Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 219 posts

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#21

Post by catalogia »

minimaxir wrote: post #17
not2b wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird Al is trying to save himself trouble, because going to court can be expensive even when you win. He can legally do parodies without consent, but since so many people are happy to give him permission, that's the easier route for him.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_Pitiful > While Blunt himself had no issues with Yankovic recording the parody, Blunt's record label Atlantic did; they forbade Yankovic from commercially releasing the song at the last minute. Yankovic eventually released the song online as a veritable free single; furthermore, in music videos and during live performances, Yankovic has made reference to his dispute wi…

If Blunt had said no and his publisher said yes, Yankovic wouldn't have released a song even for free. So it seems Yankovic considers asking for permission to be both a matter of courtesy and liability, with more apparent emphasis on courtesy.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#23

Post by sbarre »

ex3ndr wrote: post #3

Isn't parodies are explicitly excluded from requiring to hold copyright to an object of a parody?

In theory, sure.. But remember that on YouTube, the vast majority of uploaders are not customers, they're the product.

Google is a business and therefore the calculations that go into deciding who to side with in these kinds of disputes doesn't _only_ factor in the law, but also the impact on the business.

In this case, they predictably sided with a fellow corporate entity, like they almost always do. There is no business reason for them to go to bat for a small non-commercial uploader, they're better off just removing the video when a deep-pocketed company complains about it.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#24

Post by paypalcust83 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #14
btilly wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how are Elvis impersonators not a copyright violation?

Or cover bands, for that matter.

TBH, I saw an AC/DC cover band in a backwater Wichita Falls, Texas bar that was way better than the original. They were far, far nuttier animals and absolutely mad.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#25

Post by Broken_Hippo »

btilly wrote: post #10
acomjean wrote: post #5

Bette Midler sued ford back in the day (1988) for hiring an impersonator to sing on an ad and won. (Of course it helped that Ford asked her to sing first) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co . "The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without expres…

Then how are Elvis impersonators not a copyright violation?

When you see an Elvis impersonator, do you think it is Elvis? Probably not. Elvis is dead.

If you heard an Elvis song in the background of an advertisement, would you assume it is actually Elvis? Probably, unless the ad was featuring impersonators.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#26

Post by shawnz »

css wrote: post #8
acomjean wrote: post #5

Bette Midler sued ford back in the day (1988) for hiring an impersonator to sing on an ad and won. (Of course it helped that Ford asked her to sing first) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co . "The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without expres…

Very important to note that the Midler case has very narrow interpretation. From the Opinion: > We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is actionable. We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed…

This doesn't seem to narrow the interpretation very much to me besides noting that imitating a random, unrecognizable stranger off the street would be a different situation.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#27

Post by randylahey »

basch wrote: post #2

https://www.descript.com/ and Lyrebird prevent people from making copies of voices that arent their own, but it looks like that cat is out of the bag. Abuse potential notwithstanding, and ignoring the complete distortion of "reality" coming soon, I'm extremely excited for this technology to become more mainstream. Being able to edit audio and video, like you edit a word document. Record a conversation for a couple ho…

A YouTuber (carykh) made a video where he explains an algorithm he made to automatically process lecture videos by speeding up, condensing and removing parts of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ8orIurGxw

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#28

Post by mr_toad »

acomjean wrote: post #5

Bette Midler sued ford back in the day (1988) for hiring an impersonator to sing on an ad and won. (Of course it helped that Ford asked her to sing first) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co . "The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without expres…

“ Midler was not seeking damages for copyright infringement of the song itself, but rather for the use of her voice which she claimed was distinctive of her person as a singer.”

Whereas Roc Nation is making a claim that the videos infringe on Jay Z’s copyrights, as well as another claim that they impersonate him without permission.

In the Midler vs Ford case, Ford had already secured permission from the copyright holder for the performance.

It’s quite a different case.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#29

Post by dtech »

not2b wrote: post #16
jshevek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its a little tricky.. Even Weird Al gets the original artist's permission. Weird Al's preferences don't add any strength [evidence] to any argument regarding the legality.

Weird Al is trying to save himself trouble, because going to court can be expensive even when you win. He can legally do parodies without consent, but since so many people are happy to give him permission, that's the easier route for him.

Most of Weird Al's songs aren't parodies in the legal sense.

"Party in the CIA" is just "Party in the USA" with different Lyrics, it's not protected, just like most covers aren't. "Smells like Nirvana" is, because it directly references and parodies how the singer in the song is barely understandable.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#30

Post by acomjean »

ashtonkem wrote: post #14
btilly wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how are Elvis impersonators not a copyright violation?

Or cover bands, for that matter.

Cover Bands do pay a royalty. It not much if I recall (Last century a housemate was a former Rush Cover band member...)

But I'm wondering who Dread Zeppelin pays.... (a mash up of Elvis and Led Zeppelin with a reggae beat, which oddly works better than you would expect.. for a little while)

Post reply on HN