Sunday, September 10, 2006

LonelyGirl15 and ccmixter

Not sure how many of you are familiar with the ongoing internet phenom of the moment known as "lonelygirl15" (google it), but she is all over the news this week, and she seemingly knows her ccmixter. She's apparently got this huge cult-like following, and she's been using music from ccmixter in her videos. Someone emailed me saying they saw one of my remixes in one of her videos, so I did a bit of research. Of the videos she's got hosted on YouTube, she uses:

"Brilliant Daze" - Pat Chilla the Beat Gorilla
"Razor Sharp" - Pat Chilla the Beat Gorilla
"Good Morning" - Pitx
"Like a Sunrise" - Shockshadow
"Son Soo Treatment" - Victor

as well as my remix of Grant Schindler "Remained"

combined views of these 6 videos is probably over a million hits. pretty whack!

and now it looks as though the whole lonelygirl15 thing is some sort of ruse involving CAA (Creative Artists Agency). now that's really whack!


gurdonark said...

I like that Pat Chilla the Beat Gorilla Brilliant Daze remix. It's one of those ironic things--I read an article or post about it being in the youtube video, then I went and watched the video, and then I went to mixter, where I could have found it all along, and downloaded it.

My own videos thus far do not exceed 300 views, so I must figure out how to get some 249,700 more viewers so that I can be as popular as the CAA.

Grant Robertson said...

I just reallized this last night as well.. There's also a vid with a Lisa DeBenedictis remix, although I don't know who's remix.

I didn't see any credits on the videos I saw.. that's not very CC of them, and frankly, if I were any of you that were used in the videos, I'd be really ticked off.

Biotic said...

Thanks Grant, that answers my question. No attribution, bummer.

Ran Dumb Dots said...

isn't this when somebody goes after them? tell them to attribute or pull their content or else? why is there all the specific "this is OK and that isn't" legal language in the licenses if nobody is going to go after those who break the rules (at least goes after them in terms of communicating to them clearly what they need to do to honor the license of the content they used)? personally, I think it's great airplay for the artists - and I think the ruse would not have worked if they had attributed, but now that everyone is wise they should be asked to attribute....would it have been better if they hadn't used CC music? arguably no...and if are willing to attribute now that everyone's wise, then hey, how cool is that? anybody ask them yet?

MC Jack in the Box said...

i think for the most part they actually did attribute the music. if you look at the video that uses my remix.....

in the box that says "about this video", click the first more link, (directly below the "subscribe" button). it expands the box and shows the music attribute.

haven't checked the others yet.

Grant Robertson said...

Ok, it is attributed(thanks for the tip). Still, it seems like that could be a great deal easier to find. You know I'm all for artist exposure, and the numbers on this one are really amazing but, it's not much exposure if you can't find the info.

Although, people who actually use YouTube often are probably likely to know where to look. I still contend the "cool" thing to do would have been to credit the artist _in_ the video, but at least they are sticking to the rules.

fourstones said...

some of us *have* been in touch with them and it's brought a large amount of exposure to ccmixter and pat and lisa. (registration doubled last month, peaking as the first video came out and the early comment threads mentioned and linked to pat's page)

some rights are reserved -- that means the artist has the choice as how the rights they reserve are enforced. the "rules" are what I make them.

as an artist I don't care about the small print of the cc license, i'd have given them permission to use the 14 seconds of my mix even with no attribution whatsoever.

personally, nothing those guys did on youtube bothers me a bit.

as an admin what bothers me is that cc didn't make more out it period. i don't know how often they have an opportunity to get this much free publicity but it seems like a wasted chance to up the site.

gurdonark said...

I think that the exposure is great for the artists involved.

I love it when a song is picked up for a podcast, a film or some other cool use, with attribution. It makes googling oneself fun.

Perhaps what we need is youtube videos on how to use ccmixter BY material, to encourage the viral fun.

Grant Robertson said...

Sorry VS.. didn't know the history. What you say makes total sense.

Ran Dumb Dots said...

Yep, Victor, makes sense. On the exposure thing, maybe CC could chip in a *little* fundage and have lonelygirl15 (or someone else similarly visually intriguing ;) do a weekly cc VJ spot - maybe get some pranksters to mashup cc music from Mixter with cc video from wherever the cc video is (the wackier the mash the better), and then she could do a 30-second intro to each cc video mashup. And then you could seed the viral mayhem with some IMs to the YouTube movers-n-shakers. Or maybe have a few VJs at first, see who gets response, and narrow....Idunno...Just thinking out loud.....Youtube seems like just the kinda place for CC content to bust out....

fourstones said...

btw revealed

MC Jack in the Box said...

Just the fact that Creative Artists Agency is not only familiar with ccmixter, but is perusing it's back catalog....that should inspire us all.

Imagine the potential for film opportunities. Can you say....Score!