Tim K Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 It's pretty simple: If it is a clip or video posted by DCI, it is not a leak If it is a clip posted by the drum corps itself it is not a leak If it is a clip that is posted by the composer or arranger of the music in the video it is not a leak. If it is a clip posted by anyone other than DCI or the drum corps itself or the composer it is a leak. Whether it is posted by a stranger in January, or a member's parent the day after Finals. Unless the footage is posted by the corps, DCI, or the composer or arranger it is a leak. Your points are excellent but I would add one important point, just in case anyone questions what you have to say. As far as publishing photos and videos, each corps most likely has signed consents from young people over the age of 18 and signed consents from young people and their parents under the age of 18. DCI has the permission of each corps to post and uses specific photographers and videographers. Schools cannot post photos or videos of students on Facebook or use photos or videos of students for advertising and publicity purposes without signed consents. Newspapers and newscasts can use photos or videoclips without permission if it used for journalistic purposes. If you have permission, it's not a leak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Schools cannot post photos or videos of students on Facebook or use photos or videos of students for advertising and publicity purposes without signed consents. This is NOT true. At all. Though it is possible your school district might have adopted such a policy. Edited January 24, 2013 by Kamarag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Wow, great thread! Leaked Colts videos on the internet which have since been taken down has now replaced Manti Te'o's fake internet girlfriend and Beonce's lip synching the national anthem as the 9,998th and 9,999th thousand least important thing in my life. /> I'm not shallow, am I? Edited January 24, 2013 by wvu80 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Wow; while unrelated (kind of) to drum corps, tell that to the working musician who's music is being downloaded on bit torrent for free by someone pay zero dollars for their work. Some musicians hate this. Some love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim K Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 You call it "culture of entitlement", others may call it the "golden age of information", or "what the Internet was meant to be" or "the end of the tyranny of copyright". Never forget that copyright is an artificial construction of law, not a natural thing, and nothing is actually being "stolen" by such copying, anymore than taking someone's photo steals their soul. One could argue that an expectation of control or remuneration over a melody, arrangement, lyrics, or performance is just as much of a "culture of entitlement". Intellectual property is a cultural conception, not a moral absolute, and its boundaries will change as technology changes our culture. :devil:/> I can't speak about copyright laws even in a general sense, but I know you can run into problems with posting photos and videos involving minors without parental permission and I'm sure the Colts have minors in the corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Yeah but then you have people posting negative stuff about how poorly they play in January There can be nothing worse to a Corps prospects for a successful competitive summer than to have somebody, somewhere say something negative about a Corps section practice in the winter. If Corps fail to nip this in the bud in December than it could seep into July, and Corps could be forced to restrict all the fans from coming into the stands, and who among us would want THAT ? Drum Corps is so alive in the 8 weeks of the year that it would be detriment to the thriving popularity of the activity to allow the public to see and hear what is going on the remaining 44 weeks of the year. MLB doesn't allow people to see preseason baseball because they know that if they did some fan somewhere might say something negative about the spring practice they watched. DCI Drum Corps can ill afford to give up its recent tradition of 44 week blackouts of live music being played by Drum Corps... and especially at practice. And if you go to a practice, please don't let anybody know anything, as 44 weeks of secrecy is what has allowed the activity to grow to become one of the most popular youth activities in the world. Edited January 24, 2013 by BRASSO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) some people (most everyone) are not so into drum corps like us, and just simply don't understand why posting a video would be such a 'big deal'. It's not Chernobyl. While a leaking of a practice video is not quite as bad as a nuclear reactor leak, with most Corps it is darn pretty close to this Defcon 5 stage. Corps in the past have found that videos that have been released of winter practice oftentimes find their way into the home computers of Judges. Judges have been known to then drop by an average of 2.5 points scores in July of Corps videos they've seen from January, over Corps where judges have not seen or heard a winter practice video clip. Also, Corps have found that people that tell others what they saw at practice sometimes is information that is faulty as the January practice is oftentimes what is remembered by fans come August. Corps want to keep everything