Jump to content

Cadets show to be edited


Geoff

Recommended Posts

YouTube has basically flagged one of my videos. It is a video of me singing a popular show tune.

It says that they are aware of the video and if the Copyright holder asks for me to take it down it must come down immediately. Also YouTube can place ads in my video if the copyright holder requests it.

There is no way I can "monetize" the video for myself.

The video only has 250 views and it has been up for over a year. So it probably isn't an issue with them. But they are aware of the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's much of the problem. Fair Use was relatively easy to interpret in old media. It's gotten too confusing in new media. Using an entire song or an entire TV show is not fair use; we can agree on that. On the other hand, the law has upheld excerpting parts "fairly." News programs do it all the time and on the fly. Part of "fair" in that case is broader public interest. The irony here is news programs are (or try to be) profit-making ventures. Many are more entertainment than news. The fair use case for the Today Show seems less compelling, but there it is.

And look up "Charlie Brown Christmas" on YouTube. See for yourself how little Cadets "infringed." Cadets took a few seconds of 1,500 or so total. And at that, they took only the audio. You can watch extended minutes of the audio and video on demand. How's that fair?

My point is some act as if the Cadets committed some felony, as if they made victims of both the Charlie Brown franchise and drum corps fans. They did no such thing. The only thing the Cadets did wrong was push the envelope a little, which they should.

HH

Forgive me, as I haven't read every response, but it seems to me that DCI is being overly cautious and I agree with your points above. The "fair use" issue, as I've researched it is pretty nebulous and varies from country to country. I doubt that the international angle was something though about when editing this show, but Fair Use is such a grey area and it's just another example of how crazy IP law is today. In one country, something may not be a problem, but in another, it could be.

Even though I HATE the majority of the samples and clips that these corps are using, I do not see that the Cadets did anything wrong with their show and it seems like "fair use" or "Fair Dealing" ( for our Canadian and other Non US friends) should protect them pretty well from being accused of "infringing".

Of course the best course of action to avoid problems is not using these clips, or cutting them out on the final media ( which is the route DCI is choosing).

Edited by jjeffeory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... And in the case of youtube, it's unlikely there would be any penalty worse than having to take it down if a complaint was lodged, so why not do it? ...

I'm not so sure. Remember during the Napster era (seems like a long time ago!) when the record companies sued several individuals for damages for redistributing the record companies' copyrighted content. This is different, of course. Cadets used only a few seconds of actual content. And even Scouts used their own "cover" and not the orignal content.

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure. Remember during the Napster era (seems like a long time ago!) when the record companies sued several individuals for damages for redistributing the record companies' copyrighted content. This is different, of course. Cadets used only a few seconds of actual content. And even Scouts used their own "cover" and not the orignal content.

HH

Exactly. And, of course, with Napster each recipient kept the content, and could then watch it as many times as they want. So it's like every user stealing their own copy. Youtube and fan network are only allowing views, so it's like seeing it in a theater. But again, as kickhaltsforlife suggested a couple posts ago, they seem to allow the posting along with a warning and possible their own ads. I'm just saying it's a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of the way copyright laws have been changed, starting during the 70s, there is almost nothing going to the public domain any longer. Just when a lot of things from the 20th century would hit public domain, Congress extends them again. Anything to keep Mickey Mouse from entering public domain. The idea of copyright law was not the destruction of public domain.

This is the exact reference from the US Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

70 years after death of the author doesn't sound very limited, nor the alternative 120 years length for corporations. Sure, it isn't granted forever, but given the trend of regular extensions it might as well be forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, my point was that it sounds like free distribution may be a big factor in the way DCI and/or the rights holders are viewing it, which is what matters in the current case. And in the case of youtube, it's unlikely there would be any penalty worse than having to take it down if a complaint was lodged, so why not do it?

If I had to guess, I would bet that DCI is being overly cautious in hopes that they will continue to have a good working relationship with music publishers & composers. If DCI is a bit loose and free and passively disregards any sort of copyright law (i.e. sync rights of Peanuts quote), then down the road they might upset the wrong publisher who refuses to grant DCI rights to arrange & perform their music without a huge fee.

Ours is an activity where we rely on many other people for content: very few shows are original compositions, and the average show is made up of half a dozen different artists & rights holders. If DCI were to upset publishing companies they risk not having content available in the future. DCI is probably hedging their bets, playing it uber safe as far as sync rights, and going out of their way to not upset publishers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the point. DCI is following a standard that YouTube (and its posters) aren't. YouTube is rife with content that violates copyright - but only if the holder enforces it. Some do. Some don't. (DCI has.)

What DCI seeks for its video is a sync license that gives it the right to sync to the video the audio of the copyright holder. I don't know for sure, but I would surmise that a different license might be required for YouTube if only because the issue is the video entire and not just the act of syncing audio (already permissioned) with video (for which only the audio sync rights are at issue).

HH

Youtube can afford some lawsuits. DCi can't

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, I would bet that DCI is being overly cautious in hopes that they will continue to have a good working relationship with music publishers & composers.

...

I thought this too, but I didn't want to seem to be having a conversation with myself. Why stop now? Good point. smile.gif

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...