slartabartfast
Good enough song, but it raises my interest in how many kinds of copyright infringement can dance on the head of a YouTube video. The required rights in this song would be at minimum the synchronization rights to the underlying music composition, and a derivative works license for the same. YouTube has undertaken some kind of rights licensing deal for infringing music covers by getting the owners of the copyright for some catalogs to refrain from at least suing YouTube for contributory infringement in exchange for sharing revenue from ads placed on videos infringing those catalogs, but whether their deal with the publishers give some kind of license to the uploader is something of a mystery. It is also not clear that the mysterious agreements permit unidentified uploaders to create derivative works.
 
And before someone says that this song is protected under the fair use exception for parody, it is not. A parody is an aspect of the fair use exception of commentary and criticism, which allows de minimis use of the work itself to criticise the work. The supreme court made clear in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. that parody must criticize the work itself, and not just use the work in a humorous social commentary or criticism of something else. That latter use is satire, which is not protected, rather than parody. Because the words are changed but the music is used, the infringed right is not just that the music was used without permission, but that it was used to create a new derivative work, which requires a separate permission. If the uploader had attempted to get a compulsory mechanical license to record this work to CD or digital download, he would not qualify, since compulsory mechanical licenses can only be obtained if there is minimal alteration from the original composition needed to match a new style or genre. Creating a whole new song with an old melody does not qualify.
 
Of course there is no compulsory license to create a derivative work, or synchronize a composition with video, so the question is what rights, if any, are licensed by the YouTube content identification and monetization agreements, and are the uploading infringers in any way granted either a license to use those rights or immunization against liability for their infringement in the context of the YouTube distribution. Technically, lacking the licenses mentioned, this video infringes copyright as soon as it is recorded, and before it is uploaded to YouTube where it begins to infringe the public performance rights. In spite of the ad revenue licensing deals that YouTube has with publishers, the terms of service still requires the uploader to certify that they have all of the rights and permissions to make and publish the work prior to uploading, and requires them to defend and hold YouTube harmless against claims of infringement. In other words pay the legal fees and other losses suffered by YouTube. If that part of the TOS were removed, YouTube would potentially make itself liable for soliciting copyright infringement. 

Are you available for children's parties? 

bapu
slartabartfast is a buzz kill.

 
The video is cute.

I couldn't agree more to both statements.
 
 
Nonetheless, why is a service that, from any objective standard, makes a substantial portion of its income from a barely masked soliciting of copyright infringement not forthcoming with what exactly it means to have an ad appear on your contribution instead of a takedown notice? I am not criticising the artist here, he may have negotiated the license with the copyright owner prior to posting to YouTube for all I know, but I am offering a caution to those among us who are not interested in learning the issues involved that just not having your YouTube posting removed does not necessarily mean that you are free and clear. The issue in this particular case is probably a no-harm-no-foul one. A significant factor in the test for fair use is whether the original work is going to be a substitute for the original and hurt its market.  But there are undoubtedly songwriters who would not want their melody used for an ISIS recruiting song and video who could see the implications of this discussion as less than cute. If the test becomes what you can get away with instead of what is the law, then anything is OK, cute or not. 
 
And the derivative works issue is a major stumbling block for many people. You can get a license to cover another author's song in its entirety without having his consent, but if you sample two seconds of his recording of the same work, you are in trouble. That does not make any more sense that that a photograph of a statue requires a license from the sculptor, or that making a sculpture based on someone else's photograph of the subject requires a license from the photographer, but artists have lost money and control of their own work based on those facts. 

Startabarf, if I had a penny for every time someone stole an idea from me, I'd be...well middle class at least.  :D:D  Creativity is a lifestyle choice.  We're on a continuum, the holy spirit.  Let it be hon

slartabartfast

bapu
slartabartfast is a buzz kill.

 
The video is cute.

I couldn't agree more to both statements.
 
 
Nonetheless, why is a service that, from any objective standard, makes a substantial portion of its income from a barely masked soliciting of copyright infringement not forthcoming with what exactly it means to have an ad appear on your contribution instead of a takedown notice? I am not criticising the artist here, he may have negotiated the license with the copyright owner prior to posting to YouTube for all I know, but I am offering a caution to those among us who are not interested in learning the issues involved that just not having your YouTube posting removed does not necessarily mean that you are free and clear. The issue in this particular case is probably a no-harm-no-foul one. A significant factor in the test for fair use is whether the original work is going to be a substitute for the original and hurt its market.  But there are undoubtedly songwriters who would not want their melody used for an ISIS recruiting song and video who could see the implications of this discussion as less than cute. If the test becomes what you can get away with instead of what is the law, then anything is OK, cute or not. 
 
And the derivative works issue is a major stumbling block for many people. You can get a license to cover another author's song in its entirety without having his consent, but if you sample two seconds of his recording of the same work, you are in trouble. That does not make any more sense that that a photograph of a statue requires a license from the sculptor, or that making a sculpture based on someone else's photograph of the subject requires a license from the photographer, but artists have lost money and control of their own work based on those facts. 

Here in the US, the entire legal system is based on what you can get away with.  And everybody can't get away with the same stuff.  And "right" doesn't necessarily equal "legal" ... or the other way around.
 
Maybe there is a deeper lesson for Millennials in the combination of how this song came about and it's obvious message.
 
 

Still, it was cute.

. 

slartabartfast

bapu
slartabartfast is a buzz kill.

 
The video is cute.

I couldn't agree more to both statements.
 
 
Nonetheless, why is a service that, from any objective standard, makes a substantial portion of its income from a barely masked soliciting of copyright infringement not forthcoming with what exactly it means to have an ad appear on your contribution instead of a takedown notice? I am not criticising the artist here, he may have negotiated the license with the copyright owner prior to posting to YouTube for all I know, but I am offering a caution to those among us who are not interested in learning the issues involved that just not having your YouTube posting removed does not necessarily mean that you are free and clear. The issue in this particular case is probably a no-harm-no-foul one. A significant factor in the test for fair use is whether the original work is going to be a substitute for the original and hurt its market.  But there are undoubtedly songwriters who would not want their melody used for an ISIS recruiting song and video who could see the implications of this discussion as less than cute. If the test becomes what you can get away with instead of what is the law, then anything is OK, cute or not. 
 
And the derivative works issue is a major stumbling block for many people. You can get a license to cover another author's song in its entirety without having his consent, but if you sample two seconds of his recording of the same work, you are in trouble. That does not make any more sense that that a photograph of a statue requires a license from the sculptor, or that making a sculpture based on someone else's photograph of the subject requires a license from the photographer, but artists have lost money and control of their own work based on those facts. 

Yes, it was cute, but not necessarily valid or accurate, and Father is correct, but he is not a millenial, so his moral compass is skewed by his demographic, that is not a bad thing, it just means that slowly the future will belong to the next wave of ding dongs that think they know what is right for everybody
 
And google could care less about copyright, until they do, and then duck and cover.
 
Jesse Q. Screed

Very nice job.
 
I can't get over how those 4-guys look so much alike.

KenB123
Very nice job.
 
I can't get over how those 4-guys look so much alike.

They're all guys?  Wow, I thought that one was a...  Oh, nevermind...