Be Careful

[Medeabrass]

This was answered a few posts back. It's not about where the CORPS performs -- the lot, the field, rehearsal, wherever -- it's about the SOURCE MATERIAL and whether someone paid THE ORIGINAL COMPOSER for the proper license to distribute in the chosen manner.

ah thanks...was too lazy to read 4 pages lol

[cybersnyder]

This was answered a few posts back. It's not about where the CORPS performs -- the lot, the field, rehearsal, wherever -- it's about the SOURCE MATERIAL and whether someone paid THE ORIGINAL COMPOSER for the proper license to distribute in the chosen manner.

It's not even the original composer. Vanilla Ice can't give you permission to do "Ice Ice Baby" on the field. (Now that would be a show!) You need to obtain the licenses through something like ASCAP or BMI. Let's say the fee for a particular song is $500. I tried to calculate a fee on the ASCAP site but it was not straightforward. I wonder how much of that would go back to the original composer and how much to ASCAP. I don't know for sure, but I have my guesses.

But is a recording of a portion of a parking lot warm up fair use or copyright infringement? Did the owners of the parking lot pay ASCAP a performance license for the copyrighted material to be performed there?

[octavia9299]

It's not even the original composer. Vanilla Ice can't give you permission to do "Ice Ice Baby" on the field. (Now that would be a show!) You need to obtain the licenses through something like ASCAP or BMI. Let's say the fee for a particular song is $500. I tried to calculate a fee on the ASCAP site but it was not straightforward. I wonder how much of that would go back to the original composer and how much to ASCAP. I don't know for sure, but I have my guesses.

But is a recording of a portion of a parking lot warm up fair use or copyright infringement? Did the owners of the parking lot pay ASCAP a performance license for the copyrighted material to be performed there?

Yeah I shorthanded it. But I don't think it's about the parking lot owner. I think it's about the person distributing the content they videotaped.

[xtripleplayer77]

I have a question for anyone who might have some sort of answer. Basically, I uploaded some rehearsal videos recently of a corps that was rehearsing in my hometown and the corps found them and had the tube-masters delete them. Well, apparently in the past, I have had other dci videos that I posted on "tubeville" be removed from my account (and the tube) due to claimed "copyright infringement" and so the tubesters told me that since this was my third offense, that by law they had to shut my account down. However, when I sought further information from them I did get a response and what I gathered from their response was, if I could prove that one of these three violations wasn't an infringement then I could have my account re-opened. So, sorry for all of that background info; here's my question;

Can a corps claim a copyright infringement on a video posted of them rehearsing at a public school? I think this is contestable because it is on public property owned by the state. They had no signs or warnings posted telling people not to take video and multiple staff members saw me with a video camera and said nothing. Also do note that I fully understand why it is considered infringement to take video of a DCI performance, but I'm not convinced they can actually claim infringement on just a rehearsal video.

NOW: I am only contesting this so that I can get my account back. If I do manage to get my account back and I actually win this claim, I still won't re-upload these videos of this corps rehearsing simply out of respect for their wishes. If they don't want videos on the "tube for you" than I won't put them on there. I just want my account back!

Does anyone have any further insight on this? I would love any support/further knowledge to help my case and to maybe get my account back.

Thanks!

contact youtube...they took the sound off my daughters competitive skating video, citing copyright. I contacted them, gave them my permissions and they put the sound back without any problem. I think that if you offer to take off the claimed copyrighted material and to not load anymore, they might give you back your account. .....maybe

[xtripleplayer77]

Under the DMCA you're supposed to be able to file a counter claim. Good luck on that. ;-)

you CAN respond to youtube. I did, and like I said before, they reversed their decision and the sound was back. On another note, I do have a couple of DCI videos up there, but they were ok'd by the director of the corps.

[08ThunderBass5]

I appreciate all of the feedback and comments. Unfortunately I was afraid that the issue of the "What was recorded, not Where" would come up. I will still try to file a counternotice with "the tube" but honestly I think its looking dim. I am also trying to contact them and have only gotten one email response so far which I feel lucky to have gotten. So far most emails and phone calls have been a bust. :( Like I said before, They can HAVE the videos that were illegal! I won't ever put them anywhere on any internet site again! (pinky swear or whatever!) I just want my account back with all 70 of my other LEGAL videos and all my friends/subscribers/favorites. :( Thanks again to everyone for the help

[Tez]

It's not even the original composer. Vanilla Ice can't give you permission to do "Ice Ice Baby" on the field. (Now that would be a show!) You need to obtain the licenses through something like ASCAP or BMI. Let's say the fee for a particular song is $500. I tried to calculate a fee on the ASCAP site but it was not straightforward. I wonder how much of that would go back to the original composer and how much to ASCAP. I don't know for sure, but I have my guesses.

But is a recording of a portion of a parking lot warm up fair use or copyright infringement? Did the owners of the parking lot pay ASCAP a performance license for the copyrighted material to be performed there?

ASCAP keeps roughly 14% of what they take in for licensing fees.... the publisher of the music gets 43%, and the composer gets 43%.... it is possible to be both the composer, and the publisher.

I think BMI's rates are about the same... but their catalog is not as large, so they generally can't demand as much in licensing fees.

[TerriTroop]

...and maybe we should also say if we're attorneys or not while we're giving people advice. Just because someone say the word "copyright" doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. I'll ask my S.O. but it may take a while to get an answer.

yep, not an attorney. And I do think it's time high schools develop a comprehensive curriculum addressing basic copyright and media ethics issues so the kids who are armed to the teeth with digital gadgets don't find themselves on the wrong side of the law because they think that whatever they tape is theirs to do with as they please.

[Peel Paint]

In my experience, most attorneys don't know copyright law and licensing issues very well, either. It's a very specialized field of practice that many haven't studied recently. Some try to bluff their way through it but are operating under erroneous assumptions-- I've experienced that first-hand.

[whitedawn]

the point: somebody owns the licensing rights to every piece of music that is performed. more often than not, they want to be compensated for use of their music.

it makes good sense. the synchronization rights are licensed to someone, and that someone is most certainly NOT youtube, which is not in the business of paying for content.