Intellectual Property: how going viral changes legal to illegal with parade parody

There is a basic rule in relation to the public performance of artistic works, particularly music. No royalties are payable when the performance is live; royalties are payable if the performance is from a recording in which ownership resides with a third party.

But the "live" exemption is lost if the performance is recorded and that recording is broadcast.

Enter someone with a camera phone and a YouTube account - and a world of pain for the Singapore government backed Parade organisers.

Spoofing pop songs is a long tradition: indeed, it might be argued that at least some of Gilbert and Sullivan was a spoof, often on their own earlier work.

Putting amusing (or sometimes not amusing) words to a well known tune is nothing new: that is, after all, what Australia did when it adopted its National Anthem.

But Australia chose a piece of music that was out of copyright and therefore repetition and broadcast did not cause the government any embarrassment.

In Singapore, the government (in the shape of the event organisers) may well have recorded the rehearsals but they did not broadcast them: that was done by an individual in the crowd with a mobile phone.

Those who have seen the video, in which performers sing a ditty of seriously dubious lyrical merit about the contents of the Parade's "fun pack" say that it isn't much cop. But Lady Gaga told a Singapore newspaper that she thought that it was "wonderful" that the organisers had chosen her song and that the lyrics were "great."

But while from afar it might seem quite fun, there is a very serious issue. YouTube is awash with copies of artists playing covers of popular music. Think of a song, search for it and the chances are that more than 99% of the entries are either covers or slideshows or videos using the original track as background music. YouTube does not immediately close those down. And the record companies, often, do not demand that they do.

So why was the Singapore video so different?

Actually, in the case of the Bad Romance song, it isn't. Several paradies of the song have already been banned by YouTube and others. That hasn't prevented them appearing on other sites providing similar services.

There is no doubt: the broadcast of the performance is illegal under the copyright laws of many countries including Singapore and the USA (in the latter case ironically as its laws are so free and easy in relation to written copyrights).

But to argue that the organisers of the event are liable for the publication of a bootleg recording is, simply, ridiculous.

Yet that is increasingly the danger that performers face if their legitimate events go viral when someone with a mobile phone records their performance and puts it into a social networking site.

However, the argument appears to be based on much more dubious legal grounds: that the organisers modified the lyrics without permission. If it were for broadcast, then that argument would be right but the song was never intended to be part of the official parade, it was just for use in rehearsals and would, therefore, not be covered by the official media.

Interestingly, the broad view of Singaporeans in social media has been that the fun pack is a waste of money, that publicising it is a waste of effort and, again, money. So what's in it? A bottle of water and a couple of biscuits to sustain watchers as the parade goes by. While some might consider that frivolous, if it prevents fainting or other health issues in Singapore's considerable heat and humidity, it seems like a good idea. A little flag? It is a national parade - how else do people get them? And wet wipes? Again, on a hot, sticky day, what could be more sensible?