Isn't this Chris Isaak's label? Just curious--if Warner owns the artists' music and likeness, what can they pull off of YouTube? This might be interesting...


Warner Music pulls videos from YouTube
Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:26pm EST Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (0) [-] Text [+]
By Yinka Adegoke

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Warner Music Group ordered YouTube on Saturday to remove all music videos by its artists from the popular online video-sharing site after contract negotiations broke down.

The order could affect hundreds of thousands of videos clips, as it covers Warner Music's recorded artists as well as the rights for songs published by its Warner/Chappell unit, which includes many artists not signed to Warner Music record labels.

The talks fell apart early on Saturday because Warner wants a bigger share of the huge revenue potential of YouTube's massive visitor traffic. There were no reports on what Warner was seeking.

"We simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide," Warner said in a statement.

YouTube is hugely popular, with more than 100 million viewers in the United States alone in October, according to comScore, a Web audience measurement firm.

Warner Music, home to artists including Red Hot Chili Peppers and rapper T.I., was the first major media company to negotiate a deal with YouTube in 2006. Its executives believe that deal gave the site legitimacy in the eyes of search giant Google Inc (GOOG.O) which bought it soon after for $1.65 billion.

As part of the original 2006 negotiation, Warner, Universal Music and Sony Music all took small stakes in YouTube pre-acquisition and profited when the Google acquisition closed.

The music companies typically get paid a share of any advertising revenue associated with the video and a per-play payment for every video viewed. The per-play fee is usually a fraction of a penny and with millions visiting YouTube everyday it was all expected to add up to a substantial amount.

But a source familiar with Warner Music's talks said the amounts it has been receiving from YouTube were "staggeringly low".

YouTube representatives did not immediately return calls for comment.

YouTube executives have spent most of 2008 stepping up efforts to develop revenue streams on the site partly in a bid to keep content partners happy. It has been in long negotiations with Warner on how best to split revenues until things came to a head in talks on Friday.

"Despite our constant efforts, it isn't always possible to maintain their innovative agreements," YouTube said in a statement on its blog about difficulties of music licensing. "Sometimes, if we can't reach acceptable business terms, we must part ways with successful partners."

YouTube also has agreements with Vivendi's (VIV.PA) Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI Music. Warner's move could see them also making tough demands for higher fees.

The demands could leave YouTube in a difficult position as it tries to balance the need to pay a reasonable fee to content partners, including TV and movie companies, and also generate enough return on the substantial investment needed to keep streaming millions of videos around the world.

EVERY VIDEO....or just the official ones?

One of my videos was just pulled...it wasn't even a video.
It was a still graphic image I created a long time ago and used it as a background to the song "Don't leave me on my own" that a friend wanted to hear a couple of years ago...and it was on there forever...they just pulled it. The image was created by me...but I guess I can't use a song in my videos...that's ridiculous!!

It was such a harmless video...jeeze!

Apparently more than just the videos

I read the article and immediately throught about all the Isaak, Michael Buble, and Stevie Nicks that I love--all on Warner. It made me wonder also if all the stuff we created would be pulled. Logically, if they own Chris' sound and image, then they can pull it, I guess. I was actually surprised that none of you, my fellow Isaak fans, had any interest or concern. I think this move by Warner goes beyond the boundaries of greed. Honestly, I think that the more we share, the more publicity these bands get--which is good for the artist and label in the end, isn't it?

Or am I just naive? I now have 5 Buble CD's because of what I heard and saw on YouTube.

In order to not get pulled, should we just re-name our files and keywords, tags or whatever else?

We could borrow the nickname Monkeyboy, or Kenney's "Hair-do" to continue to post. Or is that too desperate?!

I actually enjoy sharing my Isaak stuff. It's still on under heuchertfamily...we'll see how long that lasts. None of it is great, but it was fun to shoot and fun to share.

I'd be really curious to know what Chris and the guys think, especially after knowing their CI Show DVD's may never be released due to legal wrangling.

What are y'all thinking?
Laura

I was upset about the whole utube thing. I had over 100 Chris videos and they were all removed as well as my account. Damn, that took tons of time to put those videos on utube. I had no chance to defend myself unless I wanted to go to court. But such is life!!!

Basically my final strike was the video with Chris as "uncle Bob" from "That thing you Do". It had been on utube forever. There are still tons of videos from that movie. So, what the heck? Why was that little tiny bit focused on and all the other bits not touched? Well, at that that point it seemed that it was 3 strikes and you were out. I think that utube may have changed that.

I don't understand the whole thing as I also feel that it only promotes the movie/artist. And there are "free use" rules that apply and good luck proving them. It seems that on utube anyone can claim a copyright infringement and the user has to prove they are in the right. Not worth the trouble. My account was deleteted and I am not even sure that it was actually 21st Century Fox that made the complaint. They don't have to prove who they are when they make an infringement complaint..... There has been tons of stuff and lawsuits about this whole utube thing. I think that utube has been a wealth of information about so many artists that I would never have seen or heard. The old shows are priceless and not available except on utube. So... that is my opinion....

Does this only concern music videos associated with Warner Bros? and if he's (now) not signed with Warner, how long will they have the rights to HIS name, image, videos etc?
I was going to (eventually) attempt to put Oz tv shows from '95 on, but if they will only be deleted I won't even bother.

I wish you would try and post them Jac. Some videos make it through and others don't. 1995? Please post them!!!

I am also concerned about Chris videos being yanked from YouTube. I *think* my concert video footage of Chris is still up there. (I hope.) The footage on YouTube generates a lot of interest for an artist's music so I understand what you are all saying. Because Chris is such a smart cookie, I don't know if Warner can necessarily yank all of his songs from YouTube, since Chris himself owns the copyright for them. That's kind of a muddy area. Warner could own the performed version that appears on the officially-released CDs (recording rights) but Chris owns the actual songs. But I'm not a lawyer. I was totally ticked when all of Munchie17's videos were pulled from YouTube. She spent a lot of time uploading them and they gave many of us a lot of enjoyment.

Years ago I bookmarked Chris with Leann Rhimes doing "Devil in Disguise" and now I have a bunch of his stuff saved under that. I never intended to save anything but it's about 60 different video's and it's YouTube but not a YouTube account. I'm not very computer savvy so I don't know why I still have this when YouTube had to pull it all. But...I'm very happy to have it!!