What about Fair Use? The Gaga Saga(alyankovic.wordpress.com)
alyankovic.wordpress.com
What about Fair Use? The Gaga Saga
http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/
22 comments
How is it any different then to upload the song to YouTube? In today's atmosphere it'd probably get more exposure and listens to on YouTube than on his album.
Because he's not selling it on his album if it's on Youtube.
Is money the issue here? He said he'd donate all proceeds from the song to the Human Rights Campaign. It seems more Lady Gaga was offended by the parody, and being on YouTube means she'll still be offended by it (probably more so as this controversy gains traction, this will probably be Al's most listened to single in some time)
It's pretty much Coolio and "Amish Paradise" all over again. Al is a nice guy, asks if the artist minds even though he doesn't have to, and the artist then chooses whether to be a ponce or not.
Don't immediately assume that Gaga didn't want this to be released. I suspect she knows full well that refusing someone like Weird Al will result in more press (negative or otherwise) and more attention for both of them - the good old Streisand effect coupled with reverse psychology. Despite enjoying Weird Al in the past, I haven't listened to any of his new tracks in years but I've heard this one now..
It'd only take Gaga to 'conveniently' change her mind in a few days and the Internet hype machine could have done its job, promoted Al's album, promoted her image yet more, and everyone's happy.
It'd only take Gaga to 'conveniently' change her mind in a few days and the Internet hype machine could have done its job, promoted Al's album, promoted her image yet more, and everyone's happy.
Update: I think I called it: http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/gaga-update/
I'm not buying the "the manager didn't pass it on" line - that's politics. Either way, Gaga now looks good, the video has 10 honors on YouTube, much discussion took place which helped both artists out.. everyone's happy.
I'm not buying the "the manager didn't pass it on" line - that's politics. Either way, Gaga now looks good, the video has 10 honors on YouTube, much discussion took place which helped both artists out.. everyone's happy.
It is interesting. I respect Al's long held stance not to do parodies without the artist's consent while acknowledging that he is legally within his rights to do so. But I also don't think it is really that surprising that Gaga would want to actually hear the song rather than just give the go ahead based on lyrics. Anyone who has been online for any amount of time knows that the written word comes off a lot different than spoken/sung. And it is actually not that surprising that she wouldn't consent, considering it is fairly harsh in calling the song a Madonna ripoff and calling her persona fake and manufactured simply to take money from her fans. It is a pretty big anomaly given Al's history, I can't recall anytime he has really gone after the artist he is parodying before.
Al is being a bit disingenuous with the whole "I respect the artist's wishes", but then releasing the song and banking on the Streisand effect to do its magic. You can call her out on screwing you over, but don't play like you don't know what you are doing.
Al is being a bit disingenuous with the whole "I respect the artist's wishes", but then releasing the song and banking on the Streisand effect to do its magic. You can call her out on screwing you over, but don't play like you don't know what you are doing.
What added information would she have gotten from hearing the song? Given the fact that his songs are lyrical parodies, the only substantial difference between her song and his are the words.
On what grounds would she reject the song, but be ok with the lyrics? Because by asking him to sing it she's basically said "I'm ok with the words. But I might not be ok with the delivery."
On what grounds would she reject the song, but be ok with the lyrics? Because by asking him to sing it she's basically said "I'm ok with the words. But I might not be ok with the delivery."
On what grounds would she reject the song, but be ok with the lyrics? Because by asking him to sing it she's basically said "I'm ok with the words. But I might not be ok with the delivery."
Delivery can make the difference between affectionate parody and harsh parody.
Most of Weird Al's songs don't really make fun of the original performer. Most of 'em are really about food, or surgeons, or the Amish, or the Beverley Hillbillies. Only a couple of 'em actually target the perceived flaws of the actual singer (e.g. his version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" which makes fun of Kurt Cobain's somewhat incomprehensible drawl).
Delivery can make the difference between affectionate parody and harsh parody.
Most of Weird Al's songs don't really make fun of the original performer. Most of 'em are really about food, or surgeons, or the Amish, or the Beverley Hillbillies. Only a couple of 'em actually target the perceived flaws of the actual singer (e.g. his version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" which makes fun of Kurt Cobain's somewhat incomprehensible drawl).
I haven't listened to any Weird Al in a decade or so, but I listened to this one, and his delivery was exactly the same as it always was. It's extremely predictable; reading the lyrics and having any familiarity with his parodies at all should have been enough.
This song did strike me as a little more critical than most of what I remember (though Smells Like Nirvana did come to mind), but hey, that's obvious from the lyrics. I wouldn't fault her for saying no at that point; instead she refused to respond until he'd done the recording.
So I agree with Al, it was a stupid demand to make (especially considering that she should know that recording a song isn't cheap), and Al's reaction isn't really about the money; it's about punishing her for either thoughtlessness or meanness, and also a bit about getting a bit of press for himself.
