Youtube keeps the bonfire...claiming another victim-(the Powers that Be probably involved again)
Posted 12 October 2009 - 11:07 AM
If anything, having a YouTube performance by a company who had an official staging on the record would allow the audience to see whether an unofficial production had anything to do with the work.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 11:21 AM
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.
Many people won't, though. If they can get it for nothing, even if the product is somewhat compromised, they will. I think eventually an arrangement will be reached where people will be able to pay a fee online to see performances and clips.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 11:57 AM
Could the "Classical TV" model -- linked by Lucy in our curren thread of William Forstythe -- be a model for this? Or something like it?
I think eventually an arrangement will be reached where people will be able to pay a fee online to see performances and clips.
If so, the scale would have to be much smaller -- and the product quite different -- from the more populist and spontaneous environment of YouTube.I'd imagine that the system for organizing permissions and royalties would get rather complicated.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 12:15 PM
Is there anyone out there who has studied Balanchine's life enough to feel relatively comfortable (come on, take a risk! ) speculating what Mr B himself might say about this issue if he were here today?
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?
In my limited reading of his life, it strikes me that he did not feel possessive about his ballets, altho he would certainly have wanted them to be performed well.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 12:50 PM
Nowadays I gather the Trust sells performance licenses to perform for a limited time, say, two years.
In a possibly related context, I think some inventors do not patent their inventions because they can lose those rights if they don't defend them when they're violated, and lone inventors lack the resources to fight a large corporation. Here we're talking about copyright, not quite the same thing, but it might explain why the Balanchine Trust is fairly aggressive about maintaining control -- maybe the law says if you let it slip, you can't get it back. But this attempt to reason by analogy goes nowhere toward explaining the differences among different organizations. (There's been a complete Robbins Afternoon of a Faun with Farrell and Mofid up on an Iranian culture site for some time, for example, and a nearly-complete Cunningham Pond Way has been up for a couple of years.)
As for stepping in when a bootleg performance becomes public knowledge, how are they going act? Lawsuits cost money and sometimes breed ill will, to say the least. Or are you thinking of the deterrent effect of that possibility? I think that may be part of their game plan already.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 12:58 PM
Posted 12 October 2009 - 01:15 PM
But I also recall, persuant to Sandy's question, that during Mr. B's time, if I heard correctly, SAB students who performed in Workshop could get tape of their performances, including of Balanchine, but not since his death.
By the way, bart, I'm going to pass being part of that consensus, for now! I just don't understand this situation well enough to take a position yet.
Posted 12 October 2009 - 02:50 PM
Posted 12 October 2009 - 04:00 PM
Posted 12 October 2009 - 05:11 PM
The ideal answer to that for me would be to have several filmed versions of a given ballet [...]
Yes, as in music.
Posted 18 October 2009 - 07:32 AM
This sets aside, of course, the larger question of how just how reasonable and fair current copyright law actually is. The exceptionally long life of copyright protection was never anticipated by those who first included it in British law and, later the U.S. constitution. Nor could they have imagined the lucrative and self-serving industry -- all those heirs, trusts, corporate entities, and law firms -- that has flourished around it.
--In order to maintain their right to certain dances, organizations such as the Balanchine Trust have to enforce copyright protection. If they don't complain to YouTube, for example, about the Kirov clips of Balanchine works that Ketinoa put up, they're at risk of what's known as copyright abandonment, which means that when a real risk comes along (such as did with the Martha Graham company under Ron Protas), they've relinquished their legal right to prosecute.
Posted 21 October 2009 - 08:12 PM
Posted 22 October 2009 - 08:22 AM
MJ, you have put into words something that is usually left unspoken. Thanks. It's not the whole story -- not by a long stretch -- but I have the suspicion that it plays a role. (It usually does when institutions work very hard to preserve a monopoly.)
The trusts and the repetiteurs would lose a important source of revenue.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users