Pavilion Show in N. CA

[danielray]

I was there. There was no banning of cameras and video at this event. There was nothing printed on the program they handed out asking not to video record the event. Nothing was announced not to post the performances. You can't perform in public and then ask that it not be posted. What if BD was performing in a parade and then asked the audience who recorded it not to show it to the public.

you have GOT to be kidding me!!!!!!! Isn't blueview a FREE publication from BD? Was there an announcement at the show or disclaimer posted in the program? I'm mean ....... seRIOUSLY! You're not losing money over someone posting a vid of your concert Blue Devils! It's a free website showing a vid of a free concert that promotes YOU and Drum Corps as a whole.

Ego trip 101.

There is nothing wrong with making a recording for personal use, however, there are licenses required for legal distribution of the recording - even if it is given away for free.

Distributing an unauthorized recording of a performance of the BlueDevils actually violates a number of laws (state and federal). They are not required to make any form of notice or disclaimer and neither is the venue.

About the specific laws and possible violations, I'll start with the posting and work backwards.

Photo/Video Talent Release Forms

In California, if you wish to create and distribute photos or video recordings of any type of performer or use their image in any way, you must obtain a signed Artist Release Form from every single performer that you photograph or record.

This form acknowledges that their image is being captured and could potentially be distributed, and they are waiving any future claims of ownership of the material and agree that you will be held harmless should any possible damages arise from the distribution of the material.

If the performer is under 18, you must have the signature of a parent or guardian.

Music Performance Talent Release

In California, if you wish to create and distribute any form of audio recordings of any type of musical performance, you must obtain a signed Artist Release Form from every single performer that you record.

This form acknowledges that their performance is being captured and could potentially be distributed, and they are waiving any future claims of ownership of the material and agree that you will be held harmless should any possible damages arise from the distribution of the material.

Synchronization Rights

Synchronization Rights grant an individual license from the publisher/composer/rights-holder for the ability synchronization to synchronize a musical work with a specific form of audiovisual work, including a video of a concert performance.

There are two parts to Synchronization Rights:

1. Authorization to synchronize music with an audiovisual performance and conditions of use

2. Authorization to distribute through specific forms of media (broadcast television, cable television, internet download, internet streaming, etc.)

Even though you may have been granted a Synchronization Rights license for one form of media, you cannot distribute through any other form of media that is not explicitly granted in the license agreement.

The only exception to the requirement for a synch license would be if the performance was broadcast or streamed live, so long as all other rights have been cleared, however, any subsequent rebroadcasting of a performance would require a sync license (ex: Madison Scouts Alumni performance being able to be streamed live, but not re-streamed until rights were cleared)

If a concert performance was included in a video as part of a promotion for the sale of an audio recording, a sync license is not required. This is one sort of loophole in the system that is at the foundation of the business model for MTV, for example, as these rights are often not required.

Mechanical Rights

If you intend to distribute a recording of any copyrighted musical work - even if you will make it available for free - you must obtain a Mechanical Rights license from the publisher/composer/rights-holder.

Even if you make the recording available for free, you still must pay for every single time the recording was distributed. The current statutory rate is:

9.1 cents or 1.75 cents per minute of playing time or fraction thereof, whichever is greater

Digital Rights

In some cases, it is possible to obtain a license for what are termed DPD's - which cover most forms of digital performances, downloads or streaming.

Rates for these differ from mechanical, and are determined on a case by case basis, however, penalties for digitally distributing a work without proper authorization or license are generally determined to be the statutory rate for mechanicals (for ever download or stream), plus damages.

The laws that cover these issues specifically are found in U.S. Code - TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > 114. Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings.

Violating these rights by putting unauthorized recording online have the potential to create problems for corps in the future in the efforts to obtain legitimate licenses.

While the internet is an extremely valuable tool for generating exposure for the drum corps activity (I wonder how many people have first stumbled across it on YouTube?), recruiting and keeping up the enthusiasm of current fans... there should probably be an organized effort among fans of the activity to address this in a way that benefits everyone, without damaging perception/relationships among rights-holders.

[Iplaytimpani]

They shouldn't have to announce it. People should have enough common sense to know that the way the entertainment industry works is that if you have not paid for the rights to broadcast a piece of music and you do so anyway, you are breaking copyright laws and stealing from the industry.

If we are going to adhear to your logic, maybe I should stop by the nearest grocery store and shoplift a bunch of food. HEY! "They didn't make any kind of announcement when I walked that I couldn't". SHEESH! Think with some common sense, PLEASE!

I'm not sure if I stated this earlier, so before I continue let me make it clear. I really don't have an vested interest in how BD handles recordings and such.

But, I'm coming at it from the fan POV. It seems to me that a free standstill without any word otherwise, could be put up on youtube or whatever. It's doesnt seem any different to me than a lot. And again, I know there's times corps don't want lots put up. But they make that clear and people respect their decision. Nobody is disrespecting BD's choice on this, but more of how it was handled in a kind of after the fact way. That's all. No harm, no foul really. For anyone who REALLY wants to find the video online, it's available. It's really not that big a deal.

[Iplaytimpani]

Daniel, you seem to be on the ball on the subject so maybe you can answer this than.

Is every member of every drum corps going to have to sign all these artist release forms and such with finals in CA this year? If that was the case, don't you think they'd be in hand by now? I know personally I have not.

[passionatedc]

Um, is this really that big of deal?

Maybe you should ask this question to a composer or recording artist who is on his last financial limb and needs to find a new profession due to illegal downloads, illegal transcribing and arranging and the lack of desire among the lazy consumer to actually pay for entertainment...even though the consumer's lazy choices are illegal and putting the artist out of business. ARE YOU JOKING? Of course it's a big deal! It's actually considered a CRIME to break copyright laws.

Edited May 9, 2007 by passionatedc

[passionatedc]

This person that posted the video on youtube, is he making any money ??

NOT THE ISSUE! It doesn't matter if he is or if he isn't making money off of the broadcast because the issue is...those who own the copyright laws are LOSING money because the "rights" are also a part of the product itself. Going back to the "grocery store" paralell...if I went in and shoplifted a grocery store, would it matter what I did with the merch after I left the store? No. I could choose not to sell it and heck...throw it in the nearest trash can. Either way it doesn't matter because the store is losing money because of the CRIME committed. If someone wants to broadcast a performance of the music that the Blue Devils are playing, they need to pay for the rights to do so just like the Blue Devils did. Whether they intend to make a profit off of it or not is NOT THE ISSUE!

Edited May 9, 2007 by passionatedc

[passionatedc]

I know, I see and understand that and can totally get the point...however......does this youtube posting ruin what the Devils are trying to create ??

Doesn't matter. Not the issue.

Does it take away from their thunder ??

Doesn't matter. Not the issue.

Their Blueview ??

Doesn't matter. Not the issue.

Again, the issue is that those who own the rights the the music have a product the sell and if someone broadcasts or performs the work without paying for it, they are stealing.

Its entertainment and why should their be a monopoly on where you get it from ?

Are you SERIOUS? "WHY"? Because the artist/composer makes his or her LIVING off of the product. It's a business for crying out loud. THERE HAS to be a monopoly on it or every entertainer on the planet would entertain FOR FREE! Do you think that would be fair in light of the fact that when you really take a good look at the amount of work (say for example) a composer goes through to create his or her product...he or she actually comes out to be one of the hardest working people in the world. THE ENTERTAINER DESERVES THE MONEY FOR HIS OR HER PRODUCT!

WHo lets you enjoy it for non - monetary purposes.

NOBOFDY DESERVES to enjoy it without paying for it! PERIOD!

Its still publicity for the Blue Devils and quite frankly, this issue is more negative publicity for them that allowing the youtube video to be show is positive.

Get Blue Devils out of the picture. The issue is not about them (and I think that is where you and others are missing the point). The issue is those who own the rights to the music they play and have RELEASED the rights TO THEM because THEY PAYED FOR IT!

[passionatedc]

What has gotten out of hand is all of the arguing over the rights and such. Does anybody remember what the guy who posted on YouTube even said? He was asked to take it down (not forced) and he agreed to do so. Why is everybody arguing now, the guy that posted the clip didn't whine and complain, he just did what was asked. Now everybody is second guessing all of the motivators in this. Who cares why they asked him to? Let it go already. If the poster didn't fight it, why is everyone else trying to fight it for him, he obviously had enough repsect to do as he was asked (not told) to. You wanna argue about something? Argue about '93 Cadets beating '93 Star......there, I said it :sshh:

It's become an argument of ethics at this point. There are people on here who think the deserve free entertainment without paying for the service of the entertainer and it's exactly the reason so many professionals in the industry need to find a second income or another line of work all together. Typical lazy America...wanting a free hand out!

[passionatedc]

I'm not sure if I stated this earlier, so before I continue let me make it clear. I really don't have an vested interest in how BD handles recordings and such.

But, I'm coming at it from the fan POV. It seems to me that a free standstill without any word otherwise, could be put up on youtube or whatever. It's doesnt seem any different to me than a lot. And again, I know there's times corps don't want lots put up. But they make that clear and people respect their decision. Nobody is disrespecting BD's choice on this, but more of how it was handled in a kind of after the fact way. That's all. No harm, no foul really. For anyone who REALLY wants to find the video online, it's available. It's really not that big a deal.

You still don't get it. It's not about BD...it's about the people who sold BD the rights to perform and record their music. "Free concert" or not, the rights to broadcast a recording of the music is NOT "free". BD had to pay for that right and so should YOU!

[danielray]

Daniel, you seem to be on the ball on the subject so maybe you can answer this than.

Is every member of every drum corps going to have to sign all these artist release forms and such with finals in CA this year? If that was the case, don't you think they'd be in hand by now? I know personally I have not.

There shouldn't be any difference between CA and other states for the purposes of finals recordings and broadcasts.

I think most organizations now have some sort of general performer release, where rights are released to or assigned to the organization. The individual organizations can then have the rights to use the image of the performer and any performance of theirs without any additional authorization up until a certain date.

[Iplaytimpani]

You're partially correct from what I can tell though. Yes, it should be paid for. And Blue Devils did pay for the rights to arrange, perform, and sell. But unlike some current composers (John Mackey is one who I know does this with his concert works) they do not pay per performance. Blue Devils had to pay to to be able to work with and and eventually sell as part of cd's and dvds the music. But since it's not on a pay per performance schedule, it's in the hands of BD when and where the work is distributed. So, enough with this all about the composers blah blah blah. It's a false statement. By this point, the composers and their companies have already signed over the rights and been paid, or else BD would not have been able to perform the music in the first place legally. Which brings it back to BD's decision, which they're entitled to, and therefore should probably have just let people know ahead of time.