Members TIMKEYS Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Again, I've said from the very first post that this thread is more about the general concept of people using "unauthorized" clips rather than this particular one and that I didn't really see the use of this clip to be a big deal one way or the other. It seems like it was a big enough deal for you to start a thread. The bottom line is that in this day and age of everyone having a cell phone that can shoot videos and those zoom video recorders, You will see stuff posted that isnt flattering. If you cant handle it , play in the basement. I know you are trying your best to walk this deal back...and not appear like a prima donna control freak. I understand your concern. But it comes with the territory these days. the vast majority of people dont look at pictures on stage through the critical eye that you do. We have some good friends where he shot a picture of the band on stage from my worst possable angle ,, and i look like shamoo the whale. Its a band joke now ,,,,you cant take yourself that serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KeysBear Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Again, I've said from the very first post that this thread is more about the general concept of people using "unauthorized" clips rather than this particular one and that I didn't really see the use of this clip to be a big deal one way or the other. the whole concept of "unauthorized" should not come into play when you are coordinating with other vendors at a wedding party. I've never thought of getting releases from all attendees or other vendors but.... you bring up an interesting point. So are you thinking that you own exclusive rights to each and every performance for hire? Does the venue, promoter, coordinator, or other vendors have a right to use that performance in their finished product or promotional material? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 13, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 It seems like it was a big enough deal for you to start a thread. Only to the degree that I thought it was an interesting topic and a situation I hadn't really encountered before. Really, I never meant to make that big a deal about this particular video clip. I'm sorry that it's gotten so out of hand in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 13, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 the whole concept of "unauthorized" should not come into play when you are coordinating with other vendors at a wedding party. I've never thought of getting releases from all attendees or other vendors but.... you bring up an interesting point. So are you thinking that you own exclusive rights to each and every performance for hire? Does the venue, promoter, coordinator, or other vendors have a right to use that performance in their finished product or promotional material? No, no. Not at all. The photographers and videographers shoot us all the time. I expect that because obviously we are going to be part of whatever video/photo package they are putting together for their clients. We're no more 'exclusive' than the cake in that regard. Although there IS a difference, IMO, between using clips of us in the video he's giving to his client and using it on his website to promote his business. Not that I necessarily have a problem with that either, but it IS a difference I think. But cross-promotion is something we engage in all the time. Our website has a bunch of links to photographers and other vendors we've crossed paths with and vice versa. We're all on the same side in that regard. I really was just bringing up the general concept of how people feel about the use of stuff they don't particular like. If they care at all or not. If they ever do anything about it or not. Really, I didn't plan on this being 4 pages about this one particular situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIMKEYS Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Only to the degree that I thought it was an interesting topic and a situation I hadn't really encountered before. Really, I never meant to make that big a deal about this particular video clip. I'm sorry that it's gotten so out of hand in that regard. Let me be the first to welcome you to the club lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 13, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Let me be the first to welcome you to the club lol. I've certainly seen dodgy pictures and videos of us on people's Facebook pages and the like. I may grimmace when I see them, but I don't really care because all they doing is sharing the good time they had with their friends and when it's presented in that manner it's all good. And there are all sorts of photos of us up on different photographers websites. Most are really, really good (they are the photographers, after all) so I'm usually thrilled to see that stuff. This was the first time I saw something used in a commercial manner that made me scratch my head a bit, that's all. Like I said in the very first post---not that big a deal one way or the other. More just 'interesting' than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 13, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Well, since the thread has become all about this video now anyway....comments are starting to come in from the band. Just got this email from Tiffany:"ewwww....bad sound! It does not sound like we Rock!