This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Digital Labels & Publishers
Freeplay responds to MCN allegations in free-sync licence dispute
By Chris Cooke | Published on Wednesday 4 March 2015
Lawyers for US-based library music firm Freeplay have filed court papers in relation to its legal dispute with multi-channel network firms Machinima and Collective Digital Studios.
As previously reported, Freeplay offers a special music licensing service for the creators of user-generated content on YouTube, in which the company allows bedroom content creators to sync music from its libraries to their videos for free on the condition it can collect the subsequent public performance income that is due each time the video is played. It collects that money directly from YouTube via its ContentID ad-share system.
However, the scheme only applies to individual content creators and is not available to commercial producers and distributors, who can buy licenses to make use of the same music. And for Freeplay, ‘commercial content distributors’ includes YouTube channels managed by so called multi-channel networks, rather than by individual bedroom video-makers.
But, the music rights firm says, it has found plenty of videos using its music on MCN-managed channels and, having failed to persuade those MCNs to buy licences for that music, last month Freeplay sued four of the YouTube-channel-operating businesses, including Disney’s Maker Studios, DreamWorks Animation’s Awesomeness, Big Frame and BroadbandTV Corp.
But Machinima and Collective Digital Studios pre-empted that legal action by filing their own litigation against Freeplay. They basically accuse the music rights firm of deliberately confusing online video-makers so that they sync music from the company’s libraries thinking they can do so for free, only to be subsequently invoiced, or threatened with action, when it that transpires usage is classified as commercial. The MCNs went as far as to label Freeplay’s approach as ‘copyright trolling’.
And it is those allegations that Freeplay lawyers BakerHostetler have now responded to. Legal man Oren Warshavsky argues that: “Freeplay notified Machinima and CDS of [their] infringements, just as any other copyright owner in any other industry would do. But rather than pay Freeplay Music, Machinima and CDS responded by accusing Freeplay Music of ‘extortion’ and being a ‘copyright troll'”.
He goes on: “These accusations are false and only add insult to injury. Machinima’s and CDS’s systematic misappropriation of Freeplay Music’s copyrights without authorisation has harmed our client. In this action we intend to protect our client’s rights and utilise the remedies and enforcement provisions provided by the Copyright Act”.
Freeplay insists that the website where YouTube users licence its music explains clearly the terms of said licence, and when the free licence does and does not apply. And the company adds that it has now issued over 1.8 million licenses, and there are currently 425,000 authorised uses of its music on YouTube, illustrating – it says – that the system works.
Warshavsky concludes: “Freeplay’s copyrighted music is being used by Machinima and CDS and today’s two filings detail hundreds of commercial uses of Freeplay’s music by Machinima and dozens by CDS. Rather than dealing with this infringement, Machinima and CDS went on the offensive, blatantly mischaracterizing Freeplay and its business model. Ironically, Machinima and CDS are commercialising Freeplay’s copyrighted music, and then cry foul that Freeplay seeks to enforce its rights to do the same”.
The MCNs are yet to respond.
