Taylor Swift may be the queen of modern pop music, but her latest tour has ruffled more than a few feathers with its aggressive approach to controlling media distribution. The first to complain were photographers, many of whom believed the ‘1989’ creator’s photo release form to be outright ridiculous. As photographer Jason Sheldon explained in his open letter to Swift, the photo waivers for the pop star’s concerts stipulate that a photographer can use the images from the show only once and only within the published report on that performance. That means they can’t sell it to other editorial outlets, nor can they sell prints of the image in any way.
While this is not an entirely uncommon set of guidelines for a photo release, it is only the tip of the iceberg on for Swift. As COS points out, “the real kicker is not the rights it takes from the photogs, but what it gives Swift and her team. The contract states that Swift and Firefly Entertainment have the ability to use any concert photographer’s images themselves for any publicity or “non-commercial purpose” in perpetuity. In other words, they can use a photographer’s work in marketing material and not pay them a penny.”
None of these restrictions have applied to photos taken by fans, of course, but only because fans are rarely in a position to snap a high quality photo of Swift during her performance. The photos fans take are often zoomed in shot of the pop star taken from a great distance. They’re the kind of thing people share on their Snapchat story, or in a thread with friends who could not attend, which is a long way of saying the pictures fans captures are intended for non-commercial use. Apparently, this is still not good enough for Taylor Swift and/or her team because a new story circulating online points to even more aggressive restrictions being placed on media captured during Swift’s latest tour.
As TorrentFreak first broke late last week, Taylor Swift in her team have reportedly been issuing dozens of takedown notices to fans and media who use Periscope to capture her performances. The videos, often shared by some of the most passionate fans, are seen as apparently being viewed as copyright infringement. Swift has surrounded herself with a dedicated enforcement team called TAS Rights Management who swiftly take them offline. An example of one a takedown notice currently being distributed can be viewed below:
As far as we know, Taylor Swift is the only artist who has assembled an entire takedown task force to protect what she perceives a copyrighted material. She is not, however, the only person to issue takedown notices for Periscope broadcasts. Many brands, including sports organizations like the NFL, NBA, WWE and Premier League, also have teams working to make sure their broadcasts are not replicated or shown without their consent.
While we understand Swift’s desire to keep the best parts of her show a secret for those who pay to see her, we can’t help but feel her secret task force may eventually do more harm than good. A big part of why we enjoy social media as a culture is the way it allows us to share experiences instantaneously. Swift is essentially trying to prevent that type of interaction from happening whenever the media being shared involves her, and in a way its only serving to mute her most dedicated fans. Call us crazy, but we don’t really see the benefit in that. Do you?
For the last 80 years a number of companies have collected royalties on the song known simply as “Happy Birthday.” You know the track. It’s probably one of the first songs you were ever taught, and every single year since you have heard it-or sung it-while celebrating another year of life. What you haven’t seen, and what has been the cause for much discussion over the better part of the last century, is commercial use of the song. The reason for that has been a very confusing tale of copyright, or lack thereof, that has prevented the song from appearing in plays, movies, television, or even music.
This week, a federal judge in Los Angeles decided that not a single one of the companies who have ever claimed the rights to “Happy Birthday” had a valid copyright. The judge ruled that Warner/Chappell never had the right to charge for the use of the “Happy Birthday To You” song. Warner had been enforcing a copyright since 1988, when it bought Birch Tree Group, the successor to Clayton F. Summy Co., which claimed the original disputed copyright. Judge George H. King ruled that a copyright filed by the Summy Co. in 1935 granted only the rights to specific piano arrangements of the music, not the actual song.
This series of rulings places the song known as “Happy Birthday” in the public domain, which means anyone anywhere can use the song however they wish without having to pay a cent to anyone else. This also means the song will likely start appearing in movies, television shows, and other areas of media in the near future.
The Los Angeles Times further explored the song’s twisted history, noting that the alleged copyright held by Warner/Chappell had made the company big bucks over the last several decades:
The fact that the birthday tune can’t be played or sung without permission from Warner has been little more than a surprising piece of trivia for most, but for Warner Music Group, it has meant big business. Two of the filmmaker plaintiffs paid $1,500 and $3,000 for the rights to use the song, their attorneys said. Filmmaker Steve James paid Warner $5,000 to use the song in his 1994 documentary “Hoop Dreams.”
“It was quite expensive for us at that time and with our budget. And we only used it for 9 seconds,” James wrote in an email passed along by his publicist. James said the scene was “essential” to the film and ultimately decided to pay up.
We predict it won’t be long until the “Happy Birthday” song is everywhere. Send us links on Twitter when you find the song in use.
Hello again. We have spent a lot of time in the last month talking about piracy and the many things you can do as an artist to prepare for and, if necessary, handle leaks. Today we are going to revisit that topic once more to talk about the steps that need to be taken once your material has already leaked online. You may think all hope is lost, but with a little hard work you can curve the unwanted availability of your material in a big way and we are here to help. If you have any questions about the content of the blog, or if you would like more information regarding the distributional services offered by Haulix, please email james@haulix.com and share your thoughts. You can also find us on Twitter and Facebook.
If you have been following our company updates over the last few weeks may already know this, but recently Haulix began working on a new update to our distribution service that will allow clients to automatically issue DMCA takedown notices for their copyrighted material. We are admittedly still a few weeks from launch on that project, but we wanted to begin our promotional efforts this afternoon by shedding some additional light on the purpose of these notices and the creation/submission process currently in place.
DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is a group of laws that protect copyrighted content and its creators on digital mediums. The DMCA was signed into law in 1998 and has since been the source of the vast majority of infringement issues arising from the continuing spread of digital media. There are many aspects to the law that are worth taking the time to research and understand, but for the purposes of this post we are going to look at the part most are familiar with (at least by name): The DMCA Takedown Notice.
A DMCA Takedown Notice allows copyright holders to request an Internet Service Provider (ISP), search engine, host or other type of site-owner/manager to remove material that is infringing their copyright, regardless of whether or not said copyright has been properly registered. In other words – it provides a means for artists and the people who back them (labels/agencies) to ask that their content not be shared without authorization.
In order to file a DMCA Takedown Notice, you must first establish three things:
You either own the copyright or have the right to claim infringement because of a copyright you license. If you do not have either of these, you are already wasting your time.
The alleged infringement is not covered by an exception, like Fair Use or free speech laws. Stanford Law’s website describes Fair Use as ‘any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.’ You do not need to understand all the ins and outs of this law to file a DMCA, but you do need a “good faith” belief that the alleged infringing use is not covered by any law which would permit its use.
The content is capable of being infringed online, which essentially means that the work in question is available in digital form. Some examples include text files (txt, rtf, doc, docx, etc), Images (smb, jpg, png, gif, etc), video (mpg, avi, mov, etc.), Music/Audio (aif, mp3, mp4, wav, etc), and images found on social networks (Facebook, Tumblr, etc.).
Once you have determined all three of these things to be true, it is time to move forward with filing a DMCA Takedown notice. It is important to understand that there are very specific provisions of the law you must comply with or the receiving agent may ignore your request:
1. Make sure you have found the proper source of the infringement – When you find your content on another website it may or may not be common knowledge who their hosting company is, but thankfully the internet provides a number of tools to aide in the discover process (I recommend domain tools.
When contacting ISPs with Takedown Notices that are often specific email addresses provided on the host company’s website. You may need to hunt for it, as no two sites are ever the same, but searching DMCA may quicken your hunt for results. If you try and discover there are no specified contacts listed for DMCA Notices, search the US Copyright Office List Of DMCA agents. It should be current.
2. If an online form specifically for DMCA Takedown requests is provided by the contact you are trying to reach it is wise to use that form as your initial point of contact as it is – unsurprisingly – your best bet for yielding a timely response. This may not happen with larger companies (like Google or Bing) generally use forms to direct specific issues to their different departments. There may be separate departments for music and images, for example, or perhaps a bunch of smaller teams dedicated to all digital piracy. You experience will vary by contact.
3. If you discover there are not forms provided and you still feel driven to fight for your rights as copyright holder you will need to take it upon yourself to send your notice to the designated DMCA agent (refer to #1 for help with locating this individual). Email will likely be acceptable for complaint submissions, but you will need to check with your specific agent to learn how they prefer to handle requests. It may be 2014, but some people still think fax machines are the best way to send business materials. Don’t waste time thinking about how much simpler or quick things could be and comply. This is another war for another day.
4. If you find yourself in a position where you need to create the Takedown Notice, there is a very specific set of information you will need to provide (and it is the same as what any form would ask you to fill out). According to lawyer Sarah Hawkins, your DMCA Notice must:
• Be in writing (this includes both hardcopy or digital)
• Be signed (whether in writing of via electronic signature) by the copyright owner or agent
• Identify the original copyrighted work (or works if there are multiple) you claim has been infringed
• Identify the material that is infringing your copyrighted work
• Include contact information so the designated agent can reach you, if necessary
• Include a statement your complaint is in “good faith"
• Include a statement the information in the notification is accurate
• Include a statement that under penalty of perjury you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
I know that list can be a little overwhelming upon first glance, but in the age of the internet there is virtually no form letter in existence that does not come with hundreds, if not thousands of examples available online, for free, that you can copy/paste and adjust to fit your needs. You should always triple check your letters to make sure everything comes across in your own voice and that the above list is followed to a ’t,’ but it’s completely understandable if you choose to use a template letter in order to begin filing your first DMCA Takedown Notices. In fact, I have included a letter below you can feel free to duplicate, manipulate, and use however it is needed. If you have any further questions about these notifications, just comment below and let us know!
I am the copyright owner of the works listed below and the following is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
The original work, which I claim copyright for, appears online with my permission at the following locations:
[Insert URLs where your original work is located]
Copies of this original work have been attached to this email for your evaluation and determination.
The allegedly infringing [work – image/sound/video] appears on the following sites:
[Insert URLs where your work is being used without your permission]
My contact information is [address/phone]
The information of the alleged copyright infringer based on what I have been able to find is [insert all the information you have about the site/person behind the infringement]
I have a good faith belief that the copyrighted works referenced above that appear on the website for which you are the registered DMCA agent is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or by law.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the following information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am the copyright owner [or have the license to the copyright] entitled to exclusive right which I believe are being infringed.
signed [insert name] on [date – day/month/year] in [city/state]
[signature]
**TERMS & CONDITIONS OF USE: While forms are commonly used and available elsewhere around the Internet it is important to understand the limitations provided by forms. A form, by its very nature, is previously written, usually to address a typical situation. Unfortunately, in law there are few typical situations. While this form will be useful for some, the use of a form should not be viewed as a replacement for competent legal advise adapted to your particular situation. Haulix accepts no liability if you do use this or a modified version of this Agreement.**
