Not a week goes by when some media-focused writer doesn’t trot out a new piece on how the current laws are preventing artistic culture from progressing. Often chiding the movie, television or music industry for their snail’s pace in terms of embracing the digital age, we’ve all read enough to know every side of the issue. But this past week, a tiff between a viral video and The Beastie Boys inadvertently became the poster child for how much our laws need changing.
For those who somehow missed the incident, GoldieBlox released a short video promoting the idea that girls shouldn’t be pigeon-holed with toys that only involve beauty, fashion and other similar areas. The idea was that in 2013, there should be a wide range of toys for young girls that challenge and engage their intellect in other ways, specifically the world of engineering. The team behind the video changed the lyrics to “Girls” to reflect this idea, and it was quickly being hailed for its message across every social media network.
After the video went viral (grabbing more than 8 million views), the remaining members of the band posted a statement saying that while they liked the aim of the video, it was done without their permission and that they as a band made it a point to never allow their music to be licensed for commercial use in any form, which was cemented in the final will of the late Adam Yauch. Oddly enough, after the statement was released, GoldieBlox opened a preemptive lawsuit against the band claiming fair use rights, but only a few days later, the video in question was removed and replaced by one with different musical backing.
While most people saw the entire incident as little more than a clever marketing scheme, the reality is that the entire situation brings into question just what sort of relevancy our ancient copyright laws have within modern society. It is perhaps the best example we’ve seen in years that shows how the refusal of media companies to catch up to the digital age is hindering progress, and that the wording within these laws is no longer relevant to the situations in which they exist.
Nobody is going to question whether or not the writer of a song has the right to prevent it from being used under certain circumstances. But the new reality is that an artist needs to decide to go either all or nothing, as the middle-ground most attempt to occupy within modern society is no longer sufficient, and leaves them open to a long list of double standards.
In many ways, it can come down to one simple question: what’s the difference between a company re-working a song for an online video, as opposed to a random singer on YouTube posting their own cover of the song or any of the countless “parody” videos posted?
Both situations use the original material with the “new” party putting their own spin on the song.
Both situations are done without the expressed consent of the original performer.
Both situations reflect someone using the song to sell a product. In the case of the YouTube cover, the person is selling themselves, their talent.
Both situations result in the “new” party making some sort of monetary gain from the video. Whether that’s through product sales or ad revenue, there is money involved. For those that argue the YouTube creator doesn’t make the money, understand that there are still ads on the video, so if nothing less, YouTube is getting paid.
When it comes to that money, some may also argue that the revenue from YouTube is so minimal that it doesn’t really matter. However, either someone is profiting off of the work of another or they’re not. The size of the profit hardly matters, as it is an issue of rights usage in question, not an issue of profit margins. Also, let’s not forget that it wasn’t long ago when we heard little Lars Ulrich fighting Napster for the nickels and quarters he felt he deserved.
Most artists will argue that they leave YouTube covers alone because the problem is too big to fight. To anyone who understands the inner-workings of the video service, such statements are little more than an easy excuse, as a number of artists have taken (and continue to take) the proper steps to keep their music from being misused in any way, with Prince being the best example of this practice (go try and find his studio work on YouTube).
So where does this leave the collective music community? Do artists simply have to let anyone who wishes to use their music do so freely? Can companies and “cover stars” continue to hide behind the often-abused “fair use” laws?
It’s obvious that society has finally reached the point where the creative laws of even a decade ago simply fail to work properly. They speak in a language that has become so outdated that they confuse the situation more than help it, and in most cases leave the artist on the losing end of the battle due to the ambiguous nature of “fair use” policies.
It’s time for the entire idea of copyrights and fair use to be reconsidered from their foundation, with creators and artists working alongside one another to address the realities of the digital age. In the current situation, nobody really wins (except the lawyers), and as society moves further from the days of a few companies controlling all forms of media, it’s time for the new pioneers to fight for the right to use the work of others in a fair manner.
Joel Freimark hosts a daily music-related webseries HERE and you can follow his daily music musings and suggestions HERE as well.
Image: Billboard
Follow @thedailyguru