secret because if people saw Corps standing still in a gym or in a school parking lot playing something, that something might sound and look entirely different on the field in the summer, but Corps have determined that most fans are too stupid to know that a practice piece played standing still in January might sound different on the field in the summer. Also, Corps have found that any negative comment made a few fans after watching a practice tape from January is much worse than the reaction that occurs to the finished, polished product come Finals Week. Corps also don't want other Corps to know what they are up to in December and January as in the past they have found that some Corps copy what others are doing, while other Corps find that keeping everything secret in the winter is the best way to keep the public excited and engaged for the 8 week season. There are lots and lots of things that can go terribly wrong in the summer if someone out there at home sees or hears a practice tape, and Corps have experienced first hand what can go wrong when somebody out there gets whiff of a video clip of them at practice, and thats why Corps work diligently keeping the public from hearing or seeing them practice for these 44 weeks out of the year. Edited January 24, 2013 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) It is inappropriate & kinda rude at best, illegal at worst. We're talking about copyrighted material that the videographer doesn't own that is being distributed without permission of any copyright holders. As for restricting fans practice video dissemination, Corps have found it rude for them to do this without their implied permission, and even against their expressed wishes not to do so in many cases.. They on the other hand prepare their marchers to play music that they do not have permission from the composer or artist to play. Music that sometimes is even denied under copyright laws or the expressed wishes of the artist or composer, but they go ahead and play it anyway. Is this " rude " ? How is this any different ? For Corps, they see no hypocrisy in this at all.. It falls into realm of their... well, you had the perfect word for it, imo... "entitlement". Edited January 24, 2013 by BRASSO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim K Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) This is NOT true. At all. Though it is possible your school district might have adopted such a policy. It may not be law which using the word cannot would imply, and I'm not a lawyer as I'm sure you can guess, but I am involved in education and it is my job to determine policy for a Catholic school. I do not know of any school that publishes photos or posts online videos without signed consent, and many schools do not publish photos online or post videos, period. Of course I've never taken a survey either. I do know that guidelines for schools based on "best practices" do not use the word recommend or suggest when they speak of consent forms for the use of photos or videos for publishing online or in print in the case of photos, nor do they suggest looking at state or district guidelines, but list the legal ramifications and and liability issues if you do not have signed consent forms. Usually these practices are written based on lawsuits so that may be why I thought it was law. As far as photos used in advertisement such as a school open house, a photo or video would be considered commercial and you would need parental permission. I belong to a camera club that includes amateurs, professionals, and aspiring pros, and when we have speakers on law regarding photography, they say you must have signed consent forms even if no money changes hands because it is commercial photography. Strictly journalistic photos of a school event, game, etc. do not require signed consent. Edited January 24, 2013 by Tim K 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 As for restricting fans practice video dissemination, Corps have found it rude for them to do this without their implied permission, and even against their expressed wishes not to do so in many cases.. They on the other hand prepare their marchers to play music that they do not have permission from the composer or artist to play. Music that sometimes is even denied under copyright laws or the expressed wishes of the artist or composer, but they go ahead and play it anyway. Is this " rude " ? How is this any different ? For Corps, they see no hypocrisy in this at all.. It falls into realm of their... well, you had the perfect word for it, imo... "entitlement". Kind of nitpicking but... arrangers have to get legal permission before they commit a single note to the page. Typically those rights obtained include performing them (why else would you arrange a piece if not to perform it?). While sync or even mechanical rights might not be obtained, for the purposes of performing a piece that's irrelevant. I would be a little surprised if the Colts had skirted the issue by arranging, teaching, and performing any music they have yet to obtain rights for. That being said... yes, I would consider it "rude" for a corps to not obtain permission and then go full steam ahead with music anyway (I've spoken up many times at my disdain for corps who know they they likely aren't receiving sync rights but go ahead anyway: thus screwing up the archival footage). It's no different at all IMO: it's "rude" on both sides of the issue 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.