Carolyn Glick's Lunatic Chutzpa Concerning "We Con the World"

Continuing from my last post concerning the vile video, "We Con the World" and the so called "apology" issued by the government of Israel, it seems that Youtube has pulled the video dueto copyright infringement per Warner Music's request.

Linking to the video gets you the following message:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner/ Chappell Music, Inc. .

Yet Carolyn Glick is ranting on on her blog boasting that friends of her's have uploaded the video on other video hosting sites and urges all to continue to spread it! She claims that the video was pulled as part of an orchestrated anti-Israel campaign that Youtube has cooperated with. But never fear, the intrepid Glick chimes, "If someone is in fact trying to silence our voices, they will soon discover that they are messing with the wrong Jews". Post on she urges! We will not be silenced!

In confrontational manner to the take down Glick had her webmaster upload it elsewhere on another video hosting site with her next post containing full instructions of how to get around the evil anti-Israel forces trying to silence Latma!

It's fair use Glick claims! Her "attorneys" told her so!

Wait a minute here Carolyn, do you have any clue what you are talking about when you claim the song is "fair use" as parody? Ben Sheffner, Senior Council for NBC Television Group disagrees with you. Read what he has to say about your claims HERE.

Ms. Glick claims parody. What is the legal definition of parody?

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.

Let's go through the facts on the song "We are the World". The copyright to the song belongs to the Michael Jackson Estate and Lionel Richie, not Warner. Warner is Lionel Richie's agent entrusted with protecting the copyright of their client.

The song "We are the World" was recently remade to raise funds Haiti. A non-profit foundation has been established, the We Are The World Foundation. Lionel Richie sits on the board of that foundation, as does Quincy Jones. the song "We are the World" as it has been remade with the permission of the copyright holders, the Michael Jackson Estate and Lionel Richie is being used as it was originally intended, to raise funds for a cause. The foundation as formed did not get permission from Warner to remake the song, they got the permission from the estate of Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie: (watch the remake HERE)

On January 12, 2010, Haiti was struck by a magnitude 7.0 M_w earthquake. It was the country's most severe earthquake in over 200 years and caused widespread damage.^[2] The epicenter of the quake was just outside the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince.^[3] It has been estimated that the death toll could reach 200,000.^[4] Before the earthquake, Jones and Richie had planned to organize a re-recording of "We Are the World" on January 28, 2010 — the 25th anniversary of the original recording of the song.^[5] Randy Phillips, who was a key figure in the song being re-issued, said that "We Are The World" producer Ken Kragen had suggested to re-cut "We Are the World" and title it "Live 25".^[6] However, Lionel Richie and Jones were "very lukewarm" about the idea.^[6] Phillips commented that,

"[They felt] that what happened 25 years ago was iconic and they did everything they could for Africa at that time, and they didn't feel re-cutting the song really made any sense. Basically, Lionel didn't really want to do it, and we kind of let it die by not issuing the publishing license, because Lionel owns the copyright along with Michael Jackson's estate. That was in November/December [2009]. They had gotten Visa on board as an underwriter of that effort, and I think they were going to try and premiere it at the World Cup."^[6]

However, because of the devastation caused in Haiti, these plans were postponed.^[5] Phillips said that Jones had called Lionel and said, "this is what this song is written for, as a fundraising vehicle for causes, tragedies, catastrophes like this. Why don't we take over the process, call our friends, and actually do this?"^[6] Lionel understood the urgency of Haiti, and in January 2010, it was agreed that "We Are the World" would be re-recorded to help benefit Haiti, similar to how the original recording helped famine relief in Africa.^[5] Richie commented, "Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a hit record to make someone decide to save a life. I want this song to be the battle cry again. Every once in a while, you have to wake the world up. We slept right through Katrina. If we are not a socially aware culture, we're going to fail."^{[7] (source)}

Many of the reviews of the remake were negative. In a true parody of the remake Saturday Night Live made a skit about it as seen HERE. Note that in the beginning of the skit the actor is "Quincy Jones" saying that the remake was a disaster, so he has gathered together a group to undo the "disaster".

That is a parody Ms. Glick. What you have created is not. What you have done is vilely parodied the Free Gaza movement which resulted in the death of nine individuals with six still missing using the VEHICLE of a copyrighted song.

That is unless you and your boss Frank Gaffney want to claim you were parodying the song itself and intent for which it was written to raise funds for Africa and then remade to raise funds for Haiti. If that was Latma's intention, you don't get to pull in a third party which has nothing whatsoever to do with the song.

Let's look at a case that was won on the grounds of fair use/parody, Abilene Music vs Sony:

In 2003 a New York federal court also upheld the fair use doctrine by dismissing a lawsuit against Sony Music Entertainment and rappers Ghostface Killah, Raekwon and the Alchemist, for copyright infringement. The plaintiff, Abilene Music, accused the rappers and Sony – who released the album – of infringing its copyright in the well-known song "What a Wonderful World." The infraction allegedly occurred when the trio made slang references to marijuana in a rap that began with a variation on the first three lines of the song popularized by Louis Armstrong. The defendants successfully argued that, while the song's lyrics were adapted from "What a Wonderful World" they were protected as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Act.

In granting a summary judgment for Sony and the rappers, Judge Gerard Lynch said the rap was clearly a parody, intended to criticize and ridicule the cheerful perspective of the original song. The judge also noted the rap made key changes to the lyrics and overall effect of the lines, and was not an imitation of the original. The Judge held that, whereas the first three lines of "Wonderful World" describe the beauty of nature, the rap version read more like an invitation to “get high” with the singer. The slang reference to marijuana and the dark nature of the rap tune were in stark contrast to the mood of beauty in the original song. (SOURCE)

Did you read there Ms. Glick? The song was not an IMITATION of the original copyrighted song "What a Wonderful World".

