More Licensing Issues

[glory]

There is another element here regarding the intentions of the corps directors. And that is that they actually might have hoped (expected?) that all the approvals required would be secured. I know this won't satisfy those most put out by the diminution of the archive. Still, it really is possible that these corps directors and their associated staff were as surprised and disappointed as we were when this didn't work out well enough.

Keep in mind these weren't all from one convenient copyright category. We've had both pop and classical issues. We've had issues with audio from audio. And we've had issues with audio from video. Some might say we should have known. I'm not sure that's fair in most of the cases.

HH

[Gary Matczak]

There is another element here regarding the intentions of the corps directors. And that is that they actually might have hoped (expected?) that all the approvals required would be secured. I know this won't satisfy those most put out by the diminution of the archive. Still, it really is possible that these corps directors and their associated staff were as surprised and disappointed as we were when this didn't work out well enough.

Keep in mind these weren't all from one convenient copyright category. We've had both pop and classical issues. We've had issues with audio from audio. And we've had issues with audio from video. Some might say we should have known. I'm not sure that's fair in most of the cases.

HH

I have asserted elsewhere that the shows should be vetted much earlier,.........but how about a deadline of mid season in regards to the mechanical/sync rights portion, so that the audio/video products do not have to be sliced up post season............something like "no rights by July 15, remove the material"

[glory]

I have asserted elsewhere that the shows should be vetted much earlier,.........but how about a deadline of mid season in regards to the mechanical/sync rights portion, so that the audio/video products do not have to be sliced up post season............something like "no rights by July 15, remove the material"

So what you're saying is Plan B. For instance, in the worst case we've seen, Scouts don't have all the licenses lined up on 15 July for Empire State. So they sub in a new song (for which they have the licenses lined up, presumably). Then fans would debate the virtues of each. They'd also wonder what might have been...

Might be fun.

HH

Edited November 14, 2012 by glory

[Pete Freedman]

Again, I REALLY think people give these guys (Hoppy, other DCI directors) FAR too much credit. I almost think Hop would agree with me on this one, but no offense meant to him or other directors. But I'm pretty sure that none of the DCI directors are thinking deviously, or even tacitly malicious as outlined in Mr. Freedman's post.

Again, I think this is clearly all about "we need to squeeze every last .1 out of the effect caption, regardless of after-the-season ramifications regarding archival material." Corps directors & designers are all about gaining a competitive edge, and I suspect that for the most part designers and directors are OK with the thought of gaining an edge at the expense of damaging the archival products. Most human beings concern themselves mainly with the here and now, sometimes at the expense of 'down the road' ramifications. Obviously DCI doesn't seem to stress to heavily that this is a big deal and corps should not do this, so why would directors & designers not concern themselves with competitive advantage/live performance?

Let's be clear: I am not at all saying that the G7 are thinking about splitting from DCI. That conspiracy theory has been floating around DCP since before I was a member, and seems to be widespread. I take the G7 document for what it is; a request to 1) restructure the appearance fees to favor them, 2) to have certain shows limited to them, and to do various other things that seem to show goodwill to the activity, but have no real bearing on the the essential points 1 and 2.

So it's not my conspiracy theory, nor do I believe it necessarily. I don't even know the evidence that causes people to believe it. Some have stated that Dan Acheson (or someone) was able to prevent a split by pointing out that DCI would keep all video rights for past performances, and no one said "that didn't happen.". Still, perhaps I should first have tried to confirm the underlying conspiracy theory. I'll start a thread on this now.

My own 'conspiracy theory' in this thread is only that IF the G7 is planning on splitting from DCI (as so many believe) THEN the negligent disruption of DCI's income stream cannot be viewed outside of that context. And no, it would certainly not be giving them too much credit to say that they would be thinking about that. Decision makers' actions are generally based (hopefully) on their goals, and they are intelligent people.

[Pete Freedman]

a) Profit which is based on Low Cost Per Transaction requires an ocean load of transactions to become worthwhile (see Paypal). There are not that many marching organizations in the musical grand scheme of things to make such a stand alone brokerage endeavor worthwhile.

b) However, I could see something like a license brokerage being a small part of something bigger and diverse like System Blue; but again not as a stand alone service.

c) What was the net profit for Copycat this past year? That is a telling question.

A good question, and they would be they best people to discuss this with. And I bet most of the fees currently paid effectively goes to the staff that does the negotiation. You're right in the sense that if the rights holders aren't saving significant money on this, it won't work.

[perc2100]

There is another element here regarding the intentions of the corps directors. And that is that they actually might have hoped (expected?) that all the approvals required would be secured. I know this won't satisfy those most put out by the diminution of the archive. Still, it really is possible that these corps directors and their associated staff were as surprised and disappointed as we were when this didn't work out well enough.

Keep in mind these weren't all from one convenient copyright category. We've had both pop and classical issues. We've had issues with audio from audio. And we've had issues with audio from video. Some might say we should have known. I'm not sure that's fair in most of the cases.

HH

This is likely true, or at least this in conjunction with my "anything for an extra .1, rights clearance or no." That being said, most designers do this type of thing in WGI, BOA, etc. where rights clearance is taken VERY seriously and has been for quite awhile now. I have some experience in that world (specifically WGI), though obviously no where near the experience as The Cadets, Cavaliers, Crown, Blue Devils, etc. designers. There's a point where you can predict fairly easily if there will be a problem clearing rights or not. If it's a Hollywood movie/TV show type quote, at best the likely hood is 50/50 (give or take depending on the source material), and there are instances where you know it's going to be tough/near impossible. I can't imagine Cadets thought they'd have a chance in Hades of clearing a Charlie Brown Christmas dialogue sample, especially the sample that is against the consumerism of the Holidays. I want to say there might be a quote somewhere of Hopkins or someone specifically saying "we were afraid this would be an issue," implying to me it was clear they knew that at best there would be difficulty (and at worst knew they were likely not to get clearance). I know for a fact another corps in the last few years new darn well they weren't clearing rights issues with a part of their production, had a 'Plan B,' but decided not to use the alternative because it was cooler to use the original element (knowing it would likely not clear sync rights). That's their choice, and there is apparently not a lot wrong with that attitude. Obviously everyone hopes for the best, and there are probably several instances of a designer/director at least thinking there is a reasonable expectation of obtaining all necessary rights. Sync rights in particular is still an 'unknown' in the pageantry world, and I imagine it's hard to predict what will or won't be a problem. For every Scouts 2011, for example (when the designers knew they likely weren't clearing sync rights before the competitive season started) there are probably several examples of corps believing they were OK and finding out later they weren't. If I'm going to argue there is no conspiracy of "I'm not clearing rights and DCI will lose money & my competing circuit will gain hahahahahaha (said while twirling mustache in an evil way)," that I'll also stipulate that the majority of issues occur when designers reasonably believe they won't have problems after the fact.

[perc2100]

I have asserted elsewhere that the shows should be vetted much earlier,.........but how about a deadline of mid season in regards to the mechanical/sync rights portion, so that the audio/video products do not have to be sliced up post season............something like "no rights by July 15, remove the material"

I'd be 100% OK with that. Shows are designed now largely because that's how the "process" (start having ideas in late summer-early fall, solidify show concept by Thanksgiving ish, solidify rep. choice by January) has been for years previously. There's little reason a show can't be designed 12 months or so out in order to have a better chance of having it comply 100% with all copyright requirements.

Of course, the only difficulty would be shuffling of design teams in the fall: it would potentially suck to join a corps' design team and be locked into a concept when its too late to radically change to your own ideas/sensibilities.

[perc2100]

My own 'conspiracy theory' in this thread is only that IF the G7 is planning on splitting from DCI (as so many believe) THEN the negligent disruption of DCI's income stream cannot be viewed outside of that context. And no, it would certainly not be giving them too much credit to say that they would be thinking about that. Decision makers' actions are generally based (hopefully) on their goals, and they are intelligent people.

Ok; I still think this is pretty far out there. With all of the stuff that goes on during a summer tour, making a small design decision (for example, the addition of the Peanuts sample in Cadets) based on the fact of "I'm not clearing rights with this and DCI will lose money & my competing circuit will gain hahahahahaha (said while twirling mustache in an evil way)" seems pretty silly. I get what you're saying, but since most of these rights issues are from corps not involved in the "G7" defection, that argument doesn't hold up well logically. Remember that "DCI's income stream," specifically from the sales of archival audio & video, is funneled back to the corps themselves. Decision makers' actions are not generally based on cutting off their own nose to spite their face, since as you (correctly) imply they are generally intelligent people.

[Quad Aces]

I know for a fact another corps in the last few years new darn well they weren't clearing rights issues with a part of their production, had a 'Plan B,' but decided not to use the alternative because it was cooler to use the original element (knowing it would likely not clear sync rights). That's their choice, and there is apparently not a lot wrong with that attitude.

I respectfully beg to differ - there are 34 pages worth of reasons why here...

[mingusmonk]

Of course, the only difficulty would be shuffling of design teams in the fall: it would potentially suck to join a corps' design team and be locked into a concept when its too late to radically change to your own ideas/sensibilities.

It's not like the design team stops working after tour starts. So you are then asking them to simultaneously split their focus between developing a world class drum corps program while knee deep in the implementation of another. Not an impossible task. I mean other industries operate this way. But higher demands on staff means higher compensation. Either directly to arrangers, etc. or in hiring additional staff to manage the separate trains. It's not as simple as it seems.