Here Come The Buffalo Sabres

[That Aud Smell]

I was referring to the clips and soundtrack contained in the video. You can't just slap anything up on the Jumbotron.

 

Interestingly, you can pay for (earn) the right to use those too: You pay licensing fees to the rights holders. That's generally accomplished by paying scheduled fees to a representative agency or industry clearing house of some kind.

 

That's also essentially how teams can pipe in music during breaks in the action. In point of fact, that's why, as I was given to understand, people used to gripe that OSP licensed music from 15 years ago (i.e., cheap) rather than license anything current.

[SwampD]

Interestingly, you can pay for (earn) the right to use those too: You pay licensing fees to the rights holders. That's generally accomplished by paying scheduled fees to a representative agency or industry clearing house of some kind.

 

That's also essentially how teams can pipe in music during breaks in the action. In point of fact, that's why, as I was given to understand, people used to gripe that OSP licensed music from 15 years ago (i.e., cheap) rather than license anything current.

So you agree with PA, then?

[That Aud Smell]

So you agree with PA, then?

Insofar as he said copyrights would be an obstacle: No.

[PASabreFan]

So you agree with PA, then?

:flirt:

Insofar as he said copyrights would be an obstacle: No.

I didn't say that. You can't slap anything up on the Jumbotron (without permission). How's that?

 

That said, you could still have copyright holders who refuse to sell the rights. Maybe The Who doesn't agree to such things.

 

Maybe it's not an issue at all. I recall the rapid-fire video the Sabres put out to mark the beginning of OSP's tenure, and it had tons of video and images. It's hard to believe they tracked down the owner of every one of them. (And near the end was an image of a dark-haired man in a generic-looking hockey jersey, whose identify was never figured out, IIRC.)

[That Aud Smell]

I didn't say that. 

 

:huh:

 

Absolutely. I'm afraid the sticking point would be copyright issues, including the perfect song choice.

 

 

That said, you could still have copyright holders who refuse to sell the rights. Maybe The Who doesn't agree to such things.

 

Oh, I think they're open for bidness.

 

 

 

Maybe it's not an issue at all. I recall the rapid-fire video the Sabres put out to mark the beginning of OSP's tenure, and it had tons of video and images. It's hard to believe they tracked down the owner of every one of them. (And near the end was an image of a dark-haired man in a generic-looking hockey jersey, whose identify was never figured out, IIRC.)

 

I'm wondering whether you read my post: Licensing in the industry isn't generally handled by tracking down individual rights holders. There are large agencies that have hundreds, thousands of clients and hundreds of thousands (millions) of properties available to license. People wishing to license a song go to the agency -- not the artist.  There are exceptions, sure. But they are few and far between (and they're easy to track down because they're famous).

[SwampD]

:huh:

 

 

 

 

Oh, I think they're open for bidness.

 

 

 

 

I'm wondering whether you read my post: Licensing in the industry isn't generally handled by tracking down individual rights holders. There are large agencies that have hundreds, thousands of clients and hundreds of thousands (millions) of properties available to license. People wishing to license a song go to the agency -- not the artist.  There are exceptions, sure. But they are few and far between (and they're easy to track down because they're famous).

My network routinely get's sued and we routinely are told to delete certain cuts of music so they are never played again, and we pay all the agencies.

[MattPie]

:flirt:

I didn't say that. You can't slap anything up on the Jumbotron (without permission). How's that?

 

That said, you could still have copyright holders who refuse to sell the rights. Maybe The Who doesn't agree to such things.

 

Maybe it's not an issue at all. I recall the rapid-fire video the Sabres put out to mark the beginning of OSP's tenure, and it had tons of video and images. It's hard to believe they tracked down the owner of every one of them. (And near the end was an image of a dark-haired man in a generic-looking hockey jersey, whose identify was never figured out, IIRC.)

 

I'd have to think the Sabres either have rights to the NHL footage (or have a pretty friendly agreement with the actual rights holders). The music may be covered under a music site license. Most bars license with ASACP to cover performance of cover songs on the premises. I'd think the area has something similar.

 

EDIT: They'd probably have to work something out if they release the video to the internet, though.

Edited September 28, 2016 by MattPie

[That Aud Smell]

My network routinely get's sued and we routinely are told to delete certain cuts of music so they are never played again, and we pay all the agencies.

 

If you're routinely getting sued and, as you say, you're also paying all of the major clearinghouses, then you're probably being targeted by copyright trolls.

I'd have to think the Sabres either have rights to the NHL footage (or have a pretty friendly agreement with the actual rights holders). The music may be covered under a music site license. Most bars license with ASACP to cover performance of cover songs on the premises. I'd think the area has something similar.

 

EDIT: They'd probably have to work something out if they release the video to the internet, though.

 

That's my understanding - there are tiers and classes of license rights available. Public broadcast in a promotional video being shown to a live audience of ~19,000 41+ times a year? I think that might pay for Roger Daltrey's next night out on the town (or several such nights). 

[PASabreFan]

The Who are Leafs fans. Just like Bruce Springsteen is a Clinton fan.

 

Fun with words: obstacle vs. sticking point.

 

My point was, and remains: the Sabres aren't going to take a fan-created video, created under the premise of fair use and published for non-commercial purposes, and put it on their video board. At least not before the sticking point/obstacle of copyright is overcome. And it's not going to happen days before the season-opener.

