BBC kicks secular “Songs of Praise” off YouTube

Jazz and blues musician Billy Jenkins has had two live recordings of his band Songs of Praise taken off YouTube because the BBC bizarrely claimed an “infringement of copyright”.

The tracks in question are called ‘Dreadnought Seaman’s Hospital’ and ‘Blues Is Calling Me’. Says Jenkins,

It’s hilarious – our national broadcast company not only considers the name of a television programme to be their exclusive copyright even when used in other contexts, such as, in this case, six musicians performing their own secular musical songs of praise – but also deceive those believers they make religious programmes for by pre-recording what are considered ‘sacred’ days sometimes months ahead of their actual date which, were I believer, I too would consider an ‘infringement of copyright’.

Jenkins made the pages of The Freethinker in 2002 when his 2002 ‘secular gospel’ CD Life was denied airplay on BBC Radio 2 apparently because the presenter on the only nationally broadcast blues programme is a born again Christian.

You can hear samples of his music on the Songs of Praise MySpace page.

UPDATE: It was all a mistake! The BBC has apologised. Their lawyer writes:

It recently came to the BBC’s attention that a great deal of footage from the BBC’s “Songs of Praise” programme is being made available on Youtube in breach of copyright. It appears that, in dealing with the high volume of BBC “Songs of Praise” content on Youtube, your legitimate content may have been accidentally flagged for removal. I can assure you that the BBC makes every effort to ensure that only infringing content is flagged and there was no intention to remove your legitimate clips.

(Thanks to Billy Jenkins in the comments)


13 Responses to “BBC kicks secular “Songs of Praise” off YouTube”

  1. Andy L says:

    Sorry Monitor, but there’s nothing “bizarre” about claiming copyright infringement here (well, apart from the fact YouTube have said the reason was copyright infringement, whereas it’s clearly a trademark infringement. I suspect the BBC’s request to YouTube does not make the same error). It is, and the BBC have hundreds of clips pulled of YouTube every day for the same reason that have nothing to do with religion or secularism at all.

    As it’s a trademark issue, and you have to agressively protect trademarks or you will lose them when the renewal comes up.

  2. marc says:

    This may be true Andy, but it’s a good reason to have a pop and the Beeb who are vehemently PRO-religion as a rule and not “on the fence” as they should be.

  3. JR says:

    I don’t see how the BBC can have copyright on “songs of praise” as it is the name of a section of Jewish prayer, a usage that pre-dates broadcast media somewhat.

  4. Andy L says:

    “I don’t see how the BBC can have copyright on “songs of praise” as it is the name of a section of Jewish prayer, a usage that pre-dates broadcast media somewhat.”
    It doesn’t. You can’t copyright a phrase that short anyway. It’s a trademark. But you can certainly trademark a word or phrase that exists already. Dynarod have trademarked the colour of orange they paint their vans, but nobody would argue they’d created orange, and the trademark doesn’t stop people using that orange *except if they’re a drain cleanage company who are painting their vans or covering their advertising with it*. Here the BBC have a trademark on the phrase “Songs of Praise” in a musical context, and if I wanted to call my brick manufacturing company “Songs of Praise” I could (providing I wasn’t trying to pass it off as having any link to the BBC programme). But this is a band called Songs of Praise. You can hardly argue it’s not a musical context. And as I said already, you have to agressively protect trademarks or you will lose them. Portakabin for example issue YouTube takedown requests and shirty letters for anything that refers for a non-Portakabin manufactured chemical toilet as a “portaloo”. And it has to, because if it knows about them and doesn’t persue them the term becomes generified and can’t be trademarked anymore.
    “This may be true Andy, but it’s a good reason to have a pop and the Beeb who are vehemently PRO-religion as a rule and not “on the fence” as they should be.”
    While I disagree with the BBC’s legal requirement to be politically biased in favour of religion as much as anyone, that really doesn’t justify an erronious article that suggests there is anything unusual about this or that they wouldn’t do the same to a religious group. Lots of religious groups get shirty letters from the BBC about trying to use the phrase “Songs of Praise” and have done for years.

  5. Ms W says:

    Isn’t it more about whether BJ’s Songs of Praise is trying to pass for BBC’s Songs of Praise, which it’s not as BJ’s work is secular…but let us see.

  6. Mark says:

    “But you can certainly trademark a word or phrase that exists already”

    You can – but only in a certain context that is different to what the word originally means. For example, Microsoft tried to claim that Lindows was an infringement of Windows, but this was rejected in court. Why? Not because Windows was a word meaning a glass window, but because “window” already had a meaning in the context of computing.

    So yes, you can trademark a word like “Apple” if you’re selling computers. It’s not clear you can trademark “Apple” if you’re selling apples. Here the phrase “songs of praise” is being used in the context that the phrase literally meant before the BBC started using it.

    Since the BBC is funded by the public, I wonder why they are bothered by trademark issues.

    Also there is the question why they don’t sue Billy Jenkins for his work directly, and instead resort to the easier tactic of getting it pulled off of YouTube?

    I wonder if Billy Jenkins has attempted to file a counterclaim? (This is possible for copyright takedown notices under the DMCA, I don’t know how trademark laws work.)

  7. Ms W says:

    “I wonder if Billy Jenkins has attempted to file a counterclaim?”

    it is being looked into

  8. Andy L says:

    “You can – but only in a certain context that is different to what the word originally means. For example, Microsoft tried to claim that Lindows was an infringement of Windows, but this was rejected in court. Why? Not because Windows was a word meaning a glass window, but because “window” already had a meaning in the context of computing.
    So yes, you can trademark a word like “Apple” if you’re selling computers. It’s not clear you can trademark “Apple” if you’re selling apples. Here the phrase “songs of praise” is being used in the context that the phrase literally meant before the BBC started using it.”
    To describe songs – not television content. And thus it’s different. The Lindows case wouldn’t have been thrown out in a UK court because it would be “passing off” under British law.
    “Since the BBC is funded by the public, I wonder why they are bothered by trademark issues.”
    BBC Worldwide isn’t funded by the public, and again – the BBC has to defend it’s trademarks, or it loses them, and thus loses the ability to do things like go after people clearly trying to cash in by plastering BBC brand names on unlicenced poor quality products and potentially bringing them in to disrepute.
    “Also there is the question why they don’t sue Billy Jenkins for his work directly, and instead resort to the easier tactic of getting it pulled off of YouTube?”
    Probably because suing people generates lots of bad publicity. And likely because in a corporation of 20,000 employees with near limitless piracy going on they simply don’t have time.
    “I wonder if Billy Jenkins has attempted to file a counterclaim? (This is possible for copyright takedown notices under the DMCA, I don’t know how trademark laws work.)”
    The DMCA doesn’t apply in the UK at all. Takedown notices as such don’t really exist in the UK, but the BBC is relatively nice in just not suing both YouTube and Billy at the start providing they comply.

    “it is being looked into”

    I would advise him not to waste his time and lawyers fees on a case he has 0% chance of winning.

  9. Hubert S says:

    Andy L, could this be seen as “passing off”? The BBC had no objections to the band before, it has been going a long time. For example (quickly googles…), see http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/jazzon3/pip/74lm7/ where the BBC have a link to the band’s website, subsequent to an interview with BBC on Radio 3. If the BBC don’t mind a band existing with that name why should they object to clips of them playing being shown on YouTube? Do you really think the case would have 0% chance of winning? If the BBC had a band called “song’s of Praise” and had trademarked it for that purpose they would have a case, but they don’t.

    Obviously trademarks are only valid for the trade to which they apply: a tv programme showing sunday services and a improvised jazz/blues band performing live are completely non-conflicting – there is no possiblility of confusing the two, hence the trademark issue is a total non-starter. And the prior use argument would be an important one too. YouTube only complied because the complainant is the BBC and Billy Jenkins is an individual without the financial clout to fight it. This is corporate bullying, obviously, plainly and simply. The stupidity of it is pretty hilarious…

  10. David Cunard says:

    Wasn’t there a hymnal, along the line of “Hymns Ancient and Modern”, called “Songs of Praise”? That’s how came across this site, looking for information. A trademark must have some unique feature, and the wording itself, songs of praise, could not be a trademark unless it was in a specific form. I doubt very much whether the claim to trademark infringement would hold up in the United States.

  11. David Cunard says:

    Further to my earlier post, apparently the hymnal “Songs of Praise” was first published in 1925; see:

    http://www.katapi.org.uk/SingingChurch/Ch34.htm

    A Google search reveals many albums and publications using the phrase and there is an American website songsofpraise.org which obviously has no relationship to either the published hymnal or the BBC. YouTube also has a number of entries with the same title, so it would appear that the Beeb was/is just being mean spirited!

  12. Case closed!

    The BBC have apologised and have sent me the following lovely letter. I have replied, asking him to ‘unflag it’ – the cheeky monkeys!:

    Dear Mr Jenkins,

    Further to our conversation a moment ago, I can confirm that the BBC takes no issue with your use of the name “Songs of Praise” for your band.

    As I explained, the BBC actively seeks to protect the copyright in its programmes and routinely flags copyright infringing content on Youtube and other such sites for takedown by the website administrators.

    It recently came to the BBC’s attention that a great deal of footage from the BBC’s “Songs of Praise” programme is being made available on Youtube in breach of copyright. It appears that, in dealing with the high volume of BBC “Songs of Praise” content on Youtube, your legitimate content may have been accidentally flagged for removal. I can assure you that the BBC makes every effort to ensure that only infringing content is flagged and there was no intention to remove your legitimate clips.

    With kind regards.

    Yours sincerely

    Robert Brosgill

    Solicitor, BBC Litigation & Intellectual Property Department

  13. Hubert Spall says:

    Glad to see that good sense prevailed! Now it only remains for Andy L to eat humble pie…