I suppose I'm not terribly impressed with either of them.
This song did strike me as a little more critical than most of what I remember (though Smells Like Nirvana did come to mind), but hey, that's obvious from the lyrics. I wouldn't fault her for saying no at that point; instead she refused to respond until he'd done the recording.
So I agree with Al, it was a stupid demand to make (especially considering that she should know that recording a song isn't cheap), and Al's reaction isn't really about the money; it's about punishing her for either thoughtlessness or meanness, and also a bit about getting a bit of press for himself.
I suppose I'm not terribly impressed with either of them.
The lyrics are not necessarily critical... you could argue they are meant to celebrate Gaga's antics ("I'm not crazy... I perform this way"). But the possibility is there of course.
Well, right... but she had already seen the lyrics. She already knew exactly what the song was about.
I can't imagine what you mean. Here is what she knew:
1. The lyrics to the song
2. The music to the song
3. What Al sounds like when he sings
What about the actual track could be "a lot different" from the information she already had, to the degree that it would lead her to withhold approval she would otherwise have granted?
1. The lyrics to the song
2. The music to the song
3. What Al sounds like when he sings
What about the actual track could be "a lot different" from the information she already had, to the degree that it would lead her to withhold approval she would otherwise have granted?
It may be that the request didn't make it to Lady Gaga until the full song was sent over.
Think about it from the assistant's point of view, who reports to Lady Gaga. He doesn't want to take something to Lady Gaga and have her say, "Mmmm.... I don't know" and have the issue unresolved. Meanwhile, it costs none of his own effort to ask Weird Al to send over the recorded song, which he can then take to Lady Gaga in its entirety.
Think about it from the assistant's point of view, who reports to Lady Gaga. He doesn't want to take something to Lady Gaga and have her say, "Mmmm.... I don't know" and have the issue unresolved. Meanwhile, it costs none of his own effort to ask Weird Al to send over the recorded song, which he can then take to Lady Gaga in its entirety.
I thought the same thing as you at first, but perhaps Gaga might have taken issue with the short sound clip from Madonna's "Express Yourself" (at 1:58 in Weird Al's version). I think Gaga has been accused of copying "Express Yourself" and Weird Al is poking fun at that issue.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2011/04/20/20...
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2011/04/20/20...
People who work in the music production see a lot wider spaces inbetween subtle variations in sound than most of us. There are as many ways to construct a song as there are to construct a program, even if you know the "general idea."
Yes, but how does any of that affect the decision of "Yes, it's OK for Al to make this comedy song"? He's not asking her to put her name on it or positively review it — just to say she doesn't mind him doing it. So I don't see how "subtle variations" make any difference. As he said, this was the first time he'd encountered this in many decades of making parodies, so if you're implying that this is just how musicians work, you're wrong.
An update has just been posted saying that Lady Gaga loves it, it was her manager who made the decision without consulting with her: http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/gaga-update/
What a relief! Maybe now this celebrity gossip will get off the front page.
I am profoundly skeptical that she never knew about it and the cynic in me suggests that this is a matter of trying to salvage a PR mistake.
Well, if you read the whole post, this doesn't actually have much to do with Fair Use. It's Al's personal policy (and I think it's an admirable one) of getting artists' permission.
Though considering he already posted the song online, presumably against Lady GaGa's wishes, I don't really get why he doesn't just go ahead and put it on the album as well. Perhaps not having artist permission makes the label's lawyers nervous.
Though considering he already posted the song online, presumably against Lady GaGa's wishes, I don't really get why he doesn't just go ahead and put it on the album as well. Perhaps not having artist permission makes the label's lawyers nervous.
[deleted]
He explains that in the blog post.
Right. The title of this article should be changed, then, as it really has nothing to do with Fair Use at all.
I assume most people here have various internet 'water-coolers' that they hang out on. I'm slightly bemused as to why this is apparently HN discussion fodder.
In my case (and I suspect most others) it is because the Copyright Cartel seems intent on pushing private privileges that were given during a time in which it made sense and they continue to pursue such privileges to the detriment of the rights of the people and the progress. Anything with Fair Use in the title is going to draw interest from some of us.
[deleted]
Well, according to TMZ, she never rejected it as her manager didn't ever send her the song:
http://www.tmz.com/2011/04/20/weird-al-yankovic-lady-gaga-re...
http://www.tmz.com/2011/04/20/weird-al-yankovic-lady-gaga-re...
And we believe her manager why? Isn't it his job to help make sure she doesn't look like a schmuck?
How the #%*& is this near the top of the front page of Hacker News?!? This is an incredibly shallow celebrity squabble story. It's not about fair use, and it would be on the slim side of interesting even if it was.
