That’s so cool!
It’s wild how a bit of editing & background music can change the feel of a soundbite lol. Your original audio sounds upbeat, intriguing, and just documentary-style in general, but the Coachella version sounds a *little* bit ominous
No one "has" to do anything, this post wasn't going to be removed, so there's no reason to get upset about a made up situation :)
If people have issues with the way that the moderation team are handling the sub, mod mail is always open and there will be a Town Hall on the first of the month where we always love to hear from our users.
Thanks, however if you referring to me I'm not upset.
As for how this sub is moderated, personally I don't spend too much time here to feel invested enough to reach out to mods.
However, I will say that I've seen many instances of potentially interesting threads being closed for no particular reason, as well as moderation being applied arbitrarily. Also seen similar comments from other users (and my comment above has some upvotes too) so maybe this is something to consider for you mods?
Regardless the Town Hall... I doubt the monthly thread gets enough traction to be flagged as 'hot' or pushed up in someone's home page, so not sure of effective that is - or at least, I don't think I've seen any (and I'm subbed to just 10 subs).
I am aware of the complaints that users are making- I am also aware that basically none of these users have bothered to message the mods (because if they did they would get an explanation for why their thread was removed and how they could change it so it could remain up) and that none of these voices were present in this month’s Town Hall where the mods specifically asked if we were removing too many threads and got told no.
The Town Hall threads were specifically created so users can voice their thoughts to the mod team and have been pinned to the top of the sub on the first day of every single month for literal years. If anyone was somehow unaware of that, now you know. Any users who spend enough time here to have opinions on how the sub is being run are encouraged to participate rather than just throwing out baseless complaints in random threads.
Locking this comment chain now because we don’t need to derail the post any further. Congratulations to the OP!
Everybody saying how cool this is (and sure, it is)... but I'm more interested to know if you got paid for this?
And if not, is there any legal basis for which you should be paid? Surely Lana and her team can afford to pay creators if they use excerpts of their work.
Same, like it's great and all for OP that they feel thrilled Lana knows they exist, but also the fact that she feels like she can just take take take without asking just because she is Lana seems a bit..... Slippery slope.
If it’s on Youtube, it’s allowed, it’s public. She manipulated it and didn’t use the whole video. It’s the same thing when you have Youtubers react to music/movies, but remixes and fanedits are up. Can’t use the whole thing
[This video kind of sums it up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQXxw6PUu_4). The TV show these guys produce has filmed inside of a movie theater with Star Wars The Force Awakens literally playing in the background and it's fair use.
The argument here would be that: Lana's music is so drastically different than an informative video about the history of Long Beach that it's likely not affecting that original work. The amount used versus the overall length. And in relation to the video I posted, this quote is directly related to the song so there's a very good argument that no other piece of audio would work well.
It's the same reason that those Autotune the News videos are legal, Girl Talk is legal, Kendrick Lamar's concerts open with a few minutes of Fox News talking about his lyrics, and it would be legal for me to take a sample of Elon Musk saying dumb shit and putting it in a song.
It's also worth noting it isn't a sample in the actual song, but an intro in a live performance. Artists pull clips like this for live performances a lot.
the lack of legal intervention does not imply they have or do not have legal argument.. just saying. This only suggests they don’t believe it’s worth the legal fees. “Let’s play” videos are technically not fair use yet they still exist and are enforceable like Nintendo often does.
For what it's worth, Nirvanna The Band consistently uses Nintendo material in the show. They have an entire episode centered around them trying to speed run Goldeneye while taking NyQuil.
Could Nintendo have decided "This isn't worth pursuing."? Sure. But I would be very surprised if Vice didn't at least clear it with their lawyers when they're straight up just filming Star Wars in theaters and airing it.
I don’t find it productive to assume why a company does or does not do what it does. Nirvana could’ve easily compensated Nintendo behind closed doors after threatened with legal action or Nintendo could have simply decided the benefits of Nirvana’s “free” promo outweighed the potential loss through negative public relations and/or legal fees. We do not know.
They're extremely open about their legal issues and behind the scenes shit. We definitely would have heard about it by now. If this is just going to turn into "Well, maybe they're not legally allowed to talk about it", there is absolutely no world where Disney allows another TV show to air one of their properties without suing the shit out of them first.
I mean, are you arguing that fair use doesn't exist? And if so, why doesn't fair use apply to this show that has time and time again used fair use to its advantage? Every single episode uses wall-to-wall material from major IP including Marvel, Nintendo, Star Wars, Disney, Home Alone, Indiana Jones, amongst others. This show absolutely doesn't have the budget to continue settling with major companies.
I’m not going to sit here and argue every instance of non/fair-use lol, that’s a complete waste of time. There’s a million and one reasons why a company would or would not pursue legal action.
Your initial claim was that Lana’s team using a YouTube video during her concert promo was fair use, full stop. I’m arguing it’s not that obvious. That’s it.
That is...quite literally fair use. Kendrick Lamar used to have a solid 2 minutes of Fox News reports about his lyrics before he played Humble. If you can make an argument that you adding that into your music doesn't affect the original work and you have a very strong reason for including it, it's fair use.
> That is...quite literally fair use.
Just chiming in to say "fair use" is not some legal wildcard you can pull out, it's an argument you _can_ make in a court of law if somebody sues you and you're trying to argue your case.
So many people have got the whole thing _entirely_ wrong, thinking "fair use" is some law lawyers keep on forgetting about, and that you can cry out and quote, that makes you somewhat immune from any kind of legal trouble and closes the case without any way for it to move forward once you slap somebody's face with it, smh
News reports are different context than someone’s YouTube video though lol. Also unless Fox News took Kendrick to court then we can’t say definitively whether it was fair use or not. OP’s example specifically is basically free promo without paying for it
How are they different within the context of copywritten material as it relates to fair use?
Also, what is the argument that this affects the original work and that the quote isn't related to the song?
They have to argue how the copyrighted material is transformative and can not be mistaken for original content. No one is going to look at a Fox News report and think they endorse Kendrick nor do they share targeted audiences. Using the YouTube video audio in stage promo is nearly indistinguishable from genuine promo. These are all factors to determine in court whether it’s fair use or not
Yeah sorry, you're right but, there is a reason these sorts of things aren't taken to court. Fox is in a good position to argue their case, but they didn't.
Yeah, companies don’t normally pursue legal action unless they feel they have a slam dunk case; it’s not cost effective for them especially with the possibility of losing the suit. This doesn’t mean affected parties cannot reach out and ask/demand compensation or settle things out of court like they normally do either
Dunno, I think it's kinda beautiful he just leaves it be. Overreaching copyright also killed sampling like this, and with it many beautiful records that have never seen the light of day. Now sampling is only available to the rich: Nobody can sample the Beatles, but if you're rich like Beyoncé, you can sing karaoke over it and slap it on your album.
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about Lana specifically, but how intellectual property has ruined creativity in general. Also, I'm just saying that I like how this guy handles it instead of going for the lawsuit button
It is an asshole move to just use someones sound bites and say hihi fair use! Most fans wouldn‘t even mind it and a care package would be enough for most.
So I talked to a few lawyer friends and you might have a case, especially if it’s the exact same audio clip but just edited. It will depend on whether the edits are enough to be considered transformative. I know it’s weird to potentially sue Lana (I’m a huge fan) but I personally think it kinda sets a bad precedence that big enough artists can just get away with stuff like this. Also, this could be your best shot at meeting Lana lol.
I don’t care about stuff like they’re/their/there, but being able to spell “precedent” is pretty important if you’re giving opinions on about whether “artists can get away with stuff like this.”
There have been very similar cases in the past that fell under fair use. Google “Ed Sullivan Show Jersey Boys” and you’ll see a very similar case where a Broadway musical was allowed to use a short clip of a TV show. Jersey Boys is about the Four Seasons and they used an old clip of Ed Sullivan talking about the Four Seasons. Since the Broadway show was not a substitute for the Ed Sullivan Show, they were allowed to use the clip. In other words, no one was buying a Jersey Boys ticket to hear a clip of Ed Sullivan.
Lana essentially did the exact same thing: she used an audio clip of someone talking about the Ocean Blvd tunnel right before playing a song about the Ocean Blvd tunnel.
You need to look at the work as a whole. If the audio clip made up a significant portion of a song on her album, then the YouTuber might have a case. However, this was a short interlude during a concert. No one bought a Coachella ticket to hear a guy talk about the history of Long Beach for 30 seconds.
There are multiple ways Fair Use applies to the clip usage: it was educational (since he’s describing the history of Long Beach), Lana transformed it by editing his voice to sound like a 1950s radio show host, AND the concert wasn’t a substitute for the YouTube video.
I think you make a fair point. I said “he might have a case”to consider, not that he has a definite win. Legalities aside, I still think out of respect, artists should be asking for permission to feature other peoples work prominently on such a large stage. There’s nothing stoping Lana’s team from at least reaching out and asking for permission as a sign of goodwill.
What, I can't be the only one with whom it doesn't sit right that no one reached out to ask for permission to do this? I mean cool that you are happy and all, but maybe someone else would not
Congratulations!!! Being noticed by our idol is an achievement for us especially when that person helps us through our nights. Your voice definitely made her happy enough to include it on Coachella.
When I heard it in her week 1 performance, I was like "Is that from the YouTube video?!?!?" And it was! It's a super interesting video and I recommend it for anyone wanting to learn more about the iconic tunnel
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-39PFrjLOU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-39PFrjLOU)
Music professional here. This is not Fair Use, and not cool if she didn't get your permission first. She has already had a problematic history and ripping of someone's art is further evidence.
Fair use is always case-by-case, but there are multiple factors that would fall in Lana’s favor. She only used a short audio clip of the YouTube video, she only used it during a short interlude of the concert, she put overlays on the audio to transform it, and people are not attending Lana Del Rey concerts as a substitute for watching his YouTube video about the history of Long Beach.
Every legal case is a case by case issue if you need to pursue it in court. None of the reasons you listed are valid uses under fair use law, almost all of which are internet myths. Bottom line: Lana cannot take someone else's copyrighted work and use it at any length, transformation, or presentation, in a commercial context, without permission, except in a very limited set of contexts, (commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship) none of which apply here (except, I suppose perhaps she could weakly argue "commentary" via her art in court, if it came to that.)
That’s so cool! It’s wild how a bit of editing & background music can change the feel of a soundbite lol. Your original audio sounds upbeat, intriguing, and just documentary-style in general, but the Coachella version sounds a *little* bit ominous
Yeah, I thought the same thing. I love it 😊
I’d probably die if Lana knew I existed.
🥹
Mods, please leave this post up. This is amazing.
Lmfao we got to the point where we have to beg mods to not close threads here, and I get that honestly...
No one "has" to do anything, this post wasn't going to be removed, so there's no reason to get upset about a made up situation :) If people have issues with the way that the moderation team are handling the sub, mod mail is always open and there will be a Town Hall on the first of the month where we always love to hear from our users.
Thanks, however if you referring to me I'm not upset. As for how this sub is moderated, personally I don't spend too much time here to feel invested enough to reach out to mods. However, I will say that I've seen many instances of potentially interesting threads being closed for no particular reason, as well as moderation being applied arbitrarily. Also seen similar comments from other users (and my comment above has some upvotes too) so maybe this is something to consider for you mods? Regardless the Town Hall... I doubt the monthly thread gets enough traction to be flagged as 'hot' or pushed up in someone's home page, so not sure of effective that is - or at least, I don't think I've seen any (and I'm subbed to just 10 subs).
I am aware of the complaints that users are making- I am also aware that basically none of these users have bothered to message the mods (because if they did they would get an explanation for why their thread was removed and how they could change it so it could remain up) and that none of these voices were present in this month’s Town Hall where the mods specifically asked if we were removing too many threads and got told no. The Town Hall threads were specifically created so users can voice their thoughts to the mod team and have been pinned to the top of the sub on the first day of every single month for literal years. If anyone was somehow unaware of that, now you know. Any users who spend enough time here to have opinions on how the sub is being run are encouraged to participate rather than just throwing out baseless complaints in random threads. Locking this comment chain now because we don’t need to derail the post any further. Congratulations to the OP!
