So Lake Smits (Britney's dancer) posted this

[Witty]

[81.]

7 hours ago, Spearsfan said:

They could have edited the killing part out. 

It doesn't make sense...

Bizarre videos draw interest (WCS for example) so the sponsors should love it. 

However, it could have been the only reason. 

All of the hypotheses just were proved wrong. The killing part wasn't liked. RCA asks David to remove it. He doesn't accept the terms. David put his own terms. RCA refuses to accept them. And, the video is (tragically) scrapped. 

Consequences: the artistic contract with David is cancelled. He keeps the original video and the photoshoot of Glory. Randee is tragically hired. The rest of the story isn't worthy to remember. 

[Spearsfan]

3 minutes ago, lolo. said:

However, it could have been the only reason. 

All of the hypotheses just were proved wrong. The killing part wasn't liked. RCA asks David to remove it. He doesn't accept the terms. David put his own terms. RCA refuses to accept them. And, the video is (tragically) scrapped. 

Consequences: the artistic contract with David is cancelled. He keeps the original video and the photoshoot of Glory. Randee is tragically hired. The rest of the story isn't worthy to remember. 

If that were the case we would have heard about him being sued. 

 

[81.]

8 minutes ago, Spearsfan said:

If that were the case we would have heard about him being sued. 

 

If he has the authorship of the video and its copyright, he could also have the right (by contract) to refuse restrictions on his artistry imposed by the discography. He surely didn't get paid, and then all of this happened.

And considering that we are talking about David, not about a random artist. He is well-known for his "special" requests and behaviour.

[Spearsfan]

19 minutes ago, lolo. said:

If he has the authorship of the video and its copyright, he could also have the right (by contract) to refuse restrictions on his artistry by the discography. He surely didn't get paid. 

If the video was mostly paid by sponsors I don't see how he would have all those rights. Britney's team obviously owns it. 

They used parts of it. I don't see how any of that can be true.

i think the sponsors not liking it makes more sense but why wouldn't her team edit. We could debate for days And we probs will never truly know I guess

[Cindy Campbell]

[Puppy]

14 hours ago, baddicted said:

Honnestly (this is my own opinion) I think it's really because of the sponsors. They put a lot of money in this video. 

Thats exactly what I'm thinking, its always the sponsors that are very picky since its basically their advertisement.