- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
Important thing to note here, This is an after the competition factor here. The competition doesn't change, but what happens after would / will?
Intellectual Property issue here.
Who should retain the rights to the video?
Let's see, I wonder how many would say, "that's fine, all you'll do is make it more popular. And in-turn more spectators, hence more profits actually going to the performer." I guess thats why the "networks" don't like the idea - opinion.
I think it should be the skater / coach and a 10% goes to the "filmer." If nothing is made but publicity, then publicity is all anyone gets a piece of - that is up to the "artist." This goes back to control being in the hands of the artist.
If Michelle doesn't want her clip re ran on ESPN (maybe she doesn't like the NRA advertisement), then she (or agent - subject to their own ethics) should have every right to say yes or no and then it is either purchased from the performer or not ran.
"Sports Shows" make all the money from the advertisers buying the spots, just like a newspaper. If they "show" want's it, they need to buy it from the person responsible for "supplying" the spectators with the performance. Now what happens?
This is ONE OF THE REASONS (mainly taxs, but what's the dif when it's the "man") why the Beatles formed Apple records, and John and Yoko formed John Lennon Records.
Isn't it great to have a sport where this could even be compared to Actors / Musicians ownership.
That's the way I think it should be....what about you?
Intellectual Property issue here.
Who should retain the rights to the video?
Let's see, I wonder how many would say, "that's fine, all you'll do is make it more popular. And in-turn more spectators, hence more profits actually going to the performer." I guess thats why the "networks" don't like the idea - opinion.
I think it should be the skater / coach and a 10% goes to the "filmer." If nothing is made but publicity, then publicity is all anyone gets a piece of - that is up to the "artist." This goes back to control being in the hands of the artist.
If Michelle doesn't want her clip re ran on ESPN (maybe she doesn't like the NRA advertisement), then she (or agent - subject to their own ethics) should have every right to say yes or no and then it is either purchased from the performer or not ran.
"Sports Shows" make all the money from the advertisers buying the spots, just like a newspaper. If they "show" want's it, they need to buy it from the person responsible for "supplying" the spectators with the performance. Now what happens?
This is ONE OF THE REASONS (mainly taxs, but what's the dif when it's the "man") why the Beatles formed Apple records, and John and Yoko formed John Lennon Records.
Isn't it great to have a sport where this could even be compared to Actors / Musicians ownership.
That's the way I think it should be....what about you?
Last edited: