Silk's bukakke ad generated via ZOOPPA's crowdsource competition was stolen off Vimeo

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Everyone is looking pretty foolish here, from Silk to Kenny...

@Kidsleepy

After talking it out with @adland and @lesliebap (which is hard to do over Twitter, so good on them for explaining stuff so succinctly), I'll gladly concede the point that using the music can be (and most likely is) a copyright violation. In the end, everything from a dude posting a video of his baby dancing to All the Single Ladies to a guy showing that he's really good at using a wide range of (licensed) music in an effective manner to a guy playing with his video gear and then setting music to it as a personal project are all susceptible to being violations of copyright. It is, admittedly, just not something I probably just don't _personally_ see as a kind of copyright violation/threat/etc, because I can't imagine that kind of stuff causing any kind of financial damaging an artist/creator, but at the same time I'm pretty sure the law isn't based on my feelings.

That said, I still think that it's a bit unfair to label any of those examples as a pot/kettle situation, when comparing it to either the person who I believe literally lifted the video and slapped a Silk tag on the end, or Silk itself for hosting it with what appears to be the hope for it to go viral for the sake of free marketing (which seems to have been Silk's goal, based on the Zooppa project description).

To me, it's like saying someone personally giving a friend a mixtape without licensing approval (thus turning everyone in the 80s into copyright violators) and someone else using that music to soundtrack a major motion picture are doing the same exact thing. I think it's important to consider the scope/intent/damage that is done. Yes, they might have both been doing something that makes copyright protections frown, but there's notably more damage done when someone uses the music for commercial purposes than trying to flirt with the girl in the apartment down the hall.

It is also possible that Silk isn't responsible for someone else ripping the material, but that's more me just not knowing where someone's responsibility begins and ends when it comes to using work that was commissioned/submitted/etc.

@dabitch

Legally, I totally agree, both in terms of the TOS and the law itself. That said, I have my doubts that someone posting a video of their kid dancing to All the Single Ladies without licensing would have the same kind of penalties/punishments as a prime time super bowl commercial featuring the song without licensing. I'm sure it's totally within the original work owner's right to have both pulled. I just question how much damage could take place to the work by the former in comparison to the latter.

That's mainly why I didn't think it was a pot/kettle situation. Some dude adding music to a video he shot when testing out his camera is probably not the same scale/scope of licensing damage/risk/infringement (as far as I know). I just question if Wu's video had the same capability of causing licensing damage that would take place if it was promoted by a company as a viral commercial.

To me, it's like seeing being slightly shoved and being kicked in the head as the same exact thing. That's not me being pro-slightly-shoving, but just saying that I see a scope of harm between the two. It's absolutely possible that the law itself might not care, but I personally do.

@kidsleepy

Who said it wasn't? My original point was that I don't believe the scope/scale/damage of both are the same. That's why I didn't feel it was a pot/kettle comparison.

"I know it's hard to wrap your head around it. But that's the problem with the Freehadists." Were you picturing yourself patting my head when you said that? I get copyright law just fine. That doesn't mean I can't personally recognize a difference between a dude testing out his camera and a video that a corporation wants to go viral, even if the law might not care all that much.

Did the vimeo guy remove his video to prevent further theft or to not get sued by the Etta James estate?

"I really don't understand why you're using the superbowl argument here."

It was just a random comparison. Like you, I'd definitely hope lawyers/companies know not to use unlicensed materials in that kind of ad (or any kind, really, honest).

That said, I'm sure the damages made for not having licensed material used in a superbowl commercial would be notably larger in comparison to whatever damages would be made by a guy adding the same music to a vimeo upload (if they could even prove it caused any kind of brand damage, which to me might be an uphill battle — if anything I'd expect the video being pulled and nothing more).

That's not me denying it's against Vimeo TOS, or copyright laws as a whole, just because it's some dude adding music to his video. I just view unlicensed material being used in a commercial that is meant to be distributed (virally or otherwise) for deliberate/intentional commercial purposes having more damage to that material than if it was just some random internet person uploading a video that had the music added without the intent or plan to profit from it. I just don't think someone singing/dancing/using a song in a personal/creative/non-commercial video (or a video that has no intent to be monetized) is on the same scope/scale of a violation as someone who then takes that person singing/dancing/etc and monetizes it without the creator's permission, even though they are both violations under US law.

I can't stress enough that I'm not defending Wu.

"So, yeah, they're both "causing licensing damage", because according to Silk, that stuff wasn't promoted by a company as a viral commercial."

My understanding was that it was on Silk's youtube channel. If Silk never even added it to their channel as one of the videos they were featuring, then I don't think Silk itself did anything wrong.

""Self publishing" which is what everyone here is doing, doesn't mean "you have diplomatic immunity from copyrights and trademarks". The moment you published it, you did."

I'm not saying anyone has any kind of immunity. Really. I swear.

"If Wu's video went totally unreally viral and is seen by millions upon gazillions of people, did he not owe the late Etta James a chunk of that fame?"

I do think about that stuff, honest! I'm not sure what the best recourse would be if someone sings a song they like, puts it on vimeo/youtube/facebook/etc (I know I'm jumping around here with examples, but what I'm trying to do is show I'm not just thinking about this one specific context but an overarching thing), having some people end up going "wow, that's a great cover!" and the video going viral. I do think the person who wrote the song deserves something if the person who covers it then profits, but at the same time I don't know how much I like the idea of someone not being allowed to upload a video of them dancing/singing/using etc a song for non-commercial purposes.

I'm not saying people have a "right" to upload a video of them singing, nor am I denying that copyright laws exist, nor am I saying the original artist shouldn't have a say in the matter, nor am I embracing that "Freehadists" stuff that was brought up before. I just think there needs to be a better kind of middle ground.

But really, that's all a much deeper tangent about copyright laws and how I view them.

Pulling back from all that, I do agree that, as it stands right now, Wu also violated copyright, like either Silk and/or the commercial creator did. I just don't see it as a violation of the same potential scale/scope which to me is closely linked to the kind of damage the work being copied faces as a result. That's why I disagreed with the whole pot calling the kettle black line.

"Full disclosure, I do not know if the creative who entered the zooppa cometition is out of work 'm just assuming that because, whoah, entering gigs like that? Nothanks, amirite?"

Seriously. The important thing is that the end of the day we can all agree that kind of spec work is absolutely baffling (well, that and it's always better/safer/smarter/healthier to just never attempt to use licensed material just for the fun of it ever ever ever if the work becomes available to the public).