More Licensing Issues

[wvu80]

I would rather have DCI remove a few seconds from the hundreds of minutes of the recordings, than to risk a law suit, that win or lose, would likely send DCI into bankruptcy.

It's losing the battle to win the war.

[Jeff Ream]

Interesting. Was hers an effective choice? Phantom's score climbed from 93.95 in Semis to 95.05 in Finals, while Crown barely stayed ahead of them, dropping from 95.65 to 95.30. (Of course, it probably didn't help that Herbert couldn't get the guitar to break in Finals.)

Phantom had a lot going for it at finals. i doubt she alone was the 1.1

[Jeff Ream]

You're very welcome. I enjoy occasionally being able to be of service to all my friends on DCP, and I hope to be able to continue to do so.

the mental images now of Mike servicing his DCP friends...

[Jeff Ream]

Here's similar case right out of today's headlines. Now this is about trademark, not copyright. But the principles and applications are similar.

Here's a couple of excepts from the AP story. (By the way, I would argue I have just made "fair use" of a copyrighted item.):

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Denzel Washington's character in "Flight" drinks a lot throughout the film, but his portrayal of a highly functioning alcoholic pilot isn't going down well with brewing company Anheuser-Busch or the distributor of Stolichnaya vodka.

Anheuser-Busch said Monday that it has asked Paramount Pictures Corp. to obscure or remove the Budweiser logo from the film, which at one point shows Washington's character drinking the beer while behind the wheel...

...Trademark laws "don't exist to give companies the right to control and censor movies and TV shows that might happen to include real-world items," said Daniel Nazer, a resident fellow at Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project. "It is the case that often filmmakers get paid by companies to include their products. I think that's sort of led to a culture where they expect they'll have control. That's not a right the trademark law gives them."

What should be of the most interest to us here is that Anheuser-Busch with all it lawyers didn't actually sue Paramount with all its money. It just asked them to obscure the logo going forward.

I'll say it again: DCI is being too conservative in cases like the Charlie Brown clips (arrangements of tunes like Empire State is another matter altogether).

HH

DCi doesnt have Paramounts bank accounts or lawyers either

[Jeff Ream]

Not necessarily... Sometimes the law is the law is the law and money doesn't really help that much... I've seen David versus Goliath legal battles where David has won a few times...

I just believe that it's easier for them to be, as you say, Über conservative. They just don't want to tread down that path and tick off a group that could be the bane of their existence...

the law is the law...but when Five Star brass sued HERCo when HERCO pulled the plug on the Hershey Spectacular, Goliath beat David

[Jeff Ream]

But what you are suggesting (DCI to essentially say "to hell with it," program whatever they want, not edit their merchandise and excise content corps didn't get legal clearance to get, and then hope no one calls them out on it) is unlikely to happen. DCI has made it pretty clear that they intend to be overly cautious, so the only other logical option other than having to edit several corps' performances on the CD, DVD's, Blu-rays, and streams is for designers to take more caution. It's not super difficult to do, especially when we're talking about designers who do that for a living (i.e. arrangers who make their living arranging for bands/corps tend to have a good idea of what rights holders are more difficult to work with).

DCI has seemingly made it pretty clear that their priority is the live performance, and they seemingly are only marginally concerned about the archival products. If that's the case, then obviously those of us how are more concerned about the archival products are wasting time complaining, as this will continue to worsen annually unless DCI's priority changes.

and they will all lose revenue

[Quad Aces]

I would rather have DCI remove a few seconds from the hundreds of minutes of the recordings, than to risk a law suit, that win or lose, would likely send DCI into bankruptcy.

It's losing the battle to win the war.

That's true for the 2012 season and prior, but what about moving forward?

Seems to me that if each corps has all of their ducks in a row for the arrangement/performance rights and doesn't use copyrighted samples that have little or no chance of being acquired with sync permission, there is no battle or war at all.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Quad Aces

[G-Rott]

Gotta say...I normally never purchase Vol 2 of the World Class DVDs...I did this year to get Surf...and now find that possibly the most entertaining portion of the show is blacked out? Wish I'd know that ahead of time. Either way...it apperars in the future, if there are shows I really enjoy, I might have to permanently borrow mid-season amateur videos...that is if I want to make sure I get the whole show...very disappointing...not the way I wanted this to go.

Edited November 7, 2012 by G-Rott

[JimF-LowBari]

Sooooo how does Revolution recruit for next year if their entire show is not on the DVD?

Hey kids..... join our corps..... hope you have good memories cuz you won't be able to see your show on DVD. No showing people what you did, no being able to watch it yourself in the future. Now ain't that worth your dues.....

Edited November 7, 2012 by JimF-LowBari

[glory]

I see what you did there. Stating "good grief" is nothing more than typing two words. Those words, of course, are relatable to this explicit discussion, and likely elicit a reaction from people who put two and two together and understand that your two words refer back to a popular catch phrase of Charlie Brown. Had you posted an audio or video rip of Charlie Brown saying "Good grief," however, you would've been violating copyright law, albeit in a minor way that would likely not attract attention.

Having typed "good grief," however, you are indeed getting your exact point and culture reference across in a 100% legal and non-rights violating fashion.

Cadets could've done the same exact thing in their show by having someone say the words from Charlie Brown Christmas, or even paraphrased and reworked if they wanted to be super safe, and accomplished the same exact effect minus having their audio and video edited due to copyright infringement.

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