I would suggest that there are many "big time" YouTubers who have used music without the correct licensing and this will probably be the first of many legal battles. What the Record Labels fail to realize is that they are suing people for free promotion of their Artist's music. The amount of "unknown" bands I have discovered thanks to their music being used in the background of YouTube videos is ridiculous and I have gone on to purchase their music too. Smart musicians would make it easy for YouTubers to use their music, an instead worry about how they can leverage this free promotion.

Your attitude is EXACTLY what is wrong with modern perceptions about music. Smart musicians make money off their craft - money they use to pay their rent and bills, money that they are missing by writing and recording and rehearsing songs instead of working a full-time job. Where is that money coming from? Not much of it is coming from you buying an album. We appreciate the support, we really do, but we songwriters don't just make "play money" off of licensing, we make real money that keeps us and our families alive and fed. Oh, and implying that artists should be grateful for free promotion is like an employer asking you to work for free for six months before the company hires you. "You should be grateful for the opportunity to showcase your skills and promote yourself!" How does that feel to you?

Oh and while I don't agree with the comparison, some employers do ask people to work for free to showcase their skills - it's called an unpaid internship. Authors give away free books (ARCs) so that those people can influence others to buy etc. etc. Again this doesn't apply to all musicans/song writers because it depends on the type of music you make and the type of career you want but some musicians would be extremely greatful to have millions of people hear their music and could leverage a number if opportunities from that including licensing of their music to more mainstream media in the future.

And that is why California is trying to do away with UNPAID internships. It takes advantage of people's time and skills without any guaranteed assurance of a future job.

Michelle would not have "borrowed" crappy music for her videos, and yet the artists have no assurance that the viewers will then go and PAY for their music. You said "musicians would be extremely grateful to have millions of people hear their music and could leverage a number if opportunities from that including licensing of their music to more mainstream media in the future". THIS is exactly the type of opportunity musicians have to "leverage" and "license" their music for a commercial enterprise.....Michelle gets MILLIONS of viewers....this IS mainstream.

You forgot the "some". "some musicians would be extremely grateful to have millions of people hear their music and could leverage a number if opportunities from that including licensing of their music to more mainstream media in the future". Not all. This is not a one size fits all case and the points I am putting forward do not apply to every artist out there. Yes Michelle is extremely popular and some of her videos may get more views then a TV show, but in the media world Youtube is still new and not all laws and procedures to deal with such issues have caught up.

You make some valid points and if it was a song writer or an unsigned musician suing for a reasonable amount then maybe I would be more inclined to see it your way. However, its a Record Label who has picked an arbitrary amount at best and is trying to profit from something that in this case has probably helped increase the awareness of their artists better than any other marketing or promotion they do.

Actually the amount isn't arbitrary, it's the legal maximum award for statutory damages of willful infringement. Here's the description from the U.S Code. Plaintiffs who can show willful infringement may be entitled to damages up to $150,000 per work.[1]

Thanks for the info! The amount makes sense then, though by arbitrary I was referring more to the fact that the amount isn't based on how much the music was "worth" or how much it contributed to the video and the earnings Michelle received from said video. I don't know how much it costs to license a song but if she had gone through "the proper channels" (speculating that she didn't based on what the record label says), would it have cost $150,000 per song. If not, then in my personal opinion I don't think they should be suing her for that much (legal limit or not). I also think that the amount paid to the label should take into account the benefits they received from the promotion (yes I know that artist can't survive on promotion alone but it should be considered to have some monetary value). I find the whole case very interesting coming from Australia where people are less inclined to sue people for exorbitant amounts of money just because they can :)

Well then in your case I can tell you Oz has some of the better licensing laws in the world. Cue songs, for example, offers sync licenses anywhere from about £50. So for less than $100 US she could have licensed a track.

So the labels pays the DJ money for the rights to his music and the rights to his music include the rights to make money off of it...which is what the DJ use to do before he sold those rights. But the label, because it is a company (in your mind) doesn't have the right to recoup that money legally? Why isn't she at fault for simply not getting the proper license? From what I've read she was warned in advance and continued to use it without paying for it. She makes million off her videos and is part of a large MCN...she has lawyers...if they didn't warn her of this then she needs new ones.

Look at this guy, pretending to be a musician.

Finally, a smart person with some common sense. Thank You! I can't word it better myself.

Why should Michelle Phan be exempt for getting sued for not purchasing the licenses? Legitimate corporations and brands do purchase the rights to use artists music and they are incredibly cheap. Monetizing from other people's music is against the law plus regardless of how big or small they are... and you should always ask permission if you want to use it for free...

Maybe I don't want my music to be associated with your brand regardless of promotion, exposure or benefits. Maybe other brands or companies bought exclusivity rights of usage and therefore other companies cannot use it. The list goes on...

Anyone in her position who makes videos and has the audience and revenue size that she has...not only understands and has been informed about what a sync license is, but YouTube has had notified these MCNs of their responsibilities and she has lawyers who should be giving her good advice. She also had been sent warnings...but I suspect she didn't want to take down her money making popular videos...that only she gets a cut of...not the label.

Rachael...promotion doesn't keep the lights on in a world where music sales are declining. Also, are you aware that songwriters and lyricists who make their living directly off royalties, don't sell shirts and merchandise. They don't go on tour and get ticket sales. They depend on these licenses to pay their bills. In this particular case the label bought the rights to this DJs music...he sold them, pocketed the money, moved on. He makes all his money off gigs and deals. That's why he sold his music. For him, promotion is really important and if this were a case where the label hadn't purchased the rights to it, I might have more sympathy...but doesn't the label have a right to recoup the money they gave Kascade and is it fair for him to take that money and then defend Phan?

I agree that whether for free or for a fee, a musician/song writer should be asked if there music can be used (although with the amount of music floating around online it is not is always an easy task to determine who created it in the first place). I also understand that some people make a living off royalties . I guess my counter point for this case would be that there is a number of ways to block your music from being used on YouTube if you don't want it to be. Some block you from monitising, some restrict which devices you can play the video on. Some just prevent the audio from playing all together. Plenty of labels do it. Why not this one? Plus if they really had an issue with it why not take more rigorous legal action after 10 songs or even 20 songs were misused? Why wait until now? Either way I think all this debate is good. While I'm sure there have been licensing issues for years, youtube is quite new and new solutions, options and laws should be determined that are fair for both youtubers and musicians who would like their music used in youtube videos (I don't think during every YouTuber for $150,000 per song because it's the max you can sue for is the solution). People who are working in this area and are passionate about it should be working on ways to prevent this from happening. If is as easy and relatively inexpensive as everyone seems to be commenting then maybe educating people should be the focus - I'm saying this generally as not every person on youtube has a legal team or even an MCN behind them who can navigate the sometimes unclear waters of music licensing :)

Rachael,

I appreciate you being a civil commenter . Allow me to answer your questions as I do work in the music industry (not at labels) and I deal a lot with licensing issues.

"Some block you from monitising, some restrict which devices you can play the video on. Some just prevent the audio from playing all together. Plenty of labels do it. Why not this one?"

Phan was not in the typical ContentID monetizing system from what I understand. She's an indie MCN or part of one. That means at one point she was outside of the typical YouTube monetization/ContentID system used by YouTube and labels to get compensated. The reason Phan and others remove themselves is because when you put your stuff on YouTube without a sync license, the label has a right to claim the revenue on that video. She of course doesn't want this to happen...she wants to be in control of her ad revenue. Plus they make more money on ads as an MCN.

"Plus if they really had an issue with it why not take more rigorous legal action after 10 songs or even 20 songs were misused?"

I suspect, prior to YouTubes recent changes, she was likely outside the ContentID system. Her videos weren't scanned for infringing content, so the label has no way of knowing or detecting the content with an audio fingerprint. My guess is that changed earlier this year after YouTube made some policy and tech changes to MCNs.

"While I'm sure there have been licensing issues for years, youtube is quite new and new solutions, options and laws should be determined that are fair for both you tubers and musicians who would like their music used in youtube videos (I don't think during every YouTuber for $150,000 per song because it's the max you can sue for is the solution)."

Well YouTube isn't that new. It's almost a decade old at this point. But I agree we need new solutions to help facilitate licensing and make it easy and affordable. It's actually an issue I'm working on at the moment. The reason she's being sued for that maximum amount is likely two reasons.

1. I've read the court filing and it's quite a vast list of music she used. I find it very hard to believe she didn't know what she was doing was wrong with all the legal advice she likely had and the fact that the terms of YouTube and the program she's in makes this very clear. In fact YouTube has entire sections on dealing with copyright issues for video creators on their site.

https://www.youtube.com/yt/...

2. The label likely wants to make a point that this isn't acceptable and want to make an example of her because she has deep pockets. They want to send a message. She's not some grandmother who accidentally made a video...she's a millionaire who could have obtained and paid for a license and she didn't. I'm pretty certain the label didn't just sue her...that's not generally what happens. I'm sure they contacted her several times to arrange a more suitable arrangement and she either ignored it or felt she was in the right. Therefore she can defend herself in court and prove she did nothing wrong. Likely she'll just come to a settlement and this will all go away.

