cubanmiamiboy Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 After the shocking suspension of Ketinoa's account on Youtube due to the claiming of some very well known High Powers-(which has caused a tremendous reaction within the ballet community viewers)-now it is official. Paradiselost89, another GREAT resource for ballet clips, has also been suspended. The Powers that Be are very likely to have been involved in this action again. This situation is getting out of proportion. WHAT DO THIS PEOPLE WANT?!?!-(the Powers, I mean...) . Link to comment
Mel Johnson Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The Powers very likely involved are the ones that hold the reproduction and display rights to the visual material quoted. They are asserting their right to determine where and how their property is to be shown. It's a grey area of copyright law, but the owners are pretty well supported for claiming the right to have an unauthorized posting taken down. Some don't mind; they may feel that any use of their video is cheap advertising! Link to comment
cubanmiamiboy Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 The Powers very likely involved are the ones that hold the reproduction and display rights to the visual material quoted. They are asserting their right to determine where and how their property is to be shown. It's a grey area of copyright law, but the owners are pretty well supported for claiming the right to have an unauthorized posting taken down. Some don't mind; they may feel that any use of their video is cheap advertising! Yeah, yeah, I know...rights and claims and holdings and determinations and copyrights and laws and authorizations and yes, The Powers That Be... Thank God I was able to repeatedly watch and enjoy Apollo, Theme and Variations and Waltz Academy in a time and place were such issues were largely and purposely ignored... Link to comment
Nanarina Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Is it known who are these "Powers that be"., are they the company making or releasing the DVD/Video the clips are taken from. It seems nowadays that on many of the recently released DVD's they have a code which prevents any use of the product other than playing it on a home DVD player. You cannot even add it to your library on your Computers Media Player. Seems that the entertainment industry will go to great lengths to protect their copyright. This is very short sighted to me, as I often buy new DVD's I have seen previewed on YouTube or the media. Surely if the clips have been filmed by the people who subscribe to YouTube they cannot be touched. Unless of course it is the actual Company or dancers that have been filmed. In truth it is a breach of copyright to even film a live performance without permission. My daughter always instills in me, only use clipps that are searched using the term Official. ( i.e. Official Aurelie Dupont Sleeping Beauty) Whether this is true or not I do not know. Link to comment
cinnamonswirl Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Are there any official clips? All the clips of Dupont's Beauty that I've seen have been ripped from the DVD. I know they're promo videos from certain companies promoting different programs, but they tend to have very little actual dancing, IMO. Some of the dancers have official accounts associated with their official websites (e.g. Dorothee Gilbert, Alessio Carbone), but I still wonder about the copyrights behind those videos. There was a clip of Gilbert dancing Tschai Pas and that video has been deleted -- although last I checked it was still on her website ;) Link to comment
rg Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 ummm, WALTZ ACADEMY? was there a site that had some reconstruction of this work? do you mean LA VALSE? sad either way, but if the former were really posted on youtube or anywhere else that would be news... Link to comment
Nanarina Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 [i do not know how correct this information was, except my Daughter is always warning me about using clips from YouTube on Facebook and other situations, such as establishing Playlist on the site. I cannot help wondering if she is being extra protective, and scare mongering. As most clips have been illegally used/podted without application to the copyright holder. (She is an Author and is quite keyed up with copyright) However when she put in the term "Official Aurelie Dupont video's. when discussing the subject with me. Only professionally recorded items came up. Not privately filmed ones. (Which can still be in breach of copyright if shot from the auditorium.) She insists you can be prosecuted for using YouTube video's. But in that case why do they put links to share with other sites on their clips? Has anyone got further clearer information please? Link to comment
Dale Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 There's no proof of the reasons why these channels were taken down, but it's obvious who is at the root of the reason why the Suzanne Farrell Ballet's performance are not available to watch in the Millennium Stage archive. I watched them live on my computer at the time, but when I went back today I found this next to the company's entries: "This performance is not available for viewing." This seems very shortsighted, especially among the wealth of other companies, groups and artists who allow their performance to be viewed in the archives. Link to comment
Jack Reed Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I wonder if Dale is thinking of the recent performances on 19th and 20th September, 2009? I was in the theatre both times, so I would be glad to learn there was some accommodation for those who couldn't be, besides the projections within the Kennedy Center itself I heard about. (I'd like to know what the editing quality was like, too; sitting behind one of the cameras on the 19th, I could be pretty sure there weren't any "partials" -- shots of only a partial view of the performer's body -- being taken by that one.) But the older archive video of the 23rd February 2007 program, running about 41 minutes, still plays. Link to comment
Dale Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Yes, Jack, I am talking about the recent September performances. I watched the performances on my computer. There were several different camera angles. I enjoyed it. At least one of them should be offered on the archive. I find it suspicious that neither is offered. But frankly, it's what I expected. I would have been pleasantly surprised if it was offered. As I was surprised that they offered the earlier program. Link to comment
Dale Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I want to add that while I love seeing the clips on YouTube, I can see both sides of the argument on that one. But the Kennedy Center specifically posts the videos. This isn't a case of a private recording posted on YouTube or a commercial video being posted without permission. Other artists seem to have no problem with the Kennedy Center posting their performances. They are meant to be posted. Link to comment
cubanmiamiboy Posted October 3, 2009 Author Share Posted October 3, 2009 ummm, WALTZ ACADEMY? Yes. was there a site that had some reconstruction of this work? No do you mean LA VALSE? No...I meant "lost" Waltz Academy... sad either way, but if the former were really posted on youtube or anywhere else that would be news... Seriously, rg...it could probably cause some damaging myocardial infarction to some of the Powers That Be members... "Oh...how she dared to do that..?!?!" Link to comment
Ray Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I want to add that while I love seeing the clips on YouTube, I can see both sides of the argument on that one. But the Kennedy Center specifically posts the videos. This isn't a case of a private recording posted on YouTube or a commercial video being posted without permission. Other artists seem to have no problem with the Kennedy Center posting their performances. They are meant to be posted. Can someone tell us what the pieces are? I recognize the Stravinsky and the Mozart (and can thus locate them on the Farrell Ballet repertoire list), but can't figure out what the Shostakovitch-y music is (reconstructed on synthesizer, it sounds like). Link to comment
emilienne Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Can someone tell us what the pieces are? I recognize the Stravinsky and the Mozart (and can thus locate them on the Farrell Ballet repertoire list), but can't figure out what the Shostakovitch-y music is (reconstructed on synthesizer, it sounds like). That was a suite of dances (continually revised,cut, reinserted, etc) from Don Quixote. The music was by Nikolai Nabokov. (on-topic) in the case of the Kennedy Center videos - do we know who decides whether the videos are to be broadcast once archived? Link to comment
cinnamonswirl Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'm confused. If the video removed from the Kennedy Center website was from Balachine's Don Quixote, was it the Trust that had it pulled? I thought Farrell still held the rights to that and hadn't given them to the Trust. Nanarina, I believe all of the Aurélie Dupont clips you're referring to are technically not supposed to be on Youtube. They were taken from the DVD released by Opus Arte and have almost certainly been uploaded without the permission of the copyright holder. Link to comment
cubanmiamiboy Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share Posted October 6, 2009 Natasha, Lopez seems to have taken the lead now...let's see what happens next. (Vikharev's SB's reconstruction is up and growing fast in clips, FYI) Link to comment
Dale Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I'm confused. If the video removed from the Kennedy Center website was from Balachine's Don Quixote, was it the Trust that had it pulled? I thought Farrell still held the rights to that and hadn't given them to the Trust.Nanarina, I believe all of the Aurélie Dupont clips you're referring to are technically not supposed to be on Youtube. They were taken from the DVD released by Opus Arte and have almost certainly been uploaded without the permission of the copyright holder. The video "not available" to the public was Suzanne Farrell Ballet's most recent Millennium Stage performance, from September 20 and 21. Link to comment
canbelto Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Weird how different companies seem to have different policies regarding YT. The Balanchine Trust is obviously the strictest, but Paul Taylor and Twayla Tharp are also very strict about their works being on YT. On the other hand dancers within, say, the Mariinsky or Bolshoi often seem to supply house camera videos to prominent YT members, and I can only assume that they're doing so with the tacit consent of the management. Link to comment
Jack Reed Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Not only do different people or groups have different ideas or goals, I think the governing laws are different in different countries -- Nanarina is in the UK, I believe, and the situation seems to be different again among the Continental countries. As an outsider, not knowing the laws or the thinking, I think I can see a dilemma facing a choreographer's trustees -- they want to maintain control so that the choreography makes its effect undiminished by corruption in performance quality, yet if they are extremely restrictive, the art has diminished effect because it is rarely seen or even unknown. Link to comment
Mme. Hermine Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Although I haven't just now checked, I am pretty sure, though, that an American entity can apply for and receive copyright protection in other countries, if they are willing to go through whatever legal gymnastics they have to go through to get it. I should check, though, as my experience with this is limited to only one event. And without knowing how correct or incorrect this is, the following page on Wikipedia is interesting. Best taken with a bottle of aspirin or the equivalent, as these things often are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law...sian_Federation Link to comment
bart Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Jack writes: As an outsider, not knowing the laws or the thinking, I think I can see a dilemma facing a choreographer's trustees -- they want to maintain control so that the choreography makes its effect undiminished by corruption in performance quality, yet if they are extremely restrictive, the art has diminished effect because it is rarely seen or even unknown. Why couldnt one of tne of these entities (say, the Balanchine Trust) actually license the rights to post certain videos or do it themselves? That way they could maintain a kind of quality control, as well as supporting the Brand. My personal concern in this matter is primarily with Balanchine. We are being deprived of historic -- and canonical -- performances. Without that, it will be difficult for people to examine closely just what made Balanchine's work so extraordinary. P.S. Am I right in thinking that there is a a consensus on BT that the intensity (obsessiveness?) of the Balanchine Trust's effort to control (i.e., monopolize) the image has reached a point where it is becoming counterproductive, even of their own stated goals. Link to comment
carbro Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Why couldnt one of tne of these entities (say, the Balanchine Trust) actually license the rights to post certain videos or do it themselves? That way they could maintain a kind of quality control, as well as supporting the Brand. According to their own statements, their concern is that companies will use the videos to mount unauthorized stagings of the ballets -- a complete loss of quality control. I cannot see them changing their position on this. Keeping the performances or ballets from amateurs or casual viewers is, how you say?, collateral damage. Link to comment
bart Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 According to their own statements, their concern is that companies will use the videos to mount unauthorized stagings of the ballets -- a complete loss of quality control. I cannot see them changing their position on this. Keeping the performances or ballets from amateurs or casual viewers is, how you say?, collateral damage. But surely such companies would have to advertise their illlicit performances. What they were doing would quickly become public knowledge in the relatively small and interconnected dance community. Wouldn't THAT be the point at which the Trust should step in? As it is, several generations of dancers and ballet-lovers -- those living outside a relatively few major ballet centers -- are being deprived of all but a pathetically small (and quite unbalanced, in terms of quality and representativeness) video record of Balanchine performances. What is being lost in terms of future undestanding and apprecation of the Balanchine legacy is surely more significant than preventing a few companies from tying to mount bootleg Balanchine works. Quite simply, I do not believe the Trust's stated reasons for doing what it is doing. ( Did I actually say that out loud? ) Link to comment
Ray Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Quite simply, I do not believe the Trust's stated reasons for doing what it is doing. ( Did I actually say that out loud? ) I'm with you, Bart. It seems a policy borne of paranoia and possessiveness, not any actual research or reasoning (i.e., a cost-benefit analysis). Link to comment
Recommended Posts