Lawsuits and Liabilities

Copyright infringement can easily become a huge issue in the entertainment industry. In particular, music videos can cause a lot of controversy because they technically combine two industries, film and music. The majority of lawsuits arise when an artist infringes specifically on the music. This in turn can affect the arrival and popularity of the artist’s music video. Other lawsuits can arise when the artist infringes on the actual content being portrayed throughout the music video. This type of infringement strictly affects the music video itself where as the song remains untouched. Currently there are several lawsuits involving copyright infringement within the music video industry, but first I want to mention some famous instances where infringement has shaped the music industry. 

Famously there have been many lawsuits dealing with copyright infringement within the music industry. For example, Vanilla Ice versus Queen and David Bowie, Johnny Cash versus Gordon Jenkins, and Michael Bolton versus the Isley Brothers. These famous examples question the music being plagiarized, not the video content. The most famous of these is Vanilla Ice versus Queen and David Bowie. The rapper sampled Queen and Bowie’s, Under Pressure without consent or license. The sampled piece of work, Ice Ice Baby, ended up hitting number one with only a slightly altered rhythm. The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money. This particular lawsuit greatly effected Vanilla Ice’s career and hindered the future of his hit, Ice Ice Baby. Since the settlement the original song has been made into many different versions, none of which sound like the original.

More recently the rap group, Beastie Boys, have been sued for alleged copyright infringement. The Beastie Boys, a group very familiar with copyright lawsuits, were recently sued for using two songs by the band, Trouble Funk, without permission. Apparently the song Shadrach by the Beastie Boys samples work from Trouble Funk’s, Say What. Tuf America, the company representing Trouble Funk filed the lawsuit a day before the death of Adam Yauch aka “MCA” of the Beastie Boys. The company is suing for copyright infringement, unjust enrichment and misappropriation. They are seeking punitive damages and a permanent injunction forbidding the rap group from selling tracks with Trouble Funk samples. Hopefully the lawsuit will be able to reach a settlement before heading to court. The Beastie Boys have been through enough this past year.

Touching more on the video content side, recently there has been one instance of copyright infringement that has made headlines due to its controversial content. In 2011, photographer David LaChapelle sued pop star Rihanna, Def Jam Records, and Black Dog Films for copyright infringement. LaChapelle claimed Rihanna copied the photographer’s work for her music video S&M. The photographer found Rihanna’s video to be very similar in theme and style to his past photo shoot for Vogue Italia. Specifically LaChapelle alleged, “the clip's director Melina Matsoukas was instructed to create a ‘LaChapelle-esque music video’ and that prints of his photographs were used in creating storyboards for the production.” He sued for 1 million dollars and a settlement was reached in October of 2011. The use of artistic vision is all very gray especially when dealing with copyright infringement.

Striped Farce by David LaChapelle, 1995

Playing with Products

In recent years major companies have branched into the wonderful yet annoying world of product placement, mainly within the movie and television industry. For example, Starbucks products dominated the big screen in the movie Fight Club. There isn’t a scene in the movie without a Starbucks logo or coffee cup present. Apple Inc. began product placing early with movies like Legally Blonde and television shows like the Office, Modern Family, and 24. Many of these large companies have perfected the art of product placement, and have been able to create advertisements seamlessly within television episodes and movies that span two hours. But how can companies place products within music videos that only last 3 to 5 minutes long?

Since the decline of MTV (where product placement wasn’t prominent), companies like Vevo and YouTube have been able to push music video producers and artists to consider product placement. For companies like Vevo, it’s all about the money. Since YouTube has partnered up with Vevo, product placement has skyrocketed. The Online Video Insider states, “Patrick Quinn, chief executive of research firm PQ Media, reported that product placement in music videos grew from $15 million to $20 million last year; meanwhile overall paid product placement declined 2.8% to $3.6 billion.” Vevo is one of the leading distributors for music videos and collaborates with large music companies (like Virgin Mobile) and their branding divisions. These collaborations are reflected within certain music videos, such as Lady Gaga’s video for Telephone.

Lady Gaga’s, Telephone, presents several different brands/products throughout the entire video including, Virgin Mobile, Coca Cola, Plenty of Fish, and Miracle Whip. Both Coca Cola and Miracle Whip are used seamlessly within the video. Diet Coke cans are used as Lady Gaga’s hair rollers in the jail cell scene. Most viewers wouldn’t see this product placement because only the “Diet” can be seen through Gaga’s hair, however the brand is still recognized by the silver can and Coca Cola font. So although it isn’t obvious placement, our mind recognizes this as a Coca Cola product, which adheres to product placement. I even had to re-watch the video to pick up on this product placement.

Companies have really utilized music videos as the new form of product placement. Because attention spans have become shorter, music videos are the perfect outlet for advertising a product affectively. Music videos are about the same length of a commercial and are able to grab the attention of a viewer based on their specific interests. Music videos also deliver qualitative results for a large company’s product or brand based on how many views a video generates on YouTube. Based off of Lady Gaga’s, Telephone views, the Coca Cola, Virgin Mobile, Miracle Whip, and Plenty of Fish brands have imprinted over 148 million times. If done correctly through music videos, companies can impact generations of fans through quick product placement. I think product placement is a combination of commerciality and like ability that companies should capitalize on (with Youtube or Vevo) before music videos becoming a dying outlet.

Since the new season of X Factor started today, I thought I would give a little reference to Britney Spears. Another example of excellent product placement comes from her video Hold it Against Me, which uses Sony electronics, Plenty of Fish, and Britney’s very own fragrance, Radiance. Take a look at how each product is displayed. It’s interesting because there is an obvious distinction between integrated product placement (Sony electronics) and apparent product placement (Radiance fragrance). Without knowing it, every electronic used in the video is from Sony, however is not obviously presented like Britney’s fragrance, Radiance. The Radiance fragrance is shot up close and personal. The brand has about a five second spot which doesn’t fit into the theme of the video at all, whereas the Sony electronics make up the entire video as well as the background shots.

As an avid fan for music videos and a hater of commercials, I actually don’t mind product placement. I hope in the future companies can perfect the use of seamless product placement where it doesn’t affect my mind consciously, only subconsciously. I understand product placement as a profitable outlet, I just hope it doesn’t become over saturated within the music video industry. I want to be able to watch videos in peace without seeing a Diet Coke can every 5 seconds.