Jump to content

More Licensing Issues


Recommended Posts

Not sure about the US, but here in Canada if you go to a dollar store you'll find colognes with descriptions like "if you like Drakar Noir you'll like _________" These "sounds like" or "inspired by" descriptions sound the same.

If you're implication is the re-recording of a sampled quote isn't as effective, your absolutely right. But if the compromise means you get the same point across AND get to have your full show on the archival products perhaps re-recording is the prudent answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not read the entire thread yet, but my 2c.

This is not an electronics issue. This is not a sampling issue. This is an issue of available repertoire. These rights issues can/will discourage the use of modern works that non-drum corps people would find relevant. This will make it harder and harder to grow an audience if it's not addressed.

Well, sampling (and in turn electronics) is part of the issue. Several of these edited shows are edited solely because of pre-recorded samples. Cadets could've gotten someone to recite the Peanuts quote in such a way as to convey their message without breaking sync or copyright violations. It would not have been as effective, but it still likely would've worked about as good. Judges wouldn't listen to a re-worded, re-recorded quote and say, "that's effective, but not as effective as Peanuts so you don't get as much credit." I would stipulate that the difference in effect between what Cadets did (sampled a quote from an iconic movie) and what a rephrased version with the same message would be a minimal (if any) change in credit/points earned. Only the rephrased sample would've meant Cadets show was unedited on archival media: i.e. everyone's happy.

Designing around it isn't in the best interests of the activity, and won't affect adoption/usage of electronics and sampling at all.

That's a matter of opinion, obviously. If corps shows being edited becomes more widespread it could affect DVD, Blu-ray, and FN sales thus damaging revenue. When WGI started getting serious about enforcing copy right clearance, it certainly had an affect over usage of electronics and sampling (and arranging, for that matter). Designers know of the hurdles in front of them when programming, and sometimes opt to go with compromises in order to meet requirements. Some groups still use material they can't get clearance for, but I think WGI is in place where that's the overwhelming exception and not the norm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird, as the sync rights are on whomever is producing/selling the video. In the local winter percussion circuit I work with, the circuit crosses their P's and Q's when it comes to arrangement and performance rights. But they don't bother with the sync rights, as an independent company produces/sells/profits from DVDs. Obviously, DCI sells the products, so it is their problem.

well in my local circuit, the video company makes sure their ### is covered too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Do High School & College marching bands sell CD's & DVD's of their performances? How do they handle this issue?

The smart ones either are not doing that anymore, or are securing all of the licensing themselves.

Technically, other than admission (tickets), bands should not be (for example) making videos of their spring concert and selling it. Copyright violation. Same thing with high school plays and musicals as well, FYI.

Copyright is a f***ing b****, pretty much.

And the problem is that it's like driving without insurance. Sure, there's the CHANCE you won't get caught, but the consequences for getting caught are exorbitantly high.

So you comply, like a good little boy.

Edited by Lead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are bands at BOA right now playing Rihanna, Radiohead, Jim Croce, Beatles ...

It's not impossible to get copyright clearance. My band performed at BOA this year and did all music by Billy Joel. IIRC all we had to pay for each of the tunes we did was $250 or something, which is about the going rate. I got permission for it turned around in about 2 1/2 weeks back in Jan/Feb 2012.

Each rights holder is different.

Also remember that public domain currently does NOT include composers from the 1900s... Holst, Bernstein, Copland, etc...

One of the hardest things about it, though, is that the Permission to Arrange is typically given/held by a music publishing company... such as Hal Leonard, Belwin, Barnhouse, Wingert-Jones, FJH, etc. Hal Leonard is the big one. They are fairly easy to deal with, as they work with the band world all day, every day.

For the other recording licenses, those rights typically come from the recording studios and houses themselves. Needless to say, these people have FAR FAR less understanding of the drum corps/marching band world, and are out to make their clients cash. Which is likely a huge part of the problem.

