Show Choir wins a round over Tresona - How could this impact DCI?

[combia1]

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7633260/real-glee-show-choir-director-beats-song-stealing-suit

Thoughts?

Edited December 25, 2016 by combia1

[Kamarag]

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7633260/real-glee-show-choir-director-beats-song-stealing-suit

Thoughts?

Well, it's mostly an issue of technicality. They won the suit, sort of. This one will be interesting to follow on appeal.

[Jeff Ream]

yeah i'd wait til the appeal process is over before you'd expect an lingering effects.

plus I heard DCi cut a big check to Tresona which should solve some issues

[Eleran]

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7633260/real-glee-show-choir-director-beats-song-stealing-suit

Thoughts?

1. The issue of qualified immunity for public employees is not applicable to DCI, since drum corps are private charitable entities. Corps employees are not school teachers performing their school duties. While this may, however, provide some protections in the short term for high school band directors, all it is saying is that until more light is shed on the current grey area of what is actually required with regard to licensing rights, we won't hold our public employees liable (in legalese: Tresona must establish that the director was violating "a clearly established right" that "a reasonable person would have known"). Ironically, the more legal actions brought by Tresona, the more modern judicial precedents will be established that will clarify those rights (and it will be harder and harder for band directors to continue to claim they were not violating clearly established rights once all the band circuits are making it clear to them that they are required to obtain licensing rights). Furthermore, only the band director gets that benefit - Tresona's case remains in place against the booster organization and the individual officers thereof.
2. The issue of the defendant having actually received licensing has little bearing, since it is fact-specific to the case: the copyrights were co-owned by others as well as Tresona, and the co-owner granted retroactive licensing rights. This actually serves to both (a) reinforce the clarity that licenses are indeed required, but also (b) muddies the waters over whether Tresona is the appropriate entity for granting and enforcing them (see #4 below).
3. The statute of limitations issue has no bearing on the issue if licensing rights. It just means that Tresona should have sued earlier.
4. The one issue that will be interesting to follow is whether the attack on Tresona's standing to sue holds up on appeal. In essence, this holding requires that whenever the copyrights to a piece of music are owned by more than one person (as is often the case in popular songs with words), all owners must have assigned their rights to Tresona before Tresona has the power to bring legal actions of copyright violation. Since that didn't happen in this case for the songs in questions, Tresona lost. That legal point will be interesting to follow, although from a practical point of view Tresona may continue to make the claims that people must pay Tresona licensing fees, and it will take certain bravery (and due diligence as to whom actually owns the copyrights and whether they've been assigned to Tresona) on the part of a director to thumb their nose at Tresona. And of course, regarding works that Tresona truly does have 100% control, Tresona may choose to withhold licensing altogether until the directors cave on those songs which are only co-owned.

Edited December 26, 2016 by Eleran

[JAZZER]

My thoughts:

I have witnessed continuing rights infringement by instructors from the show choir activity and was baffled as to how public school administrations knowing those acts turned a blind eye.

Violations will continue until claims are solicited.

[tesmusic]

My thoughts:

I have witnessed continuing rights infringement by instructors from the show choir activity and was baffled as to how public school administrations knowing those acts turned a blind eye.

Violations will continue until claims are solicited.

Same can be said for marching bands at all levels, as well as in parts of DCI as well.

[Peel Paint]

This case will not have any bearing on DCI for the reasons Eleran identified... plus one other. The key in the linked story was this quote from the Tresona president: "All these copyright violators could have easily paid for the music they’re using -- for less than their costume budget each year! But they would rather pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawyers than be honest and pay to license music."

I personally don't think it's fair that a corporation can exert its will by threatening litigation a defendant cannot afford, but that's the legal reality. DCI and drum corps cannot afford to take on Tresona or, as Eleran said, risk losing access to licensing rights. This summary judgment doesn't change those rights, and that's a legal fight for a different defendant than DCI. As long as drum corps can continue to operate by meeting Tresona's terms, they will.

Edited December 26, 2016 by Peel Paint

[tesmusic]

This case will not have any bearing on DCI for the reasons Eleran identified... plus one other. The key in the linked story was this quote from the Tresona president: "All these copyright violators could have easily paid for the music theyre using -- for less than their costume budget each year! But they would rather pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawyers than be honest and pay to license music."

I personally don't think it's fair that a corporation can exert its will by threatening litigation a defendant cannot afford, but that's the legal reality. DCI and drum corps cannot afford to take on Tresona or, as Eleran said, risk losing access to licensing rights. This summary judgment doesn't change those rights, and that's a legal fight for a different defendant than DCI. As long as drum corps can continue to operate by meeting Tresona's terms, they will.

These are just excuses.

If groups can't pay for certain pieces, don't play them. There's a lot of music out there.

I have no sympathy for groups that don't cover their bases. It's not hard to take care of.

As for the comment about the costume budget, I whole-heartedly agree with the Tresona president.

[pbailey]

i can see how drum corps needs to pay rights fees to perform music because they are a private activity, but when i found out that show choirs, cheerleaders, and dance teams etc... have been paying little or no money confirmed my feeling that band directors are still mostly sheep that will agree to most anything that flashes a badge of authority even if it isn't backed by common sense or judicial precedent.

overall i'm really sick of this crap of having to consider how much the performing rights are to create a marching band show each year and at the end of the day it really expands the widening gap between the "haves and have nots" especially when that performing rights money could go to directly help the students. this music is being performed by a public educational institution and should have always been fair use.

btw... this is the same BS that the NFL tried to enforce back in the 90's not allowing pee wee and high school football teams to use their logos without paying huge licensing fees. the schools fought back and eventually won. these days they can use them for free

[Eleran]

this music is being performed by a public educational institution and should have always been fair use.

I don't like much about the current swamp of licensing rights, nor the extraordinary length of copyrights, but the above statement I cannot agree with. John Mackey, for instance, composes music primarily for wind ensembles. Take away all the "public educational institutions" (i.e. elementary schools through college), and just how many wind ensembles remain across the country to actually pay Mackay any money for the work he put into those compositions? If schools don't have to pay, then he stops composing for schools, and schools no longer have music to play. Bad for all.