Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a bogus claim. There are many other parodies. No one ever told "Weird Al" Yankovic to take down his songs. Universal has no case.
Parodies like this especially since they are using the music are borderline infringement. You're allowed to do this under "fair use" but there is no exact definition as to what fair use is.
If the author of the video feels that it's not infringement they can wait to be sued and fight it in court.
The fact that it's still on youtube tells me Universal is hesitant because they could have it taken down immediately with simple DMCA notice...... however that opens them up to damages if it's found to be non infringing.
As far as weird Al goes I believe he sought permission from the performers he was going to parody and it was considered an honor by most.
Parodies like this especially since they are using the music are borderline infringement. You're allowed to do this under "fair use" but there is no exact definition as to what fair use is.
If the author of the video feels that it's not infringement they can wait to be sued and fight it in court.
The fact that it's still on youtube tells me Universal is hesitant because they could have it taken down immediately with simple DMCA notice...... however that opens them up to damages if it's found to be non infringing.
As far as weird Al goes I believe he sought permission from the performers he was going to parody and it was considered an honor by most.
When "Weird Al" did the "Amish Paradise" parody, Coolio was dead against it and the song was authorized by the record company without his permission anyway.
When "Weird Al" did the "Amish Paradise" parody, Coolio was dead against it and the song was authorized by the record company without his permission anyway.
I would assume Coolio had no say in the matter and the record company owned the copyright and or had licensing authority.
The way this usually works is the record company will offer up and coming artists long term contracts that that are substantially better than what they are making on their own. The record company will then promote and open doors for them. If they become really popular that contract is now peanuts. If they don't want to take the deal there is 1000's of others that will that are just as talented.
I had friends in band that were touring all over the East Coast in the mid to late 90's tat were getting really popular, they even managed to get a gig at CBGB's before it closed. That's what happened with them, they had a contract offer but they had to sign their lives away. They declined the offer because they were having too much fun. They still play the clubs locally.
I would assume Coolio had no say in the matter and the record company owned the copyright and or had licensing authority.
The way this usually works is the record company will offer up and coming artists long term contracts that that are substantially better than what they are making on their own. The record company will then promote and open doors for them. If they become really popular that contract is now peanuts. If they don't want to take the deal there is 1000's of others that will that are just as talented.
I had friends in band that were touring all over the East Coast in the mid to late 90's tat were getting really popular, they even managed to get a gig at CBGB's before it closed. That's what happened with them, they had a contract offer but they had to sign their lives away. They declined the offer because they were having too much fun. They still play the clubs locally.
If that's the case then why would it be Ok to authorize a Coolio song parody and not "Romney Girl"?
If they had a case, theyd send notice to youtube, who would remove it immediately because of liability concerns
If they DMCA it and then lose a suit brought by the author they are liable for damages and that's entirely possible in this case. The safer course of action would be suing in court and leave it up in interim -or- they may just be bluffing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