Edited by Lead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the people at ASCAP, BMI, Hal Leonard, Boosey-Hawkes, Warner Brothers, Sony, et al want to participate by increasing their own work load and, quite frankly, develop an overbearing responsibility on them to create such a service? I mean it would not increase their bottom line revenue one iota, and right now the responsibility and work load is on the potential performance unit/organization not the publishers. Currently all the publishers have to do is field simple questions from those performing units/organizations: Can we arrange this? Yes and pay us this fee; Can we sync that? No.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that a third party entity would create the service. It would amount to a website listing works and prices for the various rights, including mechanical and sync. It would negotiate each work once only, and probably in big batches of works with similar rights pricing.

Since it would be dedicated to the marching arts, which have similar value for the rights holders, streamlined pricing makes sense. For example, since there are very little royalty prospects, these could be kept to a minimum or eliminated. A limited number of buyer types - or actual buyers - would be pre-programmed. So if you are an individual high school marching band creating its own video, your royalty might be X% of revenue. If you are DCI, the system knows the DVD collection will have about 100 works (say), so you would pay a formula like X/100 or whatever, so even if there is a royalty it can be divided by the number of expected works on the collection, or whatever other variables are usually involved in these negotiations.

So it would dramatically decrease the rights holders' workload. DCI says it works "tirelessly" on this every year. So must the people on the other end of the phone. Also, since the rights holders would presumably list their initial prices (i.e. before negotiation) they would actually make more money from those who don't have the time to negotiate, or don't want to bother.

Now it may be that CopyCat was designed to do all this, but I didn't see a lot about sync and mechanical rights on their webpage, or tv/movie rights holders for audio clips. And also they're not automated as yet, although it looks like it could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have previously stated that we need serious copyright reform in America, this also reflects poorly on the drum corps who don't secure clearances ahead of time. Why put something on the field that you have not secured performance and recording rights to? Just to #### off fans and hurt DCI's merchandising efforts? Is it more important to "be creative" than address these other factors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that a third party entity would create the service. It would amount to a website listing works and prices for the various rights, including mechanical and sync. It would negotiate each work once only, and probably in big batches of works with similar rights pricing.

Since it would be dedicated to the marching arts, which have similar value for the rights holders, streamlined pricing makes sense. For example, since there are very little royalty prospects, these could be kept to a minimum or eliminated. A limited number of buyer types - or actual buyers - would be pre-programmed. So if you are an individual high school marching band creating its own video, your royalty might be X% of revenue. If you are DCI, the system knows the DVD collection will have about 100 works (say), so you would pay a formula like X/100 or whatever, so even if there is a royalty it can be divided by the number of expected works on the collection, or whatever other variables are usually involved in these negotiations.

So it would dramatically decrease the rights holders' workload. DCI says it works "tirelessly" on this every year. So must the people on the other end of the phone. Also, since the rights holders would presumably list their initial prices (i.e. before negotiation) they would actually make more money from those who don't have the time to negotiate, or don't want to bother.

Now it may be that CopyCat was designed to do all this, but I didn't see a lot about sync and mechanical rights on their webpage, or tv/movie rights holders for audio clips. And also they're not automated as yet, although it looks like it could be.

A business, a third party brokerage type business in this case, is about making money; and there is a boat load of work with very little profit to be made in helping marching units secure those licenses beyond securing permission to arrange (seeking permission to arrange is relatively easy). So, why would a third party want to dedicate themselves to securing those licenses for the marching arts if it does not yield much profit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... For the other recording licenses, those rights typically come from the recording studios and houses themselves. Needless to say, these people have FAR FAR less understanding of the drum corps/marching band world, and are out to make their clients cash. Which is likely a huge part of the problem.

I do not see this as a 'problem'; it is the responsibility and duty of the license holders to only do things in the best interest of their clients (which includes making their clients cash) but it is not their responsibility and duty to develop a love and understanding of the marching arts. One can argue that exposure of the material through various mediums such as the marching arts would possibly generate a wider public interest in the source material; but that also means the license owner of the source material has the responsibility to secure a profit to their client due to that increased exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have previously stated that we need serious copyright reform in America, this also reflects poorly on the drum corps who don't secure clearances ahead of time. Why put something on the field that you have not secured performance and recording rights to? Just to #### off fans and hurt DCI's merchandising efforts? Is it more important to "be creative" than address these other factors?

G7?

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...