perc2100 Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Of course, the creators aren't being compensated in this case, because DCI simply cut the music from the video. True, but their work is also not being used without compensation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 What I do not think that most people realize is that even the "arrangement" of a Copyrighted piece of music is still owned by the original Copyright Holder. Look at the score or parts of any custom arranged music (if it has been produced legally) and at the bottom of the score and parts in all the legal terminology it will state that the arrangement is owned by the original publisher not the corps, band, or person doing the arranging. Here is an example of something that is tangible property: A Rent House. A person can purchase their own items to put in the house like furniture (or in the case of a drum corps instruments); but they have to ask permission from the owner to alter the structure of house and either be allowed or denied to do so. Even if they are allowed to make alterations (ie: arrange Copyright Owned music in the case of a drum corps), the house (ie: the music) is still the property of the actual owner. Of course all analogies break down when scrutinized with a fine tooth comb, but I hope the message of this example is understandable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ducttapedgerbil Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Morons, what they should have done is included the audio and cut the video..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 ....or let the video lag the audio by a quarter-second. Don't need synchronization rights if it isn't synchronized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 ....or let the video lag the audio by a quarter-second. Don't need synchronization rights if it isn't synchronized. As it applies to the high box DVD version, an audio lag time from the drill moves would actually mimic the real life experience of sitting in the nose bleed seats at LOS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 Morons, what they should have done is included the audio and cut the video..... That's the first time I've ever heard someone refer to Tom Blair as a moron. Me, on the other hand...I've heard that term applied often. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Of course, the creators aren't being compensated in this case, because DCI simply cut the music from the video. True, but their work is also not being used without compensation Well, since their work is being used, and they are being compensated for the CDs, what's probably happened is that the synchronization rights are in the hands of some middleman who wants a bigger cut than other licensors get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) ... what's probably happened is that the synchronization rights are in the hands of some middleman who wants a bigger cut than other licensors get. If a song is used in a Movie, TV Show, Commercial, or Musical Production the Synchronization Rights are many times held by the Production Company that produced the video or stage chirography. And because of the particular relationship of the music to that specific visual aspect, many times those holding the Synchronization Rights, even if all rights are owned by a single entity, will not give their permission to video record a different visual to the audio. There are no underlying conspiracies involved. Edited November 10, 2010 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 what's probably happened is that the synchronization rights are in the hands of some middleman who wants a bigger cut than other licensors get. If a song is used in a movie, TV show, commercial, or musical production, the synchronization rights are many times held by the production company that produced the video or stage choreography. And because of the particular relationship of the music to that specific visual aspect, many times those holding the synchronization rights, even if all rights are owned by a single entity, will not give their permission to video record a different visual to the audio. There are no underlying conspiracies involved. We seem to be saying approximately the same thing: someone else, not the artist, holds the synchronization rights, and either (1) wants more money than is being earned by the other synchronization rights holders approached by DCI (possibly some or all of those other rights holders got "favored nations" deals -- i.e., no one will receive more favorable terms than us -- which would mean that if this rights holder got more, they all would); or (2) refuses outright to license it to DCI. The latter is unlikely in the case of "Wanted: Dead or Alive", which Wikipedia helpfully informs us has been used in about a dozen films and television programs. (Has anyone actually watched the Troopers video yet, to confirm that this is the song in question?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) We seem to be saying approximately the same thing: someone else, not the artist, holds the synchronization rights, and either (1) wants more money than is being earned by the other synchronization rights holders approached by DCI (possibly some or all of those other rights holders got "favored nations" deals -- i.e., no one will receive more favorable terms than us -- which would mean that if this rights holder got more, they all would); or (2) refuses outright to license it to DCI. Are we really saying the same thing? Because I have absolutely no problems, without reservation, with either one of those scenarios because the "owner" of the item for consumption makes the decision on who gets to use it, who does not, and how much to charge. We are not talking about public accommodation here like a restaurant owner with patrons, but about the rights a private chef to allow or refuse his/her recipes to be used by a particular restaurant. (The scenarios: 1 Someone wants more money than is being earned by the other synchronization rights holders approached by DCI; or 2 Someone refuses outright to license it to DCI.) Edited November 10, 2010 by Stu 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.