"If is as easy and relatively inexpensive as everyone seems to be commenting then maybe educating people should be the focus - I'm saying this generally as not every person on youtube has a legal team or even an MCN behind them who can navigate the sometimes unclear waters of music licensing :)"

To your point it isn't necessarily easy, but it can be done. It can actually be very complicated, but there are rights/licensing companies out there. Peter Gabriel has one called Cue Songs, for example. The point is that if she wanted to use this music and she says she got permission from the label...then she also could have paid for it.

So I agree that the system is complicated and I'm actually working on a fix for that over here in the UK...but I will educate anyone here willing to listen on a couple basics.

When you take any music you don't own the rights to and put it into a video you create what's called a sync which requires a sync license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Now TV shows, movies, etc all have to have sync licenses and they have to pay for the rights to use music. Some artists who struggle quite a bit can have a whole career built from one of these licenses...for example when a song is used in a commercial, it can be worth a great deal of money to an artist. Now imagine if they decided they shouldn't have to pay that because it's great promotion for the artist and that artist never sees that "promotion" turn into album sales or tour revenue. We wouldn't think that is fair, and yet we excuse it for online YouTube videos and whatnot. And if you are a songwriter...you really get screwed.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for taking the time to reply and good luck with your work. I hope you see some change for the better!

Ps. Thanks for spelling my name right. So many people just write Rachel even though the correct spelling is right there. I know we have opposing views and all but as someone who always has their name spelled wrong I appreciate it.

That should be the choice of the musician, NOT the person who decides to arbitrarily use the music without permission or compensation.

they just want money.. those scumbags. as if michelle got popular because of those background music. she could use another music and still get as many views.

her viewers downloaded their songs, they got some money, figured out they got it from this youtuber, she's now rich and successful, now they want more money

I am not a big fan of Michelle, but in this case, I can't help but feel sorry for her and even like her a little bit more after this incident. I remember when I first watched her tutorials, I thought her makeup skills were remarkable. She is so charismatic and talented that I never really paid any attention to the music playing in the background. Now that she is a millionaire, these greedy musicians and record companies can't help but want a piece of the cake. I've never even heard of this record company, I believe not many people have. They should be happy she is playing their crappy music and giving them exposure. I can guarantee Michelle has more views on her tutorials than these greedy losers. If Michelle wasn't rich and famous, I doubt these people will be after her. What about hundreds of other videos/tutorials that have music in the background? They might as well sue them all. This record company's plan to sue her totally backfired, it makes them look greedy and pathetic, meanwhile Michelle is getting all the exposure in the media, now all of a sudden, everybody is talking about her. Her tutorial views will triple because of this lawsuit.

I agree with you about ultra records making themselves look pathetic and greedy but their music definitely isnt crappy, and the artists definitely don't need more exposure. Kaskade is HUGE in electronic music and so is most of the ultra records artist roster. And I know for sure the artists are not suing her, it's just the record label. Ultra records does many stupid things, the artists (besides Kaskade) probably have absolutely no idea who michelle phans is and care nothing about her.

Funny, wasn't it just the other day you guys published an article about what a SAVVY businesswoman she is? #notsavvy #amateurhour #commonsense #payyourartists

Michelle build her entire brand from scratch. She has a Youtube empire, a makeup company, a make up subscription company, and another successful company. She made all of this herself and is now a millionaire because of and you want to call her "not savvy"? Even if she hadn't asked for permission, calling her "not savvy" is like calling the sun cold. Pre tell, what have you done in your young years?

The point went way over your head, clearly. Do the artists whose music she used and MADE MONEY WITH - without permission or compensation - not deserve to be compensated? Musicians also have to do things "from scratch". Youtube channels have been deleted from existence for far less egregious cases of copyright infringement, but she was allowed to get away with it because she makes big revenue for YouTube. Again, basic common sense.

Anyway, nice try, fangirl...

And what you seem to fail to understand is that the music is completely irrelevant and played ZERO parts in her success. She can blast any music she likes in her vids and would've gotten just as much views.

She's HELPING these unknown artists by giving them free advertising and exposure. Get that through your head.

IF the music is so irrelevant then she could have easily used royalty free / creative commons licenced music and avoided all of this.

You're not HELPING musicians when you make thousands of dollars off a video with their work in it and they get NOTHING.

Music is a BUSINESS too, it costs money to make and produce. Think of it from that perspective instead of the perspective of a young FANGIRL.

Or, you can stop being in denial and accept the fact that any music she used would've gotten her the same results. She chose those music because she LIKED THEM.

Funny, those artists got plenty of hits/downloads due to her videos and made plenty of money thanks to her. Maybe you should accept this fact as well.

Are you done embarrassing yourself yet while keep denying blatantly obvious facts thrown at your face?