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TIMKEYS Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 No, no. Not at all. The photographers and videographers shoot us all the time. I expect that because obviously we are going to be part of whatever video/photo package they are putting together for their clients. We're no more 'exclusive' than the cake in that regard.Although there IS a difference, IMO, between using clips of us in the video he's giving to his client and using it on his website to promote his business. Not that I necessarily have a problem with that either, but it IS a difference I think.But cross-promotion is something we engage in all the time. Our website has a bunch of links to photographers and other vendors we've crossed paths with and vice versa. We're all on the same side in that regard. I really was just bringing up the general concept of how people feel about the use of stuff they don't particular like. If they care at all or not. If they ever do anything about it or not. Really, I didn't plan on this being 4 pages about this one particular situation. In the case of my shamoo picture that got shot by a fan and posted on the net ,,, I ordered a double cheeze burger and fries and soon got over it. In the case where we hit a bump in the road in hotel california on what was a perfect pass with great lighting and sound ,,,, I just said damb ,, so close. we play like 260 live shows a year. Not much phases me anymore. {censored} is gonna happen and i just cant worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 13, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 From the bass player:"Sweet Mother of God" Good....maybe this will inspire them all to kick things up a notch without me saying anything.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jimiv Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 the whole concept of "unauthorized" should not come into play when you are coordinating with other vendors at a wedding party. I've never thought of getting releases from all attendees or other vendors but.... you bring up an interesting point. So are you thinking that you own exclusive rights to each and every performance for hire? Does the venue, promoter, coordinator, or other vendors have a right to use that performance in their finished product or promotional material? This clause in our contract sorta deals with this issue, but not completely. SECTION 9. RECORDING OF EVENTS A. Where the ARTIST's Performance at an event is recorded, in whole or in part, ARTIST hereby releases CLIENT to use such recordings for its archives only. If an ARTIST's Performances are recorded for other purposes, CLIENT agrees to obtain an additional release from the ARTIST prior to the use of any such recordings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 13, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 This clause in our contract sorta deals with this issue, but not completely. SECTION 9. RECORDING OF EVENTS A. Where the ARTIST's Performance at an event is recorded, in whole or in part, ARTIST hereby releases CLIENT to use such recordings for its archives only. If an ARTIST's Performances are recorded for other purposes, CLIENT agrees to obtain an additional release from the ARTIST prior to the use of any such recordings. I like that. I think we might have to include that one. It doesn't address people like the hired photographer/videographer specifically, and I doubt it would cover them legally since they have their own right to record whatever happens at the event and their own contract with the client. But it wouldn't hurt to have that as a "just in case" deal should some client do something crazy and unforseen with a pic or video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeff42 Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 here is an unauthorized one I didn't even know existed until recently. LOL I think this may have been the 1st time we played these songs live. its pretty awful quality its not bad enough to ask the girl to pull it down I guess but I just hope its not the 1st thing that a client sees if they search us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jimiv Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 its not bad enough to ask the girl to pull it down I guess but I just hope its not the 1st thing that a client sees if they search us. Last night MrKnobs mentioned something about posting new "good" videos after seeing "bad" randomly posted videos as a way of controling what comes up first in a google search. (because, ultimately I think that about all you can do) I think that is assuming that 1st position google results start with last in time postings? If so, that would be a way to push the bad stuff deeper in the google results line-up. Not an internet techie, but is that right? Would that help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 From the bass player: "Sweet Mother of God" :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Last night MrKnobs mentioned something about posting new "good" videos after seeing "bad" randomly posted videos as a way of controling what comes up first in a google search. (because, ultimately I think that about all you can do) I think that is assuming that 1st position google results start with last in time postings? If so, that would be a way to push the bad stuff deeper in the google results line-up. Not an internet techie, but is that right? Would that help? Youtube SEO (search engine optimization) is a HOTLY debated topic that no one has all the answers for. But what I do know is that "recent" videos do seem to have priority, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. Those "all other things" are going to hinge around the keywords found in the title of the video as well as the description associated with it. Viewcount FOR A GIVEN SET OF KEYWORDS has the highest weight of all, but below a certain threshold view count does not seem to matter for Youtube/Google results. It's all about the keywords, which for a band would be the band name and any "localized" information (city, state, venue names). Those would be your most likely "long tail" keywords in your scenario. Think about it like this: a Google ranking only has meaning for a specific set of search terms. Mr Knobs tactic is