|
Post by Colin Anderton on Apr 13, 2021 19:51:12 GMT
I'd be interested to hear members' views on the following:
I would like to see a new law proposed whereby material that TV studios disposed of becomes free of copyright. Why should anyone who created a recording, but threw it away afterwards, have any further rights to it, thereby stopping someone who did preserve the material from releasing it to the internet for the whole world to enjoy?
I recorded a large amount of audio from Apollo TV broadcasts (particularly BBC) that I would love to share, but the BBC would be down on me like a ton of bricks. What exactly is their problem with that? Also, I see no point in having material preserved in official archives, for it then to be left to collect dust. In many cases, it may as well have been destroyed!
I think it's time such a law was put on the statute books. If not, it seems a lot of material will be lost forever.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Apr 13, 2021 21:12:51 GMT
There's all sorts of problems associated with the core argument.
Firstly, the 'copyright' is not owned by a single entity. The producer of the content utilises various copyright content in the production of the finished programme: music, under a separate copyright; stock footage, under a separate copyright; it's licensed. The actors; their contracts are associated with the production and still valid; the director. If he or she was freelance, a separate copyright exists in their work. Then there is arguably the most important thing, the script.
Some in the US believe that some archive content is in the public domain and they rely on ignorance to maintain that fiction. The truth is that few television programmes produced outside of the US are genuinely public domain. All foreign (to the US) productions still in copyright in their respective countries that were previously regarded public domain in the US came back into copyright in 1996.
So, let's take stock. Even if we assume that the broadcasters would agree to such a change in the law, a ruling incidentally that would mean some editions from the same series would be owned by the broadcaster and some would not, who then takes on the responsibility of clearing the music, paying the residuals, making agreements with the actors and paying them and paying the scriptwriter, assuming that they agree to the release of the material, plus paying the directors fee? On top of that, there may well be other claims from other members of the crew and the broadcaster; don't forget, a logo is a trademark. It needs to be licenced. Assuming all of that is agreed, what internet platform will host this 'free' content? YouTube? And if so, what do they pay for the privilege? And who do they pay?
Paul
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Apr 14, 2021 5:14:14 GMT
But Paul, people "want" it. They "want" to "share" this material. "Share" - a devious manipulation invented by social media giants and which often is just a euphemism for "steal".
The whole point of copyright is that the work belongs to the rights holder. If they choose to destroy their copies of the work, or not make any available, that is their right. The fact someone holds a copy (sometimes illegally) gives him about as much say as the buyer of a pint of milk has over the cow which produced it - alive or dead.
And what is it with this urge to "share"? I regularly suffer from people illegally "sharing" my creative work on Facebook. Why should they? One friend on my extremely restricted personal timeline is always desperate that my content should be put into some group or other for a wider audience. It's like some virtue signalling obsession. The "finder" gets to show off and often the creator isn't even mentioned or is portrayed as some evil doer who was preventing everyone from having an enjoyable freebie.
It you want to give away content why not get out and about and make some content of your own? We live in a wonderful digital world where everyone has the equipment. It's just a case of switching off the TV and putting in the time and effort to learn some skills.
Why should there be an ever-growing pool of relatively contemporary content for the public to consume free of charge? Undermining demand and funding for new productions?
I can't see how archives can continue to store as much as they do. The migration cycle with digital is so short and costly. But that might be a good thing. We have become obsessed with the past in a way we weren't even 35 years ago. It's unhealthy.
