|
|
Post by martindn on Jan 31, 2011 23:01:43 GMT
Hi Spiderman,
I have made videos of Hayley's performances myself and posted them on YouTube. Nobody (apart from YouTube, who I think mis-identified the source) has ever suggested that I was violating copyright by so doing. And the quality is very amateur, certainly nowhere near as good as the NI DVD. I have always kepy Hayley at least fully informed of what I was doing, as if she didn't know, and she even smiled for my camera during some of her performances.
Of course, I have never attempted to sell my videos or make money from them. I just view them as unique records of some of Hayley's performances that I hope are enjoyed by her fans. Perhaps that is what makes the difference, even if they were sold for good causes of which Hayley clearly approves.
But that being said, copyright law it seems to me is a very murky area, and some seem to like to make it up as they go along. And a small scale charitable enterprise can't afford to thrash it out in court...
Martin D
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderman on Jan 31, 2011 23:24:07 GMT
Hi Spiderman, I have made videos of Hayley's performances myself and posted them on YouTube. Nobody (apart from YouTube, who I think mis-identified the source) has ever suggested that I was violating copyright by so doing. . im aware of her appreciation of your, and other peoples efforts. please distinguish though between her attitude and her managements. Her management are probably more interested in the financial implications of the recording than your feelings for hayley. maybe the reason you arent getting in trouble is that she isnt telling, not that no-one has an interest in the behaviour. technically, the recording of a song on an ipod is illegal; there are examples in the USA of people being sued over their music collections. imagine the implications if tey tried that with everyone not that i say this as a moral judgement on you of course, im just stating the cold, hard, legal fact. we all know we arent making money out of it. However, they are losign the revenue they would have made if they had sold it, and i didnt buy it because it was on youtube Theres a distinction to be made between the enforcement of the law [which would hold you breached it] and the more human side of the arguement. In NZ, as i have said, enforcement of copyright falls with the owner... its called discretion. the fact no-one has suggested you are breaking copyright doesnt mean you arent., it just means they tolerated it at the time. i remind you of the "contreversy" here over cameras in hayleys last tour of NZ; most people here felt it was overwrought, but it is their right to do that. i'd also caution you that what hayley wants and what her management want arent necessarily the same thing. even if ideally they should be. i wouldnt be surprised if someone doesn take more of an issue over covert filming inthe future, particularly if they might sell a commercial copy of a concert. the spiderman |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 1, 2011 22:07:12 GMT
Hi Spiderman,
I think the law in the UK is much as in NZ, the copyright of any photos or recordings made in a public place resides with the photographer and no one else. It might be different in the USA.
The murky bit is whether a concert hall counts as a "public place". Many venues ban photography and/or cameras and recording devices anyway. That is their privilege. But not all of them do.
There was one case recently where I was at a concert that allowed still photography but banned videos. But since they were selling DVDs of an earlier concert on the tour in the foyer afterwards, that is quite reasonable and understandable in my opinion. The professionally produced DVD would be better quality than anything possible with amateur equipment anyway.
I would also ask what her management hope to gain by preventing photography. I don't believe that it makes any difference to record sales in most cases (exept perhaps like the one I mentioned above), a studio recording will always be better quality than an amateur video. And in any case, there are numerous examples of YouTube vids with a commercially available studio recording as a soundtrack; now that IS a copyright infringement, but it is so prevalent that I'm sure you could avoid buying certain albums if you went to the trouble to download a few videos.
Personally I never would, since I believe that if I enjoy a piece of music I should be prepared to pay for it, and the people who created it should be rewarded for their trouble. So I go out and buy it, even if there versions of the same song by the same artist downloadable for free from YouTube. In fact I might hear something on YouTube, and then go out to find the commercial recording so that I can buy it.
What I would really like to see is professional recording of concerts becoming more common. I can honestly say that if professional video recordings were made of Hayley's concerts and offered for sale, I would buy them. As I did with the Salisbury Cathedral one. That would do the important thing, recording Hayley's performance for posterity, and if I knew that was happening, there would be no point in trying to record it myself. Instead we seem to have her management working to suppress such things, which is actually preventing the makers of the videos from giving publicity to the artists we admire. I would have thought that that would be a positive thing that costs the artist/record company/management nothing.
