Taylor Swift Wants To Hold Tech Companies Responsible for Piracy
Share:
The use of copyrighted material without permission (aka piracy) gets a lot of attention in the music industry, but those of us who earn income from visual arts are just as often (if not more so) screwed over by rampant online piracy.
Interestingly, Taylor Swift and other huge creative content producers suffer from many of the exact same issues as independent photographers, filmmakers and visual artists (on an entirely different scale of course).
Now, with the current review of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) ongoing in the US – artists like Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Paul McCartney and some of the world’s other top creative content procurers think that it’s time to hold tech companies responsible for rampant piracy.
Amen – digital copyright control is long past due – click to continue reading…
According to a the recent article Why Taylor Swift Is Asking Congress To Update Copyright Laws by Laura Sydell on NPR:
The artists say that aspects of the law that were written in the late 1990s make it too easy for tech companies to ignore rampant piracy on their sites and put too much responsibility on the artists themselves to find the illegal music files.
I have said for a long time that tech companies – and in particular social media platforms – purposefully make it ridiculously easy to collect and re-distribute copyrighted material (click here to find out why Social Media Networks Don’t Give A Flying Fudge Nugget About Copyright), so its interesting that the music industry has identified the same thing.
According to Trent Reznor, Apple Music’s Chief Creative Officer (and Nine Inch Nails front-man of course), YouTube was “built on the backs of free, stolen content.”
If that’s what Apple Music’s Chief Creative Officer thinks about YouTube – its exactly the same way I feel about social media networks (Instagram and Facebook in particular) where it is an underlying premise that visual creative content will be appropriated and distributed without permission or compensation to copyright holders.
The core issue is that under the DMCA, tech companies are not responsible for restricting access to unauthorized content unless the copyright owner finds out about it on their own and files a complaint.
Obviously this is a ridiculous expectation when you consider how quickly a single image can be re-distributed, and is made even more impossible when you consider infractions originating from countries that have little respect for copyright law.
We have recently seen tech companies like YouTube and Facebook taking some control over the illegal sharing of audio and video on their platforms (but only after prolonged pressure from big budget legal challenges) – but for small producers and visual artists – there is practically nothing you can do if when your work is lifted and shared without your permission.
Further, the copyright controls that have been added to identify and restrict audio and video copyright infractions have not been extended to still photography and graphics, and the onus is still on the content producer not the distributor to pursue action.
Going back to Laura Sydell’s original article on NPR, independent label Projekt Records owner Sam Rosenthal is quoted as saying:
“Google could solve this problem — 90 percent of this problem — with one switch…” “And if they were really on the side of the creators they would do something about that.”
This is exactly the type of solution that I discussed in my previous article: Could YouTube Style Matched Content Be The Solution For Licensing Journalism and Photography
A technical solution to copyright infringement would not be difficult to implement if there were the will to do it (proposals like blockchain copyright registration are a step in the right direction – but not a total solution). However, tech companies have massively deep pockets and a huge incentive to maintain the status quo, so it’s hard to believe that they would willingly try to restrict unauthorized sharing without legislation forcing them to.
In the mean time, the best that we can do as creative content producers is to be as aggressive as possible in pursuing financial compensation for copyright infringement (here are a few tips to help you protect your photography copyright and pursue compensation).
What Do You Think?
Should tech companies be held responsible for their role in enabling digital piracy?
What do you think should be done to protect the copyright of content producers?
Do you think that copyright is unenforceable and no longer applies to the digital age?
Leave a comment below and let us know!
Lead image: By Jana Zills (Taylor Swift 2013 RED tour Uploaded by tm [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Second image: By Eva Rinaldi [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
*Interesting footnote:
As an illustration of how convoluted copyright infringement is online – even when you’re trying do the right thing: I used two Creative Commons licensed images to illustrate this article. I know that these particular images are licensed to be redistributed for commercial use with attribution. However, I have no way of knowing for sure if the creator listed by Wikimedia Commons is the original photographer, or if the photographer had the credentials to capture these images in the first place – so I could very well be inadvertently infringing on Taylor Swift’s copyright right now – but I have no way of knowing unless one of her representatives files a DMCA complaint.
JP Danko
JP Danko is a commercial photographer based in Toronto, Canada. JP can change a lens mid-rappel, swap a memory card while treading water, or use a camel as a light stand.
Related Posts
Taylor Swift used facial recognition tech to identify stalkers at her concert
Janet Jackson’s concert photography contract is worse than Taylor Swift’s
Major Irish Newspaper Didn’t Photograph Taylor Swift’s Dublin Concert Due to “Exceedingly Restrictive” Contract
Taylor Swift Does Right By Photographers, Amends Heavily Restrictive Photo Contract
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
21 responses to “Taylor Swift Wants To Hold Tech Companies Responsible for Piracy”
Music industry, not artists are suffering from piracy. Small, genuinely talented artists are selling albums, playing live and have descent living without big labels, these days.
The ones who are suffering from this are big labels, that frankly are stifling music scene in a first place.
If Universal Music Group would bankrupt – I relay don’t see much of a loss to the music scene, because these, days they are as useful as horse carriage makers.
Second – I wonder, how Kim Dotcom would react to these news. :D
Order 2 family size pepperoni pizzas, spread a huge jar of nutella between them and wolf it down quicker than a TS track ends :)
Nothing ever changes. The record industry was going to be killed by radio, then by personal cassette recorders, then MTV, then minidisc, then personal dvd burners, now it’s downloading.
I remember the Dead Kennedy’s bought out a cassette with the album on one side and side b blank with a disclaimer on it saying “home taping is killing the record industry, this side left blank so you can help.”
