"Here Comes Another Bubble," the charmingly derivative video by the Richter Scales which satirizes Web 2.0 in the style (and to the tune) of Bill Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire," is gone from YouTube. The reason? A copyright claim by an unspecified third party. One possibility: Sony BMG, the record company which owns Columbia, Joel's label; lawyers there might take issue with the use of Joel's composition. YouTube and Sony BMG struck a deal last year, though, so that seems unlikely. Another possibility: Lane Hartwell, the photographer whose photo of yours truly was used, uncredited, by the Richter Scales. Hartwell posted about the incident on Flickr. I sort of wonder if this was all my fault — and not just because I was in the video.
Here's why: In a conversation with Hartwell last week about the photo, I'd asked if she'd considered taking up her copyright claim with YouTube, where the video was hosted. I called Hartwell today to ask if she had, indeed filed a DMCA takedown request with YouTube, but didn't get an answer.
From the tone of her Flickr post, though, it's unlikely Hartwell was very satisfied by the Richter Scales' response, which suggested that it was simply too difficult to credit everyone whose work they incorporated into the video. In an interview with Kara Swisher, Richter Scales singer Tom Shields defends the video as engaging in fair use.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard plenty of lawyers say that fair use is a murky and difficult area of copyright law. The role of photo credits in copyright law is likewise not entirely clear to me. Giving credit where credit's due simply strikes me as the polite thing to do. And surely not that difficult.
I suspect that the members of Richter Scales were simply lazy. The photo Hartwell took of me is the first search result for me in Google Images. It's not particularly apt, either; I was working at Business 2.0 when she photographed me. On top of that, it makes me look even more jowly than I am.
But enough about me. The issue here is credit, and whether it's hard to give. I've reposted the video above for the sole purpose of discussing the works that went into it. Please view it, and if you recognize a copyrighted photograph whose author deserves credit, please name him or her in the comments. I'll start: The photograph Hartwell took of me was originally published on Epicenter. The iconic photograph of Michael Arrington smoking a cigar was taken by Ramona Rosales for Business 2.0. Those two credits only took a few minutes to identify and write. How hard could it be to fill in the rest?












Comments
I accidentally "heart"ed this in the middle of yawning. How do I un"heart"?
@Nick Douglas: Can't you go to the bathroom when you feel the need to heart?
Don't get me wrong -- making money from the Internet is great.
But sometimes I miss the old days when nobody gave a shit.
my god, the original was Billy Joel? I didn't know he stooped so low, I always assumed it was duran duran or something. Talk about a nosedive
@Pud: this comment was in response to the thing on Flickr
@Rick: 1989 called, it wants its comment back.
Parody and satire are grounds for fair use. Ignorance is one thing, but this is just ridiculous.
I agree with Pud, bring back the old net when we could laugh for free.
Waaaaaaaaaaa stoled my photo (also soul)
It's possible the image use qualifies as fair use under the law, but legal fair use and the Youtube terms of service aren't the same thing -
[www.youtube.com]
"Some examples of copyrighted content (although not all) are:....
Slide shows that include photos or images owned by somebody else"
Fair use is murky because courts don't like to restrict it that much. Even so this sounds like clear-cut fair use.
Last week, Kara Swisher posted a video to the AllthingsD site, with a parody song, based on Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" called "Here Comes Another Bubble."
Where's the genius who invented the concept of Micro-payments? If I were in the same position, I'd have made a $5 donation to the Red Cross and posted a footnote saying, "A donation was made to the Red Cross on behalf of all the artists ripped off in the making of this video."
Not that they'd all be appeased, but it'd be awfully hard for an artist to cause you grief when you cite their work as having fed a starving child in Burundi.
Sam Freedom
The Billy Joel song was a parody (although, if they didn't make their own backing music, that could get them in trouble).
It's my understanding that various photographers whose copy written work was used without permission or credit, raised the complaint.
JMG Galleries has more on it.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?