AfterDawn: Tech news

Radiohead and Prince in fight over copyright

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 01 Jun 2008 14:24 User comments (23)

Radiohead and Prince in fight over copyright Earlier this week, the musician Prince did a cover of the popular song "Creep" originally by Radiohead at a concert at the Coachella. After word spread, tens of thousands of curious fans went to YouTube looking to get at least a glimpse of the performance. There was a problem however, NPG Records, Prince's label had quickly advised the site to take everything down related to the song and there were no videos to see.
There was one problem with that however. Not even Radiohead could see the fan videos, of their own song. Thom Yorke, lead singer for the group, first heard of the cover via text message and after his bandmate was unable to view a video on YouTube he quickly called his publicist.

"Really? He's blocked it?"
asked Yorke, who figured it was their song to block or not. "Surely we should block it. Hang on a moment."

Yorke added: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song."

YouTube's policy is that if they receive a complaint from a copyright owner they take down the infringing video. This situation is a lot more tricky however, as Radiohead owns the song copyrights despite the fact that it is Prince singing it.

Both YouTube and Prince have declined comment on the matter so far.

For now, YouTube seems to still have the videos taken down but videos have emerged on others sites such as DailyMotion for those interested.

Previous Next  

23 user comments

11.6.2008 15:24

Whats the problem with this people? Don't they know that more they hit the NO, more we want it! I don't even like prince or listen to Radiohead, but i had to see the video on the site that you guys found... Not my type of song, but i guess it is great to hear his version of it.

21.6.2008 15:31

The title of this makes it sound like prince and radio head are goign at it but it seems to be a pootube issue.

Speakign of pootube they hosed my account because of a anime clip thats not licensed in the US and then they told me to contact the UK deparment for JP DMCA coutner claims.... WTF?!!?

This is what happens when you become naziistic over CP, this is why 80% of the stuff on youtube should fal under fair use, just remove the 5minete or longer parts of eps that are shown, clips of ads or whole ads should never be removed tis an ad for christ sake.

31.6.2008 15:33

Originally posted by i1der:
Whats the problem with this people? Don't they know that more they hit the NO, more we want it! I don't even like prince or listen to Radiohead, but i had to see the video on the site that you guys found... Not my type of song, but i guess it is great to hear his version of it.
the problem being youtube is whacking something that has not been officially requested to be whacked.

41.6.2008 19:12

Quote:
Yorke added: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song."
I think that says it all.

In fact, if i was Radiohead i might be a little pissed that Prince covered my song.

51.6.2008 21:57

hahaha Prince covering Radiohead? I'm sure it's hilarious. This is the dumbest news i've heard in along time. I love Radiohead but musicians crying about youtube gives me a headache.

62.6.2008 12:24

the only one with rigths to block or unblock should be radiohead, prince is mad cuz ppl uploaded his work, but guest what prince .. u were just singing!

72.6.2008 15:25

Nice one Prince. No amount of Web Sheriff will get you out of this one.

82.6.2008 15:30
varnull
Inactive

Yeah asshole formerly called something or other... surely radiohead own it?

92.6.2008 15:34
goodswipe
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:
Yorke added: "Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song."
I think that says it all.

In fact, if i was Radiohead i might be a little pissed that Prince covered my song.
LOL - exactly! I can't imagine how horrible that has to sound with that dude running around, dressed like Mozart. Prince sucks!

102.6.2008 15:39

Quote:
can't imagine how horrible that has to sound with that dude running around, dressed like Mozart.
Lmao!

What a description. Lol.


112.6.2008 15:55
goodswipe
Inactive

Originally posted by 7thsinger:
Quote:
can't imagine how horrible that has to sound with that dude running around, dressed like Mozart.
Lmao!

What a description. Lol.
Here ya go 7th...








122.6.2008 16:46
frankacne
Inactive

All I can say is, that if Prince ever did a song I wrote, I would want it taken down and wiped. In fact, I might never write any more songs just to be on the safe side,

132.6.2008 17:11

@Swipe

If he only had the wig...

Lol.



142.6.2008 17:45

I'm sure this will get worked-out... Both parties have lawyers and they can "alert the media" to make sure YouTube takes care of it. The problem is, if this happens to a "little guy", YouTube is probably going to ignore your email...

Quote:
In fact, if i was Radiohead i might be a little pissed that Prince covered my song.
There is nothing Radiohead can do about Prince playing the song live. Any band can "cover" any song (live), as long as the venue has an ASCAP license. You don't need permission from the copyright holder... For example, local cover-bands and tribute-bands don't have to "buy" the rights to a song in order to perform it live.

Quote:
All I can say is, that if Prince ever did a song I wrote, I would want it taken down and wiped.
I think you do need specific permission to record (and distribute) a song, but I'm not 100% sure about that. So, Radiohead may be able to "take-down" the Prince recording... But, that's what Prince wants too...

