Wendy Carlos company attack against Intuitive Music
March 12th, 2004We have to recognize that this is one of the most surrealistic things that has happened to us during these last 4 years of Intuitive Music. The story is that we kept in touch with Wendy Carlos’ (the legendary electronic music pioneer from the 60’s) official website and Serendipity records, applying for an interview to be posted in the website. We got an unsigned e-mail containing the following words:
“Apart from that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Your pages on Wendy Carlos are disrespectful, insensitive, inaccurate and, in at least one reference, probably libelous. In addition you are using a copyrighted photograph without permission which infringes Serendip LLC’s copyrights. Please remove the material from your website immediately.”
So we answered -astonished- :
To whom it may concern:
1-May I know the identity of the person who is writing this message, please?.
2-Who is Mrs. Lincoln? My name is Niles, Naomi Niles.
3-In no manner was it our intention to be “disrespectful, insensitive, inaccurate and, in at least one reference, probably libelous” with Wendy Carlos’s persona. First because that is not our policy and second because we are great admirers of her work. Would you please tell me exactly where have we exactly been disrespectful and all the other adjectives you use?. It would be very helpful to us.
4- Would you please tell us which picture in our website is under copyright and used without permission? and, in such case, can you give an evidence of it ?. It’s not our policy either to use copyrighted material without permission and, as far as I know, all the Wendy Carlos pictures we have ever used in our website are promotional images.
Here goes the answer:
As for “Mrs. Lincoln”, are you not aware that she was with the 16th president of the US when he was assassinated in Ford’s Theater?
You should add “ignorant” to your handling of Wendy Carlos. (The listing you have is complete garbage.)
Serendip LLC owns the copyrights in all of Wendy Carlos’s music and recordings and so-called promo photographs (check the copyright notice on wendycarlos.com). We have not given permission or supplied any photo for use on your website. You must remove any and all photos of Wendy Carlos from your site.
A. Franklin
Serendip LLC
About the “disrespectful” treatment of Wendy Carlos in Intuitive Music, you can judge yourselves. Her album “Switched on Bach” is included in the Top 10 Best electronic albums from the 60s in our reviews section.
http://www.intuitivemusic.com/content/view/6/43/
You can also read the artist files in our Techno Guide:
http://www.intuitivemusic.com/tguidewaltercarlos.html
http://www.intuitivemusic.com/tguidewendycarlos.html
September 15th, 2006 at
I see that the links above are now 404’s. Have you taken down all reference to Wendy Carlois on your site? If so I completely understand! Any artist who allows such rude people to represent their interests in such a cavalier manner really don’t deserve exposure or attention.
I used to admire Wendy Carlos, but sadly no longer. I had a similar experience recently, but have not even been graced with a reply to the two emails I have already sent, the gist of which lies below:
To whom it may concern,
A few weeks ago I had a YouTube video using 45 seconds of a section of “Switched On Bach” (Two Part Invention in F Minor) arbitarily removed because of alleged copyright infringements.
I was most bemused. I had given full credit to Wendy Carlos for the backing music to the video, which was a short series of time-lapse events; a clock’s hands advancing, clouds moving across the sky and ice melting. Anyone familiar with W. Carlos’s interpretation of the piece might be able to appreciate how it could be appropriate for such a small harmless piece of video frippery.
I was not making any money from the piece (in fact I didn’t think anyone even looked at my “stuff” on YouTube) and my crediting Wendy Carlos was in the hope of introducing others to her works.
I had sent an email to you soon after this incident now explaining how I first came to listen to Switched on Bach when I was quite young, how I bought the album and how I was upset that I may have infringed Wendy Carlos’s rights.
I apologized unreservedly and I also asked how one may seek permission to use her music in pieces like the one removed from youtube. I have received no reply yet.
I did further research on the web and discovered others have had similar encounters with the body that calls itself Serendip LCC…
It is with this in mind that I pose the questions:
I am wondering exactly how Wendy Carlos’s interests are harmed in these instances (of having some of her music used for short video backing tracks with full credit given)?
I am also wondering exactly how her interests are facilitated by removal of pieces like this. By having less exposure of her work? Less credit? Less people knowing about her? Less people being made aware of her music? Less people buying her music after being made aware of it?
I really don’t know. Perhaps Wendy Carlos does not need the exposure or income. Perhaps she already thinks everyone in the world knows of her works.
It seems that Serendip LCC can be perceived by some as being rather arbitary and rude in their treatment of people who genuinely admire Wendy Carlos’s works. I found this article on the web regarding such an experience:
http://www.intuitivemusic.com/wendy-carlos-company-attack-against-intuitive-music
I am wondering if Wedy Carlos (or the people who represent her legal interests) would rather people who didn’t know about her or listen to her music at all remained ignorant of her and her work?
I am still curious as to how one might seek permission for use of small sections of the music of W. Carlos and would appreciate some reply if you have the time.
Sincerely,
C. J. Stephen
I just wanted to let you know that you & your site is not alone in these kind of experiences with these people.
Cheers!
September 23rd, 2006 at
I likewise had an innocuous edited fan video using the William Tell Overture from Clockwork Orange yanked from YouTube by Serendip LLC claimihg infringement. I hadn’t credited Wendy Carlos directly but stated where the piece was from so fans could find it. Isn’t the height of irony that by giving credit to the artists makes it possible for Serendipity to locate the pieces to be pulled? Meanwhile how many people online use her music with no credit and go completely unnoticed? No, punish those of us who have the decency to give credit where it’s due.
I’ve been editing fan videos for years and only started sharing them on YouTube. I’ve had so many fans say that after watching my videos they either want to get the piece of music I used or watch the shows or movies whose clips I use. I’ve even had fans say my videos have made them go buy the DVD sets of the programs. It’s a shame some corporate heads only look at the bottom line and can’t see it as a beneficial thing. And I’m still at a loss as to how such a use actually harms the artist? The music on a video can’t be easily copied from YouTube. How is such a use harmful to anyone? Fortunately it seems most others aren’t so anal. For instance, I haven’t noticed anyone representing Sir Paul McCartney asking me to remove the video using his song I Will. Go figure!
September 26th, 2006 at
Well, it just happened to me to. I’d uploaded a japanese version of the trailer to A Clockwork Orange about a month ago and just received an email from YouTube telling me it had been taken down, due to a complaint by Serendip LLC. Seems like there are some severe weirdos at that company…and I wonder if it’s Wendy herself, slowly losing her mind and tracking down videos and pictures (!) of herself on the net she didn’t give permission for.
Some people don’t get the net.
September 28th, 2006 at
Sounds like you are all a bunch of freeloaders. Given your way, leading to the end of copyright, not only won’t there be new music, but eventually no movies, television, books, art or any other creative work which takes time and money to create in the first place, because no one will be able to support themselves doing it. Have you paid any attention to the terms of use on YouTube (“YouTube respects the rights of copyright holders and publishers and requires all members to affirm that they hold the copyright or have permission for the content that they upload”), or read the copyright tips?
September 29th, 2006 at
How To Make Sure Your Video Does Not Infringe Someone Else’s Copyrights
The way to ensure that your video doesn’t infringe someone else’s copyright is to use your skills and imagination to create something completely original. It could be as simple as taping some of your friends goofing around, and as complicated as filming your own short movie with a script, actors, and the whole works. If it’s all yours, you never have to worry about the copyright—you own it! Make sure to follow the other guidelines in the terms of use, too.
Be sure that all components of your video are your original creation—even the audio portion. For example, if you use an audio track of a sound recording owned by a record label without that record label’s permission, your video is infringing the copyrights of others, and we will take it down as soon as we become aware of it.
Commercial Content Is Copyrighted
The most common reason we take down videos for copyright infringement is that they are direct copies of copyrighted content and the owners of the copyrighted content have alerted us that their content is being used without their permission. Once we become aware of an unauthorized use, we will remove the video promptly. That is the law.
Some examples of copyrighted content (although not all) are:
TV shows
Including sitcoms, sports broadcasts, news broadcasts, comedy shows, cartoons, dramas, etc.
Includes network and cable TV, pay-per-view and on-demand TV
Music videos, such as the ones you might find on music video channels
Videos of live concerts, even if you captured the video yourself
Even if you took the video yourself, the performer controls the right to use his/her image in a video, the songwriter owns the rights to the song being performed, and sometimes the venue prohibits filming without permission, so this video is likely to infringe somebody else’s rights.
Movies and movie trailers
Commercials
Slide shows that include photos or images owned by somebody else
A Few Guiding Principles
It doesn’t matter how long or short the clip is, or exactly how it got to YouTube. If you taped it off cable, videotaped your TV screen, or downloaded it from some other website, it is still copyrighted, and requires the copyright owner’s permission to distribute.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you give credit to the owner/author/songwriter—it is still copyrighted.
It doesn’t matter that you are not selling the video for money—it is still copyrighted.
It doesn’t matter whether or not the video contains a copyright notice—it is still copyrighted.
It doesn’t matter whether other similar videos appear on our site—it is still copyrighted.
It doesn’t matter if you created a video made of short clips of copyrighted content—even though you edited it together, the content is still copyrighted.
September 30th, 2006 at
I have also “suffered” at the hand of Serendip, LLC. A few days ago eBay removed an auction listing for two Wendy Carlos CDs, the first “Switched-On Bach (the commercial release), and a promo of the Switched-On Boxed Set Highlights. I wasn’t going to earn more than $30 or $40 dollars for them and I was surprised that ridiculous world watchdog eBay allowed my auction to be pulled while a ton of other PROMO CDs are allowed. Talk about two-faced!
November 23rd, 2006 at
ebay just pulled a SOB 2 listing of mine. had been up for 4-5 day or so. After a little googling it seems they object to my posting a picture of a product (fully bought and paid for) and presented with the intent of resale.
There are similar precedents (one that pops up is Weird Al’s parodies) that allows (re)use of .
Strangely, there are other W[e|a] C auction lots _now_ with images of essentially identical product as mine (LP). Why doesn’t Ebay pull those? Why because Ebay is a lapdog to DRM and Copyright holders. Their command? Shoot first let the dead even try to speak: What images do you object to? What text to do you object to?
December 12th, 2006 at
(Excuse my english I’m french)
The same kind of problem appened to me on youtube, I downloaded an humoristical movie called “l’orange mécanique” (the french title for an orange clockwork) showing a mecanical orange and using a little extract from the original soundtrack from Kubrik’s movie (31seconds!) it had been removed for “Copyright Infringement” by Serendip LLC, my movie had be seen 59 times! I think that’s totally ridiculous… But in the same time I’m so PROUD that my movie have been seen by the autor of the music I used, but, I thought that Ludwig Van Betoven was dead????
April 29th, 2007 at
I too have just recieved an email from Youtube notifying me of my copyright infringement. It was a media assignment which used 10 seconds of the theme to a clockwork orange and was fully credited to Wendy Carlos. I found this article googling the company…
May 24th, 2007 at
I’m glad to see I wasn’t the only one who had a dealing with this Serendip company. I uploaded a video I created to YouTube a few days ago using small pieces from the Clockwork Orange soundtrack. I had believed my use was allowed through the fair use act, but I guess not. Geez… That video was up for just two days, they’re quick to find violators, aren’t they?
I was amazed… and I’m not quite sure how to feel about the whole thing.
June 17th, 2007 at
The whole deal is surreal, seek and you shall find huh? I wasn’t even going to bother but something about ‘Serendip, LLC’ intrigued me enough to google the name. I wanted to know exactly which part of this A Clockwork Orange/Rocky mashup movie trailer (which I credited as a university editing assignment) Serendip LLC was concerned with, if not the whole thing! I mean, I edited elements of ACO and Rocky’s original music, dialogue, visual footage in addition to a seperate track by trip-hop artist The Deadly Avenger and various major movie company logo’s at the start of the trailer. I thought it may be OK to use them without permission if I stated it was made for student purposes, however, I would never have guessed that the company representing the artist who composed the Clockwork soundtrack would be the ones with the problem here. I guess all the other infringements that I made must’ve been with companies that are too busy to take time out to search Youtube for this kind of shit. There is thousands of mashup movie trailers on Youtube and it sucks because this was damn funny in my opinion. Maybe if I simply replace the smidgen of Wendy Carlos audio with something else, I will find somewhere on the net to put this fun mashup trailer in the future (note, I did not ever state “my” mashup trailer!)
August 6th, 2007 at
…YOUTUBE just yanked a video that I made and filmed myself! Just because this SERENDIP decided they needed to protect the Clockwork Orange soundtrack. I don’t even know where to begin. I was so furious that it was yanked becuase i put my time and money into the video. The WILLIAM TELL OVERTURE is not made by SERENDIP so they need to stop playing big brother to it!!!
October 12th, 2007 at
I play classical music on my synths.
I uploaded a video to youtube with me playing Bach’s Sinfonia to cantata No29.
In the video comment I wrote: “Me using sequencer and a bunch of old synthesizers arranging Bach the Wendy Carlos style.”
Because of mention her in the comment Youtube rejected the video as “copyright infringement”.
Maybe she is the only one in the world allowed to play Bach on synthesizers?
December 11th, 2007 at
Today I had two records taken down off of eBay because it was considered “against eBay policy”. Those records? Walter (Wendy) Carlos’ Clockwork Orange & Switched on Bach II. I was wondering why, and stumbled upon this. Sounds like they have their head way up their ass.
January 12th, 2008 at
It’s one thing for Serendip LLC to pull copyrighted material down (though they are being a-holes about it), but I can’t possibly understand how they can have ebay auctions pulled for people selling on ebay and I guess photographing Walter/Wendy Carlos items for sale.
And am I stunned at Lasse’s post (2 posts up). There is no way a video can be pulled for just mentioning somebody’s name. And Bach’s music is in the public domain and you followed Youtube rules exactly by creating a video with only your content. So you should have argued back to Youtube. It sounds like this Serendip LLC is trying to erase every trace of W. Carlos from the planet.
I’m also worried about Lasse’s post because I put up a couple of videos 100% my own content where I mention Carlos’ name. Youtube better not pull my videos. There is ZERO copyright infringement my synth videos.
BTW, there’s more than one person on this earth named Wendy and Walter Carlos. So Serendip LLC can’t remove every mention of Carlos anyway.
January 22nd, 2008 at
youtube said:
Some examples of copyrighted content (although not all) are:
TV shows
Including sitcoms, sports broadcasts, news broadcasts, comedy shows, cartoons, dramas, etc.
so why the hell do they not pull half their videos which consist of video shows and films? Type in virtually any film title or tv show into youtube, and something will come up. So why on earth do they not delete those either?
February 19th, 2008 at
Yeah, this just happened to me. I uploaded a video containing some of the Shining score, and the next day it was removed because of a copyright claim by Serendip LLC.
I doubt that’s even technically a real company with real people running around and working inside cubicles. Its more than likely just Wendy him/herself sitting at home and being on the computer all day tracking down all this shit.
February 19th, 2008 at
http://uk.youtube.com/index?&session=ZwGYNnZNHoKUXM5_J9kQv3mBLx_97pBPz4Oo7ZAHq_6g6_Etfsd5s4_DVgef9nR9_LWmqAkqjNnVJJyZEmHDno17CgCmGYJl8FWixp2xIx0nUGk7jddkn6aiI_K9MVa1U583G56Y2CsLQvLFcyu4FzSNyVEYCUn5ddqP73qD_g2_Vna4IotcvaXfPPm9IKB2QnKXC7g83bGSYHOcK_SabzrHFgjOH8wnaDq_xi9xTvHbqWTYuiDqlQ==
Yep, add me to the list too.
June 7th, 2008 at
They removed a video which I put on YouTube CALLED “Top 10 selections from the soundtrack from A Clockwork Orange” that was really anything but! They didn’t even watch it! Why are they so strongly opposed to enjoyment of their music?
July 17th, 2008 at
add me to the list of wendy carlos fans attacked by serendip llc. i wonder if wendy knows. i hope she doesn’t. she seems like an awesome person in my head, someone who’d be naturally opposed to this bs.
October 26th, 2008 at
I run a website and radio shows promoting artists like Carlos and/or Yes or Mountain or Mahavishnu Orchestra and the like . . . So this week I advertise my OWN synth musicks at eBay but mention in title “For Fans of . . . Wendy Carlos” among other well-known, “nice” synth folks. Serendip, LLC has eBay pull my auction citing copyright infringement. I complain to eBay (no reply) and to anal-retentive Serendip, LLC and they say, “You cannot use Wendy Carlos name to sell items.” In my e-mail I explain I have supported Carlos releases and the name for years via reviews online, in print magazines and via radio-play. I point out that I was not selling and bootlegs or the like but to no avail. Serendip, LLC sees only one way on all points and it is nit exactly logical. So, I have now removed all my promo of this artist as why should I help a company profit that is so petty? Ciao!
March 26th, 2009 at
This is Sad. Serendip LLC is abuseing their power of copyright infringement
Defined by Wickpedia is copy right law at a glace.:
Copyright is a form of intellectual property which gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation; after which time the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete. Some jurisdictions also recognize “moral rights” of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work.
An example of the intent of copyright, based in the United States Constitution, is simply to promote the progress of science and arts by securing for limited times the exclusive right of the creator.
Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty to a hundred years from the author’s death, or a finite period for anonymous or corporate authorship. Some jurisdictions have required formalities to establishing copyright, but most recognize copyright in any completed work, without formal registration. Generally, copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.
Most jurisdictions recognize copyright limitations, allowing “fair” exceptions to the author’s exclusivity of copyright, and giving users certain rights. The development of the Internet, digital media, computer network technologies, such as peer-to-peer file sharing, have prompted reinterpretation of these exceptions, introduced new difficulties in enforcing copyright, and inspired additional challenges to copyright law’s philosophic basis. Simultaneously, businesses with great economic dependence upon copyright have advocated the extension and expansion of their copyrights, and sought additional legal and technological enforcement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
March 26th, 2009 at
And the remix is allowed as well as user made remixes /fan videos.
Because remixes may borrow heavily from an existing piece of music (possibly more than one), the issue of intellectual property becomes a concern. The most important question is whether a remixer is free to redistribute his or her work, or whether the remix falls under the category of a derivative work according to (for example) United States copyright law. Of note are open questions concerning the legality of visual works, like the art form of collage, which can be plagued with licensing issues.
There are two obvious extremes with regard to derivative works. If the song is substantively dissimilar in form (for example, it might only borrow a motif which is modified, and be completely different in all other respects), then it may not necessarily be a derivative work (depending on how heavily modified the melody and chord progressions were). On the other hand, if the remixer only changes a few things (for example, the instrument and tempo), then it is clearly a derivative work and subject to the copyrights of the original work’s copyright holder.
The Creative Commons non-profit group created the ccMixter website to provide remixers with creative material licensed for remixers to use with permission. A number of netlabels similarly have used liberal licensing to facilitate remixing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix#Copyright_Implications
May 5th, 2009 at
I’ve received a notice (5/5//2009) that my YouTube account got suspended. In one of my last videos, I used Wendy Carlos’ version of Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto #2. Well, as you know, Serendip LLC removed it! And I thought the Warner Music Group is disabling videos on YouTube. The Universal Music Group seems to be another company to watch out for, although they don’t seem as strict as Warner. It seems as though such companies are ruining YouTube and a few other such sites.
September 22nd, 2009 at
I posted a YouTube video for my students a few days ago, illustrating the correct, internationally understood, use of proper academic citations when using copyrighted material of *any* sort (print, video, audio, etc.) using MLA format in the Notes section of the posting.
And, yes…my video got pulled by Serendip LLC as well, even though my purpose was to explicitly show how to use this material legally, and correctly!
*Sigh*
October 27th, 2009 at
Totally amazed. Surely you are allowed to sell physical items you have legally purchased in a legal second hand market such as e-Bay. What Serendip LLC is objecting to is that there are no Artist resale royalites which is a completely different kettle of fish to copyright. Under the norms of trading you are merely providing a thorough description of said items under the “Fair Trading Act” or equivalent such as Consumer Protection Act so that people know what it is they are purchasing – which I understand are required to do.
And Lasse should put her synths back up because they are Lasse’s interpretation of public domain works. Wendy Wotsit doesn’t have any rights to the “idea” of playing old music on synths. The only rights Wendy has are to Wendy’s “expressions” of these tunes made by Wendy, and compositions that Wendy made and recorded. And the mention of Wendy’s name in a discussion about the work of Wendy is completely allowed under Fair Use and Freedom of Speech.
It sounds to me like a case of a music/text-recognition bot crawling YouTube and issuing automatic takedowns without a human involved in the decision making. You need to appeal to a real human.
Also check out http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/blogs/future_of_public_media/fair_use_question_of_the_month_using_copyrighted_material_for_commenting_an/
February 5th, 2010 at
This is truly disgusting what is being done by Serendip LLC and (I am almost afraid of saying her name in fear that this comment will be removed for some sort of copyright infringement) Wendy Carlos. I really wish Bach were still alive, so he could sue her and be a pain in her arse! Lol!
March 13th, 2010 at
hello I AM INOCENT, how can you complain of copyright infringement? my video:
* from Serendip LLC about JS Bach – Goldberg Variations #5 BWV 988 HD 1080p – DosDog
Video ID: huxy1S67_Zw
is in no way derived from your work.
the music was created with PG Music’s “Band in a Box” and driven by keying files included with their product (and they give permission for usage).
don’t you know your own work?
or have you copy-written Bach himself?
a/r the second one
* from Serendip LLC about Bach’s Little Prelude in C 1080p HD redone – DosDog
Video ID: qnZJ0FLORds
the midi file that drove this was out there on the web, since I can’t verify just who played it (it certainly isn’t your caliber of playing anyway), I’ll take it down.
but I must insist the first is not yours (neither is the second, but…)
I work hard to produce these videos on youtube an have maintained my channel for years with no problem, but you know how they are, if you complain, they’ll delete all my work.
How do you do this when your not even right? did you listen to it? did you compare it with anything you’ve ever done?
or are you useing that alogrithmitly driven copright search thing to find maybe violators and fireing away?
this is like calling the cops on anyone you don’t like the looks of.
not nice.
March 13th, 2010 at
BTW, if you have anything in your catalog exactly like what I made, lets hear it.
March 13th, 2010 at
woops, I’m just catching on that your a victim too, not the ones doing this.
*blush*
sorry, as you can probably guess, I feel your pain.
March 30th, 2010 at
My name is Jason and I too am a victim of Serendip LLC. A few days ago, I made a Kingdom Hearts II Tron Tribute by combining videos from Kingdom Hearts II with the wonderful music from Tron and I was going to show it to my friends. But, from out of nowhere, Serendip LLC thumb their noses in my business and removed my video because they think I violated their copyrights. But I haven’t violated any of all copyrights, my first amendment rights was violated. When I make videos, I put the DISCLAIMERS on them, insuring that I am not violating no copyrights. But, Serendip LLC don’t know how to read the fine print, that is if they can read. I’m innocent, I tell you. They have no right to violate my first amendment rights!! THIS MUST STOP, OR ELSE MORE USERS WILL BE DELETED!! Everyone else has their Tron tribute videos with Wendy Carlos’s music intact. WHY ME?!!
July 6th, 2010 at
What Walter/Wendy Carlos made with his/her hands he/her just destroyed it with his/her feet…
If He/she deserved any admiration because of his/her work on music, now it’s destroyed because of his/her egoism and poverty of spirit.
He/she is denying to many people the chance to know or even enjoy his/her performance , such behavior it’s just a poor mediocre demonstration of EGOISM.
SHAME ON YOU WALTER/WENDY CARLOS FUCK YOU!!!
AND YOUR FUCKING MERCENARIES PREDATORS FUCK YOU ALL!!!