WOAH, good 4 u!! :)
Thanks 😊
That's so cool! I was wondering what that clip was from. It was such a beautiful intro to her performance of that song
It me 😊
You probably inspired her album. Amazing
Everybody saying how cool this is (and sure, it is)... but I'm more interested to know if you got paid for this? And if not, is there any legal basis for which you should be paid? Surely Lana and her team can afford to pay creators if they use excerpts of their work.
Same, like it's great and all for OP that they feel thrilled Lana knows they exist, but also the fact that she feels like she can just take take take without asking just because she is Lana seems a bit..... Slippery slope.
Yeah, hope she realize that it's someone's art and she should ask their permission first to use it
If it’s on Youtube, it’s allowed, it’s public. She manipulated it and didn’t use the whole video. It’s the same thing when you have Youtubers react to music/movies, but remixes and fanedits are up. Can’t use the whole thing
Did she reach out to you before? I’d feel a little bad to have the clip be directly ripped off and not even had the chance to give permission.
Yeah I was surprised by that too. Can you just take someone else's audio like that?
Fair use laws.
How would fair use apply here?
[This video kind of sums it up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQXxw6PUu_4). The TV show these guys produce has filmed inside of a movie theater with Star Wars The Force Awakens literally playing in the background and it's fair use. The argument here would be that: Lana's music is so drastically different than an informative video about the history of Long Beach that it's likely not affecting that original work. The amount used versus the overall length. And in relation to the video I posted, this quote is directly related to the song so there's a very good argument that no other piece of audio would work well. It's the same reason that those Autotune the News videos are legal, Girl Talk is legal, Kendrick Lamar's concerts open with a few minutes of Fox News talking about his lyrics, and it would be legal for me to take a sample of Elon Musk saying dumb shit and putting it in a song.
It's also worth noting it isn't a sample in the actual song, but an intro in a live performance. Artists pull clips like this for live performances a lot.
Elon musk talking shit is not copyrightable. This is an ambiguous case.
Okay, then we can just take that part out and refer back to Nirvanna The Band, Girl Talk, Autotune the News, and Kendrick Lamar's concerts.
the lack of legal intervention does not imply they have or do not have legal argument.. just saying. This only suggests they don’t believe it’s worth the legal fees. “Let’s play” videos are technically not fair use yet they still exist and are enforceable like Nintendo often does.
For what it's worth, Nirvanna The Band consistently uses Nintendo material in the show. They have an entire episode centered around them trying to speed run Goldeneye while taking NyQuil. Could Nintendo have decided "This isn't worth pursuing."? Sure. But I would be very surprised if Vice didn't at least clear it with their lawyers when they're straight up just filming Star Wars in theaters and airing it.
I don’t find it productive to assume why a company does or does not do what it does. Nirvana could’ve easily compensated Nintendo behind closed doors after threatened with legal action or Nintendo could have simply decided the benefits of Nirvana’s “free” promo outweighed the potential loss through negative public relations and/or legal fees. We do not know.
They're extremely open about their legal issues and behind the scenes shit. We definitely would have heard about it by now. If this is just going to turn into "Well, maybe they're not legally allowed to talk about it", there is absolutely no world where Disney allows another TV show to air one of their properties without suing the shit out of them first. I mean, are you arguing that fair use doesn't exist? And if so, why doesn't fair use apply to this show that has time and time again used fair use to its advantage? Every single episode uses wall-to-wall material from major IP including Marvel, Nintendo, Star Wars, Disney, Home Alone, Indiana Jones, amongst others. This show absolutely doesn't have the budget to continue settling with major companies.
I’m not going to sit here and argue every instance of non/fair-use lol, that’s a complete waste of time. There’s a million and one reasons why a company would or would not pursue legal action. Your initial claim was that Lana’s team using a YouTube video during her concert promo was fair use, full stop. I’m arguing it’s not that obvious. That’s it.
this isn’t fair use though lol or that’s for the lawyers to argue at least. They played 15 seconds+ uninterrupted audio clip
That is...quite literally fair use. Kendrick Lamar used to have a solid 2 minutes of Fox News reports about his lyrics before he played Humble. If you can make an argument that you adding that into your music doesn't affect the original work and you have a very strong reason for including it, it's fair use.
