tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4585154148086343236..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Kanye West's 'Famous' music video: publicity rights vs the First Amendment Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20049661957780997542016-07-06T19:25:19.531+01:002016-07-06T19:25:19.531+01:00I think that from the perspective of a modern reco...I think that from the perspective of a modern recording agreement (under which most music videos are created, funded and exploited) a music video is very much both a commercial product in itself (to be exploited and monetised in various ways) as well as a promotional tool for the purposes of advertising or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services (including of course the recording synch'ed to the video, but also the artist's merch, and third party products including endorsed/placed products). At present (where YouTube is the primary platform for music discovery, for example) the music video is very much, I think, one of the primary tools for developing goodwill in respect of an artist. I would be interested to see if a judge agreed.Dotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15137981364884598632016-07-02T21:27:52.091+01:002016-07-02T21:27:52.091+01:00Curious how this visual commentary is any differen...Curious how this visual commentary is any different than the standard rap practice of dissing other performers in songs. Does it matter if the allusion is made visually rather than verbally?goldenrailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07257965659017173039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75687403453886564042016-07-02T12:41:02.099+01:002016-07-02T12:41:02.099+01:00Eleonora,
Not sure that a relative level of deemi...Eleonora,<br /><br />Not sure that a relative level of deeming something "commercial" can (or does) mean that there is a zero sum game with the level of protection under our First Amendment.<br /><br />Not only that, but here, even purely commercial speech does carry some First Amendment protection.<br /><br />In other words, the secondary aspect of making money through youtube ad monetisation remains a secondary question - no matter how much money (or how little) is made. Perhaps a point to keep in mind is that the work was not created FOR youtube and the ad revenue (leastwise there has been no suggestion or offer of proof of such).THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71064556438946285632016-07-02T09:50:40.244+01:002016-07-02T09:50:40.244+01:00Thanks for this very interesting post Emma! Now th...Thanks for this very interesting post Emma! Now that 'Famous' is *finally* available on YouTube, could one argue that monetisation through ads depending on number of views (also driven by controversial content) makes stronger case for commercial use?Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.com