They probably filmed entire versions - but in my opinion, they prefer promoting three video clips at the same time rather than just a single one. That would make sense if they intend to promote Hayley's wide range of music to a new audience.
I am now wondering if in fact Decca has filmed complete versions of those Treasure songs they wanted to promote.
Roger/Dave - Is this possible?
Yes, it's possible. In fact it is highly likely but that doesn't mean they will necessarily be made available to the public. They would have recorded the entire track and subsequently selected the *best* clip for promotional purposes. Given time, one or two may turn up somewhere; perhaps as a bonus track on a Special Edition somewhere in the world. We shall have to invent and "HWI Gold Star" award for the first member to find it!
I don't usually visit YouTube but after seeing this video I then watched a clip from the film of "Phantom of the Opera" with Hayley singing Dark Waltz superimposed. It didn't work at all and I can't really see the point. Is it legal from a royalties viewpoint?
This is the major problem with Youtube - they don't credit anyone for their videos. And I believe the one you're linking to, Martin, is from HWI.
The fact that Universal Music gradually starts to promote via Youtube is a first step to "legalize" the site's activity - and I'm glad to see them posting videos of Hayley. Hopefully there will be more in the weeks and months to come !
If you ask me, at this stage YouTube is a license to do with videos whatever you want. I think it is a jungle, and I don't like it. YouTube has by now generated more than enough controversy dealing with school kids shooting videos about the way they degrade fellow students by creating sexually depraved pictures, despising their teachers and what have you more.
YouTube, despite its popularity , is a recipe for social disaster, that can be (ab)used by minds like the South Korean mass murderer in Virginia.
The only way a site like this works is if EVERY video posted is checked beforehand and simply rejected if it transgresses the marks of decency and propriety.
With the current YouTube, it is my fervent hope that it will attract so many court cases by people who are aggrieved by its contents that it will go bankrupt.
YouTube fosters anarchy and that is detestable.
P.S. In it itself I am not against positive and legitimate use of YouTube - it is just that currently there seems to be no control over the contents of the site. YouTube is in dire need of censorship.
Hi Stephany, you are quite right, it's a video that I did for HWI - it's linked here in the forum (Media Board) - as you can see from the faint logo I inserted bottom left. Maybe we should do this for all videos now? That one came from the Sky Interactive feed and it took ages to put together.
Gerrit, thanks very much for your comments with which I agree 100% - there is absolutely nothing that I need to add.
I think that it would be very diffcult to control all videos as there are literally billions and billions of footage from all over the world. It does contain some extremely obscene footage, which in the wrong hands can be very harmful. I absolutely agree with you, Gerrit. Dori
Hayley's Realm: The Proud Blog in Support of Hayley
Who decides what is "decent" and "proper"? We can agree in broad terms about some things obviously - but in many cases one persons art is another's pornography. Hayley Westenra might be considered "indecent" by certain groups like conservative Islam. Britney Spears might be considered "indecent" by certain groups of conservative Christians. The pope thinks "Harry Potter" is subversive. Apart from the copyright issue, does that mean an excerpt from that shouldnt be shown there? There have been school districts in America which have tried to ban "The Wizard of OZ" and that noted pornographer, William Shakespeare. Conversely, there are groups of athiests in America who dont believe the American Pledge of Allegance should contain the phase "under God"......
Sites like You Tube are only profitable because of advertising revenue. What happens I think is that a reletively few videos are either illegal outright or generally offensive, and these may stir up a controversy, but they are also removed basically as soon as Google becomes aware of them. Then there is the 99% of the rest which remain. Even if some people do find them offensive, the presumption is that the mainstream does not. If enough people were complaining, the advertisers themselves would have them removed. (I am intentionally leaving issues of copyright infringement out of this - running a lengthy segment of the Phantom might well be illegal, but I doubt it would offend many people. It also seems to upset some "victims" more than it does others. If you are well known it is bad - if you need exposure it is good.)
Nothing in life is perfect - and I thank God for that. When we say that something is perfect we are also saying that there can be no growth because any change must be for the worse. In the end, it is our errors which declare and affirm our humanity.