of Queen Videos Getting Copyright Strikes
from the all-hail-the-queen dept
Copyright strikes on hosted video content happens all the time. There are tons of strikes issued in error, plenty that are purely fraud and abuse, and a bunch that may have been done in good faith but completely fail to recognize if and when specific content would be protected by fair use. What doesn’t happen nearly often enough when these strikes occur is to have the content producer, on who’s behalf the strike was issued, get directly involved in the defense of those receiving the strike.
And so it’s worth pointing out when such things happen. And it’s especially worthwhile to point out when the artist doing this isn’t some member of the internet generation that grew up with a different view on content, copyright, and the like. Enter Brian May, famed guitarist of the band Queen, who has apparently been paying attention to several videos of Queen getting copyright flagged and isn’t happy about it.
On Monday, the guitarist shared a screenshot of a fan’s post, claiming she received a strike from Universal and YouTube over videos she posted from a Queen concert on the platform.
“Hi guys, it looks like Universal and YouTube are now coming for everyone who posts concert videos of Queen and Adam [Lambert]. I got a strike and deleted most of my concert videos. If you get multiple strikes you may lose your channel. Be careful!,” she wrote, according to May’s screenshot.
May responded within his Instagram post and pointed a couple of things out. First, that this wasn’t the only instance he’s seen a story like this. Second, that it sure as hell wasn’t done at the behest of anyone in the band. And, finally, that he isn’t happy about it and is at least going to try to do something about it.
It’s great to see an artist come out and actually rail against this sort of extreme copyright enforcement. The kind of sharing of videos from live events that we’re talking about here are simply not some kind of threat to the band, their labels, or any licensing societies either might be working with. In fact, historically bootleg tapes and videos have been seen by more forward-thinking folks as an absolute boon to these bands in terms of generating more interest in their concerts and recorded music. It sure sounds like May gets that.
But the other side of this is that May is taking the time to actually pay attention to his own fans and treating them in a human and awesome way. It would be quite easy for him to ignore all of this, or even go out of his way to make sure he doesn’t come across these issues. He appears to be doing the exact opposite by going and actively looking for this sort of thing, or at least not trying to hide it from his view. That shows a level of care by the artist for his fans that isn’t nearly as prevalent as we’d like.
So cheers and Merry Christmas to Brian May.
Filed Under: automated takedowns, brian may, copyright, copyright strikes, dmca, queen, takedowns
Comments on “Brian May With An Awesome Response To Reports Of Queen Videos Getting Copyright Strikes”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I can’t believe that this site is writing praisefully of the transphobe Brian May. Disgusting.
Re:
I dunno, does May get the Stephen T Stamp of Approval?
Re:
I guess you’re the perfect example of people who see what they want to see regardless of the reality of a situation, upon which you then start casting insults at those who don’t share your most cherished delusions.
Happens all the time, according to the Violinist forum.
https://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/202312/29841/
“Has the musician violated anyone’s copyright? Almost never. These are automated copyright claims created by bots on behalf of big companies like Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group or Universal Music. If the bot finds that your performance has approximately the same notes and timing as one in their catalogue, they then claim that they own rights to your recording. But musicians have every right to perform and post a public domain work. Even so, musicians often find their recordings muted, earnings from ads on their performances given instead to the company filing the erroneous claim, and threats of having their accounts suspended or banned. ”
Same thing’s been mentioned over at the classicalguitardelcamp forums, too.
Face it, the big “Music Companies” are out to get musicians and their fans, any way they can. It’s automated fraud.
Re:
It’s a continuation from the executive mindset that any usage can and must be monetized. The idea that money is being left on the table – or might be left on the table – makes collection societies wet their pants in terror.
Never mind that uploads of concert videos are absolutely not a one-to-one replacement of actual concert attendance, or that concert tickets have been getting costlier year on year. If labels can utter “copyright infringement!” and get platforms and users to bend over backwards to pay or appease them, why would they not do it?
The “automated” part of the “automated fraud” is also significant. Wrongful takedowns have been attributed by the corporations requesting them as the fault of the algorithms and the programmers, not the people who listed unreasonable demands of “notice and staydown”. They get all the perceived benefits and refuse to accept any of the responsibility or consequences.
Re: Re:
It’s also a mix of ‘why not?’ and ‘nice job you got there…’ in that there’s no penalty for claiming ownership of a creator’s works like that and stealing all the money so they have no reason not to do so and by going after independents they provide ‘incentive’ for those creators to get ‘real jobs’ with major companies who can help to ‘protect’ them from bogus claims.
Re: Re:
Remember the time when the RIAA unironically tried to claim that people were committing grand theft copyright infringement by setting popular music at one dollar per song as their ringtones?
Copyright strikers are the equivalent of bums, frantically scrounging about fountains to pick up the coins at the bottom.
Unfortunately depending on the contracts they signed there might not be anything they actually can do beyond ask whatever company owns the rights to maybe cut down on the PR black-eyes the musician is getting by being made out to be a legal thug issuing takedowns and/or threats.
When/if a musician or other creator doesn’t own the rights to their own creations they also lack the ability to determine how their fans are treated by the company that does, leaving them up to the mercies of however the company cares to present them as to those fans.
Re:
Yes, but I’m hoping it might be a tad different when it’s one of the world’s biggest bands asking. No exec in their right mind would want to risk the royalties, I don’t think. Even if they’re locked in at the moment, the contracts will expire eventually.
Re: Re:
That would require long-term thinking though, and given we’re talking about an industry that’s fought tooth-and-nail against any and all advances because it might mean less money now even as it brought in more money later I wouldn’t be willing to bet on them taking a long-term approach here.
I’m not surprised in the slightest. In a good way, for once.
Seb Vettel said “Everyone is a Ferrari fan. Even if they say they’re not, they are Ferrari fans.”
I’m declaring the same applies to Queen. Awesome musicians; excellent people.
It's not on the artists' behalf, usually
The strikes are rarely (in fact, almost never) made on behalf of the content producer, because the content producer is rarely the right-holder.
Most musicians choose to sell their work (and their souls) to deep-pocketed labels, because it’s easier to cash in by abandoning your artwork than it is to retain ownership and actually work for living.
Re:
And this needs to be brought up constantly – because all too often, artists and content creators are the first scapegoat used by copyright maximalists to justify enforcement overreach and defend “honest mistakes”.
Content creators are at the forefront of receiving terrible publicity, and they’re rarely the ones making the lion’s share of the profit.
Re:
If artists and musicians no longer hold onto the copyright of their works, then perhaps they should stop becoming the mouthpieces for copyright and collection societies.
If they refuse to be held responsible for copyright overreach committed in their name, they shouldn’t be having it done in their name to start with. Have the faceless corporation be the one standing at the frontline.
Of course, the truth is that neither the artist nor the corporation will want this. They’re both counting on the artist to be the face of the campaign to tug on the heartstrings, and have the fault be thrown at the corporation’s feet when it’s convenient so the artist appears blameless.