I don't have a problem with Joe Hisaishi—or any person who makes creative content—turning down requests for usage. It's no different than when I've said no to show offers, or which platforms (if any) to stream my music on. I've had to get my lawyer to send C&Ds to people who have stolen my photographs. Copyright/IP allows me to have the agency to control my work and how I want it to be shown.
I should clarify that I'm not a lawyer, but as a musician and someone who has spent 15+ years being involved with radio, I'm pretty well versed in the particulars of copyright and music licensing here in the US. Hopefully my perspective helps other folks understanding, that's all. If any of these terms are unclear, please let me know, happy to clarify. A couple quick notes:
- Using a cover doesn't make it any easier for a competitor; the choice to use a cover is most likely driven by an aesthetic decision. Perhaps you like the message of, say, AC/DC's "It's a Long Way to the Top," but the arrangement isn't going to serve your needs, so you find a softer arrangement.
- Still, the material that is being covered is still owned by the rightsholder. Technically if you are recording a cover, you still need to obtain clearance from the copyright owner of that material (unless it is in the public domain). 75 countries, excluding the US, pay royalties on the public performance of the cover (in addition to the songwriter/composer/publisher), for those keeping score.
- In the US, this where those blanket licenses from ASCAP/BMI come in handy, as there would be no other way to collect royalties for public performance (though it would only be the s/c/p who benefits; there is a bill floating around the House to introduce public performance royalties for even people covering other people's material).
- Stuff being thrown up on YT isn't suddenly free from copyright and licensing restrictions. YT has a Content ID system that allows them to track/collect royalties, as well as allow artists/rightsholders control over stuff on their platform. On top of this, you have the added complexity of resharing broadcast content that may be restricted by their own licensing/usage rights.
Anywhow, I find this whole thing with Reynolds fascinating because it's not clear what the solution should be. Skate a new program? Reuse an old one? Withdraw entirely? And looking at the bigger picture, what does this mean moving forward for skaters—how well-versed should a skater's coaching/choreography team be in the particulars of copyright/IP? Should skaters start getting sync agreements (what tv/film/commercials use) to clear their material?