Destructoid is a gaming discussion community updated nearly every 20 minutes by a tight-knit group of independent dirty uncles. Get involved by creating an avatar to post comments, upload videos, create your own blog, and meet new people that love gaming. Returning Dtoider? login!
If there's one thing that's a given in life, it has been to expect the unexpected. Live long enough, and you'll see pairings of people, places, and things that you'd never dream of being mentioned in the same sentence. Such is the humorous case of a small blog called the Hardcore Christian Gamers Association, a 70's music icon, and Sony.
While Ican't officially confirm anything at this point (damn Internet Matlocks insurance), the story goes a little something like this: Drew Koehler, host of the podcast for the above mentioned site, decides that it would be humorous to create a parody of Neil Diamond's "Hello Again" song as a way of joining in on the Halo hysteria. One of the podcast's listeners does the usual thing and uploads the song to YouTube with some Halo footage, and viola... all the ingredients for a great controversy are accounted for.
From here, the exact details get a little fuzzy, but it appears that Neil may have been offended by the content, and uses Sony as a proxy to send one of those nice cease-and-desist emails that our very own PR Nightmare could travel the circuit giving lectures about. On what grounds? Well they are going with the obvious one of "copyright infringement."
Hit the jump for more details, the supposed email response from Sony, and one nagging question that begs to be answered.. is this for real?
Not having viewed the video in question (or even heard the song), I have to wonder what the big deal is surrounding this. Is Neil upset that Weird Al Yankovic didn't think of it first? Does this really in any way infringe on an actual song (other than a similar title and words that rhyme with the original)? Do you think Sony's legal team sheds any tears at the thought of crushing something even remotely associated with a competitor's product? Most of all.... is this for real? I still have some doubts, but this is too damn good to pass up. See the reponse letter for yourself:
Dear Mr. Koehler,
Sony/ATV Music Publishing, on behalf of Stonebridge Music, is the exclusive administrator of 100% of the musical composition entitled “Hello Again” (Diamond, Lindgren) (the “Composition”). It has recently come to our attention that you have created a parody version of the Composition entitled “Halo Again” (the “Parody”) and have subsequently distributed the Parody as a download via your website www.christian-gaming.com (the “Site”) and as part of a video currently streaming on YouTube (the “Video”).
Please be advised that your unlicensed and unauthorized use of the Composition constitutes a serious infringement of Stonebridge Music’s copyright. Demand is hereby made that you immediately cease and desist from streaming and/or distributing the Parody and the Video, via the Site or otherwise, and destroy all copies of the Parody and/or Video in your possession. Failure to comply shall result in Sony/ATV pursuing any and all remedies available to it including, without limitation, litigation.
The foregoing shall not be deemed to limit or prejudice Sony/ATV or Stonebridge Music’s rights, all of which are specifically reserved.
Sincerely,
Sean Melia
Director
Business Affairs & Licensing
Want to know the real kicker behind this thing? Neil might have been none the wiser had he not been "supposedly" emailed a link to the song in question by the site's admin, SOG KampsAlot.Check out his comments on the page, under the original story:
September 28 2007 16:26:55 Before we take it out on Sony, who I really don't care about much at all, there is some background info everybody needs to know about this.
I've held off until I got the details of what and how everything went down regarding this; but now that I know, here goes my confession:
I found an email address that was supposedly for Neil Diamond himself, and I then emailed Neil Diamond with the link to the MP3 and a link to the YouTube video with a whimsical email stating something along the following,
<blockquote> "We are in need of Neil Diamond to sing his song “Hello Again”, with just a few minor changes ... A rough draft of the song found here ... But it just doesn’t have that Diamond touch!" </blockquote>
I wasn't even sure it was Neil Diamond's email address (it was "something"@Large-ISP.com"). But I took a chance, thinking it might get us some exposure, and, well, I guess it did :-(
Apparently, it was indeed Neil Diamond's address, and Neil Diamond was not amused, as I thought he would be.
I think there may be an important life lesson here, so gather 'round kids. Nintendo doesn't like its employees blogging negative stuff about the workplace, and Neil Diamond/Sony might very well not be the best place to show off your Halo parodies. Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is serious business. Now if someone would kindly send us a copy/link of the video in question. Surely it must be grand!