Again I ask, is it the song "We are the World" you are parodying? Really Ms. Glick, is that really what you want to claim?

Because if that is the case you are directly challenging Lionel Richie and the Michael Jackson Estate who own that copyright, not Warner whose CEO is Edgar Bronfman or Youtube which now is owned by Sergei Brin and Larry Page.

I noticed you are soliciting funds to challenge the take down. I take it your boss at Latma, Frank Gaffney is up to this and wants in on record as to whose copyright and the purpose for which the song was written he is challenging, because indeed Ms. Glick, the intent of the copyrighted material is taken into consideration on infringement as well.

For the record, I have left a total of four comments on Ms. Glick's blog which have not been published there.

A little more: Lawrence Auster gives three examples of parodies of "We are the World" which have not been pulled from Youtube over copyright infringement in his attempt to support Glick and Latma. Let's look at his examples:

The Saturday Night Live skit, as covered above, true parody which parodies the song itself.

In Living Color: "Career Aid", We are the World parody: Again a true parody of the song itself knocking artists who use their art to do charity.

Weird Al Yankovitch: Wierd Al always asks permission to use songs. Read his response to his recording of James Blunt with Atlantic Records refusing to allow him to use the song.

So there you go, Lawrence Astor, you don't know what you are talking about either. Warner manages the licensing for the song, but at the end of the day Lionel Richie and the Michael Jackson Estate could agree to have the song used in this manner because THEY hold the copyright. But it is Warner's job to protect the COPYRIGHTED song which again does not meet the legal standards of parody.

From the Warner Music website:

I want to use a song by a Warner Music Group artist in my project. How do I obtain the necessary rights?

A:
If you are interested in using the actual sound recording by an artist on a WMG record label, a good place to start is by calling our licensing division at Rhino Entertainment (818) 238-6100. If you are interested in using a musical composition that is published or administered by our music publishing company, Warner/Chappell Music, you should visit the Warner/Chappell web site where you will find a useful song search tool as well as tools to request mechanical and print license

what is a musical composition?

The music itself-the notes

Going there…………..what is a copyright?

What is copyright?
As stated on the U.S. Library of Congress website ( http://www.copyright.gov/):

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

BNGO: what is a derivative work?

A derivative work pertaining to copyright law, is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work.

Who holds the rights to all derivative works?

Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre- pare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author.

Anyone interested in a work who does not know the copyright owner can search the records of the Copyright Office or ask the Office to conduct a search for an hourly fee.

Now, for the lyrics comparison which can be found HERE which Ms. Glick is claiming are a parody, remember, a parody is a work that ridicules another well known work. Can Latma who by the way has defiantly re-uploaded the video in question to their website despite Warner's DMCA notification to youtube in all true conviction say that the lyrics in Latma's song were meant to PARODY the ORIGINAL work?

I don't think so!

More CHUTZPA from Latma's white knight to the rescue: wejew.com who left Ms. Glick a comment to let her know that they have SAVED the video and are being DILIGENT because offering the video on their video hosting site has opened them up for hackers! Hello Shlomo Wollins, you also are flying in the face of a COPYRIGHT takedown. Do you have ANY clue that no one but the copyright holder or their agent can request a DMCA take down? That would be Warner Music whose CEO is Edgar Bronfman! This is the same Shlomo Wollins who wrote as a comment on his own website over the rescued Latma video:

WeJew (3 days ago)
WeJew Founder Note: Youtube has BANNED this video for copyright infringement - which stretches their editorial credibility beyond belief - feel free to spread this link - as the critical video has become one of Israel's best PR responses to the flotilla.

Shlomo, you didn't get the memo did you, your government press office's "apology" said the video doesn't represent the government of Israel, it was sent out by them by MISTAKE and it had not been vetted. No apologies from you however as you violate COPYRIGHT law. Have you thought to contact Warner? Have you thought to contact Lionel Richie or the Michael Jackson Estate? Youtube did not "stretch their editorial ability!" Oh pa-leeze-there is a way to respond to Youtube to send a counter notice. Did Latma OR you think to do that? Why not Ms. Glick? Why not Shlomo the White Knight?

http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

Counter-Notification
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability. Please also be advised that we enforce a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers who are repeat infringers.

I double dare you all. Send in your counter-notifications!

***Comment left on Ms. Glick's blog at 4:20 pm PST Tuesday June 15-let's see if it get's published there. (she published it HERE)

Let me help you out here Ms, Glick, the LEGAL way should you decide to choose that path

http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

Note, if Warner sent out the DMCA misrepresenting that the material was infringed, Latma and anyone else whose youtube has been removed can sue Warner! Yes you can Ms. Glick, You can also appeal the removal. Did anyone do that Ms. Glick? The LEGAL way since you said you have attorneys telling you it is fair use?

Please note that under Section 512(f) any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages. Don't make false claims!

Please also note that the information provided in this legal notice may be forwarded to the person who provided the allegedly infringing content.

Claimant information will be published on the YouTube site in place of disabled content.

Counter-Notification
If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Center to access the instructions.

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability. Please also be advised that we enforce a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers who are repeat infringers.
***********************************

I suggest you call up that lawyer who told you this was fair use and I'm sure he will take care of this matter for you.

CIAO!

************************************

UPDATE: An important court ruling was issued Monday concerning Chuck Devore's use of Don Henley's songs which changed the lyrics completely for his campaign. Guess what, DeVore LOST.