| Warner/Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Fullscreen Inc. et al. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Holding | |
| A settlement was reached requiring Fullscreen to remove all unlicensed videos on its company YouTube channel. Fullscreen's partners were to obtain licenses for past and future content. | |
| Keywords | |
| Copyright infringement,multi-channel network,mechanical license | |
Warner/Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Fullscreen Inc. et al. (13-cv-05472[1]) was a legal case filed against the multi-channel networkFullscreen. TheNational Music Publishers Association initiated the lawsuit on behalf ofWarner/Chappell Music and 15 other music publishers.[1] The case claimed that Fullscreen profited from unlicensed cover videos onYouTube and allegedly failed to payroyalties to the publishers and songwriters entitled to them.
According to the lawsuit, the defendant Fullscreen was accused of having "willfully ignored their obligation to obtain licenses and pay royalties to exploit the vast majority of the musical content disseminated over Fullscreen's networks."[2] Among the musical content that Fullscreen allegedly infringed upon were songs byJustin Bieber,Kesha,Kanye West,Lady Gaga andKaty Perry.[1]
TheNational Music Publishers Association filed thiscopyright infringement lawsuit in theSouthern District of New York on August 6, 2013,[3] accusing Fullscreen of four copyright violations:
Theplaintiff suggested thatFullscreen:
Before this, theNMPA filed a similar lawsuit against another multi-channel network,Maker Studios, which subsequently agreed to settle out of court and establish a compensation model for both past infringements and future licenses that comply with theCopyright Act.[3]
TheNational Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) is a trade association for American music publishers and songwriters, includingWarner/Chappell Music and Palm Valley Music.[3] It was established in 1917 and had over 300 members in 2014.[4]
Fullscreen is one of the largestYouTube multi-channel networks, generating over three billion monthly video views across all its channels. The company was founded in January 2011 byCEO George Strompolos and includes some of YouTube's prominent talent, such asLindsey Stirling,The Fine Brothers,Tyler Ward, andMegan Nicole.[5] According to the company, Fullscreen is affiliated with over 15,000 YouTube channels that collectively have 200 million subscribers and generate over 2.5 billion views per month.[2] Fullscreen attracts more than 30 million visitors monthly,[4] across all their channels. Like many other multi-channel networks, Fullscreen consists primarily of channels with covered musical content. The network generates revenue from theadvertising generated by these unlicensedmusic videos.
A settlement was reached that required Fullscreen creators to license their music videos or remove them. The channel managed by Fullscreen was to remove all offending videos entirely — whereas Fullscreen partners were allowed to license these videos.[6] George Strompolos, Fullscreen CEO, commented:
Fullscreen is pleased to be one of the leading multi-channel networks to establish landmark licenses with major music publishers on behalf of Fullscreen's music artists. We commend the NMPA for their proactiveness and helping to clear the way for us to establish new relationships with music publishers. Fullscreen will continue to pioneer 'win/win/win' solutions for emerging musicians, their audiences, and existing rights holders within the music industry.[4]
— George Strompolos
David Israelite,NMPA president and CEO, noted:
This settlement demonstrates the fundamental value of songwriters and their music publishing partners, and highlights NMPA's mission to fight for fair compensation and protection of songwriters' rights.[4]
— David Israelite
After the settlement,Fullscreen andMaker Studios announced a deal withUniversal Music Publishing Group, which allows the networks access andmonetization of Universal's entire music library.[7]
Multi-channel networks (MCNs) work with YouTube channels, providing support for funding, rights management, audience development, and monetization. While not affiliated with nor endorsed byGoogle, MCNs receive a portion of the advertising revenue generated by the YouTube channels they work with.[8] Recently, it has become more common for MCNs to work with brands onintegrated marketing and incorporate advertising within a YouTube creator's video. Though MCNs can offer YouTube creators connections to brands andsponsorship deals, as well as financial support, there has been some criticism of their practices. YouTube personalityRay William Johnson left his MCNMaker Studios when he was asked to renegotiate his contract and relinquish 40% of his advertising revenue and 50% of theintellectual property of his show -Equals Three.[9]
Content ID is a system developed byYouTube (owned byGoogle) in 2007 that scans every video uploaded to YouTube forcopyright infringement. Should Content ID detect the usage of content registered bycopyright holders in a user-generated video, it notifies the rights-holder and provides them with the option to:
YouTube producers may dispute or appealContent ID claims. Content ID has enabled content owners to monitor the usage of their content and manage its availability and monetization on YouTube. Uploaders receive astrike for each case ofcopyright infringement, and their accounts are suspended after receiving three strikes.YouTubers and certain publishers have entered into blanket synchronization licenses, allowing publishers to receive up to 50% of the revenues from videos using their content.[10] YouTube has direct licensing agreements with many music publishers, which pay royalties for cover songs uploaded by YouTubers. Multi-channel networks like Fullscreen, however, are not covered under these contracts.[11]
Copyright infringement cases involving unlicensed videos on YouTube date back before the case between theNMPA andFullscreen. In 2007,Viacom filed a lawsuit againstGoogle over alleged copyright violations on its YouTube platform.[12] In March 2014, the two companies announced a settlement, noting that "Google and Viacom today jointly announced the resolution of theViacom vs. YouTube copyright litigation. This settlement reflects the growing collaborative dialogue between our two companies on important opportunities and we look forward to working more closely together."[13] When the lawsuit was filed,Viacom sought $1 billion in damages fromGoogle, accusingYouTube of permitting users to upload thousands of Viacom-owned videos without licenses, which they described as "brazen" and "massive" copyright infringement.[12] In 2010, Google's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the case based on theDigital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provisions. Viacom's appeal was subsequently denied, with District Judge Stanton granting summary judgment in favor of Google in April 2013.[13]