[Settled] Lawsuit With Ultra Records

[lurker123]

^ Yes @nothingwrong. Sorry if I was unclear, and honestly I don't know much about it myself, but there is without a doubt a difference between purchasing a song for private use, and purchasing the ability to play it on a product. Honestly, I'm not even sure companies can tell if you purchased a song legally or downloaded it from somewhere. Many people just download songs and listen to it privately, so it's impossible to track anyway. But if a song is being used in a product the rights for that must be purchased. That's what BeautyBeast was describing.

[Miss Polly]

no @Lurker123, BeautyBeast said she pay for the song... in fact that's no problem to use a song legally purchase in the video, the problem with BB is very different to the problem with Michelle and Ultra, even she was paying for the songs and given creditcs and the iTunes link on the description box, in the case of Mish you have to purchase a license what is the case to use the songs that belong to Ultra... is matter of making Mish exemple.

SORRY FOR MY BAD, BAD ENGLISH

[Miss Polly]

no @Lurker123, BeautyBeast said she pay for the song... in fact that's no problem to use a song legally purchase in the video, the problem with BB is very different to the problem with Michelle and Ultra, even she was paying for the songs and given creditcs and the iTunes link on the description box, in the case of Mish you have to purchase a license what is the case to use the songs that belong to Ultra... is matter of making Mish exemple.

SORRY FOR MY BAD, BAD ENGLISH

[Chiyou]

Some light reading on copyright and copyright myths for those interested:

https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fa ... -resources

http://blog.sonicbids.com/copyright-and ... uses-yours

http://daredreamermag.com/2011/02/23/ho ... nd-videos/

http://www.mediamusicnow.co.uk/blog/200 ... copyright/

For those wondering about why Bethany hasn't been sued yet, I hypothesize a few options:

1. She purchased both licenses required to use copyrighted music.
2. The record companies decided not to sue her yet.
3. Her videos have been flagged for copyright before but she made a deal to monetize the videos so that the owner of the music gets money for each time her video is watched (see the section MONETIZE! under the second link I posted above).

Any way you dice it, it just seems to be better safe than sorry when it comes to using copyrighted music in Youtube videos because record companies are fickle and just because they haven't gone after you yet doesn't mean that they won't go after you in the future.

[lurker123]

no @Lurker123, BeautyBeast said she pay for the song... in fact that's no problem to use a song legally purchase in the video, the problem with BB is very different to the problem with Michelle and Ultra, even she was paying for the songs and given creditcs and the iTunes link on the description box, in the case of Mish you have to purchase a license what is the case to use the songs that belong to Ultra... is matter of making Mish exemple.

SORRY FOR MY BAD, BAD ENGLISH

The way I read it, BeautyBeast purchased the license to the song, so it's the same as Michelle's case. But perhaps BB can come on and shed more light herself?

[jkmkx3]

Kind of off topic, but it'd be really funny if one day she had a baby. And the baby would then have her old facial features rather than her touched up face.... Then the baby's dad ends up suing her for it.. Like what happened to a Chinese couple awhile ago. And he ended up winning xD

[-Vivi]

Kind of off topic, but it'd be really funny if one day she had a baby. And the baby would then have her old facial features rather than her touched up face.... Then the baby's dad ends up suing her for it.. Like what happened to a Chinese couple awhile ago. And he ended up winning xD

I can already sense Michelle bragging about the baby's ethnicity like #mybabyiscuterthanyourscausemineismixed #halfitalianhalfSwedishhalfVietnamesehalfKoreanhalfJamaicanhalfIrishalfPolish

[interrobang]

Okay, don't know if this has been explained or not, but if both Bethany and Mish are using copy righted music, why aren't they BOTH getting sued?

[lurker123]

I've tried to answer and Chiyou has answered (much more articulately!), but basically Michelle CAN use the music if she purchases a license. Bethany could have purchased that license, she could be illegally using music but whatever company owns that music has decided not to sue. Chiyou's links go far more in detail.

[CantThinkOfAUsername]

Hank Green has made a video explaining copyright claims on YouTube. I haven't watched the entire thing but in case people are interested:
[youtube][/youtube]
The start shows how to deal with them, and at around 5.30 he explains how little people understand/act on claims.
7.30 If you go past the first step..."and it turns out they still own the video you will get a copyright strike, if you get three copyright strikes your YouTube channel will no longer exist."

[Shiro]

Not sure if this answers the question or not -im really outta the loop if you cant tell lol- but when you purchase a song on itunes or something, it just lets you listen to it when you want.

When you want to use a song on a project you gain money from -youtube, movie etc-, then you have to get a special type of license for it.. which in her case, she never did. It doesnt matter if its 1 second or 10 minutes worth of song on your video.

This is where youtube looves to give special treatment to bigger youtubers out there. Bethany, Michelle and SO many other youtubers out there use illegal content in their videos and they never get flagged for it.. which is bs really because smaller channels get flagged always.

I think they went after Michelle because shes a bigger yter than most -as far as financial gain goes, I believe shes on top of bethany anyway-.

[DriveBy]

I haven't posted recently but I've been watching this case daily for updates and there's been no activity on the case docket that I can see. That is unusual because
(a) the complaint was filed with the federal courts in California on July 16, 2014 and a 21 Day Summons was issued. That means that Michelle (through her lawyer) was required to respond to the complaint within 21 days of being served with the summons or risk a default judgement. So far there's been no response/court filings from Michelle or her attorneys; not even a request for dismissal which is usually the first step in cases like this one.
(b) Michelle Phan's attorney listed in the case is in New York City which means she has to be temporarily permitted to appear in the California courts (this is what lawyers call "pro hac vice") ...when you're allowed to practice in a state without having to meet the requirements of that state's bar association. Her attorney's pro hac vice application was not returned to the court nor the required filing fee paid.

What it all means is that Michelle probably now has an attorney in California and that they in settlement talks to avoid the case going to trial. The federal court system does have Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) so its possible they are mediating the dispute instead of having a court trial.

Anyone who is interested in this case can look it up on PACER, which is the federal government's database of federal court cases. Most college/university libraries would have access to PACER as should some public libraries. The case is Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC et al v. Michelle Phan and the case number is 2:14-cv-05533-MMM-AGR. I'm curious to know if PACER shows additional information since my last look.

[amuto_lover]

It was stated that Michelle was going to counter sue or some shit like that so it will definitely be held in court.

[DriveBy]

^^^Talk is cheap; I'll only believe that when I see the actual court filing. What would be the grounds for a counter suit? Has she said anything about the case lately?

Intellectual property/copyright lawsuits are incredibly expensive with lawyers, expert witnesses, consultants all billing fees of hundreds of dollars or more per hour. Michelle Phan might by fairly wealthy but Ultra Records/Sony has far more financial resources than her so they can afford to fight her in court until she runs out of money.

[amuto_lover]

She's really got no chance of winning but she said that she promoted their music to an international audience.

I mean it's kind of stupid ." I stole your music and used it in my videos without giving you a dime, but I gave you more fans so you should give me money"
Maybe Michelle and her attorney were drunk when they made that statement.

[Coyote]

^^^Talk is cheap; I'll only believe that when I see the actual court filing. What would be the grounds for a counter suit? Has she said anything about the case lately?

Intellectual property/copyright lawsuits are incredibly expensive with lawyers, expert witnesses, consultants all billing fees of hundreds of dollars or more per hour. Michelle Phan might by fairly wealthy but Ultra Records/Sony has far more financial resources than her so they can afford to fight her in court until she runs out of money.

Honestly, I think Michelle is just going to quietly settle and try to sweep everything under the rug, the same way she does with everything. Especially with this whole "fairy-light-love-peace" bullshit she's been shitting out, the last thing she wants is to be publicly shamed by the courts and UM for doing something wrong.

[lurker123]

I'm confused why she would want to sweep it under the rug after the statement she and her legal team gave about considering a counter lawsuit. It's one thing for Michelle herself to half-lie, cyberbully, twist truths etc. on her social media. But to release a statement claiming a lawsuit when she intends to sweep it under the rug? Just seems strange.

[sibkitty3]

I think she would also sweep it under the rug and yea it would be a dumb move especially since she announced she will counter sue and all that.

BUT then again, we know Michelle is also dumb and does not think things through. Look at all her fail businesses and bad makeup videos, this girl does not think of any consequences and just does what feels right at the moment.

For someone close to their 30s, she needs to stop thinking like a teenager and be an adult. Hopefully this legal action will make her (at least) stop and think about her actions more often.

[Trololol]

I have a feeling she released her statement before she actually sat down with eher lawyer to address the issue formally and decide on what to do next. It was as though she texted her lawyer and then released the statement in a hussy fit of entitlement. We'll see how it goes, though.

[Beautybeast]

Of course it matters if the songs are purchased legally...that's what this whole infringement thing is for! Like BeautyBeast said, there's a obvious, legal difference and it seems like YT is good with flagging down violations. I can only wonder, now...if Michelle got a message like BeautyBeast did, and she chose to ignore that (remember Ultra claimed that she ignored them all), isn't that being too greedy and stupid?

So if I purchase a top 40s song on iTunes, make a YT video with that song as the background music, and write in my video description that I purchased the song on iTunes that somehow makes the whole situation kosher? Am I missing something here?

No you dont buy the song off itunes, you go to whomever owns the legal rights and purchase the LICENSE.... Purchasing a song off of itunes does not give you legal rights to the license of a song....