When the copyright law was reviewed a few years ago I believe charities were lobbying to be able to publish what ever they fancied free of charge, because they are such wonderful virtuous organisations (yeah right). What an utter nightmare that would have been for creative people. It's quite frightening as it's hard enough to make any living now.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Apr 14, 2021 7:34:06 GMT
The whole point of copyright is that the work belongs to the rights holder. If they choose to destroy their copies of the work, or not make any available, that is their right. The fact someone holds a copy (sometimes illegally) gives him about as much say as the buyer of a pint of milk has over the cow which produced it - alive or dead. And what is it with this urge to "share"? I regularly suffer from people illegally "sharing" my creative work on Facebook. Why should they? One friend on my extremely restricted personal timeline is always desperate that my content should be put into some group or other for a wider audience. It's like some virtue signalling obsession. The "finder" gets to show off and often the creator isn't even mentioned or is portrayed as some evil doer who was preventing everyone from having an enjoyable freebie. I think this is a huge problem and should be the crux of any argument. Copyright; it's the creators right. That's the whole point and consumers and social media giants are chipping away at those rights. Youtube; great idea. But a big percentage of the content is not owned by Youtube or the 'creators' that upload it. Perhaps they believe that if they have a 'copy', they have the right... I can completely understand why people want to see archive content but you're right; there is an unhealthy obsession with the past. There is a reason why a lot of material was wiped or never recorded. It was made for its time and a lot of it was very niche and/or not very good. Some will argue that that those are all very good reasons to be thankful that the material has been kept though. I have made it very clear in the past my view; not everything needs to be kept, but there should be proper consideration for what should be kept. A few years ago in discussion with the BBC Archive, I was told that in all likelihood, at some point in the future, only format examples of a series that I worked on would be kept. I understand the reasons why, but what is the criteria going to be to decide and who is going to decide? To come back to Colin's wider point; he captured a series of live BBC broadcasts and wants to share them but can't because he doesn't have the right. Of course, the BBC did make a pretty good fist of making available to the public the very content that he is talking about. In 2019 I consulted on a three disc DVD boxset of Apollo 11 related content for BBC Video and produced some additional material for the release. This included a lot of space related archive, material rarely seen but featuring James Burke's Project Apollo documentary from 1979 complete with a new introduction from the great man and James Cameron's 'Cameron Country' doc about the space race. Handily, you also get the entire Apollo 11 moonwalk, complete with what's available of the BBC's commentary. It's a fantastic collection, yours for a tenner. People moan that they want to see stuff and it never gets released, but in fact we are really spoiled by the availability of archive content at the moment. The Apollo 11 collection is remarkable but just one title amongst a rich selection available from distributors. Look at what Network has been doing... and there is much more to come. But there is another reason why I think we should protect copyright holders rights and it's a lesson that has already been learned in the United States; if copyright holders rights are eroded or rights lapse, there is no imperative for archives to preserve that content. They can't protect their rights to exploit it and profit from it. I understand that people want to see stuff, but the best way for that to happen is for collections in existing archives to be more complete and the rights holders have access to it. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Apr 14, 2021 9:42:44 GMT
Gary - We have become obsessed with the past because the present stuff on TV is so awful! I know that's my personal opinion, but I think a lot of people would agree with me.
Paul - I do of course have to concede to the basic points you are making; it's just that under the current system most of the stuff in archives never sees the light of day. Oh, how I would love to see all the 1960s space coverage from CBS. And the 2019 BBC set was absolutely wonderful!
Colin.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Apr 14, 2021 10:37:18 GMT
Colin you only have to look at some of the 'Public Domain' stuff in the US, it is damaged and wrecked because it is free and therefore nobody gives a toss about it. Meanwhile somebody, somewhere that was nothing to with the original production is usually making money out of it.
Network and TPTV obviously put a lot of love into their releases but they also have to put bread on the table too. Network released for example some years ago the first two series of 'Mrs Thursday'..but they never released the final series...could that have been because sales were low because 1/2 series have persistently been on You Tube???
|
|
|
Post by Simon B Kelly on Apr 14, 2021 11:18:53 GMT
Now that absolutely anyone can become a "content creator" the restrictions on copyright material will eventually have to change. We need something similar to the Content ID system used for identifying music, so that any revenue gained from re-using clips is automatically shared with the original copyright owners. It's not going to be easy to implement but I'm sure it will happen soon.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Apr 14, 2021 21:04:25 GMT
Some great replies and good points. The public needs to realise that the majority of people who produce content do so on some sort of commercial basis. Do you remember a few years ago when newspapers thought there was about to be a wonderful world of free articles and photos from "citizen journalists"? It turned out that most people who could do that to a high standard were professionals and had no intention of giving it away for nothing.
Some of the best known films didn't even make their money back until years later. That is why the copyright holder and their heirs have a certain time to recoup the costs and make a profit. Some work never makes any money. The "everything wants to be free people" have portrayed copyright as something abused by evil giant corporations. But it very much protects individuals who aren't rich too.
