Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Wait, for real? | |
| Last Edit: whereismikeyfl 01:37 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 01:37 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| In reply to: Wait, for real? - ShowGoer 01:02 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I referred once to a bootleg by one of the rightsholders, held in an archive---and that got me temporarily booted. I can kind of understand why---but as time goes one the gray areas will grow. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Wait, for real? | |
| Posted by: T.B._Admin. 01:49 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Wait, for real? - whereismikeyfl 01:37 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| That's not really the whole story. But, yes, there are increasingly more gray areas, and the rules are overdue for re-evaluation (though this one won't disappear). It's just a long to-do list here. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Wait, for real? | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 04:36 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Wait, for real? - T.B._Admin. 01:49 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| It was over ten years ago, but I was trying to find what archive an audio recording of a score was in. The composer's widow had a copy given to her by the orchestrator and deposited it somewhere. I just did not know where and asked if anyone knew where it was. I do not think it was wrong to put the kabosh, but even then a lot of collections held recordings from rehearsals and previews that were technically bootlegs. How is a online bulletin board supposed to distinguish what "boots" to allow and which not to? Just banning all seemed reasonable. But it is even harder today. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wait, for real? | |
| Posted by: Ann 05:27 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Wait, for real? - whereismikeyfl 04:36 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, those are all bootlegs, by our definition for this site: "Bootlegs" are considered to be any illegally made recording or one distributed by someone other than the rights holder, or not otherwise commercially released to the general public. I don't see the one you are referring to - I see a couple others, including one about Mahoganny where you said, "Still I wonder if somewhere there might be a rehearsal tape or bootleg?????" And back then, when things were more hectic and moved very fast, the posting of the word "bootleg" would get a deletion. It was impossible for us to spend a lot of time researching, so we had to make it a simple blanket. That was just the way it had to be for us to run the board while managing full-time jobs, life, etc. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wait, for real? | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 11:04 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Wait, for real? - Ann 05:27 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| That is exactly what I was trying to say inelegantly. You do not have the resources to research postings so of course you have to make blanket rules. Three is no other way. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Can I get a big Hip Hip Hooray for Ann?!?! | |
| Posted by: OJaffee 06:52 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Wait, for real? - Ann 05:27 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| I just want to take a moment here to give voice to what we all feel: THANK YOU, ANN!! Whether we post as nauseam (sorry…) or only occasionally, you, Ann, bring a good deal of joy to our lives through ATC. Thank you. I’ll admit to being one of the privileged few who got to see the entire COMPANY previews bootleg before it was yanked from YouTube, but I’ve never posted one. I don’t think… Having said that, a video of the ovation at issue was posted by the NYTimes today. I assume it authorized!!☺️ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/25/us/abortion-roe-wade-supreme-court/potus-broadway-abortion?smid=url-share |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wait, for real? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 06:32 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Wait, for real? - Ann 05:27 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| Ann, my two cents: If you are looking at fine-tuning, I don't think "rights holder" (which in this case would be Selina Fillinger) is what you are after. Based on what you are saying I suspect you mean the production (which has licensed the rights). I also don't think in 2022 that you would restrict it to a commercial release. (If it is on the producer's website(s) or social media channels, I would think that would suffice, and it would differentiate it from something posted on IG by an actor, for instance). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wait, for real? | |
| Posted by: Ann 08:59 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Wait, for real? - ryhog 06:32 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| "Rights holder" was always our intention because, although productions and schools often made/ make videos, it was not within the licensing agreement. And, yes, we are more lenient now with some stuff posted by the producers, but that's not usually audience recordings. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wait, for real? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:47 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Wait, for real? - Ann 08:59 pm EDT 06/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| My brain is so wired to Broadway but that's obviously a good point about some productions. With the understanding that I am not pressing anything at all and I am happy with whatever you do or don't do, I am still not crazy about "rights holder" because what's being protected is actually a lot broader than the rights holder. In my experience, the most aggrieved parties with regard to unauthorized recordings are actually actors and not writers. While a producer may have authorization to use recordings in the AEA contract, the writer generally would not. It gets complicated and maybe steering a pretty conservative course does actually make the most sense -- at least in the absence of a separate department to monitor what's being allowed. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.025081 seconds.