Jump to content

Cadets show to be edited


Geoff

Recommended Posts

...But how many people really believe these clips used by the Cadets this year were a critical success factor for their show? They were clearly used as embellishments only. They were completely optional. Does a single person here believe the show would have been severely damaged if they had substituted some clever clips produced by the corps? Would their score have been significantly less?

I think not. The Cadets just didn't care. That's the clear message here. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding this...

I think you're misunderstanding. The record last summer is clear. Cadets experimented with a variety of approaches, adding the clips (as well as other elements/changes) as the summer progressed in the belief that they were enhancing the program. Did they not pay due attention to the potential issues around licensing? Of course. Did Cadets "not care"? I don't think you can say that.

I think they cared a lot. They cared about creating a better program and a better experience. You can't say it was just for the judges because the judges saw the show over and again. The changes were intended to improve what everyone saw, what every felt about the show.

Fair use is a funny concept. You're not allowed to cross a line you can't see. I have no line of sight to what the Cadets were discussing about Charlie Brown clips and licensing. I can say I would be more than surprised if any court were to judge that Cadets infringed a copyright with one small clip in this one small context. That may well have been what Cadets were thinking in some small way as they focused on the big picture - the live performance and its integrity and quality for fans as well as judges.

DCI, on the other hand, probably had a different view. While they might actually agree with me that the risk of any court finding against them on the Charlie Brown issue is tiny, they probably have a different risk in mind. DCI isn't concerned just with Cadets and Charlie Brown. DCI's risk is all the shows and all the clips and all the potential investment it might lose (not to mention damages) if after the fact it's judged to have infringed a license. DCI's risk includes the possibility that while the Charlie Brown clip by itself might seem fair use, the combination of Charlie Brown and all the others might seem less fair. The aggregation of all corps, all the clips, all the arrangements makes it an issue of another magnitude.

None of this is to say the issue doesn't need to be addressed. It does. I don't think, however, the fair use fiasco includes Cadets or any other corps not caring.

HH

Edited by glory
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're misunderstanding. The record last summer is clear. Cadets experimented with a variety of approaches, adding the clips (as well as other elements/changes) as the summer progressed in the belief that they were enhancing the program. Did they not pay due attention to the potential issues around licensing? Of course. Did Cadets "not care"? I don't think you can say that.

I think they cared a lot. They cared about creating a better program and a better experience. You can't say it was just for the judges because the judges saw the show over and again. The changes were intended to improve what everyone saw, what every felt about the show.

Fair use is a funny concept. You're not allowed to cross a line you can't see. I have no line of sight to what the Cadets were discussing about Charlie Brown clips and licensing. I can say I would be more than surprised if any court were to judge that Cadets infringed a copyright with one small clip in this one small context. That may well have been what Cadets were thinking in some small way as they focused on the big picture - the live performance and its integrity and quality for fans as well as judges.

DCI, on the other hand, probably had a different view. While they might actually agree with me that the risk of any court finding against them on the Charlie Brown issue is tiny, they probably have a different risk in mind. DCI isn't concerned just with Cadets and Charlie Brown. DCI's risk is all the shows and all the clips and all the potential investment it might lose (not to mention damages) if after the fact it's judged to have infringed a license. DCI's risk includes the possibility that while the Charlie Brown clip by itself might seem fair use, the combination of Charlie Brown and all the others might seem less fair. The aggregation of all corps, all the clips, all the arrangements makes it an issue of another magnitude.

None of this is to say the issue doesn't need to be addressed. It does. I don't think, however, the fair use fiasco includes Cadets or any other corps not caring.

HH

This is probably the most well thought out/reasoned, logical response to the sync rights issues I've read yet. Thanks for your thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and another thing...

But how many people really believe these clips used by the Cadets this year were a critical success factor for their show? They were clearly used as embellishments only. They were completely optional. Does a single person here believe the show would have been severely damaged if they had substituted some clever clips produced by the corps? Would their score have been significantly less?

I thought it was one of the weakest uses of voice this year. Much like the Bluecoats, it’s seemed like tacked on faux-emotionalism which, implies they couldn’t achieve their desire mood and effect through the music and visual. It became a red flag for bad design. But what I liked even less about it was the Cadets trying to tell me the meaning of Christmas. It’s rather common and often the basis of Holiday stories but as you may have noticed on DCP when the show was announced, Christmas is deeply personal and means many things to people. It would have been better to leave it vague, open the viewer to decided and not cram it in a packaged box…which reminds me, after watching presents dance around and seeing giant presents on the field…I’m told that’s not what Christmas is really about? What? And another thing….their solution to imbalanced sound of the electronic vs. the corps was to add more samples??? overall, their samples felt like band-aids for poor design – it’s one of those shows that got worse the more they tried to fix it and then just limped into finals

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like the current practice of DCI is unprofessional and probably illegal. They apparently allow the various corps to perform all year without licenses in place. Presumably that's already illegal. (And don't tell me that's a different kind of license; if they could have gotten one they could have gotten the other.) Fixing the video won't fix that problem. The damage is done. And what about all the other shows they put up on fan network. Are they going to edit those as well? What a nightmare.

To add to MikeN's response: there are at least five different licenses, and they may very well be held by different people or companies. Madison Scouts were able to get permission to arrange and perform "Empire State of Mind", and DCI was able to get the ("mechanical" license) rights to include it on the CD, but apparently because of the pending insurance commercial that Michael Boo talked about a couple months ago, they were unable to get the rights to synchronize that audio-recording to a video. In the case of using a pre-existing audio clip, as the Cadets did in this case, a "master" license is required to incorporate it into a new recording. I don't know whether a separate license is required to use those samples in live performance or not. But as for the music corps play, you can't assume that just because they lack permission to include them on CD or DVD, that they lack permission to perform them live.

As for Fan Network clips, I suspect that in the short term they are treated as the equivalent of news reports, presumably subject to different standards of fair use. Long term, they would indeed be edited as per the mechanical / synchronization rights that DCI is able to retain. Look at FN video of any Crown or Cavaliers show last year and you will indeed find that some audio (passages incorporating vocals by Rihanna and David Bowie) has been edited out.

Finally, as regards this point:

1000 years from now marching arts fans will have a consistent set of historical drum corps goodness.

That would be great! But DCI absolutely should keep its focus on maintaining or increasing the activity, and let history take care of itself.

Edited by N.E. Brigand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was one of the weakest uses of voice this year. Much like the Bluecoats, it’s seemed like tacked on faux-emotionalism which, implies they couldn’t achieve their desire mood and effect through the music and visual. It became a red flag for bad design. But what I liked even less about it was the Cadets trying to tell me the meaning of Christmas. It’s rather common and often the basis of Holiday stories but as you may have noticed on DCP when the show was announced, Christmas is deeply personal and means many things to people. It would have been better to leave it vague, open the viewer to decided and not cram it in a packaged box…which reminds me, after watching presents dance around and seeing giant presents on the field…I’m told that’s not what Christmas is really about? What? And another thing….their solution to imbalanced sound of the electronic vs. the corps was to add more samples??? overall, their samples felt like band-aids for poor design – it’s one of those shows that got worse the more they tried to fix it and then just limped into finals

Wow, nothing goes over your head. Sarcasm off

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people find these clips annoying, some think they are ok, and some find they are a significant addition to a show. Most seem to say it depends on how it's used.

But how many people really believe these clips used by the Cadets this year were a critical success factor for their show? They were clearly used as embellishments only. They were completely optional. Does a single person here believe the show would have been severely damaged if they had substituted some clever clips produced by the corps? Would their score have been significantly less?

The problem here is not that the audio clips will be missing from the final product...I really don't give a hoot whether Linus, the Grinch, or whomever else they could not obtain rights for are included on the final product. The problem appears to be that not only the audio clip itself, but THE MUSIC being played during the offending

clip(s) will need to be removed also.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is not that the audio clips will be missing from the final product...I really don't give a hoot whether Linus, the Grinch, or whomever else they could not obtain rights for are included on the final product. The problem appears to be that not only the audio clip itself, but THE MUSIC being played during the offending

clip(s) will need to be removed also.

True...and a bit ironic...since the audio clips at issue obscure your listening to the music being played in the first place. Being able to listen to and watch this Christmas show without insipid audio clips about Christmas is, to me, a good thing. A free Christmas present, actually. I mean, Charlie Brown is a blockhead, but he did get a nice tree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like the current practice of DCI is unprofessional and probably illegal. They apparently allow the various corps to perform all year without licenses in place. Presumably that's already illegal. (And don't tell me that's a different kind of license; if they could have gotten one they could have gotten the other)

And your background to make the underlined statement is? From what I've read on DCP some rights holders don't have problems with groups performing the music. But when it comes to recording and selling (IOW making $$$) on the product, some of them say no, hell no, or it's gonna cost you so much it ain't worth it.

My understanding is DCI makes sure that corps have the right to perform the music before they go out on the field. That includes any non-DCI corps that performs at a DCI show. So the corps are not performing illegally, but that is a different issue from the recording/money making bit.

Edited by JimF-LowBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have sympathy for a teacher who violates copyright by showing a documentary to their class without obtaining an expensive public performance license.

Just for the record, educational purpose is generally considered a fair use if it is not signicantly for profit, so a license should not normally be required in the case you describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a case where the problem is limited to electronic samples, a solution might be for DCI to require any corps that has not been able to secure the rights to those samples perform ONE recorded Indy show (e.g., Prelims) without including them so there is an option to splice it in later in case the rights still cannot be obtained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...