 

I am fully in favor of it though!

 

As an aside, isn't this the reason the Sabres don't/can't distribute classic broadcasts of their games, even though common sense would say they own them?

[SwampD]

If you're routinely getting sued and, as you say, you're also paying all of the major clearinghouses, then you're probably being targeted by copyright trolls.

 

Not necessarily. Not everything is registered with one of the agencies. Also, different countries have different agencies and different usage rights.

[That Aud Smell]

My point was, and remains: the Sabres aren't going to take a fan-created video, created under the premise of fair use and published for non-commercial purposes, and put it on their video board. At least not before the sticking point/obstacle of copyright is overcome. And it's not going to happen days before the season-opener.

 

And my point remains: If the Sabres were smart and wanted to use the content, a license for the song would present neither a sticking point nor obstacle. 

 

Not everything is registered with one of the agencies. Also, different countries have different agencies and different usage rights.

 

As I acknowledged above. Those properties are an exception, though. 

 

Years ago, I represented a broadcast company on these kinds of claims. But they were far from routine. If you're being routinely sued? Just seems as though something would be amiss. Trolls would be my guess -- they've become a real scourge.

 

And that I'm far less familiar with. The hell kinds of foreign-held songs is your network using, anyway?

 

[SwampD]

And my point remains: If the Sabres were smart and wanted to use the content, a license for the song would present neither a sticking point nor obstacle. 

 

 

 

As I acknowledged above. Those properties are an exception, though. 

 

Years ago, I represented a broadcast company on these kinds of claims. But they were far from routine. If you're being routinely sued? Just seems as though something would be amiss. Trolls would be my guess -- they've become a real scourge.

 

And that I'm far less familiar with. The hell kinds of foreign-held songs is your network using, anyway?

 

 

Routinely might be too strong. It is often enough though where it's a thing. Even though we have music librarians and lawyers and all checking, if a producer gets an inch and grabs something off YouTube and doesn't check there could be a problem.

 

With all that said, doesn't PA's initial statement stand? You can't just throw anything up on the Jumbo. We didn't even talk about video rights. (Did ya ever wonder why we never see replays of Mario Lemuxes' 5 goals 5 ways game unless it's on some pirate YouTube channel?)

[That Aud Smell]

^

 

Interesting.

 

I hadn't really taken PA's point to be one regarding the timing/turnaround of the video's use -- just a comment about how licensing a Who song would be an obst---...er, sticking point.

 

If that were the only issue, my take was that it could be resolved in short order.

 

As for the rights to all that video, my expectation is that the Sabres would own most or all of it -- generally based on being the successor to the predecessor holding companies. But maybe not?

[PASabreFan]

And my point remains: If the Sabres were smart and wanted to use the content, a license for the song would present neither a sticking point nor obstacle.

As Swamp said, I'm also referring to video rights.

[SwampD]

As Swamp said, I'm also referring to video rights.

And I may be wrong (I often am), but I don't think that the teams or even the NHL owns the rights to most of those videos. The TV networks do.

[That Aud Smell]

As Swamp said, I'm also referring to video rights.

I get that now.

[SwampD]

Musicians are easy, just give 'em a few beers and some food and they'll play live for free. TV people are a$$holes.

Edited September 29, 2016 by SwampD

[That Aud Smell]

And I may be wrong (I often am), but I don't think that the teams or even the NHL owns the rights to most of those videos. The TV networks do.

Balkanized, eh? Not an MLB model, evidently (isn't that a ubiquitous statement during all such broadcasts?)

 

My real point -the one I was over eager to make - was that The Who are song licensing wh0res.

[SwampD]

Balkanized, eh? Not an MLB model, evidently (isn't that a ubiquitous statement during all such broadcasts?)

My real point -the one I was over eager to make - was that The Who are song licensing wh0res.

Heck, they're so old it might be public domain by now. :devil:

[PASabreFan]

Musicians are easy, just give 'em a few beers and some food and they'll play live for free. TV people are a$$holes.

It didn't even cost me that much!

[Thorny]

I was referring to the clips and soundtrack contained in the video. You can't just slap anything up on the Jumbotron.

I don't think it would be too difficult to get the rights to that particular song in the video, it's named after their current number 1 center.

 

(Although they did have to change the spelling in the title at Ryan's request, so maybe it could actually be a contentious issue)

[Huckleberry]

Its so well made I'm actually watching it daily :p

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I'll cut you some slack Aud, but Balkanized is not a very good word to use in any context.

 

-----

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

Great video.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Sabres Fan In NS

[That Aud Smell]

I'll cut you some slack Aud, but Balkanized is not a very good word to use in any context.

 

I think maybe you're looking for the Political Correctness thread.

 

(No offence, intended: It's a word I learned that meant dividing things up, when the matter might otherwise have been left whole.)

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I think maybe you're looking for the Political Correctness thread.

 

(No offence, intended: It's a word I learned that meant dividing things up, when the matter might otherwise have been left whole.)

 

I get that and I appreciate that you intended no offence.  You are also correct in the official meaning, but if you read further in the official definition it goes on to address the break up as inhospitable, or worse.

 

Since the break of the former Yugoslavia and the resulting horrors the word has taken on a whole new derogatory meaning, but maybe not officially.