Winter Sessions Now Up On YouTube

[seankenny]

What would Max Brod do? :worms:

 

[reeve]

I could have very easily just not posted this thread or said anything and kept the films in my private drive whereas all I wanted to do was share it with you all.

Obviously I'm a bit late saying this now you've taken them all down, but I don't think anyone was doubting the bit I've quoted above - you were obviously trying to do something which people would appreciate. But that said, if I had spent money and lots of time producing a film (even an old one) I would expect the courtesy of my permission being sought rather than assumed.

To me it's a shame you've taken them all down seemingly permanently rather than, say, emailed the filmmakers with a view to putting them back up with their approval.

 

[Liamhutch89]

:agree: It’s a depressing thread to read as a filmmaker.

Interesting take. As a music producer, it would be a great compliment if someone uploaded my music. In fact, in the music sphere, artists who block their music from being uploaded on youtube are looked down upon. I'm no film maker by any stretch of the imagination but the little climbing video I recently made used 4 songs from different artists, all of which are copyrighted, but the artists allow free use on youtube.

I see this situation a bit like visiting a crag with sketchy access. If you ask the landowner, you risk a no and putting a spotlight on what you and other climbers are doing. Keep a low profile and no one gets hurt and a few people get some enjoyment out of it.

 

[shurt]

jeez, i'm still halfway through the film. throw me a bone. what happens in the end? do they get caught?

 

[cheque]

Interesting take. As a music producer, it would be a great compliment if someone uploaded my music. In fact, in the music sphere, artists who block their music from being uploaded on youtube are looked down upon. I'm no film maker by any stretch of the imagination but the little climbing video I recently made used 4 songs from different artists, all of which are copyrighted, but the artists allow free use on youtube.

Look at it like this, someone takes the master files of your film and your music from you and says “this is shite, no-one should be able to watch or listen to it and I’m the one who gets to decide that, not you”. Then other people’s response was “seems fair, it’s not like he was making any money from it, if he moans enough and does the legwork himself then just let him have the files back”.

It’s not right is it? The creator of anything should be the one who decides how it’s distributed. That’s why (and I’m always amazed when I have to explain this) the whole concept of copyright exists.

There are loads of reasons why musicians are more likely to be more relaxed with how people use or distribute their work (and the point is that they’re choosing to do that) than filmmakers but I didn’t mean it was depressing due to the medium being discussed, just the general attitude that you can do what you like with other people’s work and that the subject is somehow up for debate.

 

[cheque]

Music licensing might be what’s keeping some of these old films from being lobbed up for anyone to watch- they’ll have made agreements with the people who made the music at the time which probably only covered selling DVDs. Really you’ve got to revisit those agreements when you put the film out in another form which isn’t going to be a formality if there are actual proper music publishers involved. I’ve always assumed that’s why Hard Grit has never been available online and I think Stick It might be the same? Your only other option in that case is to recut it with different music (Stone Monkey style) which is probably impossible for these films as the raw footage is likely long gone and it would be an absolute ballache for basically no reward.

I merrily filled Stonnis with Creative Commons-licensed music only to read the small print and have to shell out once I started charging people directly to watch it. Not everyone making music for video is doing it out of the good of their hearts

Coincidentally my two big films cost me quite a lot to sell (or more accurately not sell :look: ) online over the last 12 months and my Vimeo Pro subscription expired on Monday so, once their customer support fill me in on how the fuck I make videos that once cost money available for free : they’ll be available for everyone to watch.

 

[Jono.r23]

Stick it & stone monkey were available for paid stream/purchase for a while.. cant remember the name of the service.. Sharp Edge? It was run by a couple of peeps who lived on my old street. Not sure why it stopped but presumably they were covered re any licensing..or maybe that was the issue in the end? Would be great for these and others not to disappear forever

 

[andy popp]

This is assuming that I’ve uploaded this in some attempt to profit off it or with some sort of bad intentions when in reality I just want to make these widely available for people to watch and enjoy

No, it's not assuming that at all. Your intent (and I don't believe you had any bad intent) is irrelevant. It's not your material and not your decision.

I guess I can claim to be a writer. Certainly, I've published a great deal in many different formats. Much I'd be happy to see reproduced and distributed for free. And much I very much wouldn't (including material that is "decades" old and hard to access or even unavailable). The point is that those are my choices. No-one can just assume my preferences. And no-one can assume I'm no longer deriving income from them. I received a payment from the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society literally yesterday.

Perhaps I shouldn't post this, not least as the videos have been taken. But the repeated defence that this is simply about allowing people to watch these films, though no doubt made in good faith, is grating.

 

[Dingdong]

The films are gone, you can all chill out and stop posting about it now

 

[remus]

Not to argue against copyright per se, but the net result tends to be pretty frustrating from a users' point of view.

You've got these films where the creator was clearly interested in distributing them at some point, and you've got these platforms which, for the first time in history, mean this content could literally be at your fingertips (out of interest, i just timed it and went from nothing to watching 'The Real Thing' in 7 seconds!)

Instead, you have to track down someone who has a copy of the DVD, buy a dvd player because no computers have them any more, probably fuck around trying to get the thing to play because it uses some weird format etc. Then after the original creator dies you have to wait 70 years before you can do anything with the work.

Is anyone going to be able to watch winter sessions in 100 years time? It seems very unlikely.

 

[SamT]

The films are gone, you can all chill out and stop posting about it now

Just wanted to add that there was no "back lash" from me, just passing on my experience of uploading a vid that I thought was lost (barring my VHS copy).

To be fair to the bloke he then posted it himself

Brill.. hadn't seen that.. Never seen the rubicon wall one. :2thumbsup:

 

[spidermonkey09]

This is kind of a wider discussion about copyright now rather than those specific films; split?

