Jump to content


Youtube keeps the bonfire...claiming another victim-(the Powers that Be probably involved again)


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#16 Natalia

Natalia

    Rubies Circle

  • Foreign Correspondent
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,396 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 12:46 PM

Could Mr. Lopez be next? :FIREdevil:

#17 cubanmiamiboy

cubanmiamiboy

    Diamonds Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,243 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 01:23 PM

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)

#18 Dale

Dale

    Emeralds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 06 October 2009 - 01:29 PM

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.

#19 canbelto

canbelto

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,884 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 07:25 AM

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.

#20 Jack Reed

Jack Reed

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 08:06 AM

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.

#21 Mme. Hermine

Mme. Hermine

    Emeralds Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,730 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 08:53 AM

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. :lol:

http://en.wikipedia....sian_Federation

#22 bart

bart

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,320 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 10:55 AM

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.

#23 carbro

carbro

    Late Board Registrar

  • Rest in Peace
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,361 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 11:32 AM

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.

#24 bart

bart

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,320 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 12:44 PM

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. ( :o Did I actually say that out loud? :wink: )

#25 Ray

Ray

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 997 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 01:52 PM

Quite simply, I do not believe the Trust's stated reasons for doing what it is doing. ( :o Did I actually say that out loud? :wink: )


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).

#26 innopac

innopac

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts

Posted 11 October 2009 - 11:02 PM

Great letter by Paul Parish.

"But it is academic dance, and it's not just a pun to say there are principles of academic freedom involved. Is Ketinoa's channel protected under principles of academic freedom? Or rather, should it be? The dance world has languished so long without libraries, and the rise of video was just beginning to allow dance to be studied like literature, so you could study it and quote accurately, and the autodidact or amateur outside the academy was becoming almost as well informed as some professors. Though it was happening outside a university setting, the growth of serious dance culture was happening in the West rather like the scientific societies of the 18th century, when professional procedures had not yet been codified but people were making collections and study was becoming possible on an unprecedented scale -- and Ketinoa's channel was at the top of the heap for providing the core commentaries and syllabi."



#27 Nanarina

Nanarina

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 12 October 2009 - 08:02 AM

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.





:wink: So is my Daughter correct in what she is saying then please? I should not put them onto my YouTube (I am a member of the site) Playlists for my own private viewing? Gosh it does get confusing!! Thank you for the information.

#28 Nanarina

Nanarina

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 12 October 2009 - 08:15 AM

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.






Yes I am in the UK, and it does not seem to be such a high priority here the sense of Copyright, for example we do not have such stringent privacy regulations as they do in France. You only have to look at the content and numbers of "Gossip magazines". Going back to Ballet, the most protective element I would say with a British Choreographer would be late Sir Kenneth Mac Millan and the protector of his work is his wife Lady Debra.

#29 Nanarina

Nanarina

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 12 October 2009 - 08:20 AM

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.




Speaking for myself, the answer to your question as far as I am concerned is SIMPLY YES.

#30 Nanarina

Nanarina

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 12 October 2009 - 08:37 AM

:wink: This whole situation is a sad loss for any person with a love or interest in Ballet.
YouTube is a very good vehicle to learn more about the varied repertoire from all over the world.
I have spent a great deal of time looking at Dancers past and present, reserarching lost and new productions. Where else could I find this at my fingertips on line and with such a comprehensive
collection. Of course I still wish to go to the live performances, and see different dancers,
But I will still purchase DVD's.CD's Books and Magazines.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):