Still Tourin' Trailer

[donald]

As Noven said, all the footage came from his own collection. None was wittingly supplied by BRI.

Someone explain to me why we're having this fucking stupid  conversation, please.

well Andrew, as you said previously, we are omnipresent and impotent.....or something like that.....

[Debbie KL]

If it were just a fan video, why did it get posted and pulled down on Mike's FB page?

Plus if it were just a fan video, where did he get those audio and video sources?

I'm not very Facebook saavy but can't anyone share anything to your timeline until you delete it?

From sources available to the public which you haven't found yet?

Since the question was asked, it depends on how the FB page is setup.  If it's a group/celebrity page, you can normally post comments to posts done by whomever manages the page, but you don't originate posts there.  You need admin access for that.  I've admin'd a few such pages, - certainly not Mr. Love's - but it would be foolish to give access to just anyone on a celebrity page.

[GhostyTMRS]

Actually, if you scroll down Mike's page (or anyone else's for that matter) you'll see a section called "visitor's posts" (or in the case of my page for my radio show 'posts to page") ..where anyone can post anything. All sorts of stuff is getting posted on Mike's page, including any time Mike is tagged in a post. Some of my posts about celebrities wind up on their page because when I typed in their name, FB highlighted it in blue. I thought in doing this I was helping to drive traffic to their pages, but learned that my posts were actually showing up on people's pages, hence all sorts of wacky friend requests coming my way from people I've never heard of. I didn't find that out until recently.  

[Cam Mott]

If it were just a fan video, why did it get posted and pulled down on Mike's FB page?

Plus if it were just a fan video, where did he get those audio and video sources?

I'm not very Facebook saavy but can't anyone share anything to your timeline until you delete it?

From sources available to the public which you haven't found yet?

Since the question was asked, it depends on how the FB page is setup.  If it's a group/celebrity page, you can normally post comments to posts done by whomever manages the page, but you don't originate posts there.  You need admin access for that.  I've admin'd a few such pages, - certainly not Mr. Love's - but it would be foolish to give access to just anyone on a celebrity page.

If you Google this guy it shows this:

https://www.facebook.com/officialbrianwilson/posts/10207183342847138

Which appears to be posted by him to Brian's official page. Does it not actually show up on Brian's official page though? Or not publicly some how on Facebook but in Google? Does this show that Brian's page allows posting to it? Or do I just not understand Facebook and this isn't the way it seems to me?

[Cam Mott]

Actually, if you scroll down Mike's page (or anyone else's for that matter) you'll see a section called "visitor's posts" (or in the case of my page for my radio show 'posts to page") ..where anyone can post anything. All sorts of stuff is getting posted on Mike's page, including any time Mike is tagged in a post. Some of my posts about celebrities wind up on their page because when I typed in their name, FB highlighted it in blue. I thought in doing this I was helping to drive traffic to their pages, but learned that my posts were actually showing up on people's pages, hence all sorts of wacky friend requests coming my way from people I've never heard of. I didn't find that out until recently.  

I guess this answers my question about this guy's posts to Brian's page.  Probably.

[GhostyTMRS]

Yeah, if you go to "visitor's posts" on the left of Brian's page you'll see it. Of course you'll have to sit for 2 hours and scroll through a thousand posts from fans to go all the way back to June. lol People are posting tons of stuff to Brian's page all day. Much moreso than Mike's page (Brian has evidently won the popularity contest on FB). 

[GhostyTMRS]

Looks like the same guy just made a video out of old Mike clips from YT footage and put it to Mike's Christmas song... and Mike's administrators just dubbed it the official video! Bossaroo is being given a run for his money.   

[Cam Mott]

Looks like the same guy just made a video out of old Mike clips from YT footage and put it to Mike's Christmas song... and Mike's administrators just dubbed it the official video! Bossaroo is being given a run for his money.   

I just saw that. 

[SMiLE Brian]

More questions are arising from this video a week later! If the video was pulled down the first time for copyright reasons according to AGD, then how did the same video get posted again a week later?

Plus if its the same guy doing the videos, why was the last one not official and the new one is?

Lastly, how did the filmmaker get clearance from BRI to use copyrighted video and audio from releases like the C50 DVD, and were similar clearances given by BRI to use even more video in Mike's official Christmas video?

[SMiLE Brian]

New video seems official as hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyZFGxdp8_4

[SMiLE Brian]

Plus this Foskett video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvif7DBlE3M

[Andrew G. Doe]

Maybe someone should actually ASK the guy if the videos are official, or where he got the footage from ?

Oh, wait... I did.  

Time to lay back and enjoy the forthcoming luminous nonsense.  

[filledeplage]

More questions are arising from this video a week later! If the video was pulled down the first time for copyright reasons according to AGD, then how did the same video get posted again a week later?

Plus if its the same guy doing the videos, why was the last one not official and the new one is?

Lastly, how did the filmmaker get clearance from BRI to use copyrighted video and audio from releases like the C50 DVD, and were similar clearances given by BRI to use even more video in Mike's official Christmas video?

Interesting - Smile Brian, that you are concerned when something is posted that presents a favorable likeness and light and not so much when then there is disparagement of band members. 

[SMiLE Brian]

The Christmas video was labeled official on Mike's Facebook page where it was posted as "Check out the official music video for '(You'll Never Be) Alone on Christmas Day".

Something is happening behind the scenes?

[filledeplage]

The Christmas video was labeled official on Mike's Facebook page where it was posted as "Check out the official music video for '(You'll Never Be) Alone on Christmas Day".

Something is happening behind the scenes?

"Behind the scenes" is presumably "their business" and consequently, not "ours." 

[Andrew G. Doe]

Occam's Razor, the nemesis of all conspiracy theories and theorists. Thus

1 Noven concocts an excellent video, the intent being to get the attention of Mike's management.

2 It works.

3 He then makes a video for the new Christmas song, which said management see fit to dub "official", which they haven't for any of the others.

[Marty Castillo]

I agree with SmiLE Brian. Mike and his team are muddying the waters a bit on this one. I still believe the Still Touring stuff is a fan production using existing footage, but Mike posting the following to his facebook starts to give legitimacy to this fan.:

Check out the official music video for '(You'll Never Be) Alone on Christmas Day' by Noven Jaisi!!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=DEINo14z7OU

I would be curious if all the footage in the "official" music video is cleared for use?

Mike has posted a number of YouTube clips that could be considered bootleg/unofficial. I guess ultimately he is probably only legally culpable if he produces it and posts it on his YouTube page. Interesting that the "official" music video wasn't posted on Mike's YouTube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxffbn4jfkMNQ9Gu62TSXLg

[SMiLE Brian]

Yeah Marty all these videos being posted are confusing to me.

Maybe something official is in works and they are testing the waters for a release?

So it was or wasn't a copyright issue that caused the first video to be posted then quickly removed a week ago?

[filledeplage]

Occam's Razor, the nemesis of all conspiracy theories and theorists. Thus

1 Noven concocts an excellent video, the intent being to get the attention of Mike's management.

2 It works.

3 He then makes a video for the new Christmas song, which said management see fit to dub "official", which they haven't for any of the others.

Thank, you Mr. Doe, I just searched the term "Occam's Razor" which I had never heard.

You can learn something new every day, even here!

[SMiLE Brian]

Yet another question, how did the same fan get the rights to use even more copyrighted video to now make an official video for Mike's new single?

[Marty Castillo]

Yet another question, how did the same fan get the rights to use even more copyrighted video to now make an official video for Mike's new single?

See my post above, I asked the same question, essentially: "I would be curious if all the footage in the "official" music video is cleared for use?"

I could see a scenario where Mike was impressed with the Still Tourin' video, Noven got on his radar. Noven than creates a music video using available footage on YouTube for the new song. Mike thinks it's cute and calls it his "official" music video. I am not a lawyer, I don't know what can be considered fair use, but would assume if Mike is using it to promote his new single things could get dicey from a legal standpoint if the footage isn't cleared.

I will now back away, because I am beyond my depth, but would love to hear a lawyers perspective.

[filledeplage]

Yet another question, how did the same fan get the rights to use even more copyrighted video to now make an official video for Mike's new single?

Andrew answered that.

[SMiLE Brian]

My understanding is that Mike commissioned this from Mr. Jaisi, knowing full well that a wrath of Biblical dimension would instantly descend from the heavens (or this forum - which is much the same thing, of course: are we not Olympian deities, omniscient and omnipotent ?), allowing him to delete the post from his page, thus disassociating himself from it while simultaneously engaging in a complex double bluff and getting his message out there, knowing that all rational fans will realise that, as well executed as the video is, it's not officially sanctioned. Except that it is, of course.

That's what I would say, were I an extremely gullible conspiracy theorist with a handy Thesaurus. Thankfully, I'm not. It's a very well executed fan video that subtly implies it's official product when it isn't. I'm guessing it was deleted from Mike's page for that very reason, and because it's Copyright Infringement Central as regards the various clips. For those pointing out, reasonably enough, that the BW one is still up, that's clearly labelled as a parody.

And now, I must maintain my front as an independent entity by pretending to go work as a bookie for some ten hours. If I can find the bloody shop - the fog out there is about as dense as some posters here. 

[filledeplage]

Yet another question, how did the same fan get the rights to use even more copyrighted video to now make an official video for Mike's new single?

See my post above, I asked the same question, essentially: "I would be curious if all the footage in the "official" music video is cleared for use?"

I could see a scenario where Mike was impressed with the Still Tourin' video, Noven got on his radar. Noven than creates a music video using available footage on YouTube for the new song. Mike thinks it's cute and calls it his "official" music video. I am not a lawyer, I don't know what can be considered fair use, but would assume if Mike is using it to promote his new single things could get dicey from a legal standpoint if the footage isn't cleared.

I will now back away, because I am beyond my depth, but would love to hear a lawyers perspective.

An interesting case is Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics. Lots of versions online from law schools and analysis...

The cite is 971 F.2d 1395 (1992)  9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and

989 F.2d 1512  (1993) - it is noted for discussion in property law, intellectual property classes and torts.  

[Peadar 'Big Dinner' O'Driscoll]

Yet another question, how did the same fan get the rights to use even more copyrighted video to now make an official video for Mike's new single?

See my post above, I asked the same question, essentially: "I would be curious if all the footage in the "official" music video is cleared for use?"

I could see a scenario where Mike was impressed with the Still Tourin' video, Noven got on his radar. Noven than creates a music video using available footage on YouTube for the new song. Mike thinks it's cute and calls it his "official" music video. I am not a lawyer, I don't know what can be considered fair use, but would assume if Mike is using it to promote his new single things could get dicey from a legal standpoint if the footage isn't cleared.

I will now back away, because I am beyond my depth, but would love to hear a lawyers perspective.

Will anyone really care? song is going nowhere and will be forgotten soon enough. Cant see it being played anywhere other than people watching it on youtube...been up 4 days and has just over 1000 views