In the age of self-promotion and online marketing, record labels have still found a way to get their cut from “online stars” and entrepreneurs, even against the will of the artists they claim to be protecting.
Michelle Phan, who has gained worldwide stardom and over six million fans by posting makeup tips on her Youtube Channel, is now being sued for the use of over 50 songs owned by Ultra Records and Ultra International Music Publishing, without permission. The label which represents artists such as DeadMau5 and Kaskade, and their publishing company have decided to both sue Phan to get compensation for both reproduction and sync rights because you need a sync license if you use music with a video. Due to a “strategic alliance” according to techdirt, Ultra is now ran by music giant, Sony Music, meaning in a sense Phan is being sued by Sony Music.
To put this in laymen’s terms, Michelle Phan used popular songs owned by Ultra as background music, to accompany her makeup tip tutorials, and Ultra is claiming people watched her videos not for the makeup tips, but for the songs she chose.
Although a spokesperson for Phan is claiming that she had a license to use the songs, Ultra insists that she did not. In most cases like this, labels would have just used Youtube’s ContentID tools to either monetize, silence or take down Phan’s videos, but Ultra chose to sue. Utra also could have just claimed statutory damages, which carries a maximum for willful of $150,000, but most likely due to her enormous amount of subscribers it seems as they have left open the possibility of suing for actual damages, which is extremely hard to prove.
According to Celebrity Net Worth, Phan has made somewhere in the $3 million range due to these videos, apparently making the label exec’s mouths water for their portion of the profits.
In a press release, Ultra Records stated that:
When a music artist or songwriter signs to Ultra, it is our responsibility to protect what they have created. Enforcing copyrights is fundamental to the survival of artists, writers and producers, and to Ultra’s ability to continue to invest in and support them, so that they can continue to bring great music to music fans around the world. Whatever Ultra collects enforcing these important rights is shared with its artists according to their agreements.”
Now comes the part that contradicts that statement. Kaskade, one of Ultra’s artists in the center of the lawsuit, has strongly supported Phan through Twitter and Tumblr arguing, that although he “can’t do much about the lawsuit except voice support for her,” he feels that, ”copyright law is a dinosaur,” and “ill-suited for the landscape of today’s media.” Kaskade has also made light of the situation saying Phan has, “great taste in music,” and that she actually helps promote his music by using it in her videos.
Irritated by these laws that supposedly are meant to cover his interests, Kaskade makes it clear that his label has taken down songs from Soundcloud that he has posted himself, has frowned upon giving away any of his music or mashups, even though he feels these are the best ways to promote himself.
In his Tublr Kaskade wrote:
When I signed with Ultra, I kissed goodbye forever the rights to own my music. They own it. And now Sony owns them. So now Sony owns my music. I knew that going in. Soundcloud is beholden to labels to keep copyright protected music (read: all music put out by a label, any label) off their site unless authorized by the label. Am I authorized to post my music? Yep. Does their soulless robot program know that? Not so much. So some stuff they pulled was mistakenly deleted, but some tracks were absolutely rule breakers. The mash ups. (Read about those little beauties in “Politicking of a Mash Up”.) I post mash ups mainly because I don’t need to keep these things tucked under my pillow, pulling out my little Precious only to be played at gigs. You want to hear it? Grab it. Like it? Great. The end.
But the labels, they aren’t feeling this approach so much.”
Kaskade then goes on to express that he feels these laws are mainly to help put money into the pockets of old men who are out of touch with landscaoe of todays music industry, and in some ways are harmful to the promotion of today’s artists.
There’s always been this cagey group of old men who are scared to death of people taking their money. Back in the day, they were upset that the technology existed to record onto cassette tapes directly from the radio. “What! (Harumph!) Why will people buy music if they can just pull it out of the air?!” Yet, people still bought music. Because it was more accessible. Because more people were exposed. Because Mikey played it for Joey on the corner and then Joey had to have it. It’s music, and we buy what we love. We can’t love music we haven’t heard.
Innovation helps the music industry. The industry only needs to make the effort to keep up and adapt. Make no mistake: exposing as many people as possible to music – all music – is a good thing. Everyone wins. The artist, the audience, even the old guys who just want some more cash.
The laws that are governing online music share sites were written at a time when our online and real-life landscapes were totally different. Our marching orders are coming from a place that’s completely out of touch and irrelevant. They have these legal legs to stand on that empower them to make life kind of a pain-in-the-ass for people like me. And for many of you. Countless artists have launched their careers though mash ups, bootlegs, remixes and music sharing. These laws and page take-downs are cutting us down at the knees.And yo, musicians definitely need knees.”
He then goes on to explain how he feels that sharing music for free can only breed money for the greedy in the long run, through future music sales and show attendance due to song sharing.
We have moved beyond the exhausting notion that our greedy hands need to hold onto these tunes so tightly. The world just doesn’t work like that anymore. I’d happily parse out the pieces of every song I’ve made for others to use. Remix that. Use that. Think you could do it better? Show me. It’s laughable to assert that someone is losing money owed to them because I’m promoting music that I’ve written and recorded. Having the means to expose music to the masses is a deft tool to breathe new life into and promote a song. It’s the most compelling advertising, really.
But it’s more than advertising. It’s sharing. If a person likes one song, then you know what’s likely to happen? They’ll press the download arrow and own it for free. You won’t believe what happens next! They become familiar with the artist, and seek out other material. Maybe they buy that. Maybe they talk about it online. Maybe they go to a show. Maybe they simply become a fan and tell a friend.
I’m cool with that. The labels should be too. It’s exactly what they’re trying to accomplish by funneling endless money for Facebook Likes, Twitter trending hashtags, and totally ridiculous impotent advertising campaigns. Let the people have the music. Or, to put it in language that makes more sense for the ones who can only speak dollar bill – Free the music, and your cash will follow.”
Sounding as though he sold his soul to the devil for this “protection,” when in reality it seems as though the labels are only trying to protect money that may or may not have been earned by music, which very well may have just been background ambiance. Now it’s up to the courts to decide, even against the wishes of the artists they are supposedly protecting. Either way, its refreshing to see music is still being made by people, who care about other people trying to make it, even more than their own potential gain.
Leave a Comment