{"items": [{"author": "Gabe", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195161240630260", "anchor": "fb-195161240630260", "service": "fb", "text": "What are your thoughts on recording minors -- specifically, when people post pictures of their kids to social networking sites?", "timestamp": "1359075693"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1359077844"}, {"author": "Hollis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195176630628721", "anchor": "fb-195176630628721", "service": "fb", "text": "I think you have two separate questions here: ethical and legal. The legal answer is simple: if the law requires you to check, it's important enough.
If the law doesn't require you to secure consent, then you hit the ethical issue, but they aren't the same question. It's a different ethical issue (although it triggers in the same context) to record a bunch of dancers (who probably mostly don't care) than to record music and calling provided by working professionals who have a legitimate business interest in controlling both their work's presentation and its future use. In the latter case, you're probably creating a derivative mechanical work (recording) in violation of the copyright that obtains as soon as a creative work (the performance) is created.
Whether anyone will care is a different question again. I think \"is it important enough\" is problematic language because it gets away from the legal issues, and I don't necessarily agree that we can make whatever answer you come up with fit within the law.", "timestamp": "1359078580"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195178003961917", "anchor": "fb-195178003961917", "service": "fb", "text": "@Hollis: \"I don't necessarily agree that we can make whatever answer you come up with fit within the law.\"
If you're the organizer of the event and you can probably get the performers agree that one thing they're being paid for is to let people distribute any audio they take, and you could post a notice for the attendees that some people may be recording. You could also prohibit all recording and throw out anyone who is attempting it. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect this covers it. But the legal question is much less interesting than the social question, mostly because the law is substantially stronger (recording audio in all-party-consent states) and substantially weaker (visual recording not restricted) than what people want socially.", "timestamp": "1359078963"}, {"author": "Hollis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195181510628233", "anchor": "fb-195181510628233", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jeff: that assumes that the performers hold and are empowered to grant subsidiary licenses for the music they're playing. As a practical matter, that's only true for material written by the band.", "timestamp": "1359079594"}, {"author": "Hollis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195182483961469", "anchor": "fb-195182483961469", "service": "fb", "text": "Socially, I don't think anyone is going to stop recording dances and concerts any time soon, irrespective of the stated wishes of dance organizers, musicians, or other dances. It's too easy and too entrenched in the culture that you have the \"right\" to preserve your experience for the future and to share it with others. Practically speaking, you would have to ban every person using a cell phone, check every backpack for a microphone and recorder, ban cameras, etc., to stop it, or else you'd have to make people sign releases as a condition of entering the hall.
(your first option, about letting performers know that part of what they're being paid for is distribution of the recording, seems like it would legitimately lead to questions about why the pay for dances is so low and doesn't seem to rise over time.)", "timestamp": "1359079792"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195183073961410", "anchor": "fb-195183073961410", "service": "fb", "text": "@Hollis: \"that assumes that the performers hold and are empowered to grant subsidiary licenses for the music they're playing. As a practical matter, that's only true for material written by the band.\"
It also works for traditional tunes, and ones where the band gets permission from the rightsholders of tunes. If we switched to this for contras I think it could work out fine. People who wrote tunes who wanted other bands to play them at contra dances would make it known that this was ok with them.", "timestamp": "1359079898"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195183903961327", "anchor": "fb-195183903961327", "service": "fb", "text": "@Hollis: \"why the pay for dances is so low and doesn't seem to rise over time\"
The pay for dances is low because there are lots of people who want to play for dances. The pay doesn't rise because for many dance musicians pay is only a minor component in whether to take a gig. This is a side issue.", "timestamp": "1359080125"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195184143961303", "anchor": "fb-195184143961303", "service": "fb", "text": "@Hollis: \"too entrenched in the culture that you have the 'right' to preserve your experience for the future and to share it with others\"
My question is whether we should try and change that culture.", "timestamp": "1359080188"}, {"author": "Hollis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195184190627965", "anchor": "fb-195184190627965", "service": "fb", "text": "Agreed, but it also means that bands would be legally responsible for securing performance rights for all the tunes they play. That's already true, but the trad music world tends to play fast and loose with the laws on that as long as there are no recordings being made. (As an example, we've contacted some rightsholders about some tunes we were considering adding to sets, and the most common response was \"performance is fine; we'd like royalties if they get recorded\".)
We can go back and forth about this pretty much endlessly, but I think we're probably safe sticking with our original assertions (you: that the law can be made to fit; me: that I'm less confident about that than you are) and leaving it there.", "timestamp": "1359080199"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195185140627870", "anchor": "fb-195185140627870", "service": "fb", "text": "(@Rhys: this is a partial followup to our conversation at Youth Traditional Song Weekend)", "timestamp": "1359080428"}, {"author": "Perry", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195199533959764", "anchor": "fb-195199533959764", "service": "fb", "text": "It should be noted that you're recorded without consent all the time. At the ATM, for example, you are being recorded. If you run a red light and the camera flashes, that's another photo without your consent. Cameras are all over places like stadiums, shopping malls, airports, etc. And even if you do go to an event, like a rock concert or a sports event that's televised, or NYE in Times Square, you might wind up on camera. Now in all of these examples, there are some expectations that you might wind up on camera - if you get money from the ATM, you know that there is a camera there. Or the ball game. Why would a dance be any different?", "timestamp": "1359084020"}, {"author": "Danni", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/195156700630714?comment_id=195199670626417", "anchor": "fb-195199670626417", "service": "fb", "text": "One strategy I've seen used at Quaker events and also at LGBTQ-specific events where the concern of someone being outed is very high: when people enter, they get a nametag and the instruction that if they do not wish to be photographed/recorded, they should put a sticker on their nametag (usually a red or black circle). It's then incumbent upon the photographer/videographer to glance at people's nametags before taking a photo/video, and avoid those people who have the stickers. In practice, this is a little tricky as it requires people to remember their nametags, and it requires compliance on the parts of the photographers/videographers, but it certainly can work if people are committed to it.", "timestamp": "1359084094"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1359086980356", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm not even convinced that recording people who explicitly don't want to be recorded is wrong. (Impolite, yes, but wrong?)\n
\n
\nThere are certain contexts where an assurance of not being recorded would be helpful, so such assurances can be given, and breaking them would be wrong like breaking any confidence. ", "timestamp": 1359086980}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106627634005073412802", "anchor": "gp-1359092568157", "service": "gp", "text": "I think a system where everyone had to consent to be recorded would be the wrong way to go. Would you not record something that would be potentially newsworthy (and considering you don't always know what is newsworthy at the time it happens, almost everything could potentially be newsworthy) because not everyone has consented to be recorded? Would you not make recordings for a social documentary that might benefit society for the same reasons?", "timestamp": 1359092568}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1359094112688", "service": "gp", "text": "(Regarding just the impoliteness of recording someone without consent, that's largely related to the ease of obtaining consent. I'm think ere are also circumstances where I think it's not impolite at all even if they explicitly don't want to be recorded.)", "timestamp": 1359094112}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106627634005073412802", "anchor": "gp-1359102294651", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm curious about how the organizers came to make this demand. What was the point of the demand? Why was it important to change the default to no recordings? It would seem to create an obstacle to learning new songs. Is that a comprehensive list of prohibited mediums? Could you record with pencil or paint instead of film or pixels? What about recording sound graphically? What if the recording device was of extremely low resolution, does that matter? What about taking long exposures, so long that anything moving would be blurred or disappear?\u00a0", "timestamp": 1359102294}, {"author": "Adam Yie", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114873051319510815414", "anchor": "gp-1359127632132", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n\u00a0 \"In principle the idea that you need people's permission to make a recording of them or to share it with others appeals to me.\"\n
\n
\nWould you also prefer a system which required permission to base a fictional character on someone? Or a not-photorealistic painting? (and why, of course =)) \u00a0", "timestamp": 1359127632}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1359128579790", "service": "gp", "text": "@Daniel\n\u00a0\"What was the point of the demand? Why was it important to change the default to no recordings?\"\n
\n
\nMy understanding from taking to one of the event organizers (\n@Rhys\n) is that the primary motivation is the fight against rape culture and coercive defaults. \u00a0Assuming people are ok being recorded even if you haven't asked them contributes to assuming people want to have sex with you even if you haven't asked them. \u00a0(But if \n@Mel\n,\u00a0\n@Becky\n, \n@Nathaniel\n, or another organizer could clarify that might be helpful.)\u00a0", "timestamp": 1359128579}, {"author": "Rhys", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115859472494253530779", "anchor": "gp-1359134942605", "service": "gp", "text": "One reason we instituted this policy at Youth Traditional Song Weekend was to make the event welcoming to all, particularly to folks (like new singers who have not yet settled in their confidence) who might be uncomfortable being recorded. Another reason was to take advantage of the opportunity we had, as organizers of a new event, to shift the community default and make the use of recording technology a topic of attention, rather than an assumed backdrop for the personal and group interactions of our attendees. Technology is changing (and has already drastically changed) the nature of our interaction with traditional music and singing, and it's an important topic to consider and continue to discuss as we move forward in continuing these traditions.\n