Isn't parody considered fair use under copyright law? I thought that's how Weird Al managed to do his thing without getting 12 law suits every album...
its a touchy area, legally. sometimes copyright holders may not mind if a derivative work is created if there isn't any financial gain on the part of the party that created the derivative work. other times it could be deemed a fair use as long as it didn't directly infringe on the rights of the original copyright holder.
unfortunately, when it comes to music in the united states, copyrights (whether it is warranted or not) are prosecuted incredibly aggressively. Also, with things like youtube that can instantly spread new content to a massive audience, you never know who is going to take offense.
still...Sony and Mr. Diamond really need to step back and ask what harm this has actually done to them.
well he ask to do it and has to talk to there people before hand. plus fare use is only if you use a ad or it was in a tv ad or you are reviewing the content.
pretty sure right to parody is covered in our right to free speech. the only way i can seen this being a legitimate complaint is if it were an actual coommercial using it... then they could pull that stupid "it could confuse the public into thinking neil diamond was supporting halo, and that could somehow tarnish his good name"
I think realistically, Microsoft would have more of a case if they wanted to make a big deal out of this than sony and neil diamond do. notice how microsoft isn't making a big deal out of this though... that's because it's bad business to harass your fanbase, but also because it isn't a big deal... it's someone on the internet having some fun.
Right to parody Neil Diamond's song is covered under 1st amendment. Right to make parody (or funny song) of something else USING Neil Diamond's song is not covered, as I understand it. I am not a lawyer, I just read the internets.
Actually, even though Weird Al asks permission, that doesn't mean he has to. Legally, he can make and sell the parodies without permission. However, he just asks them 'cause he's nice like that.
Actually, even though Weird Al asks permission, that doesn't mean he has to. Legally, he can make and sell the parodies without permission. However, he just asks them 'cause he's nice like that.
Actually, even though Weird Al asks permission, that doesn't mean he has to. Legally, he can make and sell the parodies without permission. However, he just asks them 'cause he's nice like that.
Fair use is a very grey area in copyright law. Fair use is commonly associated with school use as well as non commercial reviewing or short , non commercial uses. However, the language of fair use legislation is such that this particular use would be covered under both Fair use and, most likely, the 1st amendment. People tend not to argue fair use, though, because it is such a muddled area (use by schools for classes being the on real exception to that).
"Isn't parody considered fair use under copyright law? I thought that's how Weird Al managed to do his thing without getting 12 law suits every album..."
Well, Weird Al took a lot of heat for his parody of James Blunt's "You're Beautiful" and as a result, it was taken off his "Straight Outta Lynwood" album (even though, last time I checked, it was offered for download on Weird Al's website). Plus, Coolio openly complained about Weird Al's parody of "Gangta's Paradise," resulting in Weird Al writing a letter of apology to Coolio.
That letter sounds like a standard cease and desist. If the parody creator simply emails back stating that first amendment and fair use covers parodies and cites the correct sources, they'll back down.
I've seen it done before MANY times. Their bark is worse than their bite. No court is going to want to set a precedent that says parody is not covered under fair use and the first amendment. That would open the door for thousands of companies/people to sue parody creators. All those political cartoons would be illegal, Weird Al's songs would be illegal, etc...
For the last time, Weird Al has to get the rights to do his direct parodies. After all, he's using the original artist's music, even though it's a parody. That's why Al doesn't get in trouble - because he contacts the appropriate people and clears it with them.
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just Create an avatar now - it's fast and free: PLUS you also get your own gaming blog and begin posting stories and uploading videos in our open community area that may also appear on our home page. Sign up and we'll guide you through it, it's easy and 100% anonymous.
Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming industry's need of accountable enthusiast press Living the dream since March 16, 2006
-icon.gif){kind=icon}
21 comments + 95764 views
Intense. I didn't think it was illegal to simply take the musical side of a song, and not the lyrics. Guess I was pretty wrong.
Weird AL should do a rendition.
Isn't parody considered fair use under copyright law? I thought that's how Weird Al managed to do his thing without getting 12 law suits every album...
its a touchy area, legally. sometimes copyright holders may not mind if a derivative work is created if there isn't any financial gain on the part of the party that created the derivative work. other times it could be deemed a fair use as long as it didn't directly infringe on the rights of the original copyright holder.
unfortunately, when it comes to music in the united states, copyrights (whether it is warranted or not) are prosecuted incredibly aggressively. Also, with things like youtube that can instantly spread new content to a massive audience, you never know who is going to take offense.
still...Sony and Mr. Diamond really need to step back and ask what harm this has actually done to them.
well he ask to do it and has to talk to there people before hand. plus fare use is only if you use a ad or it was in a tv ad or you are reviewing the content.
Weird Al asks permission every time.
*chuckles* I wonder how many people remember this song? I do, but then again, I'm old ;-)
pretty sure right to parody is covered in our right to free speech. the only way i can seen this being a legitimate complaint is if it were an actual coommercial using it... then they could pull that stupid "it could confuse the public into thinking neil diamond was supporting halo, and that could somehow tarnish his good name"
I think realistically, Microsoft would have more of a case if they wanted to make a big deal out of this than sony and neil diamond do. notice how microsoft isn't making a big deal out of this though... that's because it's bad business to harass your fanbase, but also because it isn't a big deal... it's someone on the internet having some fun.
Right to parody Neil Diamond's song is covered under 1st amendment. Right to make parody (or funny song) of something else USING Neil Diamond's song is not covered, as I understand it. I am not a lawyer, I just read the internets.
Actually, even though Weird Al asks permission, that doesn't mean he has to. Legally, he can make and sell the parodies without permission. However, he just asks them 'cause he's nice like that.
Actually, even though Weird Al asks permission, that doesn't mean he has to. Legally, he can make and sell the parodies without permission. However, he just asks them 'cause he's nice like that.
Actually, even though Weird Al asks permission, that doesn't mean he has to. Legally, he can make and sell the parodies without permission. However, he just asks them 'cause he's nice like that.
*Hits Gamechamp over the head to stop the re-pos.
I always thought parodies were legal as long as it was clearly understood as being one.
I love that Podcast! heh I don't see what Sony's problem is... it's not like the guy is making a profit off of it.
Oh great Neil Fuckin Diamond just discovered the Internets.
Where's Will Ferrell when ya need'em?
Oh great Neil Fuckin Diamond just discovered the Internets.
Where's Will Ferrell when ya need'em?
Fair use is a very grey area in copyright law. Fair use is commonly associated with school use as well as non commercial reviewing or short , non commercial uses. However, the language of fair use legislation is such that this particular use would be covered under both Fair use and, most likely, the 1st amendment. People tend not to argue fair use, though, because it is such a muddled area (use by schools for classes being the on real exception to that).
Eh, no big loss, never liked Neil Diamond that much anyways.
Neil Diamond vs. God. WHO WILL WIN?
Neil Diamond is still alive?
@grrza Weird Al licenses the songs, that probably why he doesn't get sued.
It's really time to limit copyright laws to a sensible amount of what can and can't be done with stuff.
Next time Metallica will copyright a guitar riff and off we go... straight to hell.
"Isn't parody considered fair use under copyright law? I thought that's how Weird Al managed to do his thing without getting 12 law suits every album..."
Well, Weird Al took a lot of heat for his parody of James Blunt's "You're Beautiful" and as a result, it was taken off his "Straight Outta Lynwood" album (even though, last time I checked, it was offered for download on Weird Al's website). Plus, Coolio openly complained about Weird Al's parody of "Gangta's Paradise," resulting in Weird Al writing a letter of apology to Coolio.
That letter sounds like a standard cease and desist. If the parody creator simply emails back stating that first amendment and fair use covers parodies and cites the correct sources, they'll back down.
I've seen it done before MANY times. Their bark is worse than their bite. No court is going to want to set a precedent that says parody is not covered under fair use and the first amendment. That would open the door for thousands of companies/people to sue parody creators. All those political cartoons would be illegal, Weird Al's songs would be illegal, etc...
For the last time, Weird Al has to get the rights to do his direct parodies. After all, he's using the original artist's music, even though it's a parody. That's why Al doesn't get in trouble - because he contacts the appropriate people and clears it with them.
Anyone remember this? I'm fairly sure that was a situation similar to this one.
Help us Weird Al, you're our only hope.
Returning Dtoiders: login now to post a comment
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just Create an avatar now - it's fast and free: PLUS you also get your own gaming blog and begin posting stories and uploading videos in our open community area that may also appear on our home page. Sign up and we'll guide you through it, it's easy and 100% anonymous.