As they say in Math Class (if you haven't dropped out): SHOW YOUR WORK. Show me the data on "downloads" and how much money they made compared to her revenue from YouTube views.

Childish emotion are NOT facts.

Until then, I'm done with you. BYE!

You're an idiot.

I do believe, my point went way over your head. One, this is all speculation. No one knows the actual situation, whether or not she actually did use the music without permission. Two, she would have made the money without Kaskade's music, because viewers do not go to her videos to listen his music. Two, he IS being compensated because of the promotion. It's not as if Ultra Records would have/did ask her to pay them for the use of their songs. Three, what do you mean "allowed to get away with it"? You don't even know if she actually did. Even if she had, I certainly wouldn't call lawsuit "getting away with it." THAT is actual common sense. Also, I'm a dude. So chill out.

Since she is a millionaire and very successful all the more reason that she should seek permission and pay for a usage license with the copyright holders. It is after all what the law requires, and the law was made that way to enable artists to make a living from their creativity. I am so fed up hearing that artists gain from 'exposure'. Usage without permission is not exposure, its copyright infringement, illegal, and on a human level it is completely disrespectful to the artist concerned.

I completely agree that users should seek permission. My stand point is still that it is all up in the air. They say she didn't she says she did. We don't know for sure what happened. The matter of fact is, artists DO gain from exposure. Exposure is a huge part of an artist's commercial endeavor. Without it they cannot continue to make music because no one knows that it is out there. What "damages" the company speaks of is beyond me. Permission is necessary and all well and good, but did they want her to pay for the songs?

I agree. We are all debating something without all the information. Interested to see if/when this goes to court how they describe what the "damages" are :)

Because of Michelle Phan, I have discovered these musical bands, and the one whom instigated the sueing, but if they are going to sue a young artist like Michelle Phan I don't think I really want to listen to them anymore.

What about those "young artists" who made the music? You don't think it costs money to record all those tracks she makes huge bank on in her videos?

A young artist? Michelle Phan is a corporate business owner with her own business empire, and in her late twenties who should know perfectly well the laws of copyright. She is not a young struggling artist who is being picked on by a business. Also you actually just proved ULTRA's lawsuit point in fining Michelle. The fact that you would abandon said music that fans claim "Michelle helped spread" because of this incident shows you only liked the music b/c of Michelle, not the artists.

I have gone to Itunes and bought music based on what I have heard on Youtube videos. I have discovered two bands I love because of Michelle. This makes no sense. Maybe all Youtubers should just stop using this music. If they strike it big, they will have to pay up.

Maybe she should have just licensed the music in the first place, which is what everyone is suppose to do that creates new media. Why do TV shows have to license tracks from labels or artists and pay them...but somehow a person who makes millions on YouTube is exempt from this?

Agreed! Why should she have permission to bypass the rules most legit companies abide by... -.- Purchasing licensed music is super cheap. Much cheaper than 7.5 m.

With the money she makes, I don't see why she wouldn't hire an independent musician to make music for her videos, or surely she would have musician friends happy to compose for her videos. This really is hilarious, that she can't keep to the most basic copyright terms and respect, that general other YouTuber's have no problem abiding to. If she can't respect the terms and conditions of the platform, she should remove herself from it and take her videos elsewhere.

And that's maybe because she thought it was okay to use the music since she said she had permission?

This is rather presumptuous don't you think? They said she did; she says she didn't. Maybe reevaluate?

She said she "got permission" but I believe she probably only asked unofficially to use their music.. in order to get permission for usage of the music in question, that would require contracts& court ordered documents as well as giving them a profit from her videos. Michelle has stretched the truth in the past, no doubt she will try it again.

Stretched the truth about what?

I used to be a loyal follower of her blogs &videos and as much as I would love to explainhow she stretched the truth multiple times that michelle claimed one thing but lied about it the whole time. This was bound to happen..

"You believe"...? Why do "you believe" that... based on what?

Personal experience.

At the present time I, as a photographer am struggling to make ends meet, meanwhile somewhere in the region of 1- 2000 of my images are being used by companies worldwide without my permission. I have recieved not a penny whilst they profit from years of my hard work. Copyright theft is crime and the thieves, when / if I can catch them will pay!

People didn't buy michelle's makeup/watch her videos because of the music. BUT there are people who purchased music and became fans of the music/artists because they heard it in michelle's videos. If you ask me, it seems like those artists and music labels benefit more from michelle's videos than michelle off of their music. Also, I wonder if they would even bother to sue if michelle if she wasn't rich. All in all, yes michelle is wrong for not having the proper paperwork but those labels are taking this too far. If they want to sue michelle, the only fair thing to do is for them to find all youtubers (rich or not) using their music without the proper license and sue them too.