Hi, all. I'm a Wikipedia editor who uses the login "FuriousFreddy". There were some questions raised over the legality of the inclusion of data from the American Billboard music charts, since the company that owns Billboard (VNU Media) claims copyright and ownership of the chart information. I sent them an email several weeks ago...and they finally got back to answering it.
What does this mean for the Wikipedia music articles which include Billboard charts?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brandon Cordy brandon@brandoncordy.com Date: Nov 14, 2005 7:26 AM Subject: FW: Billboard chart data licensing To: b.touch@gmail.com
-----Original Message----- *From:* Sam Bell [mailto:SBell@vnuemedia.com] *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2005 1:00 PM *To:* Brandon Cordy *Cc:* brandon@brandoncordy.com; Ben French *Subject:* Re: Billboard chart data licensing
Brandon,
Thanks for reaching out to me - much appreciated. Use of Billboard intellectual property does require a license and we would be happy to discuss how to go about obtaining one. I am copying Ben French on this email - he will touch base on Monday to discuss further.
Cheers
Sam ................................................... sam bell director, business development vnu emedia, inc. 770 broadway new york, ny 10003 p. 646-654-5522 f. 646-654-5589 http://www.vnubusinessmedia.com
*"Brandon Cordy" brandon@brandoncordy.com*
10/24/2005 04:53 PM
To
sbell@billboard.com
cc
brandon@brandoncordy.com
Subject
Billboard chart data licensing
Dear Mr. Bell,
I am not sure if I have the correct department, but I am writing to enquire about the licensing of Billboard chart data for use at the English version of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia (en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org). Currently, Wikipedia uses a significant amount of data from Billboard records and charts, and I was concerned, after seeing the disclaimer at napster.com http://napster.com ("Billboard chart information may not be published, broadcast, displayed or redistributed without the prior written agreement of VNU eMedia, Inc.") that we may not be in compliance with your usage policies. Are we allowed, as a non-profit informational resource, to use Billboard chart data, and, if so, is there any limit to the amounts we may use (in recent months, several persons have begun adding data from every Billboard chart in relation to a particular song)?
If it is found that we should not include any or most Billboard chart data, it will be removed expeditiously and without question. I personally do not represent, neither am I associated with, the Wikimedia Foundation in any way; I am inquiring out of courtesy. If I have contacted the wrong department, if you could please foward my inquiry to the correct one, I would be very grateful. Thank you for your assistance.
Regards,
Brandon Cordy
On 11/14/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, all. I'm a Wikipedia editor who uses the login "FuriousFreddy". There were some questions raised over the legality of the inclusion of data from the American Billboard music charts, since the company that owns Billboard (VNU Media) claims copyright and ownership of the chart information. I sent them an email several weeks ago...and they finally got back to answering it.
What does this mean for the Wikipedia music articles which include Billboard charts?
Absolutely nothing. The mere fact that album X reached position Y on the Billboard charts is a raw fact and cannot be copyrighted. Billboard, like so many other companies, likes to claim a broader scope of intellectual property rights than they are entitled to.
Kelly
Here's an email I got from the Business Development associate at VNU Media:
Please tell the appropriate person at Wikepedia to contact me as soon as possible. As Sam noted, the current use of our content on your site is not permissible without a licensing agreement. Therefore we would like to resolve the issue quickly. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.
Best, Ben
Ben French Associate, Business Development VNU eMedia, Inc. 770 Broadway, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10003 Phone: (646) 654-5593 / Fax: (646) 654-5589
On 11/15/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, all. I'm a Wikipedia editor who uses the login "FuriousFreddy".
There
were some questions raised over the legality of the inclusion of data
from
the American Billboard music charts, since the company that owns
Billboard
(VNU Media) claims copyright and ownership of the chart information. I
sent
them an email several weeks ago...and they finally got back to answering
it.
What does this mean for the Wikipedia music articles which include
Billboard
charts?
Absolutely nothing. The mere fact that album X reached position Y on the Billboard charts is a raw fact and cannot be copyrighted. Billboard, like so many other companies, likes to claim a broader scope of intellectual property rights than they are entitled to.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/15/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an email I got from the Business Development associate at VNU Media:
Please tell the appropriate person at Wikepedia to contact me as soon as possible. As Sam noted, the current use of our content on your site is not permissible without a licensing agreement. Therefore we would like to resolve the issue quickly. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.
Best, Ben
It is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, especially when dealing with people who think you need to pay them money to get permission to do things you can do without asking for it in the first place.
Let this be a lesson to you.
Kelly
(we should probably move this discussion back to the mail list, but...)
"A lesson to me?" I don't really care either way whether or not Wikipedia lists Billboard information; the legality of the issue was something that peopel felt should be inquired about (the question has been o nthe table for quite some time), and so it was. It's better to research something than to turn a blind eye to what very well could be an unallowable use of propriatery information.
On 11/15/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an email I got from the Business Development associate at VNU
Media:
Please tell the appropriate person at Wikepedia to contact me as soon as possible. As Sam noted, the current use of our content on your site is
not
permissible without a licensing agreement. Therefore we would like to resolve the issue quickly. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.
Best, Ben
It is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, especially when dealing with people who think you need to pay them money to get permission to do things you can do without asking for it in the first place.
Let this be a lesson to you.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/15/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
(we should probably move this discussion back to the mail list, but...)
"A lesson to me?" I don't really care either way whether or not Wikipedia lists Billboard information; the legality of the issue was something that peopel felt should be inquired about (the question has been o nthe table for quite some time), and so it was. It's better to research something than to turn a blind eye to what very well could be an unallowable use of propriatery information.
Not from a legal standpoint.
-- geni
As far as legal issues go, I was always told it was better to be safe than sorry.
Be that as it may, I emailed Jimbo, and he says that we should keep the BIllboard info in the artist/song/album articles, and delete articles dedicated to re-listing, for example, the Hot 100 #1 hits and such.
On 11/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
(we should probably move this discussion back to the mail list, but...)
"A lesson to me?" I don't really care either way whether or not
Wikipedia
lists Billboard information; the legality of the issue was something
that
peopel felt should be inquired about (the question has been o nthe table
for
quite some time), and so it was. It's better to research something than
to
turn a blind eye to what very well could be an unallowable use of propriatery information.
Not from a legal standpoint.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/15/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
As far as legal issues go, I was always told it was better to be safe than sorry.
Safe = Plausible denyabilty
-- geni
That seems sensible to me. In the articles, they are facts about an artists career. We might also want to put this information on the WP:MUSIC page so as to develop a policy.
You could claim that they are US chart hits and leave it at that although that raises verifiabuility problems. For old charts, you could possibly look at using Cashbox charts as an alternative. Top 40 charts has a US chart listing as well for more modern times. see (http://top40-charts.com/)
The other problem is what happens in other countries if their charts do the same using Billboard as a precedent.
Regards
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
On 11/16/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
As far as legal issues go, I was always told it was better to be safe than sorry.
Be that as it may, I emailed Jimbo, and he says that we should keep the BIllboard info in the artist/song/album articles, and delete articles dedicated to re-listing, for example, the Hot 100 #1 hits and such.
On 11/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/15/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
(we should probably move this discussion back to the mail list,
but...)
"A lesson to me?" I don't really care either way whether or not
Wikipedia
lists Billboard information; the legality of the issue was something
that
peopel felt should be inquired about (the question has been o nthe
table
for
quite some time), and so it was. It's better to research something
than
to
turn a blind eye to what very well could be an unallowable use of propriatery information.
Not from a legal standpoint.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/16/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
That seems sensible to me. In the articles, they are facts about an artists career. We might also want to put this information on the WP:MUSIC page so as to develop a policy.
You could claim that they are US chart hits and leave it at that although that raises verifiabuility problems. For old charts, you could possibly look at using Cashbox charts as an alternative. Top 40 charts has a US chart listing as well for more modern times. see (http://top40-charts.com/)
The other problem is what happens in other countries if their charts do the same using Billboard as a precedent.
IANAL and all that, but as long as we are not replicating chunks of the chart verbatim, merely stating that so-and-so song reached X position on the chart, then there won't be any problems. We're not possibly infringing any copyrights by simply stating what they ranked the song as. However, if we had an article which listed the top forty for a particular week, or something, that would not be ok.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
On 11/15/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL and all that, but as long as we are not replicating chunks of the chart verbatim, merely stating that so-and-so song reached X position on the chart, then there won't be any problems. We're not possibly infringing any copyrights by simply stating what they ranked the song as. However, if we had an article which listed the top forty for a particular week, or something, that would not be ok.
I think extensive charts or graphs of Billboard chart position would also be dubious. A passing mention is one thing, compiling voluminous data of Billboard chart positions another. I'm thinking about the week-by-week chart positions once found in the [[Ashlee Simpson]] article, among others.
-Matt
On 16 Nov 2005, at 02:33, Stephen Bain wrote:
IANAL and all that, but as long as we are not replicating chunks of the chart verbatim, merely stating that so-and-so song reached X position on the chart, then there won't be any problems. We're not possibly infringing any copyrights by simply stating what they ranked the song as. However, if we had an article which listed the top forty for a particular week, or something, that would not be ok.
In US law it probably is ok to copy the whole thing verbatim, as compilations of facts (eg telephone directories) are not protected by copyright law. Charts might be different (we all know there is some creativity in their compilation...) but the question is whether it is worth defending with real money in court. One can presume that Jimbo's position is based on a legal consultation and reflects what the lawyers think it is worth defending, though if anyone thinks it is worth having the lists it is defensible I believe, despite Bilboard's claims. (I dont think it is worth having them).
Justinc
On 11/16/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
In US law it probably is ok to copy the whole thing verbatim, as compilations of facts (eg telephone directories) are not protected by copyright law. Charts might be different (we all know there is some creativity in their compilation...)
According to this page: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/about_us/bbmethodology.jsp the Hot 100 (for example) is compiled using formulas combining sales data and airplay data. I think that makes it more than a compilation of facts.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
On 16 Nov 2005, at 03:21, Stephen Bain wrote:
On 11/16/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
In US law it probably is ok to copy the whole thing verbatim, as compilations of facts (eg telephone directories) are not protected by copyright law. Charts might be different (we all know there is some creativity in their compilation...)
According to this page: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/about_us/bbmethodology.jsp the Hot 100 (for example) is compiled using formulas combining sales data and airplay data. I think that makes it more than a compilation of facts.
I suspect a weighted average of facts is still a fact. It is hard for them to argue as it is supposed to be an unbiased estimate of audience. What they might argue in court is a different matter.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005, at 03:21, Stephen Bain wrote:
On 11/16/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
In US law it probably is ok to copy the whole thing verbatim, as compilations of facts (eg telephone directories) are not protected by copyright law. Charts might be different (we all know there is some creativity in their compilation...)
According to this page: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/about_us/bbmethodology.jsp the Hot 100 (for example) is compiled using formulas combining sales data and airplay data. I think that makes it more than a compilation of facts.
I suspect a weighted average of facts is still a fact. It is hard for them to argue as it is supposed to be an unbiased estimate of audience. What they might argue in court is a different matter.
The determination of weighting factors is a creative input and therefore copyrightable...
At first this seemed like a pretty straightforward thing to me. Copying Billboard's rankings verbatim is clearly not fair use (and their arrangement is certainly copyrightable, because their formulas are probably somewhat complex). Using little quotes like "This album reached #5 on the Billboard charts in 1983" is clearly fair use (very small part of their total content; does not impact their future profits in the slightest).
But there seems to be a lot in between, when I look at the actual articles. I can't tell what is verbatim and what is user-derived when I look at some of these pages (in particular, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Hot_100), though that might just be my ignorance of the subject matter. I don't know where the arrangement-of-an-arrangement line puts the copyright situation -- if we make a list of the top #1 Billboard albums of all time (something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_No._1_R%26B_hits_%28United_States%29) , is that sufficiently re-arranged to preclude their copyright? Or does the fact that our arrangement is clearly not based on any formulas or complicated decisions mean that we add absolutely nothing in terms of "creativity"?
FF
Are there any moderators who would be able to talk to VNU?
On 11/15/05, Brandon Cordy < b.touch@gmail.com> wrote:
As far as legal issues go, I was always told it was better to be safe than sorry.
Be that as it may, I emailed Jimbo, and he says that we should keep the BIllboard info in the artist/song/album articles, and delete articles dedicated to re-listing, for example, the Hot 100 #1 hits and such.
On 11/15/05, geni < geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/15/05, Brandon Cordy < b.touch@gmail.com > wrote:
(we should probably move this discussion back to the mail list,
but...)
"A lesson to me?" I don't really care either way whether or not
Wikipedia
lists Billboard information; the legality of the issue was something
that
peopel felt should be inquired about (the question has been o nthe
table for
quite some time), and so it was. It's better to research something
than to
turn a blind eye to what very well could be an unallowable use of propriatery information.
Not from a legal standpoint.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brandon Cordy wrote:
(we should probably move this discussion back to the mail list, but...)
"A lesson to me?" I don't really care either way whether or not Wikipedia lists Billboard information; the legality of the issue was something that peopel felt should be inquired about (the question has been o nthe table for quite some time), and so it was. It's better to research something than to turn a blind eye to what very well could be an unallowable use of propriatery information.
The fact remains that information is not copyrightable; only its presentation is.
If you copied the entire chart as presented by them that likely would be a copyvio; reworking that information in your own way is likely acceptable.
"Unallowable use of proprietary information" suggests that you have privileged access to that information and are somehow making public something that should be confidential.
Research from a source which has vested interests is not reliable.
Ec
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 09:50 -0600, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 11/15/05, Brandon Cordy b.touch@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an email I got from the Business Development associate at VNU Media:
Please tell the appropriate person at Wikepedia to contact me as soon as possible. As Sam noted, the current use of our content on your site is not permissible without a licensing agreement. Therefore we would like to resolve the issue quickly. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.
Best, Ben
It is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission, especially when dealing with people who think you need to pay them money to get permission to do things you can do without asking for it in the first place.
Let this be a lesson to you.
No its not a lesson. Wikipedia is too big to hide any more. We have to deal with this sort of thing.
So do we (a) remove all references (b) Tell them that they can sue us as they have no legal basis for their extortion
Better run this past a lawyer asap.
Justinc