Martin D
|
|
|
|
Post by xanadu66 on Feb 3, 2011 13:33:09 GMT
I would also ask what her management hope to gain by preventing photography. Maybe I missed something - have they actually said that? |
|
Martin
Global Moderator
HWI Management Team
Posts: 3,339
|
Post by Martin on Feb 3, 2011 13:51:52 GMT
I would also ask what her management hope to gain by preventing photography. Maybe I missed something - have they actually said that? Quite! I have never known Bedlam prevent photography and there is no reason to believe that Bandana will act any differently. In fact, Hayley's management has always encouraged discrete and orderly photography. Once I recall at an outdoor event, Hayley actually overruled the venue request for no photography to the delight of the HWI photographic team! i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifMartin |
|
|
|
Post by xanadu66 on Feb 3, 2011 14:10:04 GMT
Thank you Martin. I am relieved to hear it but in that case I don't understand why martindn made that apparently misleading comment. Like I said, maybe I missed something!
|
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 3, 2011 21:31:37 GMT
Hi Xanadu, I have come across this with other artists, and also with some venues where Hayley was performing. So in some cases it I think the management might be responsible, or perhaps the venue was hiding behind the artist's management. I agree, neither Hayley nor her management have to my knowledge ever discouraged photography. The worst case I was present at was probably Hayley's concert at Kilworth House in July 2008 (in my own county  shame) where it felt like the audience were being watched by people with machine guns. The full story was told in the HWI thread for that concert of the way that the security people treated HWI members who even waited to meet Hayley afterwards, and how Hayley herself sorted the situation out. There was a case, Gawsworth Hall as I recall, where the management had announced that photography was not allowed, saying that Hayley's management objected to it, which was later contradicted by Hayley herself who said she had no problem with it. If you read what I wrote carefully, you will note that I only posed the hypothetical question "what would be gained by her management banning photography". I did not intend to suggest that they had actually done so. Sorry for the confusion. Martin D |
|
|
|
Post by Roger-G on Feb 5, 2011 13:30:28 GMT
There was a case, Gawsworth Hall as I recall, where the management had announced that photography was not allowed, saying that Hayley's management objected to it, which was later contradicted by Hayley herself who said she had no problem with it. Martin D That certainly happened at Hampton Pool. In her initial remarks Hayley said that in spite of the previous announcement she didn't mind pictures being taken as long as they didn't disturb other members of the audience. Of course that was in a very informal setting. Concert halls usually have their own house rules that performers have no ability to change, regardless of their own feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 5, 2011 21:06:41 GMT
Yes, now that I think about it, I think it was Hampton Pool where that happened. Gawsworth Hall was the previous concert, where Hayley's fans were prevented from taking pictures. Thanks Roger_G for reminding me.
Martin D
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Feb 6, 2011 20:41:51 GMT
Not to be impatient... but any word on the status of the DVD yet? Hi Libby, I did contact the distributors DFT Enterprises and they have now confirmed that sadly, the Northern Ireland DVD will not be reissued, as it has not been possible to resolve the issues that led to the DVD's withdrawal. For you and anyone else who hoped to purchase this DVD, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Dave |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 6, 2011 20:57:09 GMT
Hi Dave, That is very sad. Yes, I know it now means the one I have is a collectors item and copies od this will in future command high prices on Ebay. But that is of no benefit to me, since I have no intention of selling my copy anyway. I'm just sorry that I didn't order a few more copies whilst I was at it.  Although the rules on the DVD sleeve say it cannot be sold outside the UK, I don't know how they can prevent that. I wonder how many copies there are out there... Martin D |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 6, 2011 21:20:30 GMT
I am devastated of course. I should have just ordered it while I could, as spiderman never fails to remind me. But as I said, I had no reason to believe they would discontinue the DVD entirely! I never thought I'd see the day, but I guess I'm going to have to start scouring e-Bay, too.  I'venever used e-Bay before, though. It's not hard to use, is it? What's the paying method like? I want to stay away from Paypal, if I can, after my bad experience with it. But I probably will never have to worry about it. That's just my luck (it's not all my fault, spiderman, so please don't rub it in). |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Feb 6, 2011 21:45:05 GMT
Hi Libby,
Even though I was informed that it will not be made available again, and that is definitely the current situation, my philosophy on life is "never say never", not even when things seem to be highly unlikely. So please don't rush into anything.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Feb 7, 2011 14:53:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Feb 7, 2011 15:59:10 GMT
 Gone and watched it all again @ Libby PayPal is a lot safer than using your credit card directly with the seller. I have used PayPal for hundreds of transactions without a problem. Unlike my credit card details, which have been used on several occasions illegally by persons unknown to make purchases worldwide on the internet amounting to thousands. The details were probably "skimmed" at a petrol station or a supermarket as I hardly ever use the card in retail outlets or at bank machines  Or some online sellers who conveniently refuse to take PayPal payments, leaving you no choice but to give them your full credit card details LET'S BE CAREFUL OUT THERE
|
|
shame) where it felt like the audience were being watched by people with machine guns. The full story was told in the HWI thread for that concert of the way that the security people treated HWI members who even waited to meet Hayley afterwards, and how Hayley herself sorted the situation out.
I'venever used e-Bay before, though. It's not hard to use, is it? What's the paying method like? I want to stay away from Paypal, if I can, after my bad experience with it. But I probably will never have to worry about it. That's just my luck (it's not all my fault, spiderman, so please don't rub it in). 
