Yay! I got my first official YouTube video removed...

[tesmusic]

Its a shame that the folks who own the musical rights don't soften their stance against youth music activities using their music. Everyone in the music industry talks about promoting & funding youth musical programs, yet they go after them when they use their music. Its too bad.

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, with most artists anyway, that won't happen.

[Cadevilina Crown]

As I am reading these posts, I was wondering what would happen if someone decided to post a clip of SCV without audio. Would the SCV organization still take it down?

[tesmusic]

As I am reading these posts, I was wondering what would happen if someone decided to post a clip of SCV without audio. Would the SCV organization still take it down?

It's possible, and it's within their right if the so choose.

[xandandl]

As I am reading these posts, I was wondering what would happen if someone decided to post a clip of SCV without audio. Would the SCV organization still take it down?

check with Pete Weber's agent at his Mt. Prospect office.

[Pete Freedman]

But we're not talking about videos on YouTube that DCI put up, and SCV wants down. This is about fan produced videos, whether recorded at shows by DCI or by individuals on their own. Even if DCI recorded, and a fan out it up, it's not supposed to be done.

Now had DCI put the video up, as the sometimes do, it would still be there.

Yes I understand that's a different issue; that's why I prefaced my question with, "I have a different question."

[Pete Freedman]

It's possible, and it's within their right if the so choose.

A clip without audio? I doubt SCV would technically have standing to take it down (but see below). DCI would, because such videos are always taken at DCI sanctioned events at which the ticket buyer agreed not even to take video, let alone post it on YouTube.

Obviously music copyrights - including sync rights - shouldn't come into effect.

And if it's the official DCI video then DCI owns the copyright for that too.

In practice, from what I've heard, YouTube takes down anything if someone claiming to be the copyright holder asks that it be taken down. Which means that in effect SCV could take it down if they happened to be on the prowl for violators.

In sum, taking out the audio should make little practical difference.

[tesmusic]

A clip without audio? I doubt SCV would technically have standing to take it down (but see below). DCI would, because such videos are always taken at DCI sanctioned events at which the ticket buyer agreed not even to take video, let alone post it on YouTube.

Obviously music copyrights - including sync rights - shouldn't come into effect.

And if it's the official DCI video then DCI owns the copyright for that too.

In practice, from what I've heard, YouTube takes down anything if someone claiming to be the copyright holder asks that it be taken down. Which means that in effect SCV could take it down if they happened to be on the prowl for violators.

In sum, taking out the audio should make little practical difference.

Feel free to doubt all you want, as it's your right to believe what you will, I am simply making my comments based on current copyright laws and their various capacities. These are not simply things I've heard, but laws in the US.

The fact does remain though that whether the video has sound or not, the video as well as any/all content are copyright materials, as well as "intellectual property" when we look at the visual designs of Pete W. or any other designer associated with any corps. Including, but not limited to brass, percussion, guard, visual, and all other drill components.

Here are some resources that may help to understand. They are from the United States Copyright Right Law, although these laws do vary in other countries, and all corps and DCI must adhere to those as well:

http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html Of course this one does not have to do with video without sound, but should help make the point more clear.

http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.pdf This should to understand who may/may not "own" the copyright.

http://copyright.gov/title17/92appb.pdf This section has to do with changes made when materials were starting to be used in the late 90's thanks to the internet and other digital based areas.

http://copyright.gov/title17/92appd.pdf For those questioning areas of streaming, keeping in mind that this section has been altered, but these are the initial laws from 2004

http://copyright.gov/title17/92appg.pdf For those wondering why DCI made adjustments to the FanNetwork.

http://copyright.gov/title17/92appi.pdf Here is info on what components of design may also come under the umbrella of copyright, and whose property designs are.

Of course these are all the "basic" foundations of the law. I hope this info helps to understand.

Edited February 18, 2015 by tesmusic

[Pete Freedman]

Feel free to doubt all you want, as it's your right to believe what you will, I am simply making my comments based on current copyright laws and their various capacities. These are not simply things I've heard, but laws in the US.

The fact does remain though that whether the video has sound or not, the video as well as any/all content are copyright materials, as well as "intellectual property" when we look at the visual designs of Pete W. or any other designer associated with any corps. Including, but not limited to brass, percussion, guard, visual, and all other drill components.

Here are some resources that may help to understand. They are from the United States Copyright Right Law, although these laws do vary in other countries, and all corps and DCI must adhere to those as well:

http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html Of course this one does not have to do with video without sound, but should help make the point more clear.

http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.pdf This should to understand who may/may not "own" the copyright.

http://copyright.gov/title17/92appb.pdf This section has to do with changes made when materials were starting to be used in the late 90's thanks to the internet and other digital based areas.

http://copyright.gov/title17/92appd.pdf For those questioning areas of streaming, keeping in mind that this section has been altered, but these are the initial laws from 2004

http://copyright.gov/title17/92appg.pdf For those wondering why DCI made adjustments to the FanNetwork.

http://copyright.gov/title17/92appi.pdf Here is info on what components of design may also come under the umbrella of copyright, and whose property designs are.

Of course these are all the "basic" foundations of the law. I hope this info helps to understand.

Thanks for helping me to understand.

I now understand that you are either deliberately obfuscating, or just posted the wrong links. Most of the documents you linked to have nothing to do with what you say they are about. They are about such topics as the venue for copyright hearings, conditions of termination of copyright ownership (due to death, etc.), whether certain sections supersede other sections, clarifications of terminology, various corrections, commissioning a study on whether the satellite companies are screwing the cable companies or the other way round, and so on.

I think you meant to link to the actual copyright laws, but really, they are not controversial. We know the works are copyrighted. That's not the question. The question is who sold what rights to whom?

The second link does point out that in works made for hire the employer is considered the author. So that suggests that the copyright to Pete Webber's drill may automatically belong to SCV, which in turn sells their rights to DCI as we know. IF that's true then SCV might not have standing to take down a video. Or maybe they would. As I said earlier, I don't think it matters because in effect they can take down any amateur video they want to. You can take down my vacation videos if you want to, just by claiming you are the copyright holder.

I bolded the words suggest and may because we don't really know what's in the contract.

[tesmusic]

Thanks for helping me to understand.

I now understand that you are either deliberately obfuscating, or just posted the wrong links. Most of the documents you linked to have nothing to do with what you say they are about. They are about such topics as the venue for copyright hearings, conditions of termination of copyright ownership (due to death, etc.), whether certain sections supersede other sections, clarifications of terminology, various corrections, commissioning a study on whether the satellite companies are screwing the cable companies or the other way round, and so on.

I think you meant to link to the actual copyright laws, but really, they are not controversial. We know the works are copyrighted. That's not the question. The question is who sold what rights to whom?

The second link does point out that in works made for hire the employer is considered the author. So that suggests that the copyright to Pete Webber's drill may automatically belong to SCV, which in turn sells their rights to DCI as we know. IF that's true then SCV might not have standing to take down a video. Or maybe they would. As I said earlier, I don't think it matters because in effect they can take down any amateur video they want to. You can take down my vacation videos if you want to, just by claiming you are the copyright holder.

I bolded the words suggest and may because we don't really know what's in the contract.

Please check your inbox.

Edited February 19, 2015 by tesmusic