I don't disagree with your post Andy, but I use scihub or libgen reasonably often to get hold of articles /material that my uni doesn't have access to. I don't feel guilty about this; maybe I should, especially given I'm depriving the authors of income, albeit indirectly. I get that access to academia and access to old climbing films are of different levels of importance, but its an interesting side point. Maybe its different because academic publishers are minted and small climbing films makers aren't? Ditto Hollywood films; I never felt remotely bad about using Yify to watch films a lot when I was at uni.

 

[andy popp]

The films are gone, you can all chill out and stop posting about it now

I wouldn't have posted at all if you'd shown any sign of understanding why people had concerns/objections.

Anyway, agree with SM09 that we can probably split or log this now.

 

[Dingdong]

I think the funniest thing about all this is that I’m literally the head of video at one of the largest labels/distros in the world and my job is literally music copyright protection on video platforms so for people to try and actually explain my own job to me is hilarious.

There’s actually nothing stopping any Tom, dick and Harry from uploading a video to YouTube. The onus is on the film makers to send their materials for copyright protection to a distributor who has access to the platforms fingerprinting tool. If a film maker doesn’t bother to do this they don’t really have much of an option except to send a takedown request by filling the form out.

Like I said, my point wasn’t to profit from this. These film makers could have at any point uploaded the films to their own channels. After speaking to two of them one said they didn’t have access to their YouTube channel anymore and the other didn’t own a copy/master of their own film which actually kind of made me laugh because they obviously weren’t bothered enough to try and retrieve their logins or masters for the last decade.

If it wasn’t for me actually doing what I did then 1. People wouldn’t have seen the films again for the first time in years 2. The film makers wouldn’t have been fired up to actually get their films back and upload them or whatever

Again. We’re not talking about new films that are widely available, on sale and easily viewable, that I would understand and like others have said it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Finally you crusty old bastards need to stop being so fucking grumpy and argumentative about everything that gets posted on here. It’s very fucking boring and you drive people away from the forum with all your incessant arguing.

 

[ali k]

The films are gone

Balls. I’d been saving it for when I could watch it on the TV instead of my phone so missed out :'(

 

[Johnny Brown]

Bit confused here.

2. The film makers wouldn’t have been fired up to actually get their films back and upload them or whatever

Is this happening? Sounds like a good outcome if so.

 

[Dingdong]

Bit confused here.

2. The film makers wouldn’t have been fired up to actually get their films back and upload them or whatever

Is this happening? Sounds like a good outcome if so.

Ben has asked me to send him the copy of stick it so he can edit out the opening track and upload it to his channel, which I obliged - so yes a good outcome regardless of all the arguments on here

 

[Fiend]

The films are gone, you can all chill out and stop posting about it now

;D Well I, for one, quite liked having Winter Session up, and watched most of it again.

Finally you crusty old bastards need to stop being so fucking grumpy and argumentative about everything that gets posted on here. It’s very fucking boring and you drive people away from the forum with all your incessant arguing.

:2thumbsup: :lol:

 

[Liamhutch89]

Interesting take. As a music producer, it would be a great compliment if someone uploaded my music. In fact, in the music sphere, artists who block their music from being uploaded on youtube are looked down upon. I'm no film maker by any stretch of the imagination but the little climbing video I recently made used 4 songs from different artists, all of which are copyrighted, but the artists allow free use on youtube.

Look at it like this, someone takes the master files of your film and your music from you and says “this is shite, no-one should be able to watch or listen to it and I’m the one who gets to decide that, not you”. Then other people’s response was “seems fair, it’s not like he was making any money from it, if he moans enough and does the legwork himself then just let him have the files back”.

It’s not right is it? The creator of anything should be the one who decides how it’s distributed. That’s why (and I’m always amazed when I have to explain this) the whole concept of copyright exists.

There are loads of reasons why musicians are more likely to be more relaxed with how people use or distribute their work (and the point is that they’re choosing to do that) than filmmakers but I didn’t mean it was depressing due to the medium being discussed, just the general attitude that you can do what you like with other people’s work and that the subject is somehow up for debate.

To be fair, my feelings on copyright laws are stronger in the music world, where they are based on protecting a 'musical idea' - something which has no satisfactory definition for me, particularly in a world where there are only 12 notes that are commonly used in popular music. I was ready to have my mind changed but your post still doesn't make much sense to me.

Art that has been released for public consumption becomes part of the communal cultural knowledge. I am all for the artist being able to make a living from their work, but the idea of eradicating existing art doesn't sit well with me, hence your argument of taking the master files and withholding them is the exact opposite of what I have suggested. If a rich, evil investor were to purchase the rights to The Beatles discography and The Godfather trilogy then never allow them to be played again, that would be a cultural disaster (ok, maybe the 3rd Godfather film can go...). These old climbing films have a much smaller cultural impact, but it's still real.

I understand the basics of the current legal definition of copyright, and by that definition you are correct that the copyright owner can do what they want with it, but the philosophical debate is whether we should look for coherent justifications for the current system, or to take a more utilitarian approach - protecting the creators investment of time and resources whilst balancing this with encouraging socially beneficial uses of their work. In this case, I think having the video available to watch on YouTube would bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people whilst having minimal negative impact (if any) on the creator.

 

[Johnny Brown]

I think the point is more that the film-makers here are not some distant creatives far away in space and time. Both live in Sheffield still, have been active UKB members at some point and many of us on the forum have emails or phone numbers for one or both of them. So it's no big deal to drop them a line and ask 'is this cool?'. Which has now happened, and unsurprisingly sounds like they'd both prefer to have some control.