Not really, Roger, as I said, a CD or even just one song is easily available worldwide /maybe not all, through legal downloads, and indeed, in Paradiso's case we know it will be released internationally. The thing is if it increases or decreases the number of potential buyers.
Of course, the fact that a song is published on Youtube may increase the sells rather than decrease them (and that's why many record companies tolerate it), but it is very unclear if the effect is positive or negative, and the amount of people affected on Youtube and so, the effect on the overall value of the product, is much higher than on HWI. I think for those reasons the case of an article on HWI is much more likely to be considered fair use.
Can I recommend that anyone who is interested in video or music copyright and Youtube (for example) should read the first post in this thread and watch the video last year from "BBC Click" (UK members) or the copies that I uploaded last year for overseas members.
Ironically, the video copies I uploaded, which educate people about copyright, its importance (and sometimes, misuse) is itself an infringement of BBC copyright but I have no doubt that I will not be asked to remove them (but if I was, I would).
We try to take what, after considerable discussion over the years, we think is a pragmatic but fair and reasonable approach to the copyright minefield, given the reason we are here (to support Hayley and indirectly, her record company and those contributing to her recordings). Our current policy is set out in the Announcements board at the top of the forum.
Now that I've had time to read the recent posts in detail, there are three points that I think I should comment on specifically, not because I'm saying anyone is wrong, but to make sure that other members don't misunderstand the situation. Here goes:
Youtube are good at removing videos as soon as they informed though. Youtube needs only to be made aware of offending videos. x
Yes, but it must be the copyright owner or their authorised agent who informs YouTube, using the correct procedure. In most cases, videos are allowed to remain, often with the addition of advertisements, for which Youtube and the rights owners (indirectly performers too) get paid.
Sorry Simba, but we do not allow links to YouTube or other videos where the soundtrack is a commercially available recording. This is for copyright reasons.
That's entirely correct and as it should be.
However you seem to have no problem with directly hosting entire copies of copyrighted magazine articles.
Is there a legal difference?
No but as with videos, we try to strike a balance. For example, neither of the recently scanned articles are up on our website yet - although eventually they will be, primarily for archival purposes. It's another difficult area.
However, where our members make their own recordings of Hayley's concert performances, the person making the recording then owns the copyright of that recording. So can post it on YouTube. Although it is a coutesy to ask the performers first. Although there are other copyright issues, for example whether the song itself is copyright (most are) - it can get very messy.Martin D
Sadly, as demonstrated by the BBC Click video linked at the start of this thread, and as you yourself have suggested, owning the copyright of the video recording itself will not avoid any copyright infringements that arise from what is contained in the video (in sound or vision).
There is no doubt that copyright is and is likely to remain a minefield for many years to come - even when a copyright infringement clearly benefits the copyright owner. We try to strike what we think is a reasonable balance - not everyone will agree that we succeed and of course, if any copyright holder tells us to take something (or everything) down, we immediately do so.
However, where our members make their own recordings of Hayley's concert performances, the person making the recording then owns the copyright of that recording. So can post it on YouTube. Although it is a coutesy to ask the performers first. Although there are other copyright issues, for example whether the song itself is copyright (most are) - it can get very messy.
Martin, I don't want to be over pedantic but I am wary about diminishing Richard's concerns for HWI's integrity with Hayley's management. Although you imply it in what you write, I would suggest a more sure way of getting over the message (as I understand it and on which basis I run my affairs) is this.
That to record anyone, requires the performer's PERMISSION not a courtesy enquiry and more specifically, requires the performer to be informed of the manner in which the recording is intended to be made available. On that basis, it should not be assumed the performer has the right to give that permission, because the performer's authority is restricted by the terms of the arrangements they have with the other copyright holders. In music this involves not just the original creation but that particular arrangement, as well as the words and the limitations of the particular licence they have to perform on that specific occasion.
One also has to remember that performers of Hayley's stature have managers, to handle legal details and the performer themselves may not have a clue as to what arrangements have been made on her behalf. They are there to perform on stage not worry about the paperwork
While 'purely for personal pleasure/use' might not generally be thought to be a problem, the problem arises in giving confidence to anyone who might have cause for reasonable concern in relation to their own responsibilities to the performer (such as theatre management).
We are all grateful and appreciate the snippets mods perceive are acceptable to appear here and some of those mods are way more knowledgable than I on these matters. We do appreciate particularly our photographers who frequently do a better job than the professional press but even there technicalities can intrude (although unlikely with Hayley) regarding copyright on the stage setting and lighting.
I think the key is that we are all concerned about maintaining integrity and confidence with/of Hayley's management and our mods are pretty much on the ball.
Since writing and posting this I have of course come across Dave's comments and references to a BBC site on this. I'll leave it to the mods to retain this post, or delete it, as I believe I am contributing one or two additional slants on the debate.
The problem with copyrights is that they last far too long and the rules are difficult to follow. Copyrights last at least 50 years from when first published and who knows when that was. In other cases thay last 70 years after the death of the creator.
I believe copyright should expire in say 10 years after the copyright and eliminate all other hard to follow conditions such as when first published or death of creator, etc.
Since most sales occur within the first year or two and certainly within the first few years, a 10 year copyright would not cost the artist or publisher much. For example, it is unlikely Hayley would see more than minimal loss if the copyright to the CD "Pure" expired next year.
First, by now lots of the used CD are for sale at much lower prices which greatly limits the sale of new CDs.
Second, loss of copyright would not prevent Decca Music Group from selling the CDs and, for new CDs, any others that might wish to sell new CD would have the cost of manufacturing and they would have to sell under their (not Decca's) name. And, most people purchasing a new CD would choose the original source rather than some unknown manufacturer.