Farmboy

Tresóna loses big copyright case

Recommended Posts

Wow, interesting read...I’m no lawyer either, but it appears to be a swift kick in the stomach to Tresona.

I imagine DCI has its eyes on this as “fair use” and “education” is mentioned quite a bit in the document.  Scroll to the end, and you see that it pretty much scolds Tresona for using scare tactics to get people to pay for their licensing service.  This ruling could change things a bit in the future for bands, choirs, and yes, drum corps I imagine...

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, leed17 said:

Wow, interesting read...I’m no lawyer either, but it appears to be a swift kick in the stomach to Tresona.

I imagine DCI has its eyes on this as “fair use” and “education” is mentioned quite a bit in the document.  Scroll to the end, and you see that it pretty much scolds Tresona for using scare tactics to get people to pay for their licensing service.  This ruling could change things a bit in the future for bands, choirs, and yes, drum corps I imagine...

See, this is what I thought.  But I'm definitely NOT a licensing lawyer so I'll leave the interpretation to others.

But, If you read that other thread, it's very clear that I'm an infectious disease expert.  Just ask me!

Edited by garfield
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This bodes well for educational music performance groups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farmboy said:

I'm no lawyer

what a refreshing post - finally someone who isn't an expert on law, contagious disease, global warming/weather AND drum corps!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting. i'll look forward to seeing it translated from legalese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad to see this happen to Tresona. It's about time.

Extract from the PDF

Copyright

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary
judgment in favor of the vocal music director at Burbank
High School and other defendants in a copyright suit and
reversed the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees to
defendants.

Tresóna Multimedia, LLC, a licensing company,
claimed that the Burbank High School student show choirs
failed to obtain licenses for their use of copyrighted sheet
music in arranging a show choir performance. The panel
concluded that Tresóna lacked standing under 17 U.S.C.
§ 501(b) to sue as to three of the four musical works at issue
because it received its interests in those songs from
individual co-owners of copyright, without the consent of
the other co-owners, and therefore held only non-exclusive
licenses in those works.

The panel stated that it was especially swayed by the limited
and transformative nature of the use and the work’s
nonprofit educational purposes in enhancing the educational
experience of high school students. The panel concluded
that the music director’s use of a small portion of the song,
along with portions of other songs, to create sheet music for
a new and different high school choir showpiece
performance was a fair use.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standing Definition:

Standing (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
Jump to navigationJump to search
Legal concept concerning a party's connection to or harm from a law or action being challenged

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

  1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
  2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

In other words, in this case Tresona was not harmed and therefore lacked standing.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good news, and has the potential to be HUGE in the marching arts. Permission to Arrange SHOULD be a lot easier and a lot cheaper as a result.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.