DCI Audio/Video

[Peel Paint]

One quick question for the uneducated...

Are Licensing issues the same as Copyright issues? If not, what is the difference?

Thanks,

Dan

Licensing is a subset of copyright law, as I understand it, but I am far from expert on this stuff. The composer who creates the composition originally holds a legal copyright to it, but often chooses to share the copyright with a music publisher. Copyright can be passed on in an inheritance or sold to a different party. People who want to arrange a composition, perform the piece publicly, or issue one or more types of recordings of a composition need to secure a license from the copyright holder to do so, $ecuring different licenses for different needs. What in recent history has been most problematic for DCI and other marching arts organizations is the synchronization license, but the fight recently seems to have expanded to include the reproduction right, the mechanical license, and the digital performance license as well.

http://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights

Here are some basics on copyrights of musical compositions:

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/entertainment/music-copyright.html

A few years back, Mike Boo wrote a good post on licensing, particularly the synchronization license as it affects drum corps videos, which led to a good thread:

http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/index.php/topic/152151-the-challenges-of-music-licensing-and/

Edited November 19, 2015 by Peel Paint

[tesmusic]

Licensing is a subset of copyright law, as I understand it, but I am far from expert on this stuff. The composer who creates the composition originally holds a legal copyright to it, but often chooses to share the copyright with a music publisher. Copyright can be passed on in an inheritance or sold to a different party. People who want to arrange a composition, perform the piece publicly, or issue one or more types of recordings of a composition need to secure a license from the copyright holder to do so, $ecuring different licenses for different needs. What in recent history has been most problematic for DCI and other marching arts organizations is the synchronization license, but the fight recently seems to have expanded to include the reproduction right, the mechanical license, and the digital performance license as well.

http://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights

Here are some basics on copyrights of musical compositions:

http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/entertainment/music-copyright.html

A few years back, Mike Boo wrote a good post on licensing, particularly the synchronization license as it affects drum corps videos, which led to a good thread:

http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/index.php/topic/152151-the-challenges-of-music-licensing-and/

You're correct for the most part, other than the official copyright holder part. It all depends what type of work it is and how contracts are signed. For example, a composer of a symphony would retain original ownership and then may share parts of it for distribution and publication purposes. Which is also why many modern composers are publishing on their own.

On the other hand, a rock band may be given song-writing credits, but copyright may either be controlled or shared from the start with their label. There are many stories over the years in which the artist/writer is blind-sided by people using their music. In the 90's Weird Al used Coolio's "Ganstas Paradise" and was granted permission by the record company. Coolio was less than pleased, but couldn't do anything about it.

The hardest thing about copyright/licensing is that there are no set-in-stone answers, and vary depending on dates, country of origin of the work, etc.

There's of course the age old rumor that you can't get permission to use the music of Disney, which is completely false, and other such rumors.

There is also the fact that these laws are fluid, and even if there are contracts signed and permission granted, that may not hold for eternity.

[MikeN]

There is also the fact that these laws are fluid, and even if there are contracts signed and permission granted, that may not hold for eternity.

From what I understand, that's kind of the issue here. Tresona has changed the rules a bit on the various marching circuits for past and future permissions, and from there all sorts of "wiggle room" issues take center stage.

Mike

[Tony Flores]

i just wish they'd give us a credible update...be honest and transparent.

[N.E. Brigand]

There are many stories over the years in which the artist/writer is blind-sided by people using their music. In the 90s Weird Al used Coolio's "Gansta's Paradise" and was granted permission by the record company. Coolio was less than pleased, but couldn't do anything about it.

Parody is generally permitted as "fair use": Weird Al doesn't need to get artists' permission, but he often asks them as a courtesy.

"So don't be vain, and don't be whiny, or else . . ."

[MikeD]

Tresona was listed as an official sponsor of BoA last weekend, and one of their executives was among the many sponsors handing out the awards.

Did BOA have a video crew at champs? USBands did not even bother recording at MetLife when my band competed this month.

[Peel Paint]

You're correct for the most part, other than the official copyright holder part. It all depends what type of work it is and how contracts are signed. For example, a composer of a symphony would retain original ownership and then may share parts of it for distribution and publication purposes. Which is also why many modern composers are publishing on their own.

On the other hand, a rock band may be given song-writing credits, but copyright may either be controlled or shared from the start with their label. There are many stories over the years in which the artist/writer is blind-sided by people using their music. In the 90's Weird Al used Coolio's "Ganstas Paradise" and was granted permission by the record company. Coolio was less than pleased, but couldn't do anything about it.

The hardest thing about copyright/licensing is that there are no set-in-stone answers, and vary depending on dates, country of origin of the work, etc.

There's of course the age old rumor that you can't get permission to use the music of Disney, which is completely false, and other such rumors.

There is also the fact that these laws are fluid, and even if there are contracts signed and permission granted, that may not hold for eternity.

I appreciate it. I understood that sharing the copyright with a publisher is only an option for an artist, negotiable by contract. Some composers choose to agree to sharing copyright for convenience to transfer the details of handling certain unmusical responsibilities like marketing, paperwork, and accounting.

But I'd tuned out that record companies get in on the act grabbing a good part of copyrights for many pop and related artists as well. But then I know that many record company producers ripped off many black songwriters especially in the doo wop and R&B eras (and many early white rock artists as well) by grabbing first-name or sole composing credit for hit songs they played no part in writing.

It must be tempting for DCI to simply declare 2015 "The Summer of Parody" and start releasing 2015 videos without licenses, maybe with a dubbed-in laugh track, but it turns out, go figure, that DCI wouldn't have been the first to try this strategy. Generally, also go figure, this tactic hasn't fared well in the legal system:

http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/parody-fair-use-or-copyright-infringement.html

Al Yankovic's an interesting case. He generally has gone along with composers' refusals to allow him to parody their works, though as you said, he is under no obligation to do so, and there have been a distinguished list of humorless artists who have reportedly turned him down. But Al ignores Yoko Ono at least when performing live. Al's got good company there:

http://www.11points.com/Music/11_Artists_Who_Wouldn't_Give_Weird_Al_Permission_For_a_Parody

EDIT: Sorry, as you can probably see as I can, that link's not clickable. Here's a tiny version of the same link fthat is clickable, 11 Artists Who Wouldn't Give Al Permission For a Parody: http://tinyurl.com/cbp4bff

Edited November 19, 2015 by Peel Paint

[Shempy]

Did BOA have a video crew at champs? USBands did not even bother recording at MetLife when my band competed this month.

Mr. Video, the company that has provided video recording for both BOA and ISSMA for a number of years, was not enlisted to provide those services this year. That's as much as I know.

[Eleran]

USBands did not even bother recording at MetLife when my band competed this month.

I was informed by someone that USBands does not require their schools to secure arranging/performing rights at all. If that is correct, then I would presume there was a 0% chance that they could ever secure sync rights for State Championships, and probably wouldn't even bother trying.

[Shempy]

Al Yankovic's an interesting case. He generally has gone along with composers' refusals to allow him to parody their works, though as you said, he is under no obligation to do so, and there have been a distinguished list of humorless artists who have reportedly turned him down. But Al ignores Yoko Ono at least when performing live. Al's got good company there:

http://www.11points.com/Music/11_Artists_Who_Wouldn't_Give_Weird_Al_Permission_For_a_Parody

EDIT: Sorry, as you can probably see as I can, that link's not clickable. Here's a tiny version of the same link fthat is clickable, 11 Artists Who Wouldn't Give Al Permission For a Parody: http://tinyurl.com/cbp4bff

For his live performances, Yankovic will do a number of songs that he was gone on record as saying he won't record out of respect for the artist's wishes.

IIRC, the only song he's written that he will never record or perform is a parody of "Black or White" by Michael Jackson, because MJ thought the message of the song was too important to be parodied. Yankovic, having had a long-standing friendship with MJ and having benefited from a lot of his generosity (including donated soundstages, props from videos, etc), respected that.

Just an interesting pop music history lesson.