Over-the-Top DCI YOUTUBE Copyright Slap-Down

[mingusmonk]

The only thing I've remotely found when searching is the guy who came up with the "Charge!" theme suing pro sports teams for using it.

A lot of stuff on you could possibly be sued, but no actual examples of this happening.

So, does anyone know of any specific examples of a composer or arranger suing or threatening to sue because their works appeared on a video sharing site without permission?

Not exactly what you are looking for, but back in 2006 BOA was sued by Sparke, De Meij, Van Der Roost, Melillo and their publishers. Obviously the timing means that it wasn't likely due to a Youtube discovery. It was related to content on their Mr. Video products. But it was a very scary moment for BOA and others in the administrative levels of the activity (so ... WGI, DCI, as well.) I'm certain that this fear is a part what drives those Violation Reports today.

Edited July 2, 2013 by mingusmonk

[Geoff]

That helps. Thanks, Mingus.

[whitedawn]

[Slingerland]

BOA and WGI already do this. They have lists of composers/publishers who they know will be high, and the performing unit has to pay a one time "fixing fee" to help defray the additional costs. And if you are using more then x number of tunes in your production, you have to pay additional fees to help defray the extra administrative expenses required for multiple compositions.

I imagine it won't be long until DCI is directed to go down the same road. Too many corps are acting like pigs at the rights clearance buffet table. Either put a modest cap on what DCI will pay, or tell the corps they're on their own to buy rights, with the understanding that using music that can't be mechanically licensed on FN and dvd's means that they lose out on any video product revenues from that season. The idea of using 25 seconds of a Bernstein piece just because you want to would go away pretty quickly once any corps that tried it realized how much they were spending for such a fanciful little flourish.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Slingerland

[bill]

The only thing I've remotely found when searching is the guy who came up with the "Charge!" theme suing pro sports teams for using it.

A lot of stuff on you could possibly be sued, but no actual examples of this happening.

So, does anyone know of any specific examples of a composer or arranger suing or threatening to sue because their works appeared on a video sharing site without permission?

I'm not at liberty to mention names in this particular case, but a group in Wisconsin settled out of court coughing up 35k (of which the booster club had to raise). A parent did a video of the band performing in a parade and the licensing rights had not yet cleared before it was released on the internet. BAM........sued. It happens whether we think (individually or collectively) it's morally right or wrong.

[skevinp]

But any good entertainment lawyer will also go for the deepest pockets. In this case, that would be DCI, not grandma in the stands who made a bootleg video.

Also it makes more sense to go after one dci than a thousand different grandmas.

Also, they have leverage over dci if they want all corps to be able to get permissions in the future.

I would think dci is absolutely vulnerable to pressures that may be applied. And you won't necessarily ever find out about disputes that are resolved before lawsuits are filed. That doesn't mean the threat isn't there.

[whitedawn]

So, does anyone know of any specific examples of a composer or arranger suing or threatening to sue because their works appeared on a video sharing site without permission?

In 2007, Prince sued YouTube because he did not grant a license to use his music on the site. This case fundamentally reshaped the music industry and its relationship with new media. (Also helped to clarify many issues surrounding DMCA takedown notices.)

[superOOk]

DCI is just following established US copyright law. Marketing wants/desires have to take a back seat to that.

The big problem with your analogy of bands using social media to promote themselves is they are the originators (composers and performers of the original works being promoted.) Bands, colorguards, drumlines, and drum corps are performing derivative works. In order for you analogy to work, then all drum corps would need to perform 100% unique music, composed specifically for them, not arranged.

Ha! So you are saying that bands perform 100% unique music? As far back as Beethoven music has been copied (i.e. borrowed) from one artist to another. But this is just conjecture...let's get to the real erroneous statement:

As far as the legal considerations -- have you ever heard of licensing fees? DCI should have a boilerplate agreement setup for all drum corps who want to participate (so the drum corps don't have to burden themeselves with this). That is the ENTIRE REASON for an organization like DCI to exist. To ensure stuff like this is taken care of the correct way.

The problem is that they are reluctant to do this because it eats too much profit. Why? Because their business model of selling DVDs doesn't make enough money! They are caught in their own catch-22.

If you want a good example of how things work well in the real world, search for "coldplay" on youtube. Notice how the band/artist doesn't take down any of the "arrangements" of their work. Why? They know that these "arrangements" are simply promoting their "original" work and selling tickets. This goes for any of the bands/artists that are doing extremely well in the YouTube world. They promote through original and derivative works on social media, and then use that as momentum to drive their core strategy: filling seats.

[superOOk]

I'm not at liberty to mention names in this particular case, but a group in Wisconsin settled out of court coughing up 35k (of which the booster club had to raise). A parent did a video of the band performing in a parade and the licensing rights had not yet cleared before it was released on the internet. BAM........sued. It happens whether we think (individually or collectively) it's morally right or wrong.

That is the Scouts fault, or more accurately, DCI's fault (for not having a boilerplate agreement for their drum corps, with companies like BMI, etc...). A simple licensing agreement with BMI would have allowed them to play the parade, collect their fees (which was probably very little), and distribute a small % to BMI, et al.

The problem here is that drum corps shouldn't be responsible for having in-house legal to figure this out. DCI should take care of this burden, but they don't because they are mismanaged.

[DrumCorpsTube]

I've dealt with 4 copyright strikes, getting each of them rescinded by offering the related corps money. It's very difficult to tell which corps have what policies. Most corps don't care, but Vanguard cares about enforcing the license agreement they have with the publishers. Blue Devils is very controlling of videos on YouTube. They take down simple lot videos of the drumline if they want, which is why I don't offer any Blue Devils videos anymore.

Also, you cannot get sued for what you post on YouTube. The only way you can is if you challenge a copyright claim, which they would then need to sue to get it removed again. Content ID doesn't count as a strike if I'm correct.

Also, I donate to the related corps money that I earn from the ads. I try to strike a good balance, and my videos wouldn't exist without them. I hope they keep in mind that the videos wouldn't exist without me, either. I link to the dci ticket page in every video.