Chris Hadfield's "Space Oddity" Removed From YouTube

Chris Hadfield's "Space Oddity" Removed From YouTube

Chris Hadfield

It turns out that Commander Chris Hadfield had permission to use the David Bowie classic for just one year, and that year is now over.

Commander Chris Hadfield did remarkable things during his time in command of the International Space Station, particularly in the way he brought the work being done on the station to the attention of the public at large. And when his time was finally over, he went out on an incredibly high note with a moving rendition of David Bowie's "Space Oddity," tweaked just a bit to make it a happier and more upbeat listening experience.

The cover hit YouTube on May 13, 2013 - and sadly, on May 13, 2014, it was taken down. It wasn't widely known at the time it was released but Hadfield was granted permission to use the song for just one year, and in spite of its popularity - the CBC says it racked up more than 22 million views before it was pulled - with the year gone, so is the song.

"It has been a year since my son and I created and released the Space Oddity video. We have been amazed and delighted that so many people enjoyed it - and maybe saw what spaceflight can really be like. It helped show that humans have left Earth, and that the Space Station is a new stage, for not just science and exploration, but for our art and music too. With exploration comes insight - with perspective comes self-realization," Hadfield wrote in a message on Reddit prior to the video's removal.

"We had permission from David Bowie's people to post the video on YouTube for a year, and that year is up. We are working on renewing the license for it, but as there are no guarantees when it comes to videos shot in space, we thought you might want to have one last look before we take it down," he continued. "Thanks for everything. You've all been incredible throughout."

Hadfield also linked to an Economist article explaining some of the copyright complications that arose out of the song, including jurisdictional questions and even the format in which it was released. Those issues didn't come up in this particular case because Hadfield obtained permission prior to releasing the video, but even that was apparently an arduous process, requiring several months of negotiations with Bowie's representatives as well as NASA, the Russian space agency ROSCOSMOS and the Canadian space agency CSA.

Given all that, it's not surprising that efforts to renew the license don't appear to have worked out, as the "official" YouTube video is now gone. The internet being what it is, however, it is still available here and there, including on the Sky News channel. Enjoy it while you can.

Permalink

What harm would the video do if it'd been left up? Why did it need to be taken down at all? It's not like Hadfield was making money off it or anything.

But anyway, being the internet, it can always be found elsewhere.

Thank goodness. I was afraid that ridiculous copyright bureaucracy might not follow humanity into space, but it looks like it's coming along for the ride after all.

That's gotta be brutal, going from being being astronaut in space performing science and trying to make it popular again to coming back to Earth and have to wade into sewers of corporate copyright laws.

Boy isn't copyright awesome! Good thing this video isn't up anymore, because if it were left up, who KNOWS what it could have done to Bowie's career!

Man, fuck copyright law as it is. Rarely is it used to protect creators' rights. Mainly used to kill interesting and creative things.

And this kids, is what's wrong with capitalism.

While I understand why copyright is needed, the idea of "timed" allowances for content is really dumb.

This seems so incredibly small-minded. It's a small consolation that apparently the artist's got nothing to do with it. It's Bowie's People(c).

Really happy I get to see Chris Hadfield at the Hamburg Planetarium next week - he's doing a book signing thing there, you guys should all look up if he comes to your area too!

Yeah... Timed permissions in terms of development? Understandable. Timed permissions in terms of produced content? Just asinine. Products should have limitless permissions for obvious reasons.

Aaaand downloaded. Good luck everybody else!

Hatchet90:
Aaaand downloaded. Good luck everybody else!

Which reminds me: There will definitely be someone and then others re-uploading the video.

"even that was apparently an arduous process, requiring several months of negotiations with Bowie's representatives as well as NASA, the Russian space agency ROSCOSMOS and the Canadian space agency CSA."

That line makes me want to kill myself. It is the single most retarded fact, since facts were first established. Seriously. Securing the rights to do a remake of a bloody song took months of negotiations and all kinds of BS about international laws?

In any decent society, everyone who got in the way would be shot and they would have made the video anyway.

I believe in the need for copyright, because I believe that creators should be able to protect and, yes, profit from their work. But this is asinine. It's not even that Bowie's people only gave them a one-year license that's the issue, it's the Byzantine maze of various laws and regulations that had to be worked out by all involved parties, just to get a cover of an old song on YouTube. Even the parts of the ISS in which the video was recorded came into play, because each module is governed by the property rights laws of its "owner" nation. It's crazy.

Andy Chalk:
I believe in the need for copyright, because I believe that creators should be able to protect and, yes, profit from their work. But this is asinine. It's not even that Bowie's people only gave them a one-year license that's the issue, it's the Byzantine maze of various laws and regulations that had to be worked out by all involved parties, just to get a cover of an old song on YouTube. Even the parts of the ISS in which the video was recorded came into play, because each module is governed by the property rights laws of its "owner" nation. It's crazy.

Copyright is currently a mess for a few reasons. The main one though is that the Fair Use clause has not been updated since it's original conception back in 1976, and as such there are things in modern society that aren't included in the Fair Use clause because the people of 1976 didn't know it'd exist. The other main problem is YouTube's way of handling copyright in general, but I could rant about that and fill up the actual post limit for this site when it comes to that. XD

Main thing is, Fair Use needs to be updated, but you'd better believe Disney would lobby for that to not happen, since Disney is one of the main reasons why copyright laws are so messed up in the first place now.

first grade bullshit right here. His song is a cover of existing song, thus legally no permission is needed as long as he acknowledges the original author.

IceForce:
What harm would the video do if it'd been left up? Why did it need to be taken down at all? It's not like Hadfield was making money off it or anything.

But anyway, being the internet, it can always be found elsewhere.

it had 10 times more views than the original. when googling for space oddity first 3 results was Chris Hatfield instead of David Bowie. the harm here is quite clearly overshadowing.
theres also the fact that any radio could have taken Chris version and broadcast it for free due to it being a cover and thus no need tyo pay David Bowie or Chris for it.

Neronium:

Copyright is currently a mess for a few reasons. The main one though is that the Fair Use clause has not been updated since it's original conception back in 1976, and as such there are things in modern society that aren't included in the Fair Use clause because the people of 1976 didn't know it'd exist. The other main problem is YouTube's way of handling copyright in general, but I could rant about that and fill up the actual post limit for this site when it comes to that.

Fair use is fine, even if i agree it could be done much better. Its just that both the lawyers and the judges seems to prefer their opinions than fair use laws nowadays. This is a cover of a song and is protected under fair use. see how "fair" that ended? Well, more precisely it falls under "mechanical license", but the holder actually has no right to refuse mechanical license, the only power it has is to "release it first", and in this case it certainly was released earlier. decades earlier

and yes, copyright law needs to be updated, but everyone that did the last update should be never allowed to make laws again before that happens. heck, the 1909 copyright act is better than what we currently have. we seem to be regressing there. And yes as you said, a lot thanks to Disney.

You think copyright and patent laws are out of control now wait until the United Corporations of America have their way with the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) that they have been trying to sneak under our noses.

Neronium:
The main one though is that the Fair Use clause has not been updated since it's original conception back in 1976, and as such there are things in modern society that aren't included in the Fair Use clause because the people of 1976 didn't know it'd exist.

Fair Use doesn't need to be updated, it needs to be abolished. The US Constitution only empowers congress to grant artists exclusive rights over "their respective writings", with the specific purpose of promoting "the progress of useful arts", and NOT to grant censorship rights over other people's creation with the purpose of polishing their own brand image at the expense of other artists.

Andy Chalk:
I believe in the need for copyright, because I believe that creators should be able to protect and, yes, profit from their work. But this is asinine.

The first step to solving the problem, is to admit that ANY excessive copyright law can be passed off as creators protecting and profiting from the interests related to their works. Beyond a certain level, we just have to say "no" to them anyways, and acknowledge that a marginal increase in copyright holders' freedom to profit, is used to disproportionally limit the public's freedom to communicate, and even other artists' freedom to create.

kanetsb:
And this kids, is what's wrong with capitalism.

Capitalism isn't the problem here. It is the bullshit corpitist copy-right laws. We need to revise the entire copy-right system to stop shit like this from happening.

It has already been re-uploaded several times. Tough luck Bowie (or corporation protecting mr. Bowie's copyright shenanigans).

kanetsb:
And this kids, is what's wrong with capitalism.

Because nothing says capitalism like extensive regulatory government-granted monopolies. /s

Alterego-X:

kanetsb:
And this kids, is what's wrong with capitalism.

Because nothing says capitalism like extensive regulatory government-granted monopolies. /s

Indeed. After all, the eternal council of darkness government merely became another subject of the market that can be bought, and since it's in a short supply, the price is so high only the disgustingly wealthy can afford to buy it. Capitalism.

Vegosiux:

Indeed. After all, the eternal council of darkness government merely became another subject of the market that can be bought, and since it's in a short supply, the price is so high only the disgustingly wealthy can afford to buy it. Capitalism.

Yeah. My point was, that saying copyright demonstrates "what's wrong with capitalism", is like saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea demonstrates what's wrong with democracy.

No, it doesn't, because even if it might be presented with a bunch of capitalism associated buzzwords (market, profit, corporations), it is very blatantly anti-capitalistic in it's principles.

Alterego-X:

Vegosiux:

Indeed. After all, the eternal council of darkness government merely became another subject of the market that can be bought, and since it's in a short supply, the price is so high only the disgustingly wealthy can afford to buy it. Capitalism.

Yeah. My point was, that saying copyright demonstrates "what's wrong with capitalism", is like saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea demonstrates what's wrong with democracy.

No, it doesn't, because even if it might be presented with a bunch of capitalism associated buzzwords (market, profit, corporations), it is very blatantly anti-capitalistic in it's principles.

And I point was that I find it increasingly irritating how people seem to refer to "the government" as if it was some otherworldly entity, removed from the actual dynamics of how societies work.

Or maybe you meant "current administration" when you said "government". The concept of government has existed as long as people have had to deal with other people to get through their lives. It evolved and got more complex, naturally. But we're drifting into semantics here.

And yes, administrations and governments can be bought.

Strazdas:
first grade bullshit right here. His song is a cover of existing song, thus legally no permission is needed as long as he acknowledges the original author.

...

theres also the fact that any radio could have taken Chris version and broadcast it for free due to it being a cover and thus no need tyo pay David Bowie or Chris for it.

No, that's not how Copyright works with cover songs. You don't have to simply "acknowledge the author". From wikipedia:

"Since the Copyright Act of 1909, United States musicians have had the right to record a version of someone else's previously recorded and released tune, whether it's music alone or music with lyrics. A license can be negotiated between representatives of the interpreting artist and the copyright holder, or recording published tunes can fall under a mechanical license whereby the recording artist pays a standard royalty to the original author/copyright holder through an organization such as the Harry Fox Agency, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original author." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version#U.S._copyright_law

I'm guessing he got special permission to not pay any royalties at all. I don't know how the royalties would work with YouTube, but I wouldn't be surprised if even the "mechanical license" would cost him more than he would earn through ads or whatever.

You can definitely create a cover version of a song without the permission of the author, but you absolutely cannot do it for free.

Fair use is fine, even if i agree it could be done much better. Its just that both the lawyers and the judges seems to prefer their opinions than fair use laws nowadays. This is a cover of a song and is protected under fair use. see how "fair" that ended? Well, more precisely it falls under "mechanical license", but the holder actually has no right to refuse mechanical license, the only power it has is to "release it first", and in this case it certainly was released earlier. decades earlier

Fair use and the laws for cover songs aren't really related. Covers do not qualify for "fair use" since the replicate the entire product and could clearly have a direct economic impact on the original version. Like you said, why pay more for the original when you could use a cheap or even free version? Fair use hasn't been distorted or anything, it was never meant to cover something like this, nor should it. Covers fail all aspects of fair use unless they aren't done for profit. For some reason, that prong is the one that is always considered the most important by the public, but all four have to be considered.

The main problem with copyright is that it now lasts basically forever and newer laws have created penalties that are completely insane.

Alterego-X:

kanetsb:
And this kids, is what's wrong with capitalism.

Because nothing says capitalism like extensive regulatory government-granted monopolies. /s

Are you aware, that the biggest monopolies in the world, are actually capitalist creations? You know, stuff like Kraft Foods etc.?

Also, whenever someone mentions extensive regulations as something bad - I just say one word... Enron.

kanetsb:

Are you aware, that the biggest monopolies in the world, are actually capitalist creations? You know, stuff like Kraft Foods etc.?

Yeah, and Hitler was elected through democratic means. This doesn't mean that he was a democratic leader.

kanetsb:

Also, whenever someone mentions extensive regulations as something bad - I just say one word... Enron.

You can think of them as good, in which case you have no reason to complain about what copyrights are doing (after all, they are extensive regulations, yay), or you can think of them as bad, in which case you have no reason to blame "capitalism" for copyright. (after all, the free market should reward artists, not the Man in Washington handing them over monopoly control).

Or more reasonably, we might admit that it's depending on the context, that in some situations UNREGULATED corporations have caused problems to the free market through forming monopolies and trusts and syndicates, while in other cases, the government itself created anti-capitalistic monopolies such as the copyright regime, because it was in a a few corporations' interests.

Alterego-X:

kanetsb:

Are you aware, that the biggest monopolies in the world, are actually capitalist creations? You know, stuff like Kraft Foods etc.?

Yeah, and Hitler was elected through democratic means. This doesn't mean that he was a democratic leader.

Nice Godwin there, sir... ;)

Also, not sure what the reasoning behind bringing ye'olde Hitler into the mix is. Because free market will eventually lead to a one massive monopolistic mega corp... Hitler wasn't democratic?
Also, living in a regulated state (EU/Poland), I can tell you that regulations are there to prevent monopolies from forming most of the time, not making them. Making monopolies - that's communism, state owned stuff, i.e. something entirely different. ;)

Tragic. Perhaps the best rendition of the song I've ever heard. Copyright laws are bullshit.

kanetsb:

Nice Godwin there, sir... ;)

No, there isn't. Analogies are not the same as equivalence.

You are saying that anti-capitalistic regulations are "what's wrong with capitalism", on the account that the corporations supporting it were formed by capitalism.

This is analogous to saying that Hitler's regime was "what's wrong with democrarcy". Or to use another analogy if that makes you feel better, it's like saying that present day China demonstrates "what's wrong with communism". No, it doesn't, because it is very explicitly not an example of it, even if it's called that and started out that way at some point.

You can't call it an example of capitalism, where the government picks winners and losers, hands over so much control to certain people (IP holders) that they are allowed to censor other people's self-expression, and gain privileges in controlling the flow of information.

kanetsb:

Also, living in a regulated state (EU/Poland), I can tell you...

Hi, Welcome from Hungary.

Polak, Węgier, dwa bratanki, i do szabli, i do szklanki.

kanetsb:

Making monopolies - that's communism, state owned stuff, i.e. something entirely different. ;)

Exactly. So the government making extensive monopolies such as copyright, is not "what's wrong with capitalism", it's what's wrong with communism.

Well, not really, actually it's more of an oligargchy, (the state doesn't hoard the IP control for itself just gives it away a handful of interested parties), but you get the point.

Alterego-X:

kanetsb:

Nice Godwin there, sir... ;)

You can't call it an example of capitalism, where the government picks winners and losers, hands over so much control to certain people (IP holders) that they are allowed to censor other people's self-expression, and gain privileges in controlling the flow of information.

Isn't it though, that this is primarily a US issue as the DMCA (and forwards) regulation was muscled into law by lobbyists?
AFAIK, these people embody the ultimate capitalist achievement, of being able to actually create law that suits them...
Lobbying in Poland for instance is strictly prohibited and there have been quite a few scandals when this happened. In US though, it seems it's perfectly legal to destroy net neutrality for instance, just because some companies want to make an extra buck. Just slip some money into the party accounts and you're set.

Again, going back to Enron and the banking crisis - the regulations lobbied that allowed for these financial disasters were put there just to satisfy the basis of capitalism, making as much money as possible.

--

Also, who exactly is the claimant here? It's not that Hadfield is somehow taking Bowie's profit by singing his songs on the web. I mean, if I was Bowie, I would be proud to have someone sing my song in SPACE! Apart from the privilege, this has to be one of the best kind of advertisement in history...

kanetsb:

Isn't it though, that this is primarily a US issue as the DMCA (and forwards) regulation was muscled into law by lobbyists?
AFAIK, these people embody the ultimate capitalist achievement, of being able to actually create law that suits them...

Capitalism by definition involves a free market system, where prices are determined based supply and demand.

When lawmakers are limiting the free market in favor of benefiting particular competitors, that's anti-capitalistic, even if it can be phrased as being done for "corporations increasing their profits", because that would be a childishly crude definition of capitalism.

Hence my Hitler analogy: You could define democracy as a system where "whoever gets the most votes is in charge", in which case the Nazies reached the Ultimate Democratic Achievement. Or you could look up a more substantive definition, involving checks and balances, Rule of Law, constitutionalism, and Human rights, all of which they have actually dismantled.

It's the same deal with capitalism: US corporations might be using vaguely capitalistic-sounding principles like profitability, yet actually dismantle the more substantial principles of capitalism.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here