When most people think of the rapper, Lil Wayne, they don’t get a picture of clean-cut, proper, mature performer in their heads. This case against Lil Wayne does not help his image.
This case has a mix of legal and ethical issues along with remix and copyright problems. The one example in class, involving Kanye West, unfortunately was not enough for the music industry.
In 1965, The Rolling Stones released their song “Play With Fire.” Over forty years later, Lil Wayne tried to incorporate the melody and lyrics from the Rolling Stones’ song into his own song titled, “Playing With Fire.” The Rolling Stones are contracted with Abkco Music Inc., which have executives who were originally prepared to grant the request to use “Play With Fire” as part of Lil Wayne’s song. Late the Abkco Music Inc. executives changed their minds when they learned of the lyrics to the Lil Wayne song. In the case the lyrics were called “explicit, sexist and offensive.” Abkco Music Inc. of course did not feel that those lyrics would match appropriately to the original music o
In 1965, The Rolling Stones released their song “Play With Fire.” Over forty years later, Lil Wayne tried to incorporate the melody and lyrics from the Rolling Stones’ song into his own song titled, “Playing With Fire.” The Rolling Stones are contracted with Abkco Music Inc., which have executives who were originally prepared to grant the request to use “Play With Fire” as part of Lil Wayne’s song. Late the Abkco Music Inc. executives changed their minds when they learned of the lyrics to the Lil Wayne song. In the case the lyrics were called “explicit, sexist and offensive.” Abkco Music Inc. of course did not feel that those lyrics would match appropriately to the original music o
f the Rolling Stones.
The real issue started once Abkco executives learned that the song has been recorded and released with no contractual agreement anyway. They found out about the release through reading reviews. Abkco Music then sued Lil Wayne, his producer, record label and music publishers because of the copied song. The copyright suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. By the time the actual lawsuit had been filed Lil Wayne’s album “Tha Carter III” had sold almost two million copies in the U.S., according to Nielsen Soundscan. The single itself sold another 42,000 digital copies through download services like iTunes. Topping that off, the album was the best-selling album of 2008, with 2.8 million units sold domestically. These statistics don’t even touch the number of copies of the song that were shared and spread illegally. Lil Wayne was forced to permanently remove the song from the “Tha Carter III” album both on the physical and digital sources, as well as all of the single download options.
According to music industry lawyers, in most cases like this, the winning plaintiff would be awarded royalties and damages. So far, however, neither side of the case has released any information about financial compensations in the settlement. The settlement was announced by Abkco, Lil Wayne’s record label, Universal Music Group, and the two publishers of “Playing With Fire,” EMI Group Ltd. and Warner Music Group Corp. Interestingly, both Lil Wayne’s and the Rolling Stone’s recordings are distributed by labels owned by Vivendi SA’s Universal Music Group.
Usually the winning plaintiff wants a financial compensation from the lawsuit, but in this case it was instead demanded that the song be removed from the market. “It’s not common, because usually they want
the money, but it’s a remedy that’s available,” said Donald S. Passman, a lawyer and author of “All You Need to Know About the Music Business.” In response, Abkco President Jody Klein said, “The lawsuit was not about money. It was about protecting the written works of our songwriters.”
According to music industry lawyers, in most cases like this, the winning plaintiff would be awarded royalties and damages. So far, however, neither side of the case has released any information about financial compensations in the settlement. The settlement was announced by Abkco, Lil Wayne’s record label, Universal Music Group, and the two publishers of “Playing With Fire,” EMI Group Ltd. and Warner Music Group Corp. Interestingly, both Lil Wayne’s and the Rolling Stone’s recordings are distributed by labels owned by Vivendi SA’s Universal Music Group.
Usually the winning plaintiff wants a financial compensation from the lawsuit, but in this case it was instead demanded that the song be removed from the market. “It’s not common, because usually they want
the money, but it’s a remedy that’s available,” said Donald S. Passman, a lawyer and author of “All You Need to Know About the Music Business.” In response, Abkco President Jody Klein said, “The lawsuit was not about money. It was about protecting the written works of our songwriters.”The link to the related article located in the ProQuest database:
http://ezproxy.ithaca.edu:2086/pqdweb?index=4&did=1635360291&SrchMode=2&sid=11&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1235615757&clientId=12342
It is incredibly unfortunate that issues like this occur in the entertainment industry, or any industry at all for that matter. Especially in this case, where it is very obvious that there was no signed agreement and that Lil Wayne and/or producers, writers, etc, released the song on purpose with the intent to get away with it.
I also respect the label’s decision to force the song to be removed from the album and digital purchasing systems but I also think that the Rolling Stone’s and their Abkco Music label should have been reimbursed with a fair share of the sales.
So although the two songs were technically different because of the lyrics, and most likely a slight variation in the music, it is extremely important to go about these types of agreements correctly. Copyright also addresses issues of expression, which shows in this case how the Rolling Stones label did not want to be associated with Lil Wayne’s sense of expression through his music. Through the 1976 Copyright Act the owner of the copyright, “Play With Fire,” has exclusive rights with reproduction, preparing derivative works, performing the work publicly, and distributing the work. More importantly, copyright becomes property of the author as soon as the work is finished. Copyright covers literary works, musical works, dramatic works, motion pictures and other audio-visual works, pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, sound recordings, and architectural works. Maybe Lil Wayne should have studied up on copyright before he we
nt ahead and recorded and released his song. If he had he would have known that work is still copyrighted even if the work doesn’t have a © symbol, if there is no monetary charge, if it is on the internet, or if the copyright is not defended, thankfully in this case the copyright was defended. There is fair use of copyright material for certain reasons like criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research, none of which had anything to do Lil Wayne’s release.
Hopefully even these two examples will be enough for the music industry to shape it up. Otherwise there will be even more unsatisfied consumers out there.
Hopefully even these two examples will be enough for the music industry to shape it up. Otherwise there will be even more unsatisfied consumers out there.
1 comment:
Kursten:
This is a good case analysis of a very popular rapper. This raises an interesting twist - it's not just about collecting royalties but also concern over how your song is being used. If lyrics you consider to be offensive are put over your remixed melody, you might not want to give permission. I think that was clearly the case here since he had to remove the song rather than just pay a royalty. Good detail on the case. Some formatting problems with your text in this post - not sure why but try and fix those for the next one.
Grade - 5
Post a Comment