Well said David and thought provoking. I think that the difference that you describe comes back to motivation. The motive behind an ad is to “sell” … in a bottom line way. You could say that it is to “build awareness” or use other terms, but the reason for it all is to sell … your product, your service, your music - whatever.
For mashups and covers - there is creativity behind what is done. The first motive is not to “sell” but to “create”. And a real element of those seems to be joy - the joy of singing a cover of a tune that the person loves. The joy of sharing it. The joy of creating. I admit that those mashups and covers may lead eventually to sales but that doesn’t seem to be the main motive.
Writing an ad and paying for it may take creativity but there is no joy in the creation.
But maybe I am making it way too simple?

Interesting topic, awesome blog David, you’ve made a new subscriber out of me

Good point, but let’s not be naive here. While some of the videos are purely made from an innocent desire of expressing one’s creativity, they certainly don’t hurt the “David Usher” brand .

David, you know that I respect you as well as all fellow David Usher fans, but I’ll have to disagree with you on this for the following reason.

1. Whether the intention behind mashups/covers may be perceived as creative, the end result is the same. Someone is associating your brand to another (often bigger) brand and you’re profiting from it, sometimes in a more important way than the other brand (Batman/Kill The Lights). Not only that, but the creators did not get your or the other brand’s permission. They’re your fans and all this stuff is good for you so obviously it would make no sense for you to feel weird about it. As an artist, I would feel the same way !

2. In the case of covers, an artist, without your permission, has given herself/himself the right to not only use your name but your music. In some of the instances I’ve come across when searching David Usher or any other well known artist (search Colbie Caillat cover) on youtube, the intention is for viewers to discover the lesser known artists’ music and potentially buy it and become a fan i.e. to sell. Not only that, but as a songwriter you’re not being paid performance royalties (that’s a youtube issue). This is much worse than a facebook ad targeting a person’s musical tastes by naming one of the many artists they enjoy because you are being deprived of monetary compensation which you are, in principle, owed !

The points Mitch Joel made when discussing apply to this discussion. I’m quoting Mitch:
“Did you get his permission to do advertising for him? What makes you think he would want his brand advertised next to yours? Are you saying that both brands are of equal value, or do you derive more benefit from using David’s brand than he does from yours? Are you giving David a portion of all sales derived from this ad because you used his brand for your own personal gain?
Remember, it’s not like this is the Mac vs. PC ads where both brands have market awareness (equality). You are leveraging a very well known brand (David) to build your own.” Comment From Mitch Joel - Twist Image — July 17, 2008 @ 11:41 am

You’re not a corporation, neither are some of these artists who cover your song, but remember that facebook and youtube are not your neighbourhoods. Your fans are also fans of many other artists, there is no fan ownership for any artist, big or small.

Let me ask you this : how would you feel if a U2 fan (with all respect, a much bigger brand than David Usher) made a mashup/remix of Black Black Heart and a well known U2 song, put it on youtube and it got 8 million views which resulted in a large number of people around the world discovering David Usher and buying your album/buying your merch/attending your shows ?

It’s true, mahsups and covers are usually about creativity, but let’s not let creativity, joy or intentions blind us to the reality of the end result.

IMHO covers/mashups and adverts are diametrically opposite things, not a small difference, but the HUGE one! And I’ll explain why. Cover consists of tribute, creativity and some fun. The ad may contain some fun, creativity and the main, propaganda. So these both have different tasks, motivations and results!

Hey Daniel
I think your missing my point. I’m not saying its my community, but that i am part of this community. That I take part in it and act as an individual in it. Beacon was Facebook’s attempt to make ads with users names and faces in them without the users permission. The Facebook community freaked out. And the practice was stopped. Now maybe because I’m a more public person and don’t get those same protections. But im not so sure.
Think about it, Coke couldn’t stick an ad next to your name without your permission and post it all over Facebook.

And i agree its a fine line and its pretty run and gun but i think there is a difference with mashups. I was emailed by a circus performer who asked if they could use Black black heart in their local Montreal show. Of course i said yes. But added “i might come back to you when you are using it with cirque and playing Las Vegas”.

If Batman runs up 92 million views like Avril’s “Girlfriend” you can be sure Warner will come knocking. And your right i would be jumping for joy if U2 did a Black Heart mashup, but i still think its different than a pure ad.

This post made me think instantly:
“More chaos is needed to create new world order.”

I agree with everything you made observations of and am glad to find solace in detatchment when things pop up that may bring me to become offended..speaking about the ads, that is.
I suppose everytime I find myself in a similar situation I simply tell myself “this is a test” and then ask “what is the purpose of this anyways?”
I’m not saying I’m able to do it everytime, but I believe if we take the time to stand back and really observe what is coming at us we can destruct it down to a science.
…I really need to remember that when pms strikes..or a foot in the mouth may be up my ally

That differentiation makes sense to me. And beyond the intention behind it, a mashup or cover showcases something of the (original) artist while an ad simply uses their name for anothers benefit.

It depends on how the ad is worded. A mashup, cover, remix, etc. are marketing tools, whether you think of them as such or not. Their call to action may be more subtle than a standard ad, but they are all communicational tools for art that is being sold; no matter what the intentions behind them are.

If I were popular and Coke used my name in one of their ads, without my approval, it would be wrong because they are selling a commodity that has nothing to do with my music or music in general. That’s why sponsorships exist. This is an example of non-music cross-marketing.

Marketing music to music lovers is a very different concept. Artist based recommendation tools are considered acceptable and desirable, by most people, in allowing fans to discover new artists. If not, marketing tools like last.fm, indiscover.net, MusicStrands, Yahoo LAUNCHcast Radio, Amazon.com music’s store, MySpace Music, iTunes music store, and the hundreds of others wouldn’t be existing and thriving. They are tools no different than an artist recommending herself/himself in a facebook ad because in both cases the targeted artist’s fan base is being engaged in order to sell a new artist; without that target artists’ approval. No matter who the recommendation comes from.

If an ad’s wording falsely claims that Popular Artist endorses or Small Time Joe, it’s a different story. If the ad simply suggests the viewer should check out Small Time Joe, because they are a fan of Popular Artist, it’s not the same as using Popular Artist’s name to sell groceries, soft drinks, financial services or non-music related items.

In the case of Beacon, the ads were using private users to promote various services and products/commodities. That is totally unethical from a marketing point of view; they are individual users, not public names. However, David Usher or any musical artist who makes their music available to the public should realize that music cross-marketing exists and isn’t unethical unless the claim is false, or inaccurate.

Shannon, I agree, usually mashups or covers are supposed to support and in a way promote the original artist and show creativity. However most of the time there are other intentions, masquerading under the pretense of supporting the original artist, especially in the case of youtube covers. At least in a facebook ad, the intention is clear: an artist basing himself on your musical tastes, hoping you’ll discover and buy his music.

I just want to highlight a major difference that I see between a mashup and the original ad that Daniel had on FaceBook, which was the start of the conversation that lead to all of this.

Fundamentally it comes down to intent. If we were talking about a mashup created by David Usher, where he used a clip and name (i.e. Batman) to promote himself, I would say that is essentially the same as what was done through the ad.

That is where the major difference lies. The mashups of David Usher songs with various pieces of video, etc., were not created by David, they were created by fans. These were not attempts to build popularity from within, it is not David’s means of building his brand, this is organic and comes from already having a solid brand.

If a fan of Daniel’s were to post a note on FaceBook for example saying “If you like David Usher, you should check out Daniel Ghattas”, this is very different than if Daniel creates an ad saying the same thing.

Anyway, I’ve really enjoyed following this conversation. David, great blog.

I do not completely agree with you David, here is why:

I think (and this should not be used as a legal opinion) that from the perspective of the law (in Canada), there need not be a motive to infringe a copyright or a trademark. Furthermore, one does not need to be aware of infringement to be guilty of it.

So the law should apply in the same way for mashups, covers or ads … And justifying the use of a trademark (including brands) or of copyrighted material with a “creative purpose” seems a weak argument against infringement.

