Video Vortex Reader II: moving images beyond YouTube

222 Video Vortex Reader II Moving Images Beyond Youtubetechnological approaches223of the church’s entrance doors. However, its departure from the norm of homemade weddingvideos quickly becomes apparent, as R&B singer Chris Brown’s track ‘Forever’ begins to playover the building’s public address system, and the groom and best man throw their servicesheets into the air and begin to dance down the aisle toward the camera.Those familiar with ‘surprise first wedding dance’ videos taken at a reception will recognizethis as a variation upon the tradition of a bride and groom secretly rehearsing choreographyto entertain their guests and produce a memorable ‘surprise’ experience. 8 However, asthe ‘JK Wedding Entrance Dance’ video continues, the scale of the choreographic preparationis revealed, as more and more of the wedding party become involved in the elaborateentrance dance, and the congregation catch the mood by laughing and clapping along. Atfirst the entrants appear singly and in pairs, sometimes performing ambitious moves such ashandstands and forward rolls, but eventually the whole entrance party can be seen swayingand swaggering in exaggerated imitation of dancers from R&B music videos as they maketheir way to the front of the church, with choreography responding to the changing pace ofthe rhythms in the song. Most of the dancers are wearing ‘cool’ sunglasses, and althoughthe dancers and congregation that can be seen in the video are almost entirely white, thereis clearly a lovable reference to this black music style, and the sentiments of the song arematched to the feelings of Jill and Kevin on their ‘big day’. The overall effect of the videois joyful. The preparation and execution of the choreographed entrance is delightfully wellexecuted, and the dancers’ enthusiastic abandonment of the conventions of the weddingprocession reaches a tearful highpoint with the entrance of the jigging bride.The YouTube Content ID system identified the audio to the wedding video as belonging toSony, and the instruction was to track and monetize the video as it stood, rather than blockthe audio track. Within the first two days the video was viewed 3.5 million times, by the endof the first week this had reached 10 million. In 2009, the video was the third most watchedon YouTube, and was publicized by the appearance of Jill and Kevin, and a live recreation oftheir dance, on American television. In January 2010, the video had been viewed 41 milliontimes. YouTube Insight created new marketing information for Sony, and identified a differentdemographic for the song. Click-to-Buy (CTB) links were run over the video and the opportunityto buy the track through Amazon and iTunes led the track to return to the top ten ofthe download charts 15 months after its original release. Sony also received a share of therevenue from Google text ads on the video’s page itself. The CTB rate was double the averagefor the YouTube site as a whole and a 2.5 times increase on the Clickthrough rate (CTR) ofthe official ‘Forever’ music video (which is currently blocked in the UK). 9The ‘JK Wedding Entrance Dance Video’ demonstrates how online rights management is a‘complex web of relationships’, as Stewart states. Chris Brown’s ‘Forever’ began its life asa jingle for a Doublemint chewing gum commercial, and the gum can also be seen in the8. See for example ‘best first dance brubaker’, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeoi16lScf4.9. Chris LaRosa and Ali Sandler, ‘I now pronounce you monetized: a YouTube video case study’,YouTube Biz Blog, 30 July 2009, http://ytbizblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/i-now-pronounce-youmonetized-youtube_30.html.official music video as a product placement arrangement, a consequence of Doublemintfunding the recording costs to develop the music into a full song. In March 2009, and priorto the upload of the JK Wedding Entrance Dance video, Brown was charged with assaultagainst fellow R&B singer and then girlfriend, Rihanna. Just two days after the Heinz’s wedding,Brown pleaded guilty to the charges. Part of his sentence included having to attenddomestic violence counselling. Brown’s behaviour clearly did not affect the Heinz’s choice ofmusic for their occasion, but it has affected how they have reacted to the popularity of theirvideo. In line with the normal system, the Heinzs were not included in the revenue generationarrangements made between YouTube and Sony. While they cannot benefit directly fromSony’s music, they have ‘monetized’ their fame by creating a charitable website that channelsdonations to an institute that addresses the problem of domestic violence. 10 They have alsocreated a piece of popular culture that has been referenced by mainstream television – aparody of the wedding entrance dance was incorporated into the ‘Niagara’ episode of theU.S. television comedy The Office in October 2009.However, it is possible to challenge the cosy commercial relationships championed by YouTube.Lawrence Lessig’s video presentation ‘Re-examining the Remix’ challenges YouTube’s prideabout its rights management procedures. 11 Lessig views the act of adding video imagery tomusic protected by copyright as a form of social creativity, a collective expression in whichpeople communicate with others through symbolic performance and inter-video dialogue andimitation. Lessig conceptualizes two major cultures of creativity – commercial and sharing –and argues that the latter should not suffer from the former’s strict copyright controls. Lessigsuggests that we need well protected spaces of ‘fair use’, so as to respect the rights of the creatorof remix. Lessig sees YouTube’s Content ID system as a ‘perversion of freedom’ because itcan perform a DMCA takedown that might well be challenged and overturned on grounds offair use, which the system cannot recognize. YouTube’s system effectively places the powerof judgement mainly on automatic recognition of infringement and disregards the context ofsocial and cultural sharing in which the copyrighted material might exist.By erring on the side of the rights-holders by default, even when the remix may be legalunder fair use provisions, YouTube’s rights management systems are heavily weighted insupport of commercial culture. In the case of the ‘JK Wedding Entrance Dance’ video, Sonywaived their right to block the audio track and decided to wait for monetizing opportunities.Jill Peterson and Kevin Heinz’s planning and rehearsal transformed a sober ritual intogood-natured revelry, and a unique and special event with the help of a piece of commercialmusic. Once uploaded to YouTube, however, the Heinz’s video became an object that couldbe commercially exploited by the-rights holder, while denying the couple any right to directcommercial benefit from their own creativity. A piece of music that began as a musical ‘hook’for a chewing gum commercial became the soundtrack to a mediated DIY musical weddingceremony, which itself became a ‘music video’ working for the profit of a media corporation.Around the grey, largely untested legal area of fair use, practice is actually unfair and iniq-10. See: http://www.jkweddingdance.com/.11. Lawrence Lessig, ‘Re-examining the Remix’.