Pete Freedman Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I would think that for audio and video, whoever records the material takes copyright of it, and whoever sells the product secures the licensing for that product. Recordings of DCI events, therefore, would be DCI's property, while footage from other events or behind the scenes usually belongs to the corps. DCI then gives each corps permission to use DCI recordings of themselves, and in those cases, both DCI and the individual corps end up obtaining mechanical, synchronization or streaming licensing for the same material. Based on recent posts there seems to be no clear consensus on how DCI does this currently. However, your point that DCI's license wouldn't cover independent recordings of the corps is important. It's a great argument in favor of my model above (DCI offering all the rights acquisition as a service, and then mandating that, regardless of who does it, that it is done by finals) because DCI would just include all performances by the corps. Why have both the corps and DCI pay separately? Even in cases where you don't save any money (let's say they require an approximate total head count of the live audiences for all shows, for example) you still save half the legwork. JimF, you suggest it's unworkable for DCI to manage so many licenses. Maybe, but given the efficiencies of scale, the total work performed in getting licenses would be dramatically reduced. It would just all be done by one person at DCI who would follow a streamlined process and maintain a database of licenses with their current state. Getting an IT intern to create a database could also help. And of course DCI could charge for the service. It could grow over time from what they have now. Oh, and based on this website, there could be misdemeanors and/or felonies involved here, although this may not be enforced (scroll down to criminal liability). Again, though, I'm not an expert on any of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Isn't there an article the Boo posted a while back and it's on the DCI.org explaining the whole ESOM ordeal? I'm too lazy to search for it right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 JimF, you suggest it's unworkable for DCI to manage so many licenses. Maybe, but given the efficiencies of scale, the total work performed in getting licenses would be dramatically reduced. It would just all be done by one person at DCI who would follow a streamlined process and maintain a database of licenses with their current state. Getting an IT intern to create a database could also help. And of course DCI could charge for the service. It could grow over time from what they have now. Thanks for the information even if you had to use swear words (IT, database) to explain it. My thought was the "reaching out" to the multitude of rights holders would be a huge task but I'll admit I know nothing on this. PS - swear words explaination.... I work in IT and 75% of my time is spent correcting data or writing database programs. I pronounce "Oracle" as "Orifice" if I can get away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Thanks for the information even if you had to use swear words (IT, database) to explain it. My thought was the "reaching out" to the multitude of rights holders would be a huge task but I'll admit I know nothing on this. PS - swear words explaination.... I work in IT and 75% of my time is spent correcting data or writing database programs. I pronounce "Oracle" as "Orifice" if I can get away with it. Thanks for volunteering to write the database. That's a big help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Thanks for volunteering to write the database. That's a big help. LMAO.... Well I plan to retire in 5 years..... I'll start squirreling away the Oracle manuals...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Youtube clips that violate copyright are chased down... You can say this. And it's true. Yet the Charlie Brown Christmas clips I reference on YouTube have been up for years. One clip measuring nearly two minutes has been up for six years and attracted 3.3 million views. There are plenty more of varying length and longevity too. It just seems as if DCI is enforcing a more rigorous standard than the Charlie Brown franchise is. All you have to do, after all, is type in "Charlie Brown Christmas" into the YouTube search to uncover plenty of "violations" far more extensive than anything the Cadets did. I mean, 3.3 million views? DCI should be so lucky. This is not an argument for two wrongs making a right. It's a plea for a less of a knee-jerk reaction where audio clips are concerned. They're not going away. HH Edited October 11, 2012 by glory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 You can say this. And it's true. Yet the Charlie Brown Christmas clips I reference on YouTube have been up for years. One clip measuring nearly two minutes has been up for six years and attracted 3.3 million views. There are plenty more of varying length and longevity too. It just seems as if DCI is enforcing a more rigorous standard than the Charlie Brown franchise is. All you have to do, after all, is type in "Charlie Brown Christmas" into the YouTube search to uncover plenty of "violations" far more extensive than anything the Cadets did. I mean, 3.3 million views? DCI should be so lucky. This is not an argument for two wrongs making a right. It's a plea for a less of a knee-jerk reaction where audio clips are concerned. They're not going away. HH By less of a knee-jerk reaction do you mean allowing the clips to stay unless a cease and desist letter arrives in the mail? For all we know they may have gotten such a letter. I was assuming DCI (or the Cadets) initiated the licensing request, but who knows? But either way, once you initiate the conversation, if it falls through I would think you would have to block the content or be sued. They can't ignore you at that point. They can pretend to ignore youtube (especially if it in fact promotes their brand) or give youtube permission. But at the end of the day they can do what they want with their property. There's a lot we don't know here. For all we know someone tipped off the copyright holder. We also don't know (so far) whether DCI in fact has a lawyer who is advising them to use the current process (though it doesn't sound like it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 You can say this. And it's true. Yet the Charlie Brown Christmas clips I reference on YouTube have been up for years. One clip measuring nearly two minutes has been up for six years and attracted 3.3 million views. There are plenty more of varying length and longevity too. Perhaps they have the permission of the copyright holder. It just seems as if DCI is enforcing a more rigorous standard than the Charlie Brown franchise is. All you have to do, after all, is type in "Charlie Brown Christmas" into the YouTube search to uncover plenty of "violations" far more extensive than anything the Cadets did. I mean, 3.3 million views? DCI should be so lucky.This is not an argument for two wrongs making a right. It's a plea for a less of a knee-jerk reaction where audio clips are concerned. They're not going away. That is your defense? You saw it on YouTube, so it must be OK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 ...That is your defense? You saw it on YouTube, so it must be OK? Have I been that shallow in this discussion? So skinny with my suggestions that you'd attribute something so trivial to my thinking? YouTube. It's not a defense. It's an example - and a huge one. I don't have to have Supreme Court credentials to recognize how flimsy an argument it would be to accuse Cadets of infringing a copyright that wasn't enforced at all on YouTube. You have to remember that the law does't prohibit using audio clips on video. The law provides specifically for fair use. News programs and lots of others avail themselves of fair use. Drum Corps can too. I can easily imagine a fair use argument that says 10 seconds of audio only is fair use under any reasonable interpretation. But even setting that cogent conclusion aside, the Cadets use of that audio can't reasonably be interpreting as anything other than fair when the copyright owner allows far more extensive and public use on YouTube. As for the discussion about specific legalities, I'd love to see a corps press the issue with an eye toward setting a precedent that serves our purpose better. Maybe have Cadets take the issue forward seeking the right to reissue the DVD with the material added back. That way nothing DCI has done will be at risk. Any ruling would only apply prospectively. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 YouTube. It's not a defense. It's an example - and a huge one. I don't have to have Supreme Court credentials to recognize how flimsy an argument it would be to accuse Cadets of infringing a copyright that wasn't enforced at all on YouTube. Which rights did the Cadets not have performance, recording, selling, something else? Which rights does a clip being shown on YouTube need for it to be leagl? Asking cuz I don't know but to me the difference would be selling for profit as DCI does. 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.