Without the tech, no wax rolls, no ´78s, no ´45s, no LPs no singles, no CDs, no media whatsoever to record and store the music on. She better get used to perform live all her life if she doesn’t want the tech companies involved!
Swift is nothing but a mouthpiece for the music industry machine. I piracy a problem, sure…but then again..no. I’ve never seen an artist or record label go bankrupt from it. Matter of fact it could be considered the cost of doing business. Unless someone is pirating the songs and making money off them then I have a problem. Otherwise the artist are reaching record numbers of NEW fans on a regular basis that will come to their concerts, etc. Photography piracy? Different in that people don’t collect photographs usually for personal use…the ones that steal images usually do it for commercial gain. Totally different color apple.
What about all those record companies that went bankrupt when Cassettes were introduced :-P
She is a victim of music industry companies that use her as their muppet
Should the water company be responsible if someone is using their water for non legal plants?
Should the gun manufacturers be responsible if someone uses their products for crimes?
Should UPS be liable for their customers shipping illegal products?
Yes, yes and yes…
They should right? I mean it sounds reasonable but it’s like making car manufacturer reponsible for speeding in their car. Look at Ferrari or Lamborghini. These are some damn fast cars that are meant for commuting to work. They are meant to be driven fast and their owner often do that breaking the traffic laws. I believe that Ferrari and Lamborghini should be held accountable and pay a fine everytime the owner of such supercar does a traffic violation. They are (in a similar sense as youtube started with stolen content as was being said) making their money off rich people disobeying traffic laws. Very little soccer moms drive those cars to drop off kids to practice. It’s like those cars are created for the sole purpose of speeding and the company is well aware of it.
it´s beyond me how a girl that can not sing and looks average gets so much attention.
get rid of her already….
probably because she’s stunningly attractive and releases well crafted, catchy, pop songs, designed to speak directly to her target audience. This is called marketing, and it can be the difference between an “Artist” and a “Professional Artist”
@JPDanko, I am not sure what kind of information you have been looking into but your summation is short sighted to the complexity of this particular issue. It made my head hurt it was that dang sad to read such a narrow Pro-censorship editorial cause it stopped being news when you started your own interjections.
One way to explain the complexity of the issue is by using your own footnote.
“As an illustration of how convoluted copyright infringement is online – even when you’re trying do the right thing: I used two Creative Commons licensed images to illustrate this article…I could very well be inadvertently infringing on Taylor Swift’s copyright right now – but I have no way of knowing unless one of her representatives files a DMCA complaint.”
Since your images are hosted on an article belonging to a webpage what would be the correct “automated” response, since Google can fix with a switch? I can give you a hint, since IT company does not have the legal ability to strip out a article then Google would de-list diyphotography.net for infringment. In which your site publisher would have to go through the complex and convoluted process of proving it either removed content or appeal process that it really ok. All the while your site traffic falls and your publisher cant pay you for your article. That what is actually occurring RIGHT NOW under the laws by using a DMCA from copyright owner. It is not hyperbole but what happens when you let technology police something far greater than humanly possible to manage.
So, “Should tech companies be held responsible for their role in enabling digital piracy?” which would also mean,
Should your publisher for allowing you to post?
Should your website host for giving the site a home?
Should the ISP for letting users access the site domain?
Should GOOGLE for listing your article in a search box???
I doubt you would ever read this but I challenge you to answer those questions and the followup which is this,
If you hold companies that do not benefit from the pirated material accountable for it what incentive do they have to make sure that it is done “correctly” in such a way that it does not suppress 1st amendment and freedom of expression rights?
We live in a capitalist society and nothing is free, coming up with a solution is not free. Maintaining a solution is not free. If this stuff was easy and there was a “switch” it would have been done ages ago but it isn’t and for every tool to discover and remove copyright material someone is working on an exploit to game it because those people have an incentive to do it. If you can not invest in a tool to find your own material why should someone else do it for free. That is the problem, everyone knows it a problem on both sides however no one wants to pay for it because once it is enabled it will be beaten and have to be redone.
I am currently going through the copyright example you tried to breakdown. I had Google deindex one of my sites because Getty filed a take-down notice on three images I took myself in my own backyard. I refused to comply and Google wiped my site off of all Google searches. I am left with Bing and Yahoo crumbs to get most of my site visits. I am currently trying to get the site indexed again.
Oh my…what a horrible story :(
Can you sue Getty?
I could but it would cost me more time and money that I have to give. That’s just one more problem with copyright issues.
The music artists, their booking agents, and the music companies should also be held responsible for appropriating photographer’s photographs for their own promotional purposes.
I think anyone who makes an argument regarding this should be subjected to a mandatory search of their homes and any copyright violations should be tallied up. We’re talking MP3s, photocopies, knock off brands of items, the whole 9 yards. The one(s) with zero has the final or only say on the issue.
If such enforcement would take place, the bigger you are (as a label, as a star) the bigger the benefit as your leverage is bigger. I don’t think that Joe Schmoe whose photographs are being shared across social media with some motivational text plastered over them would gain the same benefit as would ms. Swift or Sony Entertainment or that he would be able to be protected to the same degree.
Also if such laws are passed, shouldn’t we get something in exchange? Like shortening the protection of copyrighted material. This way you would not be able to legaly do anything with Swifts songs for some 70 years after her death so maybe one’s grand grand children could do a remix without fear of breaking the law. This does sound ridiculous.
Even if there was a technical solution, which I would dispute, it could never work because of the legal situation. Let’s say you register your photo with Google, then someone else registers the same photo. Who is right? Without a court case, google can’t adjudicate. So all your clever technology comes to naught.
I bet she’s committed acts of piracy herself. Rich little brainless snob with marginal talent.