About licensing

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

https://www.dci.org/news/2008-world-championship-dvd-reissued

So, not knowing what minute plus was left out, is it worth $35+ for that minute plus of video for only one corps?

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

So, not knowing what minute plus was left out, is it worth $35+ for that minute plus of video for only one corps?

i ordered the set prior to the change, so it was worth it to me. I got their in house video before the change too, which was cool because then I got the victory run too

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

 

"Synchronization license ultimately wouldn't be granted"

So it was the DVD release, not the musical arrangement, which was contested. That is the responsibility of DCI not Regiment.

i have been searching and can't find the article, but i remember seeing somewhere that the license holder decided they didn't like the visual tied to the music

[N.E. Brigand]

4 hours ago, Stu said:

 

"Synchronization license ultimately wouldn't be granted"

So it was the DVD release, not the musical arrangement, which was contested. That is the responsibility of DCI not Regiment.

Thanks to Jeff for digging out that 2008 link. A couple things remain curious:

1. By quoting Phantom Regiment's director on the "licensing process", even though it was presumably not Regiment who attempted to secure the synchronization license, DCI's article probably contributed to audience members not knowing that DCI rather than the corps are responsible for getting licenses for videorecordings.

2. The implication of the article is that DCI issued the DVD without having secured the license. Was that just a one-time mistake, or was DCI doing that regularly, and on this occasion the practice backfired on them?

[Stu]

4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

i have been searching and can't find the article, but i remember seeing somewhere that the license holder decided they didn't like the visual tied to the music

 

1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Thanks to Jeff for digging out that 2008 link. A couple things remain curious:

1. By quoting Phantom Regiment's director on the "licensing process", even though it was presumably not Regiment who attempted to secure the synchronization license, DCI's article probably contributed to audience members not knowing that DCI rather than the corps are responsible for getting licenses for videorecordings.

2. The implication of the article is that DCI issued the DVD without having secured the license. Was that just a one-time mistake, or was DCI doing that regularly, and on this occasion the practice backfired on them?

Within the first paragraph is this inreresting tidbit: "...was made necessary because of a change in the copyright status of a piece of music." This not only implies but directly states that the Copyright itself, not just the permission, changed in status. That usually means the ownership changed. And that might have been why it was first granted then pulled.

But we are also assuming that the original status was Yes. What if the original status was 'Tentative'?

There is s clue in the fourth paragraph which states, "While the initial steps of the licensing process were successful, we were disappointed to learn that a synchronization license ultimately wouldn't be granted."  So, could the initial steps have garnered the 'Tentitive' or even a Yes by the original owner, but the final product yielded a 'No' from the new Copyright owner?

Edited January 30, 2019 by Stu

[jeffmolnar]

My 2008 DVD is from the first run. Feels good man.

[N.E. Brigand]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

There is s clue in the fourth paragraph which states, "While the initial steps of the licensing process were successful, we were disappointed to learn that a synchronization license ultimately wouldn't be granted."  So, could the initial steps have garnered the 'Tentitive' or even a Yes by the original owner, but the final product yielded a 'No' from the new Copyright owner?

Maybe. Or maybe "initial steps" means arranging and performance licenses.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Maybe. Or maybe "initial steps" means arranging and performance licenses.

Using the initial steps sentence by itself along with the simplest explination I agree with you. But it is the Copyright Status change, not permission change, but the Copyright itself staus change that causes me to go hmmmmm.

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Thanks to Jeff for digging out that 2008 link. A couple things remain curious:

1. By quoting Phantom Regiment's director on the "licensing process", even though it was presumably not Regiment who attempted to secure the synchronization license, DCI's article probably contributed to audience members not knowing that DCI rather than the corps are responsible for getting licenses for videorecordings.

2. The implication of the article is that DCI issued the DVD without having secured the license. Was that just a one-time mistake, or was DCI doing that regularly, and on this occasion the practice backfired on them?

well...look what happened a few years later....i think that answers #2

[N.E. Brigand]

40 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

well...look what happened a few years later....i think that answers #2

I'm not sure it does. What happened a few years later seems to be that DCI mistakenly believed their synchronization licensing included permission to stream indefinitely.