Copyrights, Bloody Copyrights!!

[kevingamin]

On 2/4/2026 at 1:30 PM, CabsMello said:

I just saw an article from the L.A. Times that Spanish figure skater Tomas-Llorenc Guarino Sabate was initially informed (very) recently that he would not be permitted to use the medley of Minions music for his short program for the Olympics due to copyright restrictions with the music.  However it looks, suspiciously, like after media got the word out that Universal is now going to grant him permission on the grounds of "special use / special event" circumstances and that the power that be are hashing out all the remaining impediments.

So not just Drum Corps is getting caught up in all this.

 

Bob

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2026-02-03/olympics-spanish-figure-skater-minions-program-music

BREAKING NEWS:

[jimwolf359]

On 2/6/2026 at 8:56 AM, Jeff Ream said:

Remember Phantom and the 08 DVD's...after the initial batch, the copyright holder didn't like part of it and pulled their permission. boom future editions didn't have the full championship show.

I remember that. I was lucky to get my DVDs before DCI had to make that change to Regiment's video.

[jimwolf359]

9 minutes ago, kevingamin said:

BREAKING NEWS:

He's not the only one with copyright issues. Several Skaters are caught up in this. 

[keystone3ply]

18 minutes ago, kevingamin said:

BREAKING NEWS:

👏👏👏👏👏  

[Sh0uldN0t]

I have no issue with paying the copyright owners. The problem is, as several comments here show, that the process of securing the rights is too complicated. It's one thing when a niche like drum corps can't secure rights in a timely manner. It's another when a top tier entertainment enterprise like Olympic figure skating is waiting for the okay while the competition has started. 

And therein is the real issue. The process is designed for movies, TV and all the places with lawyers and bank accounts. Two-bit operations like Phantom Regiment and other drum corps aren't equipped - and they aren't going to make the bank balance move much anyway.

[siletzspey]

To promote the progress of the sciences and the arts, the founding fathers added language to the U.S. Constitution that underpins our current patent and copyright laws. The goal was a virtuous cycle of inventing/creating, sharing, and inspiring, with some short-term benefit opportunity back to the inventors/creators, all in pursuit of an intellectual snowballing effect on society.

Dove-tailing off @Sh0uldN0t's comment, in my experience with patents in high tech, the better companies made an effort to reasonably license patents in scenarios where it would not create competition, or in scenarios where it would not move the bank balance. And I saw both patent and copyright licenses to some "two-bit operations" where the goodwill and reputation-building was the payback.

It's sad that some have a narrow view on licensing, and fail to be part of the virtuous cycle.

--tg

[ranintothedoor]

On 2/5/2026 at 9:40 AM, Slingerland said:

By that standard, if you're a bathroom remodeler and you have a client who likes your work so much they post pics online, they shouldn't have to pay you for your work, since they're giving you "free advertising and exposure."

Creating is work. Those who create original work should expect to be compensated and have rights over how their work is used. It's not really a hard dilemma.

I think this reductio ad absurdum argument works... unless the person who's posting pics is famous and you (the savvy bathroom remodeler) offer your work for free as long as the "free advertising and exposure" happens.  🙂 I think this scenario lines up better with this particular situation.

[Lance]

5 hours ago, ranintothedoor said:

I think this reductio ad absurdum argument works... unless the person who's posting pics is famous and you (the savvy bathroom remodeler) offer your work for free as long as the "free advertising and exposure" happens.  🙂 I think this scenario lines up better with this particular situation.

Ben Affleck is an Oscar-winning megastar.  Him even being in a casino is "free advertising and exposure".  Yet Vegas casinos have banned him from playing blackjack because he counts cards and beats the house edge.  His mere presence could literally bring millions in action to a high-stakes table over several hours, yet they choose to ban him.  Bending that black book rule might generate more revenue for them than they lose on that night. There are very valid and specific reasons why they did go through with the ban if you think about it, though.  Not a perfect analog here by any means, but plenty of antecedents that line up. 

And think about this figure skating guy who did minions music.  Universal didn't get a dime off it up front and if they had just let it go for "free advertising and exposure", I'd say they're run by complete morons.  It's a 25th-place performance only available on Peacock five hours before medal contenders start skating on anything nationally or internationally televised, and some fools really think that was going to generate more revenue than by having the skater pay for the rights.  Universal likely got more clicks to Minions music on Spotify when they made it an international headline by saying no.

 

  

 

[Jeff Ream]

On 2/15/2026 at 2:29 PM, Sh0uldN0t said:

I have no issue with paying the copyright owners. The problem is, as several comments here show, that the process of securing the rights is too complicated. It's one thing when a niche like drum corps can't secure rights in a timely manner. It's another when a top tier entertainment enterprise like Olympic figure skating is waiting for the okay while the competition has started. 

And therein is the real issue. The process is designed for movies, TV and all the places with lawyers and bank accounts. Two-bit operations like Phantom Regiment and other drum corps aren't equipped - and they aren't going to make the bank balance move much anyway.

lawyers gotta get paid

[Jeff Ream]

On 2/15/2026 at 11:30 PM, siletzspey said:

To promote the progress of the sciences and the arts, the founding fathers added language to the U.S. Constitution that underpins our current patent and copyright laws. The goal was a virtuous cycle of inventing/creating, sharing, and inspiring, with some short-term benefit opportunity back to the inventors/creators, all in pursuit of an intellectual snowballing effect on society.

Dove-tailing off @Sh0uldN0t's comment, in my experience with patents in high tech, the better companies made an effort to reasonably license patents in scenarios where it would not create competition, or in scenarios where it would not move the bank balance. And I saw both patent and copyright licenses to some "two-bit operations" where the goodwill and reputation-building was the payback.

It's sad that some have a narrow view on licensing, and fail to be part of the virtuous cycle.

--tg

change would come from Congress. and given the state of Congress, thats 535 jobs that only care about retaining their job