152.6.2008 20:48

ROFLMAO

yea, I don't listen to either but I clicked the video link into another tab (Always use Firefox) but it ain't there anymore

I don't need to see it but I have some questions for those who have

1)the way he mumbles, How do you know it was creep he was singing instead of what you were seeing?

2)was he reading the words from a cue card? How can he memorize the words if he don't even know if he is gay or not?

3)MOST IMPORTANTLY.... why are we wasting time in this thread about him?

163.6.2008 8:32

Quote:
There is nothing Radiohead can do about Prince playing the song live. Any band can "cover" any song (live), as long as the venue has an ASCAP license. You don't need permission from the copyright holder... For example, local cover-bands and tribute-bands don't have to "buy" the rights to a song in order to perform it live.

I'm very aware of the legalities of it...thanks. You obviously missed the intent of my prior statement, which you quoted.


173.6.2008 12:22

That's the gayest song (Prince version) I've heard in a while, just horrible.

183.6.2008 12:28
goodswipe
Inactive

Quote:
There is nothing Radiohead can do about Prince playing the song live. Any band can "cover" any song (live), as long as the venue has an ASCAP license. You don't need permission from the copyright holder... For example, local cover-bands and tribute-bands don't have to "buy" the rights to a song in order to perform it live.
Yea dude, you missed the point here.

SHHHHHHHHROOOOMMM...

Hear that? That's the sound of our discussion flying right over your head.

193.6.2008 17:03

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

This is what happens when you become naziistic over CP, this is why 80% of the stuff on youtube should fal under fair use, just remove the 5minete or longer parts of eps that are shown, clips of ads or whole ads should never be removed tis an ad for christ sake.
that's what you get when pootube is bought by Google.

203.6.2008 22:54

truth is, they are both wrong (Prince + Radiohead). The person that owns the copyrights to that video is the person who shot it with their camcorder.
They allowed "non professional" video recorders at the performance. So no law was broken.

EX: If I video you filling up your tank in your car at some gas station, you have no control over what I do with that video. I own the rights to it.

...same goes here

214.6.2008 11:12
atomicxl
Inactive

Originally posted by ugc:
truth is, they are both wrong (Prince + Radiohead). The person that owns the copyrights to that video is the person who shot it with their camcorder.
They allowed "non professional" video recorders at the performance. So no law was broken.

EX: If I video you filling up your tank in your car at some gas station, you have no control over what I do with that video. I own the rights to it.

...same goes here
I don't think thats how it works. That would be legally enforced voyeurism.

227.6.2008 2:08

Originally posted by atomicxl:
Originally posted by ugc:
truth is, they are both wrong (Prince + Radiohead). The person that owns the copyrights to that video is the person who shot it with their camcorder.
They allowed "non professional" video recorders at the performance. So no law was broken.

EX: If I video you filling up your tank in your car at some gas station, you have no control over what I do with that video. I own the rights to it.

...same goes here
I don't think thats how it works. That would be legally enforced voyeurism.
NO, thats the law concerning Public vs private performances... anything done in a public area has no consideration that it might be private... then you can record it legally, this certianly pertains to you filling your gas tank, and if camcorders were overtly allowed (IE, the guy didn't have to smuggle the camcorder into the performance and there wasn't any signs prohibition it and no one was checking for camcorders specificlly) then likely it is the property of the recorder but just as buying a CD doesn't allow the CD owner to play it on a public forum like radio, owning the video clip doesn't guarentee that he has the last word on if youtube can play it either... the song owner might have a say there, and a star performer might also have a say....

the problem here is the star performer has deleted the playing of a sng he doesn't own, no matter who sang the song, including every instance of the star recording artist performing his own song

this is a problem with the tagging system on youtube since they are all queued on song title because the writer gets a micro-payment but not on performer since that is so often the same person these days. forty years ago they would have had this squabble a long time ago since there were often a dozen versions of the same song out at the same time and none performed by the writer who only created, not performed his songs. (AND NO, THE TAG OF "PRINCE" on a song DOESN'T DO THE SAME THING)

although the system doesn't pay the performer, just the song owner, youtube cannot remove just the versions that prince gets paid for (he doesn't get paid atm) but they could have run a filter on the list of that song and just killed those that had the letters "prince" as a word... not perfect, would kill a comment that the performer was the posters "prince charming", but most likely would have removed every prince version at the time though as soon as posters got wise to the filter they could get around it by comments like "renamed no-name singer sings..." or "gay purple guy sings..."

the jist of the problem is, gay or not, a certian purple diva is a jackazz

qazwiz is qazwiz everywhere. If you see me say HI!

237.6.2008 2:15

Quote:
Boo Hoo, Someone posted me singing a song

that's the jist of the original complaint to youtube that started this discussion

qazwiz is qazwiz everywhere. If you see me say HI!

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive