Just Another Sop Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Whatever Generates Income!!! We have another version we have been saying since the early 90's Whatever Gets Income Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mplu55 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 We have another version we have been saying since the early 90'sWhatever Gets Income It's sad but true!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 (edited) If WGI is trying to protect itself, why only act on the 2008 videos? Nevermind the past years of regional recordings; there are video's straight from past year DVD's which actually do constitute a copyright violation still available onlline . I'm a little familiar with the copyright issues as they pertain to marching arts. Posting a streaming video (aka NOT for download or redistribution) which we recorded on our own equipment of our own performance does not present a legal risk to WGI. And flagging it as a copyright violation without a request to remove it is not only BAD PR it's also BAD policy; now a clean youtube ID clearly associated with a unit has a copyright violation listed against it . REPLAY (and it's associated income stream) is the only apparent reason to go after 2008 recordings. I'm not absolutely certain this is correct. Unless you have a guard performing entirely to its own original music, then doesn't the copyright issue extend to public performance of copyrighted material? As in, the music being performed by one's guard? At that point, that's where WGI is getting hit by paying copyright fees each year, I assume to get permissions enabling guards to perform to copyrighted music. (I'm pretty sure I've read about DCI having to undergo a similar process.) Copyright basically covers the capturing in some fixed form of an original thought, idea or creative expression. (Copyright doesn't cover the idea, itself. It has to be set in some fixed form for copyright protection to go into effect.) So the copyright issue is not whether it's your own videotape made on your own equipment, but the fact that the guard is performing to copyrighted material created and owned by someone else. And it's up to whomever that someone else is to allow (or not) public distribution of his/her/their copyrighted work. I'm guessing that if you removed the audio track from the video and posted the video showing only the guard doing its work, with no sound, then that would not constitute a copyright violation. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but given my understanding of copyright, public performance and royalties, that's my take on WGI's position. Like it or not, legally they are in the right and have to take steps to protect themselves against litigation. It's easy to complain about everything being about money, but I suspect that if people realized how much money WGI has to pay to jump through these legal hoops -- and how much money would be involved should litigation ever mandate an award payout -- we wouldn't be complaining so much. Edited March 8, 2008 by byline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugg Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 thanks sue,i'm not clear on copyright law but i find it fascinating. shouldn't the show's designer have any rights to their intellectual property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 (edited) thanks sue,i'm not clear on copyright law but i find it fascinating.shouldn't the show's designer have any rights to their intellectual property? Well, this is where things get interesting. I'd be interested in knowing how choreographers handle this. Again, copyright applies to an original idea set in some fixed form. So if a piece of choreography has been notated on paper or in a computer, then that notation is copyrighted. Does it apply to choreography that was filmed, videotaped or captured in some sort of digital format? I would think so, but I'm not absolutely sure. Here's how the U.S. law addresses it: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:(1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. So yes, choreography -- and I would think, by extension, guard work -- are included. However, separate from that is the recorded music the guard performs to. The guard designer would not own the copyright to that, and I suspect that's where the rubber meets the road in terms of copyright protection. I'm a writer, so I make the rounds with copyright on a fairly regular basis. When I worked full-time for a daily newspaper, everything I wrote was owned by that paper (or, more accurately, the corporation that owned the paper). Now, oddly enough, as a freelancer, I make less money but actually have more rights, according to my contract. The corporation that owns the paper I work for owns the rights to everything of mine that's published for 90 days, and then the rights revert back to me. I also edit a yearly publication for which we solicit submissions from the community and also other organizations. So I have to jump through a few hoops to get permission to run various things. Basically, you just always have to ask first; never assume that just because you think it's a great idea to run this borrowed story, the copyright-owner will agree. Edited March 8, 2008 by byline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) I'm not absolutely certain this is correct. ...., that's where WGI is getting hit by paying copyright fees each year, I assume to get permissions enabling guards to perform to copyrighted music............Like it or not, legally they are in the right and have to take steps to protect themselves against litigation. .....but I suspect that if people realized how much money WGI has to pay to jump through these legal hoops -- and how much money would be involved should litigation ever mandate an award payout -- we wouldn't be complaining so much. Nice speech but totally non-responsive to my post. Here it is again.... If WGI is trying to protect itself, why only act on the 2008 videos? Nevermind the past years of regional recordings; there are video's straight from past year DVD's which actually do constitute a copyright violation still available onlline. Point ignored entirely. If this were truly a liablilty issue, WGI would be violation flagging all those rips from DVD's sold by WGI (which violate the agreement on MECHANICALS which they made and for which they'd acutally would be in big trouble) as opposed to the live performance clearance (which are another matter entirely). I'm a little familiar with the copyright issues as they pertain to marching arts. Posting a streaming video (aka NOT for download or redistribution) which we recorded on our own equipment of our own performance does not present a legal risk to WGI. note: WGI already permits the recording of this video. It also permits units to display said video on their website (precisely what we did when we embedded the video on our site). Since WGI has gotten clearance on the units behalf (with funds garnered primarily through member units and their supporters -- let's not kid ourselves about where the cash to pay for all those copyright clearances comes from in the first place) and permit the videos on the unit websites, where's the liablility? And flagging it as a copyright violation without a request to remove it is not only BAD PR it's also BAD policy; now a clean youtube ID clearly associated with a unit has a copyright violation listed against it . REPLAY (and it's associated income stream) is the only apparent reason to go after 2008 recordings. silence on this point too.... Edited March 9, 2008 by corpsband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zackiedude Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 WGI (or someone) HAS flagged posts with their DVD content in it. I've seen them go down myself. I don't know about YouTube policy so I can't comment on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 (edited) Point ignored entirely. I wasn't "ignoring" that part of your post, but it's something that I can't address other than to say that I'm aware of instances in which both DCI and WGI have taken down videos that violate their copyright policy. Maybe they're not catching everything. It wouldn't surprise me, as that's a full-time job. I was just trying to explain why WGI might already be taking steps to do this this year. Nipping it in the bud, is my guess. Whether this practice is "bad PR" or "bad policy" is a matter of opinion. People might not like it, but WGI may not have any choice, given the legalities (and the possible financial consequences, should they fail to uphold their responsibilities). Edited March 10, 2008 by byline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 I wasn't "ignoring" that part of your post, but it's something that I can't address other than to say that I'm aware of instances in which both DCI and WGI have taken down videos that violate their copyright policy. Maybe they're not watching everything. It wouldn't surprise me, as that's a full-time job. Not a full time job and not very hard to locate non-2008 stuff. Not catching a thing is more like it. I wasn't making it up -- everything on our account is colorguard and the WGI stuff is clearly labeled. If someone worked hard enough to find our 2008 regional appearance, right there along side it in the "other videos from this user" area they would have seen regionals from other years. I was just trying to explain why WGI might already be taking steps to do this this year. Nipping it in the bud, is my guess. Whether this practice is "bad PR" or "bad policy" is a matter of opinion. People might not like it, but WGI may not have any choice, given the legalities (and the possible financial consequences, should they fail to uphold their responsibilities). Pretty clearly that's NOT the case. If WGI didnt have a choice and they were actually worried about consequenes, they'd spend a few days surfing youtube and get almost all of them (because most guard videos have the WGI tag in them). For us, it's all about HOW and WHAT. A simple request to remove the video would have been just as easy to make and much better way to treat their client/customer. And why just 2008 regional videos? It's seems to pretty clearly be a decision made to drive more income to REPLAY. If not why are so many OTHER WGI videos still ok on youtube? Because they can't find them? Ridiculous in the extreme. This was a very selective act clearly designed to drive members in current WGI units to spend money to buy a REPLAY pass to see their own show. This is clearly a target audience as WGI offers unit directors free REPLAY passes in exchange for member email lists. to WGI for thinking that forcing people to REPLAY is good marketing. The net effect for us was just to find other streaming sites on which to host videos. (I didn't realize there were so many!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastGuard Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 Not a full time job and not very hard to locate non-2008 stuff. Not catching a thing is more like it. I wasn't making it up -- everything on our account is colorguard and the WGI stuff is clearly labeled. If someone worked hard enough to find our 2008 regional appearance, right there along side it in the "other videos from this user" area they would have seen regionals from other years. Pretty clearly that's NOT the case. If WGI didnt have a choice and they were actually worried about consequenes, they'd spend a few days surfing youtube and get almost all of them (because most guard videos have the WGI tag in them). For us, it's all about HOW and WHAT. A simple request to remove the video would have been just as easy to make and much better way to treat their client/customer. And why just 2008 regional videos? It's seems to pretty clearly be a decision made to drive more income to REPLAY. If not why are so many OTHER WGI videos still ok on youtube? Because they can't find them? Ridiculous in the extreme. This was a very selective act clearly designed to drive members in current WGI units to spend money to buy a REPLAY pass to see their own show. This is clearly a target audience as WGI offers unit directors free REPLAY passes in exchange for member email lists. to WGI for thinking that forcing people to REPLAY is good marketing. The net effect for us was just to find other streaming sites on which to host videos. (I didn't realize there were so many!). FACT...not rumor: WGI will either break even or possibly lose money on REPLAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts