RSS
Oh Look, Viral Video On YouTube Boosting Sales... And Reputation For Chris Brown
from the take-it-down! dept
By now, you've probably seen the video of the wedding party entrance for the wedding of Jill Peterson and Kevin Heinz (if not, go check it out). It's been seen by many millions of people, and the number just keeps on growing. The wedding party entrance is choreographed as the entire wedding party dances enthusiastically to Chris Brown's song Forever. The video, of course is almost certainly copyright infringement. Even if we assume that the church in St. Paul where this took place paid its public performance license, that would only cover the venue, not the eventual rebroadcast on YouTube. Now there are some who will insist that every streamed version of this song should require that a fee be paid. But, of course, if that were the case, this video almost certainly would not have been put on YouTube and would not have been seen by so many millions of people.
And what would have happened then?
Well, JohnForDummies notes that the success of this video is having a major impact for Chris Brown (who's reputation is, reasonably, in tatters for assaulting his then girlfriend, the singer Rihanna). Not that we advocate supporting someone who assaulted his girlfriend, but the video is having an impact. The song Forever has jumped into the iTunes top 10, despite having been released over a year ago. Also, the video itself has greatly outpaced an attempt by Brown to create a viral video "apologizing" for his actions.
It's not clear how the record label (in this case, a subsidiary of Sony Music) feels about this (see update below) -- though, I will note that embedding has been disabled on the video (Update: Embedding enabled again, so I'm adding the video below) and there is a link to buy the song on the YouTube page. At the very least, this suggests that Sony (which has a good relationship with YouTube, unlike some others...) worked out a deal to take advantage of the publicity around the video. Though, the disabling of embedding seems rather pointless. Embedding the video would likely guarantee far more views, and with it, more purchases.
Update: Thanks to a bunch of folks sending in the news that Google is now promoting this as a case study of a rights holder taking control over content.
Update: Embedding has been re-enabled, so here you go:
Also... there's already been an amazing spoof video of the couple's "divorce" proceedings:
I don't think Sony's "taken control" of this one yet...
And what would have happened then?
Well, JohnForDummies notes that the success of this video is having a major impact for Chris Brown (who's reputation is, reasonably, in tatters for assaulting his then girlfriend, the singer Rihanna). Not that we advocate supporting someone who assaulted his girlfriend, but the video is having an impact. The song Forever has jumped into the iTunes top 10, despite having been released over a year ago. Also, the video itself has greatly outpaced an attempt by Brown to create a viral video "apologizing" for his actions.
It's not clear how the record label (in this case, a subsidiary of Sony Music) feels about this (see update below) -- though, I will note that embedding has been disabled on the video (Update: Embedding enabled again, so I'm adding the video below) and there is a link to buy the song on the YouTube page. At the very least, this suggests that Sony (which has a good relationship with YouTube, unlike some others...) worked out a deal to take advantage of the publicity around the video. Though, the disabling of embedding seems rather pointless. Embedding the video would likely guarantee far more views, and with it, more purchases.
Update: Thanks to a bunch of folks sending in the news that Google is now promoting this as a case study of a rights holder taking control over content.
Update: Embedding has been re-enabled, so here you go:
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Hey, I saw your video on YouTube, and it seems you don't have a rights agreement with us established. Because it's a great video and we want to promote the artist, we'll give you rights if you contact YouTube and and allow us to sell links to the music on your video."
What a simple solution. Win-Win-Win.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google have the framework in place for rightsholders to upload a sample of their own content, automatically identify all of the videos on youtube where that content appears (even if it's not bit-for-bit identical; even when it's just background music like in this video) and then choose what to do about that content. They don't need the assistance or permission of the video's uploader to do any of this.
Sony have chosen to treat the video as a free viral advertisement for the music, adding a link so that people can buy the CD or mp3 download. As a result Chris brown is in the top ten on itunes and amazon, and everyone is making a shitload more money.
Warner Music Group generally opt to take the video down or remove the soundtrack. as a result they get no advertising revenue or promotional benefit at all. Also everyone thinks they're a bunch of assholes, just read some of the comments on videos where the soundtrack has been stripped..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if using an executive's picture on a wanted poster is fair use due to it's transformative nature, why isn't this fair use of the song?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
confused
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: confused
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: confused
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I read this blog too much
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the light starting to come on?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
You mentioned "Not that we advocate supporting someone who assaulted his girlfriend."
Really? That's good. Additionally, that "We" and "I" thing really needs to be worked out.
Because it seems to be bothering some people.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Lame
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lame
No. Fair use doesn't mean "fair share of profits due the copyright holder." Now if the bride 'n groom (or the video shooter, whomeever) wrote their own song and added it to the video...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lame
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lame
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lame
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lame
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lame
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lame
It could be that there was some kind of profit made, but not in a publicly visible manner because after all these are Sony and they don't want o makeup this sleeping giant.
Imagine all viral video makers asking for money before anyone can use them to their own advantage. I found this website with a strange name www.GollyGoose.com (funny), if their mission works out I think it will become a reality that every viral video will become a major bargaining chip.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Embedding is enabled.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Embedding is enabled.
Weird! They must have changed it. Last night it most certainly was not enabled... I'll add it to the post. Thanks!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Donation
Share the love Sony.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, the irony
Asking for donations to an organization that fights domestic violence!
Ah, the irony.
Yehuda
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This song is an advertisement
On a separate note, the wedding video was the first time I heard Forever and I really liked the song and bought it from iTunes (before the ad link went up). I buy all kinds of music that I hear in TV shows, movies and on the internet. I don't understand how the big labels can be so clueless as to think that having their music played in the background is hurting sales. Quire the opposite actually.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, Look
No doubt, using Brown's music ups the odds of creating viral exposure. We play it safe when uploading content for the West Deptford Free Public library using licensed music from a variety of sources including the music of artists showcased in library performances.
BTW - I am still in search of the answer to the most important question. Are the dresses in the original video from J. Crew?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont see buy links
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
video was real; viral effect was manufactured
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment