'RickRoll' Songwriter Only Made $16 from YouTube
Posted 04/13/09 at 03:00:00 PM by Paul Lilly
British songwriter and producer Pete Waterman, now 62-years-old, could never have predicted that the Rick Astley hit "Never Gonna Give You Up" would become a phenomenon some 20 years after he co-wrote it, so it must have come as some surprise to see the song get 150 million plays in 2008 alone. He also couldn't have predicted that so much 'air play' could earn him so little money, yet that's exactly what has happened.
"There was I sitting at Christmas thinking, 'I must have made a few bob this year with the old Rickrolling'," Waterman said at a press conference to mark the launch of a website campaigning for a fairer deal for songwriters whose music is featured on YouTube. "I rang my publisher and they said 'You'll be all right,' until I saw the royalty statement. £11. If 154 million plays means £11, I get more from Radio Stoke playing Never Gonna Give You Up than I do from YouTube."
In U.S. currency, Waterman's royalty payment converts to just $16, which hardly seems fair given how much exposure the song has received. The PRS for Music organization doesn't think it's fair either and wants Google and YouTube to pay higher royalties to songwriters for use of their work online.
"We absolutely believe that artists and songwriters should make money from the use of their material," a YouTube spokesperson said. "We previously had a license with teh PRS to enable this to happen and we are very committed to reaching terms so that we can renew our license."
Looks like Waterman got screwed, but we found a way he may be able to collect on those royalties after all. If you're reading this Waterman, click this link.
I don't understand how this
Submitted by ogremustcrush on Tue, 04/14/2009 - 2:08pm
I don't understand how this is Google's fault. I mean, he didn't ever make an agreement with Google directly himself, he has a publisher that is supposed to collect royalties for him, and he made agreements with them. If they made agreements with Google that don't pay much money, or more likely, they end up keeping most of the money instead of passing it along, I don't see how that is Google's responsibility. His contracts were probably written in such a way that internet revenue pays out a tiny tiny amount, and it isn't in the interests of the publisher to renegotiate.
lol
Submitted by nemaster203 on Mon, 04/13/2009 - 6:50pm
"We previously had a license with teh PRS to enable this to happen and
we are very committed to reaching terms so that we can renew our
license.""teh PRS"
Nice "typo" =)
Anyone else dissapointed
Submitted by armada439 on Mon, 04/13/2009 - 6:21pm
Anyone else dissapointed that the above link didnt take you to a Rickroll vid?? lol
Whiney little bitch, I don't
Submitted by Tekzel on Mon, 04/13/2009 - 5:31pm
Whiney little bitch, I don't get paid for work I did 20 years ago, so why the hell should he? This kinda crap pisses me off, this kind of attitude is why the content industry has pushed copyright to ridiculous extremes, and why these jerkoffs sit around like beggars with their hands held out instead of making innovative new stuff. And yes, you can tell the twit I said that if you see him.
Poor Pete
Submitted by arkweld on Mon, 04/13/2009 - 3:30pm
He doesn't need the money. He's made a fortune from writing mass produced pop songs and producing generic pop stars. They didn't call him "The Hitman" for nothing.
wow
Submitted by zapthepunctual on Mon, 04/13/2009 - 2:11pm
I understand that it sucks as he was expecting to get more out of the coverage, but wow, having read the article where he compares himself to a migrant worker in Dubai is a bit much seeing as how he COwrote this 20 years ago. I mean, he might have worked at most a month on this with someone else and then sold it to a record company. Talk about resting on you laurels.
If he wants more money,
Submitted by compro01 on Mon, 04/13/2009 - 1:25pm
If he wants more money, perhaps he should offer to have that song removed from the internet. I imagine people would be lining up with chequebooks in hand.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






