Chris Hadfield's "Space Oddity" Removed From YouTube

[Andy Chalk]

Chris Hadfield's "Space Oddity" Removed From YouTube

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 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123942-ISS-Commander-Bids-Farewell-With-Space-Oddity] 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 [http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/chris-hadfield-space-oddity-cover-leaves-youtube-today-1.2641340] says it racked up more than 22 million views before it was pulled - with the year gone, so is the song.

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/466168309441122304]

"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 [http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/25gbc3/bowies_last_day_we_had_permission_for_a_year_so/chgv40r] 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 [http://gawker.com/astronaut-chris-hadfields-cover-of-space-oddity-comes-1575812713] 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_RB1ENTayU]. Enjoy it while you can.



Permalink

 

[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.

 

[Falterfire]

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.

 

[RandV80]

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.

 

[Irridium]

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.

 

[kanetsb]

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

 

[Phrozenflame500]

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

 

[TheCaptain]

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!

 

[Dr.Awkward]

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.

 

[Hatchet90]

Aaaand downloaded. Good luck everybody else!

 

[Alcom1]

Aaaand downloaded. Good luck everybody else!

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

 

[zarguhl]

"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.

 

[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.

 

[Roxas1359]

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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[Nowhere Man]

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.

 

[Alterego-X]

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.

 

[Alterego-X]

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.

 

[epicdwarf]

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.

 

[Vareoth]

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