Source: http://www.dmlp.org/print/1656
Timestamp: 2020-07-16 17:25:15
Document Index: 551743833

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1101', '§ 502', '§ 503', '§ 504', '§ 505', '§ 512', '§ 512']

Home > Prince, Radiohead, and the Bootlegging Provision of the Copyright Act
Prince, Radiohead, and the Bootlegging Provision of the Copyright Act [1]
Prince is at it again. We've covered his legal antics before -- his lawyers went after a number of fan sites [2] last November, and Universal Music sent a takedown notice to YouTube last June over a video of a toddler dancing [3] with "Let's Go Crazy" playing in the background. This time, his record label apparently sent a takedown notice [4] to YouTube over a video of Prince performing a cover of Radiohead's "Creep" at the Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival [5]. The interesting thing is that Radiohead wants the video put back up. A copy is available [6] at present, but it's hard to tell whether this is because someone else posted the video or because YouTube put it back up at Radiohead's request.
Section 1101 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1101 [7], states that anyone who "fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance . . . shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright." It also applies to anyone who "distributes or offers to distribute . . . or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described [above]." The person who made the unauthorized [8] video pretty clearly violated the first part of this anti-bootlegging provision, and Prince has a non-frivolous argument that YouTube is violating the second part by "distribut[ing]" or "traffic[king]" in the unauthorized recording. This is not something YouTube would want to take lightly.
Exactly how section 1101 fits with the rest of the Copyright Act is not altogether clear. It just says that a violator will be subject to the remedies in sections 502 through 505. These are the ordinary remedies that a plaintiff can obtain in a successful infringement lawsuit -- an injunction (17 U.S.C. § 502 [9]), impounding of infringing articles (17 U.S.C. § 503 [10]), damages and profits (17 U.S.C. § 504 [11]), and costs and attorneys fees (17 U.S.C. § 505 [12]). It does not make unauthorized fixation equivalent to copyright infringement, and it does not give the performer copyrights in the performance. Most importantly, a plain reading of the statute suggests that section 1101 doesn't fit within the notice-and-takedown procedure found in section 512 of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 512 [13]. Specifically, it doesn't look like a violation of section 1101 is a basis for sending a "notification of claimed infringement," or that Prince is "authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3) (emphasis added). For more detailed information about the notice-and-takedown procedure, see our legal guide section on Notice-and-Takedown [14].
Copyright [18]
DMCA [19]
Maybe this was covered by 106 after all... [20]
Submitted by Eric Goldman [21] on Tue, 06/03/2008 - 01:21
Interesting point [22]
Thanks for chiming in, Eric. It's likely that somebody official from Coachella -- if not someone directly connected to Prince -- taped or made a video tape of the performance with permission. (Note that there's a Coachella DVD [23] for sale on the website - it's not clear, but it probably is from a previous year's performance.) Then, Prince and whoever made the recording (assuming one was made) could be joint authors if they had the intention to create a joint work. But, the festival people probably deal with all this stuff through contract anyway. Very interesting.
Performance copyright [24]
But Prince changed the song! [25]
Submitted by Fred von Lohmann [26] on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 23:21
Simultaneous Fixation [27]
Thanks for your comments, Fred. This is so intersting I've decided to write a new post [28].
Source URL (modified on 06/03/2008 - 9:26am): https://www.dmlp.org/blog/2008/prince-radiohead-and-bootlegging-provision-copyright-act
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/blog/2008/prince-radiohead-and-bootlegging-provision-copyright-act
[2] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/prince-v-prince-fan-sites
[3] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/universal-music-v-lenz
[4] http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/30/music.radiohead.prince.ap/index.html
[5] http://www.coachella.com/
[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs4K2FlY1Xw
[7] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001101----000-.html
[8] http://www.coachella.com/event/rules-faq
[9] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000502----000-.html
[10] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000503----000-.html
[11] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html
[12] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000505----000-.html
[13] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html
[14] https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/notice-and-takedown
[16] https://www.dmlp.org/content-type/audio
[17] https://www.dmlp.org/content-type/video
[18] https://www.dmlp.org/subject-area/copyright
[19] https://www.dmlp.org/subject-area/dmca
[20] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/989#comment-989
[21] http://www.ericgoldman.org
[22] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/990#comment-990
[23] http://coachellastore.com/product_info.php?products_id=74
[24] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/996#comment-996
[25] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/997#comment-997
[26] http://www.eff.org
[27] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/998#comment-998
[28] https://www.dmlp.org/blog/2008/more-prince-bootlegging-and-copyright-protection-live-performances