Copyright protection

[innopac]

The writer of the blog Intermezzo has been told to remove images and has been threatened with being barred from future ROH performances.

I do not know the background of this story and was wondering if anyone else does. I also was wondering if this has happened before or if the copyright policing we have been seeing on youtube is moving over a wider catchment area now?

"The ROH head of legal & business affairs has written me a couple of emails (below), culminating in a demand to "Remove all images referenced to performances at the Royal Opera House" - whatever that means. If he had threatened only litigation I would fight it. The grounds are weak; he can't even spell 'counsel'; I can smell victory from where I'm sitting.

However he has also made the threat of "future exclusion from future Royal Opera House membership and performances". This obviously hits where it hurts. The ROH can bar entry to anyone, for any or no reason, right or wrong, whether they''ve used "images referenced to performances at the Royal Opera House" or not. So in the interests of my continued attendance at Covent Garden, I have reluctantly removed all Royal Opera House-related posts, as it was the quickest way to comply with the demand made."

Intermezzo Blog

[richard53dog]

The writer of the blog Intermezzo has been told to remove images and has been threatened with being barred from future ROH performances.

I do not know the background of this story and was wondering if anyone else does. I also was wondering if this has happened before or if the copyright policing we have been seeing on youtube is moving over a wider catchment area now?

"The ROH head of legal & business affairs has written me a couple of emails (below), culminating in a demand to "Remove all images referenced to performances at the Royal Opera House" - whatever that means. If he had threatened only litigation I would fight it. The grounds are weak; he can't even spell 'counsel'; I can smell victory from where I'm sitting.

However he has also made the threat of "future exclusion from future Royal Opera House membership and performances". This obviously hits where it hurts. The ROH can bar entry to anyone, for any or no reason, right or wrong, whether they''ve used "images referenced to performances at the Royal Opera House" or not. So in the interests of my continued attendance at Covent Garden, I have reluctantly removed all Royal Opera House-related posts, as it was the quickest way to comply with the demand made."

Intermezzo Blog

innopac, I don't follow Intermezzo's blog all that closely but from the somewhat secondhand information I had, the issue was over images rather than videos; photos and production sketches of an upcomming production of Adriana Lecovreur. Not that there is all that much difference in principle.

The letter from the ROH legal team was rather sloppy with some obvious mispellings including a reference to the "Royal Opera Hose(!)"

In any event there was a significant amount of complaint directed to the ROH and the ROH has issued an apology to

Intermezzo. Personally I think it is rather short sided to attack blogs, particularly those with a good reputation and large following. The lawyers tend to come off as bullies, particularly when the blogger has no financial interest in the information posted on the blog. It would be one thing if Intermezzo was charging 20p for a look at the set and costume sketches but that's not the case here.

A few years ago, La Scala went after the Milan based blogger operachic because she used the La Scala official header as the header for her blog. I can see that one a bit more, it was similar to unauthorized use of a trademark.

Going back a few more years to the opening years of this century, the MET's lawyers went after a fan website that provided Met historical information such as a list of all the MEt broadcasts and telecasts going back to 1931. Again the legal team came off as thugs, the website owner was merely a fan and was only displaying information that was available in the public domain. I myself wrote an email to the MEt board complaining about the heavy handed, thuggish behavior of their legal team and as in the Intermezzo case, they apologized.

I think there is a lack of real understanding on just how important some of these really widely read blogs are. They do a lot to stimulate interest and in most cases there is no financial gain to be had by the blogger. To be sure, these performing arts outfits need to protect themselves and their copyright/trademark information and images but it becomes a very, very fine line.

The ROH press release of their apology to Intermezzo follows:

http://www.roh.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Press_and_Media/Press_Releases/INTERMEZZO.pdf

[innopac]

Thank you very much richard53dog for the background information and the update. Much appreciated.

[EvilNinjaX]

Man, ROH is WAY behind the times! It's been nearly a DECADE since Warner Brothers pioneered the "attack your fans" mindset when they called for shutting down ALL Fan websites of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, to the chagrin of many people, including Buffy CREATOR Joss Whedon himself. Tonya Harding took it a step further when she SUED her own fan club and put it out of business.

The world has moved on and (other than the RIAA and MPAA), most realize that there's a HUGE intrinsic, incalculable value to the buzz generated by fans.

-goro-

[innopac]

Further response from the Royal Opera House:

"Rights and copyright have become even more complicated in the digital age. Like a lot of arts organisations, we need to protect our rights and those of our artists, while also finding the best ways to share our work and encourage people to participate in it. Until now, the way we use social media has not been connected to our rights-management strategy, but it’s very clear that we need to bring the two closer together.

We’re now talking to a group of bloggers to help us determine some guidelines for how Royal Opera House publicity is used in the blogosphere, and hope to have some guidelines available for publication very soon."

[dirac]

To be sure, these performing arts outfits need to protect themselves and their copyright/trademark information and images but it becomes a very, very fine line.

The problem for the organizations and their artists is that you have to observe the line no matter how fine if you want to protect yourself. If you let a blogger or two slide, you may find yourself one day without recourse in more serious cases.

Going back a few more years to the opening years of this century, the MET's lawyers went after a fan website that provided Met historical information such as a list of all the MEt broadcasts and telecasts going back to 1931. Again the legal team came off as thugs, the website owner was merely a fan and was only displaying information that was available in the public domain.

Ridiculous.

[Jane Simpson]

The ROH's attempt to control the reproduction of photographs now seems to be a small part of a much wider policy of control:

Rights Grab at the Royal Opera House

[richard53dog]

The ROH's attempt to control the reproduction of photographs now seems to be a small part of a much wider policy of control:

Rights Grab at the Royal Opera House

This seems absolutely amazing. The ROH is trying to claim rights to almost everything associated with any new works created for the theater; not just photos and images of new productions, which seems reasonable to me, but almost everything associated with any new works that will premiere in the theater. This includes choreography associated with new dance works!

It appears that they would also claim rights to scores associated with new works but there a prior arrangement exists, composers (mostly) assign rights to their publishers and as I understand it (in my limited understanding of such legal issues!), that would take precedent over the ROH's claim.

It's a very sweeping action and sounds like it will keep a lot of lawyers very busy. A cynical part of me wonders if that isn't at the heart of this; lawyers creatively inventing ways to generate billings.

[bart]

I'm with you, richard53dog. It also sounds like one of those ploys of 19th-century imperialism: grab as much as you can whether it makes sense or not, so you will have something to trade away in negotiations. (After the war, of course.)

[Mme. Hermine]

Asking for something(s) ridiculous, in this case, hoping that at the end of the day you'll end up with something reasonable.

i think it will just severely limit what they can present to what they already have and the work product of a very few that will sign anything. How utterly ridiculous.

[4mrdncr]

"Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose" (sorry computer can't do accents)...

Or, most of the points in this ArtsBeat article all sound very familiar to me, and something I've had to deal with for a very long time.

There is a very fine line between wanting your work to be seen by the widest possible, knowledgeable, discerning, and hopefully appreciative audience(s), and signing over all the 'blood, sweat, & tears' and rights of authorship/creation (or life savings) you've poured into a work to some commercially-oriented comglomerate presenter/distributor (however artistically or culturally inclined they purport to be) who will reap all future benefits.

So yes, this kind of contract is prevalent in film/tv negotiations, and one reason I've proceeded so slowly releasing clips etc.

I've also felt very sorry for those post-graduate/post-doctoral students who invent something while resident at a university, only to have the university hold all the rights in it--and later make the zillions when the invention is exploited. (Having worked with several innovative scientists in the past, I've seen this in action. And the one time a scientist patented her idea before the university could.)

[innopac]

The ROH's Create contract tells the truth about the rights grab - from The Arts Desk 22 Sept 2010

And in Paragraph 19, not only does the ROH say they will be entitled to edit, change, adapt and do anything else they want to the entries as they think fit, but also “in respect of your contribution, you irrevocably waive the benefits of and agree not to assert any provision of law known as ‘moral rights’ or any similar laws of any jurisdiction.”

Link to The Arts Desk's article

[richard53dog]

The ROH's Create contract tells the truth about the rights grab - from The Arts Desk 22 Sept 2010

And in Paragraph 19, not only does the ROH say they will be entitled to edit, change, adapt and do anything else they want to the entries as they think fit, but also “in respect of your contribution, you irrevocably waive the benefits of and agree not to assert any provision of law known as ‘moral rights’ or any similar laws of any jurisdiction.”

Link to The Arts Desk's article

I read on an opera list a comment someone made about the ROH's new "rules". There a parallel was drawn with agreements

that performers, writers, composers,etc. sign with film companies . The idea there being that the film will never get made if all these individuals retain control over their individual "piece" of the pie.

But I think there is a fundamental difference. An opera house is not a film company and while it is extremely unlikely that a composer of a song or some dialog for a film will attempt to reuse that item in another film; composers, writers, choreographers, and directors all expect to retain some degree of control over their work . And I'm sure most hope to use the same work in a different venue .