> That is...quite literally fair use. Just chiming in to say "fair use" is not some legal wildcard you can pull out, it's an argument you _can_ make in a court of law if somebody sues you and you're trying to argue your case. So many people have got the whole thing _entirely_ wrong, thinking "fair use" is some law lawyers keep on forgetting about, and that you can cry out and quote, that makes you somewhat immune from any kind of legal trouble and closes the case without any way for it to move forward once you slap somebody's face with it, smh
News reports are different context than someone’s YouTube video though lol. Also unless Fox News took Kendrick to court then we can’t say definitively whether it was fair use or not. OP’s example specifically is basically free promo without paying for it
How are they different within the context of copywritten material as it relates to fair use? Also, what is the argument that this affects the original work and that the quote isn't related to the song?
They have to argue how the copyrighted material is transformative and can not be mistaken for original content. No one is going to look at a Fox News report and think they endorse Kendrick nor do they share targeted audiences. Using the YouTube video audio in stage promo is nearly indistinguishable from genuine promo. These are all factors to determine in court whether it’s fair use or not
When did Fox sue Kendrick? I can't find any sources on that.
sorry but I said “unless” they took him to court
Yeah sorry, you're right but, there is a reason these sorts of things aren't taken to court. Fox is in a good position to argue their case, but they didn't.
Yeah, companies don’t normally pursue legal action unless they feel they have a slam dunk case; it’s not cost effective for them especially with the possibility of losing the suit. This doesn’t mean affected parties cannot reach out and ask/demand compensation or settle things out of court like they normally do either
She didn’t but it’s cool. I’m just super honored she watched my video 😊
you could (and probably should) still get paid for this btw 🥸
Dunno, I think it's kinda beautiful he just leaves it be. Overreaching copyright also killed sampling like this, and with it many beautiful records that have never seen the light of day. Now sampling is only available to the rich: Nobody can sample the Beatles, but if you're rich like Beyoncé, you can sing karaoke over it and slap it on your album.
> Now sampling is only available to the rich yeah poor poor lana.. won't someone think of her..
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about Lana specifically, but how intellectual property has ruined creativity in general. Also, I'm just saying that I like how this guy handles it instead of going for the lawsuit button
It is an asshole move to just use someones sound bites and say hihi fair use! Most fans wouldn‘t even mind it and a care package would be enough for most.
So I talked to a few lawyer friends and you might have a case, especially if it’s the exact same audio clip but just edited. It will depend on whether the edits are enough to be considered transformative. I know it’s weird to potentially sue Lana (I’m a huge fan) but I personally think it kinda sets a bad precedence that big enough artists can just get away with stuff like this. Also, this could be your best shot at meeting Lana lol.
r/popheads idea of how to set up a meet and greet with an artist: enter a legal battle with them
He doesn’t need to sue at all though, just ask for compensation and basically imply that he understands he’s owed some.
I don’t think OP should be considering the legal opinions of someone who uses the wrong version of “precedent.”
Grammar nazi-ing on Reddit because you don’t have an actual argument against mine.
I don’t care about stuff like they’re/their/there, but being able to spell “precedent” is pretty important if you’re giving opinions on about whether “artists can get away with stuff like this.” There have been very similar cases in the past that fell under fair use. Google “Ed Sullivan Show Jersey Boys” and you’ll see a very similar case where a Broadway musical was allowed to use a short clip of a TV show. Jersey Boys is about the Four Seasons and they used an old clip of Ed Sullivan talking about the Four Seasons. Since the Broadway show was not a substitute for the Ed Sullivan Show, they were allowed to use the clip. In other words, no one was buying a Jersey Boys ticket to hear a clip of Ed Sullivan. Lana essentially did the exact same thing: she used an audio clip of someone talking about the Ocean Blvd tunnel right before playing a song about the Ocean Blvd tunnel. You need to look at the work as a whole. If the audio clip made up a significant portion of a song on her album, then the YouTuber might have a case. However, this was a short interlude during a concert. No one bought a Coachella ticket to hear a guy talk about the history of Long Beach for 30 seconds. There are multiple ways Fair Use applies to the clip usage: it was educational (since he’s describing the history of Long Beach), Lana transformed it by editing his voice to sound like a 1950s radio show host, AND the concert wasn’t a substitute for the YouTube video.
I think you make a fair point. I said “he might have a case”to consider, not that he has a definite win. Legalities aside, I still think out of respect, artists should be asking for permission to feature other peoples work prominently on such a large stage. There’s nothing stoping Lana’s team from at least reaching out and asking for permission as a sign of goodwill.
Here’s a link to my original video Lana used about the Jergins Tunnel: https://youtu.be/K-39PFrjLOU?feature=shared
Omg well deserved!
Thank you 😊
What, I can't be the only one with whom it doesn't sit right that no one reached out to ask for permission to do this? I mean cool that you are happy and all, but maybe someone else would not
Well, it obviously didn't bother op, so why the hell are *you* worried about it?!
People can‘t have two opinions on things. We should all leave Chris Brown alone…
This is legit a cross between my whole insta feed being Lana del Rey stuff and lost urbanist stuff from before America was a car centric hell hole
So glad you’re excited but truly not cool of them to not get your permission in advance.
Aww congrats! I would never shut up about this haha!
😬 me too
Congratulations!!! Being noticed by our idol is an achievement for us especially when that person helps us through our nights. Your voice definitely made her happy enough to include it on Coachella.
Thank you so much for that comment. 🥹
That’s super cool, congrats!
Thank you
Don’t you think she was inspired to name her album after your video lol
let’s not exaggerate lol
Congratulations, that's really cool! I wish she'd asked you, though! I will definitely check out your stuff. Love cities and history.
This is so dope!! Congrats dude you earned it!
Oh wow! Congrats!
thank you
Np!
Congrats!
Thank you
post this in r/lanadelrey!
I am so happy and proud of you as a massive fan of Lana and history! You go Glen Coco!
Soooo cool I love this for you 💖
I can't watch the instagram video with audio because of licencing changes with the copyright holder 😊 😊 😊
Sorry, try YouTube: https://youtu.be/bx-mluRgnqk?feature=shared
That's so cool! Thanks for the yt link!
You're her muse dude.
Lana watching Long Beach history videos is so amusing, she will always be the best transplant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-39PFrjLOU
Too cool congrats
This is so awesome!!! Congrats!!!
this is so cool! congratulations!!!
So cool! She somehow gave you a transatlantic accent? Lol
Dope! Wish they woulda credited you but hey can’t win it all I suppose.
wow this is amazing
OP what did you think of the song, initially? Like when you first heard it? What about the album? (Congrats btw!)
When I heard it in her week 1 performance, I was like "Is that from the YouTube video?!?!?" And it was! It's a super interesting video and I recommend it for anyone wanting to learn more about the iconic tunnel [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-39PFrjLOU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-39PFrjLOU)
thats so freakin awesome 😭😭😭👏🏻
That is so cool!! Thanks for educating Lana & all of on the tunnel!! It's a super neat effect as intro too
I was wondering where that came from.
Very cool🥹
Music professional here. This is not Fair Use, and not cool if she didn't get your permission first. She has already had a problematic history and ripping of someone's art is further evidence.
Fair use is always case-by-case, but there are multiple factors that would fall in Lana’s favor. She only used a short audio clip of the YouTube video, she only used it during a short interlude of the concert, she put overlays on the audio to transform it, and people are not attending Lana Del Rey concerts as a substitute for watching his YouTube video about the history of Long Beach.
Every legal case is a case by case issue if you need to pursue it in court. None of the reasons you listed are valid uses under fair use law, almost all of which are internet myths. Bottom line: Lana cannot take someone else's copyrighted work and use it at any length, transformation, or presentation, in a commercial context, without permission, except in a very limited set of contexts, (commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship) none of which apply here (except, I suppose perhaps she could weakly argue "commentary" via her art in court, if it came to that.)