I'm sure most of us have watched and enjoyed "free" stuff which shouldn't be on YouTube. But every time we do that rather than pay for something it undermines the market for new content (or remastered/rereleased as Paul has pointed out) just a tiny bit more. There are only so many eyeballs and viewing hours out there. That means fewer jobs, being a self-employed creative person is less viable (and I reckon it tends to hit one-person businesses hardest), fewer new productions...
Regarding Simon's point, there is no reason why social media can't already ID photos and videos. One photo of mine has been put on Facebook three times. Twice by the same person in the same group. Submit a DCMA complaint and up to now all that happens is the photo is taken down while the person and group carry as as normal. Some local history groups consist of 95% illegally used photos and have tens of thousands of members. That is equivalent to the readership of a commercial magazine. But I understand that in the EU Facebook is now liable. So we may see change.
Hopefully the public will eventually come to realise the difference between "professional" content made to earn a living, and a person who does that, and the rest.
To give an example of how social media & "sharing" destroys some ideas... My elderly neighbour plays the organ in church. I suggested I make a video of it to a high standard. It would be non-commercial, I would give copies to her and her sons and nothing else would happen with the video until I die (hopefully not for another 25 years), when it would go to the regional film & video archive. Essentially it was a video for the archives. Of course we had to ask the vicar and she wanted to know how she would see it. It was clear that viewing it in private wouldn't be enough and she expected it to be on YouTube or Facebook.
Pretty soon, because of the current obsession with everything being available online for everyone to view "now" the project was turning into a completely free public promotional video for the church and the town. You can bet all the tourism related businesses would be "sharing" it on their social media and embedding it on their commercial websites etc. Thus undermining the (already near non-existent) local market for paid video production and once again giving the impression that professional people (me) always work unpaid. So unfortunately that was the end of a nice idea.
The bottom line is: accept that there are necessary limits on things sometimes and we can't all have everything we would like because perhaps it hurts someone else.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Apr 14, 2021 22:30:34 GMT
The contributions here are why, despite the ****y interface, etc this is one of the best places on the www imho š Yes, we get the occasional bozo with āentitlementā but overall itās excellent - despite my regular attempts to lower the tone š
Looking back there have been technologies that were going to ākillā various creative industries - but they didnāt, because people were inventive and adapted. Home video started to break through in the late 70s and pre-recorded video tapes were initially expensive, say Ā£39.99 which would be considerably more today. Out of that came the video rental business and the likes of Blockbuster. The price then dropped and I recall buying the initial vhs release of Blakeās 7 at, iirc, Ā£9.99 each.
Some years ago I recall a band whose business model was based upon live performances and downloading was, effectively, used to encourage fans to buy tickets for live shows.
Now weāve got the Netflix model where they can afford to put big budgets into programmes because, unless they really **** up, sufficient of their subscribers will watch and enjoy them.
The technology we now have enables every Tom, Dick or Harry to make HD video with stereophonic sound - but itās the creative people on both sides of the camera that use it to make something that audiences enjoy and wins awards.
History shows how the creative arts have adapted to developments in technology, Iām sure itāll do it again.
|
|
|
Post by Dan S on Apr 14, 2021 23:41:07 GMT
I recorded a large amount of audio from Apollo TV broadcasts (particularly BBC) that I would love to share, but the BBC would be down on me like a ton of bricks. There are many places where people post that kind of content. Youtube, archive.org, other forums. Hint: You don't have to "release" it using your real name.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Byers on Apr 15, 2021 15:07:32 GMT
By chance this has just arrived in my inbox ... The Investment Podcast: Investment in music copyrights? Now, thatās music to my ears Dear [redacted], In this episode of The Investment Podcast, Riccardo Cumerlato Client Director at M&G Investments sits down with Fund Manager Andrew Amos to talk about an innovative investment in the area of music copyright royalties and how M&G Investments has taken a differentiated approach to investing in the asset class. Download now to learn more ... incisivetrk.cvtr.io/click?lid=10235&pid=300000&sid=&lpp_msgid=5958386-81eb5857c17aaefb====
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Byers on Apr 15, 2021 17:59:51 GMT