Flagged, but I'm still depressed.
Flagged, but I'm still depressed.
What's most interesting to me about this piece is everything except for the Gaga Drama itself.
20 years ago if you would have told someone that it takes 8 weeks to get a release date and a huge chunk of money/time to cut a track, probably no one would be impressed. If you also said "We wrote, recorded and published (to a few million people) within a few days" people would have gone nuts and thought you were Michael Jackson. How on earth could you get it done so fast? But today kids on are making music that rivals the quality of the MP3 Al posted to Youtube for peanuts... and they're the amateurs! That's what amazes me. You can make similar quality music and get exposure more quickly and to more people than signed artists and you're still considered the amateur.
Also very interesting is Al's sense of ethics. Great guy.
20 years ago if you would have told someone that it takes 8 weeks to get a release date and a huge chunk of money/time to cut a track, probably no one would be impressed. If you also said "We wrote, recorded and published (to a few million people) within a few days" people would have gone nuts and thought you were Michael Jackson. How on earth could you get it done so fast? But today kids on are making music that rivals the quality of the MP3 Al posted to Youtube for peanuts... and they're the amateurs! That's what amazes me. You can make similar quality music and get exposure more quickly and to more people than signed artists and you're still considered the amateur.
Also very interesting is Al's sense of ethics. Great guy.
It's a shame this article was upvoted so much with an editorialized title that is blatantly misleading and out of context. And the number of comments by people who didn't even read the article is disappointing. This is page 6 material, not for HN. Or is this what HN is now?
I wonder if he's pissed enough to add her to the Interview portion of his live show.
Weird Al has a jumbotron in his live show where he plays film clips and fake interviews during his (many) costume changes.
The "interviews" are scenes of him asking questions, cut with replies that, say, Madonna, gave during other (real) interviews. The result makes the celebrity look like a complete idiot.
Weird Al has a jumbotron in his live show where he plays film clips and fake interviews during his (many) costume changes.
The "interviews" are scenes of him asking questions, cut with replies that, say, Madonna, gave during other (real) interviews. The result makes the celebrity look like a complete idiot.
Relevant updated from NY Times interview with Weird Al: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/weird-al-yankov...
Does anyone else feel that this song really isn't top-notch Yankovic? It's okay, but if I heard it on an album I'd have thought it was one of the tail-end songs; I'm boggled to think that he wanted this to be the lead single in his new album.
As well as him feeling this is strong, I think he probably puts a lot of weight on the public popularity of the song he's parodying when choosing a "lead" single. I suspect marketing parodies is at least as much dictated by the popularity and timeliness of the choice of source as the actual parody itself.
From his Youtube page:
"UPDATE: Lady Gaga has approved the parody!!! Album release information coming soon!"
Apparently, the manager was making decsions without actually consulting her. Typical PHB from my experience. I'd fire the guy.
http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/gaga-update/
Edit: link
"UPDATE: Lady Gaga has approved the parody!!! Album release information coming soon!"
Apparently, the manager was making decsions without actually consulting her. Typical PHB from my experience. I'd fire the guy.
http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/gaga-update/
Edit: link
Does this remind anyone else of App Store rejections? :P
This is a textbook case of parody fair use, squarely in line with the Supreme Court decision validating 2 Live Crew's parody of Oh Pretty Woman.[1]
And Weird Al's lyrics are pretty funny ....
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I....
And Weird Al's lyrics are pretty funny ....
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I....
This really reminds me of the common tale of a hacker working on contract, with the employer constantly promising "Don't worry, you'll be paid later", but never in fact planning to pay.
Has Weird Al learned what every hacker should know? Don't commit yourself to work based on the maybes of someone you have no reason to trust.
Has Weird Al learned what every hacker should know? Don't commit yourself to work based on the maybes of someone you have no reason to trust.
They changed their minds:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2011/04/20/135582519/crisi...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2011/04/20/135582519/crisi...
It's also about respect and being professional. Al set a higher standard than Gaga.
[deleted]
So Rebecca Black is a "genius" (http://goo.gl/TSDTv), but this song is apparently not worth releasing?
Please post the actual URLs here, URL shorteners are bad.
http://www.billboard.com/news/lady-gaga-rebecca-black-is-a-g... in this case.
http://www.billboard.com/news/lady-gaga-rebecca-black-is-a-g... in this case.
No minified links, please. If it's a long link, it'll be displayed truncated automatically, but that way everyone sees the entire link, and its existence isn't bound to site / service X.
[deleted]
> My parodies have always fallen under what the courts call "fair use," and this one was no different, legally allowing me to record and release it without permission. But it has always been my personal policy to get the consent of the original artist before including my parodies on any album, so of course I will respect Gaga’s wishes.
This is a story about Lady Gaga, not intellectual property law.