Thesis: This project explores the increasingly important relation of digital and remix/convergence culture to copyright law and copyright holders, specifically with regards to how video and sound properties are handled in the highly open market of the internet. As a creative submission, I will create a mash-up video parody featuring copyrighted content from Apple Corps., Vivendi Universal, and Buena Vista Pictures. My supporting paper will detail the copyright violations that were necessary for the creation of the work, as well as discussion of whether and why the work should be seen as "fair use" and the ways in which our current cultural paradigm calls for a system within which creations in the same class of works can be made without the violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Arguments:(1) If laws are in place which protect works which are transformative in nature or fall under other fair use or parody guidelines, a system should be established by which consumers can legally transform their media without having to violate the DMCA by bypassing digital rights management encryption. (2) Our culture is in a transitional state, as technology is making the process of parody and other fair uses increasingly democratic. (3) The creative project itself will be a parody of Hollywood tropes and practices, which are becoming increasingly less dominant in the new age of user-generated content. Fittingly, the final project will be posted on media and netroots darling YouTube to make the commentary complete.

    This press release from YouTube briefly details their partnership with Universal Music Group (UMG), subsidiary of Vivendi Universal.  In this groundbreaking strategic partnership, UMG agrees to make music videos whose rights they own viewable on YouTube.  It also allows for YouTube users to utilize music from UMG’s extensive catalogs in their videos.  In turn, YouTube agrees to remove from their site any content owned by UMG which they choose not to make available, and UMG and its artists will be compensated by YouTube for their properties being viewed on the site.

    The document makes mention of the nature of the partnership: that is, a way for UMG to tap into the vast resource internet traffic, a way to assure that YouTube remains devoted to protecting their property, and lastly an embrace of contemporary convergence culture and the new consumer/prosumer drive towards user-generated content.

    This is an interesting deal, especially considering the rampant speculation of YouTube running into problems with UMG just a month before this announcement and how, in the midst of the YouTube deal, UMG sued two other video sharing networks.

    I reference this announcement because it, as well as YouTube’s agreement with Warner Music Group (which preceded this partnership) are primary evidence of a growing trend towards adoption of user-generated content models, and the willingness of media giants to begin the slow process of loosing content restrictions without direct payment by the consumer.

    I reference specifically the Universal Music Group rather than the earlier Warner announcement because segments from my project will include property (video) that is owned by Vivendi Universal.  While this announcement does not in any way justify the posting of my project on YouTube as a legal action, the existence of a link between the two companies is of note, and hopefully a sign that should property agreements expand, the video included in my project will one day be YouTube-licensed (keeping in mind that this is not likely, as the project will contain copyrighted material from additional companies.

This is a copy of the lawsuit Universal filed against MySpace on November 17, 2006, in the United States District Court of Central California.  In the suit, Universal claims that MySpace is guilty of copyright infringement.  Universal claims that the songs and music videos shown on MySpace are done so illegally and without permission from copyright holders.  Universal uses Jay-Z as an example in their case against MySpace, saying that songs from his new CD, "Kingdom Come", are available on MySpace even though, at the time the suit was filed, the record had not been released.  Universal says that MySpace is well aware of the copyright laws that it is breaking and continues to support the "user-stolen"content distributed on the site.  They also say that MySpace knows that they don't have a liscense from the copyright holders of the songs and videos it distributes.  The proof, says Universal, lies in the agreement each MySpace user makes with the site that gives MySpace control over what can be done with the content.   Universal says that MySpace knows that these are not the real copyright holders, and yet continues to show infringing content without permission.

This case is extremely relevant to the YouTube copyright discussion.  First off, it could convince MySpace and other similar sites to follow YouTube's lead and strike revenue sharing deals with major studios.  The YouTube business model would then be seen as a blue print for similar companies, and this in turn would help shield YouTube and other sites from future lawsuits.  However, this case could end up hurting YouTube.  Universal claims that since MySpace edits and posts much of the content on the site, they are knowingly infringing upon the copyrights of the videos and songs available on their site.  Although YouTube's users do much of the posting and editing, YouTube itself still edits user content.  If the courts buy Universal's arguments, YouTube could be in grave danger of future lawsuits.

Amanda Bronstad in this article writes about the differences between the copyright infringement cases that ultimately doomed music file sharing sites like Napster and Grokster and the current batch of cases involving video sharing sites like YouTube.  On one side of the argument, video sharing sites say that a major percentage of their content is perfectly legitimate and legal.  Also, these sites, especially YouTube, point out that they remove content considered to be copyright infringing immediately after they are notified by the copyright holder.  This did not happen with music file sharing sites. However, lawyers for Hollywood's major studios say that their case is bolstered by the fact that they now have a precedent in MGM v. Grokster.  They argue that web sites know they make money off of this infringing material, and therefore are liable for induced infringement.  They also say that video sharing sites may be considered direct infringers because of the role these sites take in editing user content.

Bronstad also notes that while the recent agreements between YouTube and major studios such as Universal, Warner, and CBS does help legitimize the site, the agreements aren't necessarily "suit proof".  She says that many experts in the field see a major gray area that could be exploited by an ambitious company or law firm.  She says that the debate will ultimately come down to the DMCA's "safe harbor provision", and whether or not these video sites have put in place and enforced rules to protect themselves from future legal issues.  She says that the strongest safe harbor these companies have is the ability to remove copyright infringing material from their sites.  If sites continue to consistently remove copyright infringing content, as YouTube has done over the last few months, then these companies will have a strong legal foundation for their business models.