There is also the sad case of Nic Jones folk singer, and many others such as the Watersons, The Copper Family, indeed the entire back catalogue of Bill Leader. Basically Nic Jone's recordings were owned by one David Bulmer, through his Celtic Music company. When Nic was driving home after a gig, ever the family man, he had a bad road crash which not only nearly killed him but stopped him performing for decades afterwards. However he needed an income. Bulmer categorically refused to release Nic's recordings to help to finance his recovery and he has sat on the master tapes for decades with them likely deteriorating over time. It is all well documented here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nic_JonesOn 28 February 1982 Jones was involved in a serious road traffic accident. Returning home by car after a gig at Glossop Folk Club, on the road between Peterborough and March in Cambridgeshire, Jones, tired, inadvertently drove into a lorry pulling out of Whittlesea brickworks. He suffered serious injuries, including many broken bones and brain damage, and required intensive care treatment and hospitalisation for a total of eight months. His injuries left him with permanent physical co-ordination problems, unable to play the guitar as well as before, and no longer able to play the fiddle at all. The accident effectively ended his career as a touring and recording professional musician. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Music_(record_label)See all of the artists and recordings locked up in the vaults and never re-released But the full story is also here ... mudcat.org/index.cfm then search 'All' search for 'bulmer'
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Apr 15, 2021 20:01:01 GMT
There is also the sad case of Nic Jones folk singer That was because they didn't own the copyright and/or recordings. There's no doubt that artistes have been exploited by the music industry over the decades. But it was about unfair contracts and in itself is no reason to change the copyright law so that random people can choose to make available whatever they like to everyone. The "it's for charity" or a "good cause" line is a regular "reason" given why professionals shouldn't be paid for all sorts of things. Yet often behind the scenes there are others who very much are making a profit or being paid a wage. As Paul V has point out, one reason why it's difficult for the BBC to release material is because years ago it paid a low fee for limited rights on performances, music, third party video clips. Instead of paying for a more expensive all time license or even buying stuff outright (which may or may not have been an option). Good value for licence fee payers at the time, 50 years later times have changed and it makes life a bit awkward. Some of those will be individuals who now CAN exploit their back catalogue because they only granted the likes of the BBC limited rights. They have retained rights and originals or copies of their work. It seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Apr 15, 2021 20:07:10 GMT
The technology we now have enables every Tom, Dick or Harry to make HD video with stereophonic sound - but itās the creative people on both sides of the camera that use it to make something that audiences enjoy and wins awards. History shows how the creative arts have adapted to developments in technology, Iām sure itāll do it again. I'm sure we will and I would never want to turn back the clock to the days of analogue when creating was in the hands of various gatekeepers because they could afford printing presses, cameras, edit suites and distribution networks. It's just a case of finding a way through this and a balance. I don't feel that the balance is right just yet and some hyped ideas don't work. For example the idea that all photographers can become teachers of photography or that licensing photos for a Dollar each is a viable business model. There are encouraging signs.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Apr 15, 2021 20:40:37 GMT
The technology we now have enables every Tom, Dick or Harry to make HD video with stereophonic sound - but itās the creative people on both sides of the camera that use it to make something that audiences enjoy and wins awards. History shows how the creative arts have adapted to developments in technology, Iām sure itāll do it again. I'm sure we will and I would never want to turn back the clock to the days of analogue when creating was in the hands of various gatekeepers because they could afford printing presses, cameras, edit suites and distribution networks. It's just a case of finding a way through this and a balance. I don't feel that the balance is rights just yet and some hyped ideas don't work. For example the idea that all photographers can become teachers of photography or that licensing photos for a Dollar each is a viable business model. There are encouraging signs. Politically Iām a right of centre type, but also interested in history - of many types and periods - and the answer tends to come from someone entrepreneurial, to put it simply someone who seeks to make money. Earlier I referred to the video rental business - at one time every high street had a video rental store, or the local newsagent or mini market would get in on the act. Their life wasnāt that long but money was made. Itās interesting to see how technology has ādemocratisedā things. Itās not that long ago that British TV was largely vertically integrated as the equipment was so bulky and expensive, you needed something like a TV Centre. Now the likes of TPTV run their station, almost from the spare bedroom, with three people. They buy in most of the content but modern technology enables them to make a few things themselves. Uber is somewhat controversial and the concept of using mobile devices with geolocation technology to bring taxis and customers together seems obvious - but someone had to think it up and make it work. I dunno whatās gonna make money for the creative arts in the future, and if I did I wouldnāt splash it here!, but something will.
|
|