BRASSO Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) As I wrote else where, I hope the judges have not been strong armed with the threat of being black balled from other marching/color guard/band/marcing arts events the G7 have influence over or control the hiring of judges for. This should be of concern to every fan everywhere that desires full transparancy in the process of judged competition. Judges don't even need to be "black balled" or" strong armed". Just the knowledge the CURRENT judges have, that there has been a proposal afloat that a few influential Corps in DCI are looking to hand pick judges for some top shows next year, really sticks in my craw. What judge wants to low ball a score in Indy for a Corps that next year could send that judge to the " not wanted " list and as such sent to the " B" small town location to judge, where his or her colleague gets to go to the " A "venue where all the hoi poloi college band directors, and other VIP 's will be at ? This ALREADY has a foul odor. The G-7 Corps are already getting an edge for Saturday nite Finals, imo. And if the Final 7 will be what I think it will be, it just stinks to high heaven, imo. Edited August 11, 2010 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) Untrue. When the 27th Lancers Reunion Corps organized themselves in 1993 on the invitation to perform in exhibition at DCI Finals in 1994 , the Corps Director George Bonfiglio, made it known that this would be their final performance as the " 27th Lancers ". After that performance, some members however wanted to continue on doing parades and exhibitions as the" 27th Lancers ". They did so, but in short order, a court order was attained that disallowed the Corps from using the name " 27th Lancers "( and for a few more years that Corps did parades and exhibitions and used the name " The Light Brigade " ) That's trademark or corporate name, not copyright. George B, if he kept the corporation alive, would have had control over the name, but that's not "copyright." The terms get confused among the public, but they don't mean the same things. Edited August 11, 2010 by mobrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 That's trademark or corporate name, not copyright. George B, if he kept the corporation alive, would have had control over the name, but that's not "copyright."The terms get confused among the public, but they don't mean the same things. semantics. You said above " the name " can not be protected, just " the works ". I said this was untrue, and gave an example where " the name " was protected against unauthorized ueage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) You can't copyright or trademark common words or phrases that are already in use. The term "drum corps" has been around since the 1920s at least. You can't "own" copyright on an individual organization's name (primarily because "copyright" protects actual bodies of work, not names).All but one of the seven were incorporated before the advent of DCI, and DCI would have a hard time trying to find a court that would try to keep a free-standing organizations from using their own legal name in the course of business. Those are my two statements that relate to names and copyright. I assumed that people would necessarily understand was that what I meant (in the second) is that you can't own rights to SOMEONE ELSE'S corporate name, but I thought that would be more or less understood as it related to GM's original statement. (it wouldn't be 'copyright' in any case). (And if you think it's semantics, you've never spent much time working with intellectual property lawyers ). Edited August 11, 2010 by mobrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) The G7 group is not a coordinated group with a consensus on all points of their proposals. Each of the G's has their own unique needs, unique agendas, unique thoughts and ideas on how to proceed.The current document we are looking at now was probably written by a different G (say G1) than the individual who wrote the original powerpoint (G2, perhaps). Just because G1 does not mention some of these items in their writings does not mean that G2 has changed his mind at all about what should be done on these subjects. If G2's vision of the future includes a solid commitment that his ideas are right and valid and the best way to proceed into the future, you can bet big money that we have not seen the last of those ideas. Is that cryptic enough for you? If you are right, and G1 and G2 are driving almost all of this ( I'm hearing they are), and these G1 and G2 are prepared to throw overboard 16 Corps in World Class, as well as all of Open Class, then if I'm Corps G3 to G7, I've GOT to know that G1 and G2 won't bat an eye if they've got to drop the other G3- G7's if things get rough financially in this scheme G1 and G2 cooked up. If that happens, 5 Corps could someday wonder why they allowed anyone like these 2 to take their G strings away. Edited August 11, 2010 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 By who though..GB/ Lancers? or DCI George Bonfiglio told those who wanted to continue with the name " 27th Lancers " they could not do so. He would not grant permission. It wound up in court, and the judge ruled in favor of George Bonfiglio. I was not privy on what evidence his lawyer introduced to persuade the judge that he ( or DCI ) owned the name, but I do know that he won his case and the marchers had to immediately drop the name " 27th Lancers " and select another name for their musical group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 By who though..GB/ Lancers? or DCI George Bonfiglio was the one who brought the court case and ultimately was awarded the rights to the 27th Lancers name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntheMood Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 If you are right, and G1 and G2 are driving almost all of this ( I'm hearing they are), and these G1 and G2 are prepared to throw overboard 16 Corps in World Class, as well as all of Open Class, then if I'm Corps G3 to G7, I've GOT to know that G1 and G2 won't bat an eye if they've got to drop the other G3- G7's if things get rough financially in this scheme G1 and G2 cooked up. If that happens, 5 Corps could someday wonder why they allowed anyone like these 2 to take their G strings away. I keep reading G6/G5/G51/2 now g2. So I ask. which Corps of the G7 have come out in a public way to distance themselves from this? It would be very interesting to hear from some of the Alumni from the G7 Corps on their feelings about what their Corps want to do. And if they go forward will they still support their Corps with time and money? Dean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 George Bonfiglio was the one who brought the court case and ultimately was awarded the rights to the 27th Lancers name. Now that makes sense. Thats the point I was trying to make earlier. DCI would , I believe ,have no right to anyones name ....it's theirs. DCI does not own any corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hill Posted August 11, 2010 Share Posted August 11, 2010 A tale of two drum corps (circuits) Once upon a time ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.