Synchronization as a concept is fundamental for any audiovisual piece when it comes to music.
Synchronization is the act of adding music to a piece of content. Generally audiovisual content, but recently the growth of the video game industry has made this segment equally important. That's why we can not talk about movies or TV alone. The placement of a song in Fifa can make the difference of doing a world tour or not ... ask ChocQuibTown (Fifa '11).
The rules are simple:
Continue reading "A matter of synchrony"
If something more tangled the YouTubers is the treatment of the audiovisual work. The audiovisual work as conceived in the norms is a work that necessarily is carried out by several people.
All these rules, in their beginning were covering the space of which an audiovisual, cinematographic work was a cumbersome work to do.
Orson Welles I would agree.
In the definitions it includes that it is also created to be able to project it; in our case, in YouTube, the platform that means (streaming on-demand).
So far, all normal.
Continue reading "From Orson Welles to Yuya"
This article is going to be technical. A remote control diatribe; But follow me. The Colombian legislation speaks of the stage representation contract ... but 30 * years later, it continues with the same error since the day it was written.
We present the culprit:
"23 1982 Law. CHAPTER IX - " Contract of representation - Article 139º.- The contract of representation is that by which the actor Of a dramatic, dramatic-musical, choreographic or of any similar kind, authorizes an entrepreneur to have it represented in public in return for an enumeration. "
There are many things that are wrong with that article.
One that says "actor" Where should i say "Author"… I should even say "holder". The correct wording should be:
The representation contract is one by which the holder Of a work (...) authorizes an employer to have it represented in public in exchange for an enumeration.
Have that to me.
Continue reading "The errors of the scenic representation contract"
The title of a work is its name. It's no more. In principle, the work is protected by copyright; But his title, alone and abandoned, failed.
A good title is descriptive.
A good title hooks.
A bad title may, by loose, make the work lose sense or do it justice.
There are hundreds of songs with the same name (eg "Oh Love"). We have all composed (intentionally or unintentionally) a song with a title that someone else had already used.
But is there plagiarism? Can you claim me for baptizing another song under the title "My Love"?
Continue reading "That title is a plagiarism"
The moment of inspiration. The muse. All that string of lies we say to call you to creative work.
Copyright books begin with a cute chapter, trying to explain what the moment of inspiration is. They do so in lawyer-ish ways, which in a corny way sound like something related to the arts.
In those chapters, they give almost a magical presence to inspiration, when the author manages to leave his hypnotic state of extreme narcissism and doubts that eat him, and creates a new work of art. Any work of art. An intellectual creation.
The mess we are in, is the inability that law has to acknowledge this moment; and paradoxically the equal inability of the arts to describe it.
For copyright, inspiration should not be worth anything.
If copyright does not value artistic merit, neither should it give any thought to the cause of artistic work.
Continue reading "The moment of inspiration"