employed far more frequently with regard to reviews, which are in fact heavily weighted towards the most recent, as the majority of the sites place the most recent reviews near the top of the page; but it should still be effective at least somewhat for Youtube results. I'd be careful though that you don't create a situation where youtube then "recommends" the other bad video, based on keyword similarity! You know, probably the best thing to do is send Youtube a take down notice! You hold the copyright! So send them the notice and proof and they'll pull it right down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members twostone Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Wade how can cover band hold the copyrights to material that's already been copyrighted and is why the entertaining industry is making a huge stink out of it in the white house. They wanna put end to the public sharing unauthorized copyrighted material on line that I doubt cover bands are paying their dues to BMI, and ASCAP and IIRC EMI had to file bankruptcy. It why I thinks it's silly that Dave is claiming the camera man is using unauthorized material which Dave is using copyrighted material for selling his band's service for a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Wade how can cover band hold the copyrights to material that's already been copyrighted and is why the entertaining industry is making a huge stink out of it in the white house. Either way they'll pull it if you file the complaint. They pull things all the time because of complaints; they'll pull the video and make the poster prove that have copyright to it (which he won't be able to do) Definitely worth a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted June 13, 2012 Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Wade how can cover band hold the copyrights to material that's already been copyrighted and is why the entertaining industry is making a huge stink out of it in the white house. They wanna put end to the public sharing unauthorized copyrighted material on line that I doubt cover bands are paying their dues to BMI, and ASCAP and IIRC EMI had to file bankruptcy. It why I thinks it's silly that Dave is claiming the camera man is using unauthorized material which Dave is using copyrighted material for selling his band's service for a profit. Hey, that just reminded me! My old band got one of our cover song videos taken down by Don Henley's lawyer! I'm not kidding! Tim has the Cease and Desist letter (email actually) and Youtube acted on it. Pulled our little video right off of there! So yeah, you are most definitely correct and some bands can and DO get all youtube videos featuring their works pulled. So be careful posting covers of beatles, eagles or Michael Jackson tunes. Those 3 in particular are well known for the iron fist, no compromise approach! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 13, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 13, 2012 Wade how can cover band hold the copyrights to material that's already been copyrighted and is why the entertaining industry is making a huge stink out of it in the white house. They wanna put end to the public sharing unauthorized copyrighted material on line that I doubt cover bands are paying their dues to BMI, and ASCAP and IIRC EMI had to file bankruptcy. It why I thinks it's silly that Dave is claiming the camera man is using unauthorized material which Dave is using copyrighted material for selling his band's service for a profit. It would be silly if I claimed that. Good thing I didn't. I already explained this. That's why I used the word "unauthorized" in quotes. I know I have no legal claim. I only called it "unauthorized" because I didnt put it up. I didn't mean legally. That's also why I made the quip about only playing Prince songs in the future because in that case it WOULD be down. I don't now and never had any intention of asking YouTube to do anything about it. That would be stupid. Geez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members twostone Posted June 14, 2012 Members Share Posted June 14, 2012 It would be silly if I claimed that. Good thing I didn't. I already explained this. That's why I used the word "unauthorized" in quotes. I know I have no legal claim. I only called it "unauthorized" because I didnt put it up. I didn't mean legally. That's also why I made the quip about only playing Prince songs in the future because in that case it WOULD be down. I don't now and never had any intention of asking YouTube to do anything about it. That would be stupid. Geez Gotcha guess I miss understood what you meant by unauthorized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeff42 Posted June 14, 2012 Members Share Posted June 14, 2012 we had our original song pulled back in 2006 for copyright infringement by Viacom... I called our singer and asked if he sold our song to MTV! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KeysBear Posted June 14, 2012 Members Share Posted June 14, 2012 My old band got one of our cover song videos taken down by Don Henley's lawyer! Areosmith's people pulled one of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 14, 2012 Author Members Share Posted June 14, 2012 Areosmith's people pulled one of ours. Maybe I'll give Cyndi Lauper's people a call.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted June 14, 2012 Members Share Posted June 14, 2012 Maybe I'll give Cyndi Lauper's people a call.... That's the spirit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SeniorBlues Posted June 14, 2012 Members Share Posted June 14, 2012 A question . . . . Is it a song author/title search that's getting you all targeted on Youtube? What would happen if you posted a medley of recognizable songs, but didn't include any text except the name of your band? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.