\nI made a reference to my personal opinions regarding the importance of shifting our cultural defaults away from the destructive rape culture paradigm we now hold as a society, and attempted to make it clear at the time that I was expressing an opinion of my own, not the policy and stance of the YTS committee.", "timestamp": 1359134942}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106627634005073412802", "anchor": "gp-1359136293472", "service": "gp", "text": "@Rhys\n\u00a0Does\u00a0\n@Jeff Kaufman\n\u00a0's description accurately reflect the policy, how it was presented and how it was understood? Was it more nuanced than this?\u00a0\n
\n
\nHow did it work out? Was there any pushback from attendees? I would think this policy would severely reduce recording even of people who had no objections.", "timestamp": 1359136293}, {"author": "Rhys", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115859472494253530779", "anchor": "gp-1359137120501", "service": "gp", "text": "The policy was simply that all people who wanted to record had to ask before doing so. We had two instances of people who were interested in discussing the policy with the organizers (Jeff was one of them), and more instances than I can count of people approaching one or more of the organizers to express their appreciation of the policy we had put in place. People did make recordings all weekend, and every time I was present for someone asking, everyone was happy to be recorded. Though it was certainly a new experience for most people to ask to make recordings (and to be asked), it became a more fluid process over the course of the weekend, and usually took between 5 and 60 seconds for people to ask if they could record, set up their recorders, and move on with the workshop or song sharing.\u00a0", "timestamp": 1359137120}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1359137154811", "service": "gp", "text": "@Daniel\n\u00a0\"I would think this policy would severely reduce recording even of people who had no objections.\"\n
\n
\nFor audio recordings I think it mostly didn't reduce recording. \u00a0People asked, were given permission, and then put out recorders. \u00a0For recordings with a visual component, though, I think it did dramatically reduce them; I didn't see people with cameras out. After YDW there were lots of pictures and videos on facebook, while YTS didn't have any (as far as I've seen).", "timestamp": 1359137154}, {"author": "Rhys", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115859472494253530779", "anchor": "gp-1359137427812", "service": "gp", "text": "The second component of our recording policy was that people had to get permission before images, video or audio \u00a0was shared beyond our attendees (including facebook, youtube, etc). Many beautiful pictures were taken throughout the weekend, and some lovely videos, and we're in the process of collecting those, asking permission from the photographers and people pictured, and then will make them available on our website or through social media.\u00a0", "timestamp": 1359137427}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1359137702132", "service": "gp", "text": "@Rhys\n\u00a0\"Many beautiful pictures were taken throughout the weekend, and some lovely videos, and we're in the process of collecting those\"\n
\n
\nInteresting; I didn't see attendees taking pictures or videos, or asking permission to take them. \u00a0I do remember that no one asked me (though I would have said yes).", "timestamp": 1359137702}, {"author": "Kate", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106122628122843325079", "anchor": "gp-1359138766706", "service": "gp", "text": "\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is an easy dismissal of an important truth (\"I'm not so interested in the legal component. Pretty much whatever we decide we want to happen socially we can make fit within the law.\") This is the 'everyone does it' argument.\n
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Many bands make a significant amount of money from CD or online sales of their music. Every pirated, copied, recorded or otherwise illegitimate copy of a musician's work is money taken from their pockets - and this is a population that aside from the obvious\u00a0 'stars' probably makes vastly less money than anyone here. It is rude, also, to record a band; you get all the mistakes, the failed experiments, the bad jokes not meant for public consumption, and many factors in the performance well beyond any band's control; noise, out-of-tune pianos, yells, etc. As performers, recording makes a lot of us self-conscious and less-inclined to play around and create - everyone loses.\n
\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Not to mention; many tunes played are not in the public domain. The organizers and.or performers can be sued by ASCAP or BMI if they're proven to have performed these numbers.\n
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Perhaps I should hang around and snap pictures of you at random times during the day - waking up, on the toilet, eating spaghetti - sure, it could be (or become) legal, but I guarantee you wouldn't like it!", "timestamp": 1359138766}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1359143875656", "service": "gp", "text": "@Peter\n\u00a0\"This is the 'everyone does it' argument.\"\n
\n
\nIt's not the \"everyone does it\" argument. \u00a0It's the argument that the legal system is there in support of our society. \u00a0In this case the legal structure can be seen as setting up defaults (\"you can't make secret audio recordings\", \"you don't have to get permission to take and share pictures\") and if we want other defaults for our community we can create them through some combination of notices, waivers, and requests. \u00a0For example, if we wanted to ban photos at dances we could do this by posting signs and telling anyone who took pictures to stop. \u00a0Or if we wanted to allow audio recording in an unrestricted manner we could post signs to notify people that recording was happening and negotiate with callers and musicians in advance to allow unrestricted distribution of their live performances. \u00a0I'm not a lawyer, and getting this on sound legal footing would be a bunch of work, but it's much less work than settling on what we think \nshould\n be allowed.\n
\n
\n\"Every pirated, copied, recorded or otherwise illegitimate copy of a musician's work is money taken from their pockets\"\n
\n
\nEvery sale that doesn't happen because it is displaced by piracy is money taken from their pockets. \u00a0But on the whole I think the sort of audio and video recordings we're talking about lead to \nmore\n sales and gigs, not less. \u00a0When someone sends me a link to a video of a dance and the band is playing awesome music it doesn't make me think \"I guess I don't need to buy their CD, now that I have this youtube recording\" but instead \"I'm definitely going the next time they're playing\" and \"maybe I should buy their CD\". \u00a0In some ways it's like how hearing songs on the radio promotes CD purchases (to the point that record companies would love to pay to have their songs put on the radio, if only that weren't illegal payola) except that radio quality is much closer to CD quality than live quality is. \u00a0As you say, you get all the mistakes, failed experiments, noise, and yells.\n
\n
\n\"bad jokes not meant for public consumption\"\n
\n
\nAre these jokes are going out over the mains loud enough to be picked up by someone with a video camera in the hall?\n
\n
\n\"As performers, recording makes a lot of us self-conscious and less-inclined to play around and create - everyone loses.\"\n
\n
\nYou could say the same think about amplification. \u00a0The first time I could hear my mandolin bouncing back at me off the back of the hall I started playing super-conservatively. But people get used to amplification, and I suspect the more common recording becomes the more people relax and ignore it.\n
\n
\n\"many tunes played are not in the public domain. The organizers and.or performers can be sued by ASCAP or BMI if they're proven to have performed these numbers.\"\n
\n
\nThis is hard to square with your \"money taken from their pockets\" claim above. \u00a0We're talking about playing music you don't have the rights to, instead of paying the creators for a license. \u00a0If videos popping up on youtube makes performers more careful about getting legal permission for the music they play, wouldn't you consider that a good thing?\n
\n
\n\"Perhaps I should hang around and snap pictures of you at random times during the day - waking up, on the toilet, eating spaghetti - sure, it could be (or become) legal, but I guarantee you wouldn't like it!\"\n
\n
\nThis is why as a community we need to settle on something that balances everyones preferences. \u00a0As I said in the original post, we're not \"trying to take pictures of people who would rather not be recorded\", and \"while eating spaghetti\" etc are cases where we expect people wouldn't want to be.", "timestamp": 1359143875}, {"author": "Rhys", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115859472494253530779", "anchor": "gp-1359155019484", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n\u00a0The organizers made an announcement on Saturday that we wanted to take some photographs for our website and to share afterwards, and that if anyone wished not to be photographed or to have their likeness shared on public media to approach us. There were also a number of individuals using cameras during the weekend, and as far as I know asked groups and individuals for permission before photographing or recording folks.\u00a0\n
\n@Daniel\n\u00a0I don't think the consent-for-recording policy got in the way of anyone's song-learning; the organizing committee encouraged attendees, in our initial announcements and throughout the weekend, to approach each other and make personal connections around the music. That could (and did!) take the form of making a recording of one person alone, sitting with them to write down the song and sing it through a number of times, or exchanging contact information to stay connected and keep sharing after the weekend was over.", "timestamp": 1359155019}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106627634005073412802", "anchor": "gp-1359177800170", "service": "gp", "text": "I know very little about ASCAP or BMI, but I imagine their decision to sue is based on whether it would benefit their own organization, and not necessarily because the individual artist whose work was being infringed would object. Just a guess, \n@Peter\n\u00a0I am sure knows better (and he is hereby challenged to take a picture of me while [at least one of us is] eating spaghetti).", "timestamp": 1359177800}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106627634005073412802", "anchor": "gp-1359177940402", "service": "gp", "text": "On the other hand, maybe I have no idea :)", "timestamp": 1359177940}]}