YouTube, copyright and DCI

[BRASSO]

Not quite accurate: The Copyright Holder actually can legally hold the fan accountable for videoing a rehearsal and uploading it to the internet without their, the Copyright Holder's, specific authorization.

But the copyright holder loses that privilege when its a practice, because there is no charge for admission to the practice. If Copyright holders believed their rights to control extended to music ensemble practices, the YouTube videos would come under the alleged Copyholder Rights here, and they'd have been removed. Plus, follow the money here. Copyright Laws look to seek out financial damages for the Holder to violators of their copyright protections. But for all intents and purposes there is little practicality to go after a single downloader, as its hard to prove intent to defraud the Holder in any meaningful financial way. Plus the downloader on Corps practices gets no money from the downloading exercise. This is MUCH different however when its DCI , and there is money on the table based upon the playing in uniforms in a venue where there was an exchange of money between DCI's Show sponsor and the fan for the privilege to observe the performance. Because the dynamic changes, the rights and privileges changes with that. I do agree however that there is a lot of grey areas in these copyright laws, and what might be legally true today, may not be legally true tomorrow. Some judges don't always agree with other colleague judges too when it comes to these disputes that can have much ambiquities to them in terms of what is legally allowed, and what is not legally allowed.

Edited May 3, 2016 by BRASSO

[N.E. Brigand]

Also, if corps do not engage in their own policing of non-authorized videoing/posting of their rehearsals they are likely to have a hard time securing future arranging permissions granted from copyright holders. And if DCI did not stay on top of policing non-authorized videoing/posting of their sanctioned shows, they would also likely lose future sync permissions granted from copyright holders.

Something similar happens in theater, where, as a producer, the organization for which I work is obligated by the license obtained from the playwright, as well as the collective bargaining agreements with the unions for actors, directors, and designers, to include an announcement and/or notice in the playbill telling patrons that recording is prohibited.

If fans' video of our performances (or rehearsals) nonetheless appears online, our company won't be sued for breach of contract, but if it happened a lot and we seemed to be looking the other way, the playwrights would be asking for a higher royalty rate the next time we tried to license their work, and the artists' union likewise would demand increased compensation as part of their next collective agreement.

[N.E. Brigand]

But the copyright holder loses that privilege when it's a practice, because there is no charge for admission to the practice. If copyright holders believed their rights to control extended to music ensemble practices, the Youtube videos would come under the alleged copyright holders here, and they'd have been removed.

I think you're mistaken. Say I'm a composer or a playwright. An orchestra or a theatre, respectively, are in rehearsal either to record my work, or in preparation for a performance scheduled for a couple weeks from now. You attend a rehearsal, secretly record it, and post the video on Youtube. The recording or the performance subsequently see its sales significantly cut down from what was anticipated (e.g., from what the groups's last performance or recording of my work earned), either because people don't like what they've seen or heard (not necessarily because the work itself is bad: maybe the lead actor or first chair oboist were struggling through a cold that day) or because people have enjoyed the work for free and now don't feel they need to pay the admission. I have lost royalties because of your action.

So darn right I'm telling Youtube to remove it (particularly if I notice it early, while there's still time before the recording is released or the performance happens).

[Stu]

But the copyright holder loses that privilege when its a practice, because there is no charge for admission to the practice....

N.E. Brigand thinks you are mistaken, I know you are flat in error. If during a rehearsal the music is played, and subsequently recorded via video, and it is placed on the internet for public consumption or shared by anyone without specific permission from the Copyright Holder, it is illegal. It matters not if money changed hands, or if it was a rehearsal not an official performance; whoever owns the sync rights of that music has the right have it removed from YouTube, Facebook, any other site on the internet, or stop any other type of public distribution of that video. And whoever owns the mechanical rights can legally stop someone from doing the same with an audio recording made during rehearsal.

[jjeffeory]

DCI corporate is legally responsible for securing sync (aka video) rights of corps performances at all DCI events, which means that they are also supposed to do what they can to eliminate others from recording videos at those DCI events. So, DCI does need to do its own policing of copyright infringement issues concerning videos downloaded on the internet that contain actual DCI show performances recorded by non-authorized people.

Right, but he was talking about out of uniform recordings that aren't produced by DCI. DCI can not just go to Youtube and give a bunch of take down notices on just anything....

[Stu]

Right, but he was talking about out of uniform recordings that aren't produced by DCI. DCI can not just go to Youtube and give a bunch of take down notices on just anything....

As Jeff Ream is always happy to point out, DCI ‘is’ the corps. As for how rehearsal videos which are uploaded on YouTube should be addressed, please read my responses to Brasso in postings # 10 and #14 as well as the response by N.E. Brigand in postings #12 and #13.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Stu

[3rd Glasgow BB]

They've not deleted M4D150N 5C0U75 3MP1R3 5T4T3 0F M1N0.

Not yet anyway...

[C.Holland]

They've not deleted M4D150N 5C0U75 3MP1R3 5T4T3 0F M1N0.

Not yet anyway...

now that you've posted that.... wait a few minutes.

[Stu]

But the Copyright holder loses that Privilege...

I thought about not mentioning this, but it is a stickler of mine: There is a huge difference between a Right and a Privilege. Example: You as a property owner have a Right to invite me into your house or keep me out; I have no such Right as it applies to your property. But if you do invite me in, and I accept your invitation, I then have the Privilege of being in your house. You granted me that Privilege via exercising your Right; and you can take away my Privilege by also exercising your Right. But I cannot take away your Right by me attempting to exercise my Privilege of entering your house; if I attempted to do that I can, and should, be held legally accountable for my actions.

[gak27]

Of my "subscribed" posters, 3 of 4 have been terminated "because we received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted." The 4th has one 2015, 3 2012 and one 1988 show still up...