I think that a permission from the artist(s) or the copyright / trademark owner(s) should always be requested before using copyrighted material, trademarks or brands (except maybe for personal use).

Now, fortunately the owners of copyrights / trademarks do not often choose to enforce their rights. In some cases, it may be because people like what has been done with their material. In other cases it may be because enforcement is not good for the business or because it is very expensive and few people or corporations can afford it.

Having that said, if it would be me, I would be very uncomfortable having my song used (even by another) to cover up the soundtrack of a theatrical trailer of a movie like Batman…because Warner Brothers certainly have means to enforce their copyrights.

Thorren overlooks an important point : the disadvantage at which the new artist starts out.

The established artist has a large fanbase, the new artist has, presumably, none or very few fans. Whether fans act of their own volition or the artist initiates his marketing to get the ball rolling, the mechanism and result are the same. It’s an easy cop out to say “my fans did it for me, I didn’t ask them to, so I’m in the clear”. Both types of techniques (ads using a bigger artist’s name) and mashups, covers, blogs, etc. are equally creative and fair since they level the playing field.

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
When you use intent instead of facts as measuring tape, you open the door to good intentions and to a world of creepy, unethical schemes. Each time a scheme is exposed the retort will be: “It’ not me. It’s a group of fans having fun”. And the retort will also be: “Our intention of supporting our favorite artist and being creative is ethical.” The perpetrators and the promoters will have a good ride (not to mention benefits) with the excuse of good intentions and anonymity.
In the Batman/Kill the Lights case, the pretense is: “create popularity from within.” The real fact and the end result is: a few people advertising a song by putting a video in the public domain, that is Youtube. Now, a clearly identified artist putting an ad in that public domain, targeting a certain profile of fans, is a crystal clear common practice. Public domain, including public names as well as fans, are nobodyís property, unless we stumble on acts of aggression, defamation or psychological violence.

We would like to believe that art originated out of the desire to create art: no matter what form it took (audio, visual, textile) any type of perception to reach the human core inside all of us. Art is the freedom of expression in the most pure and beautiful manner.

There are still artists who make art for art’s sake. Bless your hard-working heart, David, you’re one of them.

In today’s society, there are more artists who like the world that comes with successful art—fame, notoriety, contracts, deals, money, cars, luxury. The life of excess. These so-called artists are the ones that I see raising the most hell over ads, mashups, youtube videos and the like. They claim, “it’s not mine, I didn’t make it, you’re ripping me off—“ which to me screams “I’m not being paid for you commoners to abuse my work.” It’s not the protection of intellectual property, it’s anger and greed for not earning any profit.

Isn’t one of the greatest joys that come from being an artist a point in time when everyone wants to show off your work? So the famous quote goes—“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” There are artists like David who feel so pleased that they inspired somebody so much that the audience wants to share that inspiration with others. No money is exchanging hands. Just ideas. Just hope. Just the love of a common artistic endeavor.

Easier and instantaneous access to others art provides more opportunities for abuse, misrepresentation, misinterpretation and greed on all sides. The old “15 minutes of fame” adage. It also provides a more in-your-face medium for the complainers and spoil-sports who don’t get their way, or more to the point, their money.

Technology is changing. Ideas are changing. The access to art is changing. Maybe the view of successful artists should change to and embrace what some of today’s artists have already done—create and spread art for art’s sake.

Lori Ann, bless you for “getting it”. What you write makes a lot of sense and it’s nice to see someone bring back the idea of art into the discussion over ads, masups, covers, and marketing. It’s easy to lose sight of art when the discussion gets technical. As I’ve always felt (and I’m glad to see I’m not the only one here): art is its own reward.

Personally, I think this sort of thing should be allowed without permission. I released my music under a license that explicitly allows derivative works.

It’s a business model issue. Despite the fact that I think we should have a free (libre) culture rather than a permission culture, this sort of thing will continue to happen whether you agree or not. If you have a business model in place poised to take advantage of it, what’s the problem?