Stu Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 A response from DCI: ... Requests are sent out to all appropriate publishers, composers, and other rights holders during a process that generally spans seven months by Drum Corps International staff and it's contracted professional licensing firm... Ric Oberlin Operations Director Drum Corps International Marching Music's Major League™ So, it appears to me that there are three options: 1) Only perform Public Domain/Original material and there will be no need to mess with permission issues; 2) Choose more than one show concept 'way in advance' in case any permissions are denied, and apply for all permissions (arranging, performing, recording, sync) at least seven to twelve months prior to actually creating and/or implementing any show design; or 3) Just continue to deal with things getting axed from audio and video reproductions due to lack of granted permissions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 While I admire the effort, the paraphrase or even the quote rendered precisely but by someone else as you suggest isn't the icon. You're suggesting something akin to performing a Christmas show with all original music that "captures the spirit of Christmas music" without actually performing that music. Sorry, but without Jingle Bells and the other iconic Christmas tunes, there's an empty box under the tree. That's the point of the actual Charlie Brown clip. It is a Christmas icon in our culture today. It has a place in our relationship with Christmas alongside other icons like crosses and angels. (It's instructive to note as well that Cadets added the cross, the angel, Charlie Brown and other icons as the season progressed because the show felt sterile without them.) "Good Grief" might suffice if the show were about Charlie Brown. It wasn't. It was about Christmas. We're long past the days where Christmas revolves solely around hearth and home or even church. We're long past the days where music and a few paintings were the only media in which Christmas lived. Film and television have created a new set of icons. Those are what the Cadets were after. And they're fair game. HH You may be right that DCI might get away with it if they never bothered with copyright issues, but you are claiming they will definitely get away with it. That's different. You are basically failing to provide any evidence for your position. Here's your argument as I see it: 1. There are grey areas in copyright law. Here are some of them. (We already knew that.) 2. Therefore this is one of them. (Huh? Evidence?) 3. Therefore DCI will win the judgement. (Huh??? Evidence?) and 1. The Cadet's clips are iconic Christmas references. (We already knew that.) 2. Therefore they are free of copyright. (Huh? Evidence?) I never heard that clips are copyright free merely because they are iconic. Please back this up. It's true that if some clips are copied freely that eventually they are deemed free of copyright, but DCI would have to fight each one out in court! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Rott Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 My first stupid question of the day...are these copyright issues only relevant for the sale of the material...like if DCI gave the DVDs away for free, would they still have to be edited? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Rott Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 My first stupid question of the day...are these copyright issues (sync issues) only relevant for the sale of the material...like if DCI gave the DVDs away for free, would they still have to be edited?...or is it for the use of the material as well? What of those individuals who recorded those shows personally duing the season...are they breaking the law by possessing the videos they made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 ...That said, I know a local school that goy sued for recording a composers piece for a cd they sold to parents. Not mass quantities, hell the band program has less than 50 kids. the composer sued. He won... We're not (at least I'm not) talking about arranging compositions without permission. That's not fair use. The Scouts should have procured all the proper permissions for Empire State. I'm talking about a few seconds of audio (only audio!) from a Charlie Brown video. No one will be suing DCI over a clip like that because: 1) they'll never notice; 2) they probably won't care; and 3) they'll recognize that their chances of prevailing in court against some poor marching band thing aren't worth the trouble. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 No one will be suing DCI over a clip like that because: 1) they'll never notice; 2) they probably won't care; and 3) they'll recognize that their chances of prevailing in court against some poor marching band thing aren't worth the trouble. HH You like to talk in absolutes don't you? OK, no lawsuits but this could (repeat could) lead copyright holders to be less willing to deal with corps in the future. Corps or bands as I'd guess most copyright holders might not know the difference or care. And let's not forget that copyright holders need to protect their copyright. So if they know about illegal use they'd better at least make a documented complaint so they don't take a chance of losing the rights in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Matczak Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) We're not (at least I'm not) talking about arranging compositions without permission. That's not fair use. The Scouts should have procured all the proper permissions for Empire State. I'm talking about a few seconds of audio (only audio!) from a Charlie Brown video. No one will be suing DCI over a clip like that because: 1) they'll never notice; 2) they probably won't care; and 3) they'll recognize that their chances of prevailing in court against some poor marching band thing aren't worth the trouble. HH DCI does the right things in asking for mechanical rights for ALL appropriate items, they are not novices at this you know, this makes all of the property owners well aware of the proposed use of their property.........Three things can happen, The could approve use (with or without a fee, I have experienced both) they could deny use, or they simply do not respond. In the cases of the last two DCI does the right things by not including the material in the production. You must remember that while DCI and the corps are very close to zero net operations, the 30-40 corps operate with an average of a million dollar budget each,........which ain't chicken feed,............. Edited November 8, 2012 by Gary Matczak 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Re: not going after DCI or any entity that does not appear to have much $$$.... From my understanding, the law demands that a rights holder protect the copyright regardless of the assets the offender has. I mentioned Mad magazine winning a suit about using the "Alfred E Newman" face because the right holders did not protect the copyright (or tradmark - can't remember). Fuller story was the holders did not protect against previous infringment because the offenders didn't really have anything to sue for. Didn't even bother with legal complaint, etc... But... since Mad magazine and it's publisher had money the suit was started. Will have to reread the book I have on this but IIRC, soon as the judge heard that previous violations were ignored the rights holder lost the rights and Alfred face became public domain (which Mad quick protected "their version"). Wiki has an entry on this but it mentions a different defense Mad used (origin of face unclear) but noted the book I have. IIRC Mad/EC used both defenses... Until a copyright lawyer posts something more definitive, if I was DCI I'd worry more about not so nice legal documentation coming because right holders are protecting their property. Guessing "We don't want to sue to protect our work. But <insert nice way of saying KNOCK IT OFF>..... Edited November 8, 2012 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I'm talking about a few seconds of audio (only audio!) from a Charlie Brown video. Then we are only talking about someone of similar voice recording a few seconds of the same words. Problem solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 So let me get this straight. DCI's lifeblood is playing music and the corps are always looking for new music or ways to present that music. But some here think that DCI and the corps should follow a course that might upset the people who control permission to play that music. And "upset" to the point of legal action being taken? Uhh........ being fair is one thing but cliche "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.... 1 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.