Universal Music Sued Because 62% Of A Bow Wow Video Is Actually A French Porn Star's Music Video
from the shouldn't-this-be-a-copyright-issue? dept
A French porn star, Celine Tran, more widely known as "Katsuni," is suing the rapper Bow Wow (real name: Shad Gregory Moss) and his label, Universal Music, for using clips from a video she did for a different music act in his own video. In the interest of understanding the details of the lawsuit, I watched both videos, which are embedded here. While there's no actual nudity, there's a fair bit of pole dancing in very little clothing, which -- depending on your workplace -- may be considered not safe for work. Consider yourself warned (or more interested, as the case may be). First up, the video Katsuni did with the French band, Electronic Conspiracy, for a song called "Conspiracy Strip Club."
Next up, Bow Wow's video, for a song called "Drank in my Cup."
From the original description, I had thought that the producer of the Bow Wow video had just found someone to perform the same dance moves, and perhaps it was a Beyonce-like situation over copying choreography. But, watching the two videos, it's pretty clear that whoever made Bow Wow's video just used the original footage in his video. As the legal filing makes clear, 62% of Bow Wow's video is actually footage from the other video. That's pretty damning.
But... this isn't a copyright claim.
And that's where this gets a bit more interesting from the legal perspective. Whoever holds the copyright on the original video may have a very legitimate copyright claim here. But that's not who's suing. It's Katsuni, who is the woman who performs in the video. But she doesn't hold the copyright -- so, instead, she's using a publicity rights claim. We've talked a lot about how popular publicity rights claims have become lately, and the concept is a bit of a mess, in part because it's based on state laws, and they're all different. This one relies on California's publicity rights law, and claims that Bow Wow is using her "likeness and image to promote BOW WOW's career and music."
It's interesting to see how she's basically using publicity rights as a poor man's copyright here (though, perhaps the copyright holder will sue as well). It gives us a hint of what may happen much more frequently thanks to the performer's rights treaty signed in Beijing a few months ago, giving performers like Katsuni extra special copyright-like rights in all of their performances. We haven't changed the law in the US yet to implement that, but in the short term, it looks like publicity rights claims may get the job done.
Either way, once again, we're seeing how a major label -- the same ones screaming about others copying their stuff -- seems to think that different rules apply when they copy the works of someone else. Universal Music is the largest record label on the planet and one of the most aggressive in enforcing its copyrights. But, apparently it has no problem copying someone else's video...
But... this isn't a copyright claim.
And that's where this gets a bit more interesting from the legal perspective. Whoever holds the copyright on the original video may have a very legitimate copyright claim here. But that's not who's suing. It's Katsuni, who is the woman who performs in the video. But she doesn't hold the copyright -- so, instead, she's using a publicity rights claim. We've talked a lot about how popular publicity rights claims have become lately, and the concept is a bit of a mess, in part because it's based on state laws, and they're all different. This one relies on California's publicity rights law, and claims that Bow Wow is using her "likeness and image to promote BOW WOW's career and music."
It's interesting to see how she's basically using publicity rights as a poor man's copyright here (though, perhaps the copyright holder will sue as well). It gives us a hint of what may happen much more frequently thanks to the performer's rights treaty signed in Beijing a few months ago, giving performers like Katsuni extra special copyright-like rights in all of their performances. We haven't changed the law in the US yet to implement that, but in the short term, it looks like publicity rights claims may get the job done.
Either way, once again, we're seeing how a major label -- the same ones screaming about others copying their stuff -- seems to think that different rules apply when they copy the works of someone else. Universal Music is the largest record label on the planet and one of the most aggressive in enforcing its copyrights. But, apparently it has no problem copying someone else's video...
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Stop Supporting MAFIAA
What money I have set aside for Entertainment in my Budget will be best spent by supporting the local Art as well as the greater INDIE Scene.
I am no longer interested in anything that Big Content does.I do not care what the Art is as I intend on ignoring it and concentrating my energies on the NON-MAFIAA Art.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
/lol
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Damn, you are an over reaching and misleading writer.
Can you show me ANYTHING at all that says Universal specifically had anything to do with the video, beyond having the artist on their roster? Can you show me ANYTHING, ANYTHING where Universal says "too bad porn girl, we used your video because we don't respect copyright"?
You can't.
Come on Mike, if you are going to be a prick, at least try to work with quotes or something. This would appear to be the artist and his management team making poor choices - or perhaps even a video director misleading them. Why do you immediately go to the top of the chain and say Universal personally did it?
*shakes head* - you appear to have stopped even trying to look like you want to get to the truth.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This, coming from you, is hilarious!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Another sign that I'm old
Imagine my disappointment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yeah, my farts smell good too but I don't stick my head up my ass to get a better whiff.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Except there's a difference here, not only didn't universal not know who they're working with, they're the ones that funded and now own the rights to the work. So, by your laws and your logic, Universal is on the hook here big time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Shouldn't that be...
;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Anyone else notice?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Additionally, what you are seeing is a perfect example of why YouTube isn't responsible for people who upload copyrighted material. Can you show me ANYTHING, ANYTHING where YouTube says "too bad content creators, we use your videos because we don't respect copyright"? Because that's what Viacom is alleging in their billion dollar lawsuit against Google.
It also nicely demonstrates how hard it is to know what material infringes copyright. After all, if a "content creator" as knowledgeable about copyright as Universal published a video where over half of it infringes on someone else's copyright, how would you expect a reasonable third-party entity like YouTube to identify infringement?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Ummm, there's not even an allegation that U "published" the video. Only that it owns two labels which Bow Wow is signed to. Hell,even those two companies aren't alleged to have had anything to do with the video. You may want to read the complaint rather than simply embracing Masnick's delusions as fact. Otherwise you end up looking like an idiot too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: AC is a giant raging hypocrite
You can't.
Come on AC, if you are going to be a prick, at least try to work with quotes or evidence. This would appear to be the uploader making poor choices - or perhaps even an authorized subsidiary purposefully uploading videos to look independant. Why do you immediately go to the top of the chain and say Youtube personally did it?
----
FTFY
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'd love to hear why you think this statement is true. Certainly nothing in the complaint supports this. On the contrary, the complaint states that U is the owner of Universal Republic Records and Cash Money Records which are releasing Bow Wow's upcoming album. There isn't even an allegation that these subsidiaries funded the video or own the rights. So either you are talking completely out of your ass (again) or have access to a different court filing or other information.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
OR maybe it's the idea they try to paint themselves as some sort of benevolent parent trying to protect their children, and like any parent they don't just get praise for the good things their kids do, but are responsible for the bad things their kids do as well.
Or maybe it is their insistence that infringement is easy to prevent because "everyone knows it when they see it" so therefore it is impossible to "unintentionally" infringe upon someone else's rights (regardless of whether they be copyrights, trademarks, patents, or even publicity rights).
The issue here's isn't that Universal did anything wrong (because quite frankly some of us don't think Universal did anything wrong), it is the fact that their own actions directly contradict many of the arguments they themselves have been trying to make for over a decade.
If you are going to espouse an ideology, it helps if you don't engage in behavior that directly conflicts the ideas you are trying to push.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"The production company is really in the wrong here though."
Wrong is wrong, and they should be held accountable. But Masnick's bogus tar-and-feathering of Universal in this matter is bullshit and without any basis.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting that you say this now. Why aren't you rushing to the defense of all the unnamed Does in the various file sharing lawsuits who get ruled against in ex parte decisions?
More proof of hypocrisy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What actions are you talking about? Theres no allegation that Universal or its subsidiaries produced the video or have interest in the copyright. What action is appropriate for them to take under these circumstances?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Compared to the copied footage, the blacks are not deep enough, there's a huge amount of noise, the grade is inconsistent and the effects look like something a kid who'd just discovered After Effects (or, more likely, iMovie) would do. (And also what is that "body double" footage doing there? It doesn't match at all.)
The hypocrisy point is well made, but this feels more like something the artist (or a friend) knocked up himself, not an official video.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Shouldn't that be...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
From the previous actions and statements of the record labels and their lobbying organization, it sounds as though the preferred course of action would be to cut off all ties with the artist on the basis of an accusation and never do business with him again.
So Universal should tear his contract up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
My point stands. Before releasing it Universal should have done their homework. Not that it would be easy as my joking comment above reminding of Huge case in Australia implies.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're completely against extra-judicial punishments such as 3-strikes (or 5 or 6) agreements between copyright holders and ISPs?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point stands. Before releasing it Universal should have done their homework. Not that it would be easy as my joking comment above reminding of Huge case in Australia implies.
Kindly explain to me why you believe Universal or it's subsidiaries are rights holders or were involved with the release of the video. Those allegations aren't even made in the complaint and yet you throw them around like they were facts. Just because Masnick said it, doesn't mean it's true.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and my comment stands. I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong. I can go dig a few trollish comments for you if u need. I don't need to go farther than this morning.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When a comment is made with gratuitous insults or combative language attached, it tends to put people in a frame of mind where they aren't thinking about or responding to the point at all, but are focused on the attack. When that point is a valid one, such as yours is, then that's a real loss to the discussion.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Disclaimer: "problematic" is my own opinion.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this difference is exactly why these types of things should not be left to corporations.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should probably read "de facto judicial punishment" for clarity. I suspect I'm misuing a legal term somehow, but that's why I'm not a lawyer.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, I imagine many artists would be better off if the labels would tear up their contracts and return the "rights" to their music.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All the points are valid until everything is cleared up. And even if it's the artist fault, Universal should be more careful and slap him in the wrist for infringing any sort of copyrights. If you are going to be aggressive on one end, police yourself aggressively too. And that's what Mike is condemning, the double standards.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Assuming the TOS doesn't force binding arbitration - which many do. Are you against those clauses as well?
You are so wrapped up that each tiny step is technically legal that you fail to see (or are willfully ignoring) the sum total of the mess is completely unfair to the end user and stacked to the benefit of the entrenched legacy copyright holders.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either way, once again, we're seeing how a major label -- the same ones screaming about others copying their stuff -- seems to think that different rules apply when they copy the works of someone else. Universal Music is the largest record label on the planet and one of the most aggressive in enforcing its copyrights. But, apparently it has no problem copying someone else's video...
..."when THEY copy the works of someone else..." and "But, apparently it has no problem copying someone else's video..."
Seriously dude? You are utterly devoid of any objectivity or even rational thought in this discussion. Masnick said what he meant: Universal is a hypocrite for aggressively enfacing violations while it knowingly violates the copyright of others. He is not talking about attitudes but deeds... which are completely unsupported. And in you come with a ridiculous defense of masnick any his specious allegations and bogus conclusions. WTF? You want to have civil discourse? It starts with acting like a grown-up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Umm, last time I checked, the labels finance videos and distribute them. I don't see them doing very much in the way of selecting content (which would be the artist's end of the deal... you know, the ARTISTIC stuff?)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick said what he meant: Universal is a hypocrite for aggressively enfacing violations while it knowingly violates the copyright of others.
Yes! It's the same medicine they preach! Shouldn't they be omniscient about what their "users" (the artists) do? Don't they demand that from Youtube, Google, STC??!?!?!?!!?
I'm done with you, the worst type of blind is the one that refuses to see.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that not worth calling out? Do you not see the irony?
If not, please check your hands to make sure your thumbs are, in fact, opposable and you are not just a fish or possibly an amphibian flopping around on a keyboard somewhere.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Well done Techdirt. You've come of age!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Shouldn't that be...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is the $64,000 question. There is no allegation by the plaintiff that the rights are in any way owned by U or a subsidiary. I'd hazard a guess that the plaintiff has deeper knowledge of rights ownership than you, Masnick or his Charlie McCarthy army. The plaintiffs have a deep-seated interest in tying one of these companies to ownership of the video, but don't even suggest it. Why? And what is out there that is known that induce so many of you to state that Universal has infringed on the copyright of another music video. I've seen nothing and despite the many pronouncements of guilt the most compelling evidence is goofy shit like, "I'd be surprised in the extreme if the rights are not owned by BW's label, a subsidiary of... UNIVERSAL." That's wishful thinking, not evidence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Shouldn't that be...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Karma
Think about all those times Universal Music sued someone for infringement and piracy....now their on the receiving end of their own medicine. I'm starting to wonder how many other record labels are going to have the same problem. I think that it may be the only time I would not worry about copyright trolls.
I hope Karma bites Universal Music Group hard in the ass. Will they learn they're lesson about their copyright trolling? Probably not, but at least they get to feel like so many others they sued unneceessarily for infringement.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Are you accusing bow wow of stealing????? whuat!?!
This is the most blunt and disrespectful stealing I have seen, really. What, Bow Wow could not find a stripper to dance on his pole?.. No, he could not find someone talented who could film and produce his music video. Instead they filmed his face on iPhone and mixed it with the stolen material.
as a video editor, I'm appalled!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
too easy..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Shouldn't that be...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm
"These recoupable expenses usually include recording costs, promotional and marketing costs, tour costs and music video production costs..."
Until we have more information, it's likely that Universal fronted the costs for the video and hired a director to create it.
If this is at all similar to freelance work, it means the product is not considered finished until it is reviewed by whoever is paying for it. If a rep from Universal gave the go-ahead than they remain partially responsible.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Anyone else notice?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I don't think it's true. I think that, worst case, we'll see the rise of new ISPs that serve the disenfranchised market.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn't that strongly suggest they should also be responsible for ensuring the product they're financing and distributing doesn't include copyright infringing material? Hell, we're always being told you can just tell when something's infringing just be watching it. Don't they watch their own stuff before releasing it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
On what planet is this not typical?
When artists on major labels make videos, it is almost always the case that the labels front the production costs, which are then taken out of the recording artists' album royalties. Usually they have a great deal of editorial control as well, and I've never heard of a single major label music video where the label didn't get final approval, at the very least.
In fact, the credits at the beginning of the video list the copyright owner as Cash Money Records, a subsidiary of Universal.
Since it's not a copyright claim, however, the suit alleges that the video is being used to promote Universal's album. This is true (you can see it at the end of the video), and also more relevant in terms of damages.
Nothing in the article was in any way dishonest.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like someone clearly had skin in the game for SOPA abuse.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Daft Punk
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, no, no, switch to AC logic...
This is a major legacy corporation we're talking about so they should be absolved from any wrongdoing, and even when things slip through the cracks we should forgive them for any mistakes. It's only independent distributors and sites with innovative business models who should be forced to guarantee such accuracy and be shut down if even one mistake is made.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I can completely see ISPs starting up to serve people who weren't infringing and yet got dinged anyway.
It's doesn't take anywhere near billions to start an ISP. It can be done for several thousands.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, if a consumer can no longer get the service through the cable, then that is no longer an advantage and they would be more willing to seek alternative delivery mechanisms -- thus creating a market.
I know that it is inexpensive to set up a high-speed ISP because I've done so myself for private use. My total equipment cost was around $2000, and my monthly operating cost is around $500.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that is what it costs just to verify a copyright holder, expect INFRINGERS!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment