Prince pulled my youtube video

[Robert****]

I just got one of my youtube lessons removed by Prince...

Even though I did not play any song of his, just "in the style of". I wonder if I should submit a counter notification.

Or perhaps by using the name "Prince guitar lesson" as the title of the video, that is enough to violate copyright? I am not sure. The content of my video certainly has no music owned by him - that's all me.

[poodlesrule]

Overzealous young intern at Prince's management co.?

Isn't it the same as "...writing in the style of John Grisham"


(I just listened to a long, fun interview with JG on BBC radio world program..!)

[marnold***]

Yes, you should. If it's not his music, there should be no takedown.

[mrmudcat]

Agreed screw prince what the hell is he prince of anyways" fading into obscurity" he should be flattered your even mention his name .Harsh I know but that is why I don't upload any music personally I like control and you lose it on the web. He is a really good guitarist but please you own the music not him brother!!!

[R_of_G]

Agreed screw prince what the hell is he prince of anyways" fading into obscurity"...

Either hyperbole or wildly inaccurate, at least as far as the obscurity part, I concede that he's not actually royalty.

I do however agree that Prince or his management group are pushing the proprietary thing way too far.

[poodlesrule]

I do however agree that Prince or his management group are pushing the proprietary thing way too far.

Just curious, is there a history of like past behavior...?

[mrmudcat]

Either hyperbole or wildly inaccurate, at least as far as the obscurity part,

I am not a fan period so in my world he already has faded,will fade or whatever into obscurity, so pretty accurate here in my bubble!



Hyperbole (pron.: /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

[R_of_G]

Either hyperbole or wildly inaccurate, at least as far as the obscurity part,

I am not a fan period so in my world he already has faded,will fade or whatever into obscurity, so pretty accurate here in my bubble!



Hyperbole (pron.: /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Yes, it's entirely accurate if your definition of obscurity is someone of whom you are not a fan.

[Robert****]

I don't care much about the video being up or not. The issue for me is I received a Copyright Strike with Youtube, and my account is "not in good standings", which means I limitations on my account.

If I receive 2 more strikes, my whole account all my videos would be gone...

So please, Dear Prince, don't remove my hundreds of funk/blues/rock/jazz/fusion/country etc lessons... because you probably could!

Youtube takes the side of the alleged copyright owner, automatically, from what I can see.

Did you know Youtube has special deals with labels, which can make it irrelevant whether your video infringes on copyright or not? The video can be removed if the label wants it gone, and there's not much you can do about it.
See this article.

http://torrentfreak.com/youtube-deal...otices-130405/

[marnold***]

In the U.S., the DMCA (as awful as it is) has specific provisions for this very thing. I would fight it. If it is not Prince licks from any album he has ever produced there is no legal reason it should be removed.

[tjcurtin1]

I would request a reconsideration of the strike, explaining that you had no idea that simply mentioning a performer's name, while using none of their material, was any kind of infringement, and that you will be sure not to do so again. The important thing is to protect your standing and all your lessons - minus this one.

[davewrites]

This may not be black-and-white copyright infringement, but YouTube may still swing a big stick. It's in their best interest to overreact because (1) they are not starved for content and (2) YouTube needs to be on the good side of millionaire artists and media corporations. One major class action suit could shut them down like Napster v.1.

So...

You could have troubles if you brand a video lesson with his name. The video content may be original and unlike any copyright material produced by Prince, but you can't leverage his name to market your videos or imply that he approves of the content... which may also link to your subcription-based online guitar lessons. Prince's legal team can infer that you are using decades of Prince's hard work and well-established brand identity to generate your own income without residual compensation or royalties for the Crown Prince of Minnesota.

I had a friend who wanted to use YouTube for a series of self-produced "DeNiro Acting Lessons." The idea would have been quashed PDQ because they were intended to teach legitimate DeNiro-inspired acting techniques. He wanted to use his hero's name so he could generate hits and google search results. Even though he would not charge for these lessons, he would be infringing upon and possibly devaluing Robert DeNiro's brand identity = not going to fly.

That said, if my friend's video clips were classified as parody like an SNL sketch, he would be protected and could get away with it (thank you Larry Flynt!).

Anyways...

Solution? Give the funk guitar video a more generic title, then in the content description reference that the music is inspired by Prince and 2-3 other artists. You can reference Prince, but you will draw fire if it seems that you're leaning on him or relying on his name.

You may also consider some sort of legal disclaimer on your video descriptions like: "Although the work herein was inspired by other musicians, it is original material produced and copyright by DolphinStreet..."

Yeah. Don't quote me. I'm not a lawyer. I would find someone who has already written a decent @$$-covering disclaimer and copy it. (Irony duly noted.)

The other beauty of the legal disclaimer is that it may help your protect your copyrighted material.

[Robert****]

A copyright lawyer advised me to file a counter notice, so I'll try that.

[R_of_G]

Just curious, is there a history of like past behavior...?

As a matter of fact, yes. Prince is developing quite the reputation as a warrior against the definition of "fair use."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ne-clips.shtml

[sunvalleylaw]

Glad you got advice from a copyright lawyer. I know nothing of that stuff.

Though I do admire his skill and playing, Prince has not been impressing me lately with his behavior. http://www.spin.com/articles/prince-...-guitar-fallon Though, as someone said, this move on your video I suppose could have been made by an overzealous intern or employee. Glad you are challenging it though.

[Tig***]

[davewrites]

I guess it all boils down to the basis of the claim. Did YouTube say they took the video down was because of perceived copyright infringement? If so, counter claim because you should defend your own copyrighted material. In effect you'd be doing what Team Prince is trying to accomplish. They should respect your original material or be branded hypocrites.

But if it's based on the use of Prince's name and brand identity, this could get sticky. YouTube will fallback to a position that protects their business interests the most. They may not overturn their decision based on the rule of thumb: "better safe than sorry."

[R_of_G]

The broader question, for both Prince and YouTube, is the issue of fair use.

For Prince, or any other artists... By what logic can one defend calling a musical tutorial an infringement of copyright? SVL or one of the other attorneys here can correct me if I'm wrong, but in civil matters like this one, isn't the primary question "where's the harm?" In what way is Prince's brand damaged by guitar teachers showing people how they interpret his techniques?

With regard to YouTube... I have my own longstanding issue with their interpretation pf the fair use standard. Rather than detail that story and draw the focus away from Robert's specific case, let it suffice to say YouTube is far more concerned with preventing fathers from using an artist's music as a background for montage videos of his toddler, but not the least bit concerned with people posting videos which feature nothing other than the exact same recordings and a still image of the album cover from which it originated. You tell me which one is fair use and which one is copyright infringement. There is no rhyme or reason to their "policy."

Anyway, back to Robert's case... I strongly encourage you to file a counter claim and to keep us posted on the process as I find it fascinating.

[sunvalleylaw]

I know very little about copyright and patent law, so really can't comment specifically on the law, other to say that it is not quite as sensible and simple as "where's the harm".