Copyright Issues

[Kamarag]

I asked this in a forum specific to the CD's, but will ask it here as well.

I understand the multiple levels of rights needed, and I understand that the greater cost to the end user is the acquisition of the sync/mechanical/streaming rights, and I also agree that an artist/composer has every right to not have his product re-arranged or used in any manner of which he does not approve (and profit from if he so chooses).

However, as in the specific case of Tim Burton and his Corpse's Bride property, what is the benefit of allowing the Academy the mechanical rights to produce, re-produce and sell the audio recording of their use of his work, but declining the sync rights that would allow the video of the exact same performance? If you didn't like what was done to your "art", why grant the mechanical rights? If you did, why not grant the sync rights? What is truly the difference in how your work was presented and preserved for the future?

You're assuming Tim holds the arranging, performance, synch, mechanical, and streaming rights. He may hold only some of those, while a publisher holds the rest (I honestly don't know). Also, there's a *huge* difference between allowing someone to modify and perform that modified version of your work, and allowing them to record and sell it.

[wonker]

You're assuming Tim holds the arranging, performance, synch, mechanical, and streaming rights. He may hold only some of those, while a publisher holds the rest (I honestly don't know). Also, there's a *huge* difference between allowing someone to modify and perform that modified version of your work, and allowing them to record and sell it.

All good points, and I agree with your "huge" difference statement, but the huge step up to allow the audio recording and selling of the product had already been taken.....once someone takes the step from modify and perform to allow the audio recording and selling as occurred here, I am wondering why someone would then stop and not allow the video sync to occur (which is what seems to have happened here). That is what led to the cut on the video products only. The point of who actually holds which rights is probably the most logical explanation.

Now, depending on profit and payouts, I see where the "next" step to allow streaming would be a separate huge step and may not be worth it to some.

[Kamarag]

All good points, and I agree with your "huge" difference statement, but the huge step up to allow the audio recording and selling of the product had already been taken.....once someone takes the step from modify and perform to allow the audio recording and selling as occurred here, I am wondering why someone would then stop and not allow the video sync to occur (which is what seems to have happened here). That is what led to the cut on the video products only. The point of who actually holds which rights is probably the most logical explanation.

Now, depending on profit and payouts, I see where the "next" step to allow streaming would be a separate huge step and may not be worth it to some.

Streaming rights are typically easier and cheaper to get than physical media mechanical rights.

[Jeff Ream]

DCI most likely doesn't sell enough for the rights holder to make anything in it. Hence why no permissions