Winter Ain’t So Wonderful Anymore

Enjoying Christmas is a thing of the past.  In all honesty, who even sings Christmas carols anymore?  Well, Juliet Weybret does.  According to Tim Arango’s article, “As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes,” in The New York Times, this high school sophomore and “aspiring rock star” recorded a video of herself playing the piano and singing “Winter Wonderland.”  Her crime you ask?  No, not daring to celebrate this outdated holiday with a musical snack, but posting her ditty on YouTube.

After posting her video on YouTube, she received an e-mail message from the Web site:  her video was being removed “as a result of a third-party notification by the Warner Music Group,” which owns the copyright to the Christmas carol.  YouTube, which is owned by Google, is caught in copyright chaos with Warner Music Group.  The controversy regards the amount of money Warner Music Group should be paid for the use of its copyrighted works (music videos).  Due to this, many amateurs such as Juliet Weybret are getting caught in the copyright crossfire.

They say imitation is the best form of flattery.  However, many videos are disappearing from YouTube as Warner Music Group clamps down because of the lack of copyright clearance.  This does not include just amateurs singing the songs, but any “family home videos that included a portion of a song playing in the background have been removed, as have any number of videos that use music in goofy ways, from montages to mash-ups.”

With the increased usage of the Internet follows new issues with copyright infringement regarding Internet sites that distribute content free and owners of the copyrighted material.  Web sites such as YouTube rely on users that display their own material.  However, in cases such as the one between YouTube and Warner Music Group, Warner Music Group is calling upon copyright infringements because the company is losing money.  According to the previously mentioned New York Times article, Warner Music Group and YouTube failed to agree to terms on a new licensing deal that would have paid Warner Music Group a cut of advertising revenue in exchange for permission to stream the music company’s videos.  Not being able to agree to a new licensing deal led Warner Music Group to begin removing its music videos from YouTube.

One of the main copyright myths is that if the content is on the Internet then it is in the public domain.  This is widely believed in the usage of Web sites such as YouTube, where anyone is able to upload a video.  Anyone can make a music video and post it, but in many cases attribution is not given when the songs already exist.  Companies such as Warner Music Group that own the rights to songs such as “Winter Wonderland” are not generating any revenue for use of the song.  It may sound extreme, but even a video of a fifteen year old girl singing the song can cause controversy because Warner Music Group is not directly (monetarily) benefiting from it.

Licenses allow the buyer to use the product but restrict duplication or distribution.  Failure to enter into a licensing agreement is costing both YouTube and Warner Music Group.  Professionally produced music videos are some of YouTube’s most-watched material.  In a list of the Top Ten Most Watched YouTube videos, a Miley Cyrus official music video (I know, I’m surprised too) makes the number three spot, only to be topped by the “Evolution of Dance” comedy skit by Judson Laipply and infamous “Charlie Bit My Finger.”  It is important for YouTube to keep official music videos on its site in order to increase the flow of advertising income.

The meaning of fair use under copyright law is being debated in the context of the digital age.

The four factors of fair use include:

• Purpose of use (commercial v. non-profit)
• Nature of copyrighted work (factual v. fiction)
• Substantiality of use (portion v. whole)
• Effects on the potential market (neutral v. lost revenue)

The New York Times article stipulates that “many of the offending videos of the user-generated variety like Ms. Weybret’s – as opposed to copies of music videos produced by Warner and its artists – would fall under fair use because they are noncommercial and include original material produced by the user.” The argument to this is while the videos are created for noncommercial purposes, they are being shown on Web sites such as YouTube, which is a “moneymaking enterprise.”

Attribution should be paid to the company and performer who originally produce a musical work.  However, should amateur singers/musicians/performers be punished for singing these popular songs?  After all, in order to make money in the first place the audience needs to like it and make it popular.  Copyright infringement continues to be a heavily debated issue, especially now that the Internet provides a whole new playing field for what can be fairly used.  Failure to see eye to eye in licensing agreements continues to make all parties caught in copyright crossfire lose money.

While it isn’t “Winter Wonderland,” check out one of Juliet Weybret’s originals – taken from YouTube:

Advertisement