90 replies to this topic

[DeanB]

Sorta like jaywalking, which is illegal and hardly enforced unless you get a police trap for jaywalkers (yes they do exist!)

Will someone please tell me exactly what 'Jaywalking' is?. I've only seen those brightly coloured members of the corvidae family in trees and why would the US justice system persecute them for any terrestrial activity

Dive safe

DeanB

Edited by DeanB, 17 September 2010 - 11:10 PM.

[decosnapper]

Tell me what you want, what you really really want.....

Every consumer of IP to understand the rights and limits of what they have purchased? That would do for starters......

I think we are pretty much set on different sides of this issue. Maybe me being a hobbyist and you being someone making a living as a photographer has something to do with it.

Yes, I think we are. As Drew et al have said, theft is theft no matter the intention. A slight reword of "copyright" is "the right to copy" and if you did not create, or buy the right to do so then it is wrong, hobbyist or not.

Why? It is worthwhile remembering that hobbyist or pro alike enjoy the same protection with respect to their creations.......every time the hobbyist presses the shutter the rights and protection to what the camera captured are the same as whatever a pro shot. Copyright makes no distinction with respect to the artistic ability, talent or commercial potential.
Granted the same rights, it is reasonable to give the same respect to others.


When finding an infringement I take a measured approach; is the use commercial or not? I then contact the infringer, and their response/attitude determines to a certain extent the next actions.
If they are a non-commercial site and are rude, I would launch a claim.
If they are polite, I ask for its removal and treat the exercise as a education process.
Commercial users alway pay. If they deny use, try to hide or conceal the use, try the "we have taken it down and consider the matter closed" approach, or be otherwise less than trustworthy then the level of damages is non-negotiable with 7 days to agree to pay or I hand it over to the lawyers.

I guess what I am trying to say is; Don't depend on the goodwill of the rights holder if you are caught.

.....
It is particularly timely and ironic that I have just flicked through the 3rd quarter of The Undersea Journal, and on page 57 I find one of my photos. OK, so the photo is with a variety of stock agencies and I probably received royalties for it's use and I get credits on the page but the picture is used to advertise a competitor's dive shop.....

These days I would assume nothing and check out if the user has indeed purchased a license.

[SimonSpear]

Sorry but I'm not suggesting any such thing. And to be honest I'm not sure why I quoted your post in my reply, other than you stated -"If it is low distribution you could probably get away with using copyright material, but technically speaking you'd be leaving yourself wide open legally. " Again, my apologies if you took my post the wrong way. I was just trying to suppy some info and maybe it came off wrong. I have one month old twins so I'm not sleeping much, and maybe not making much sense.

No problem Andy, it's easy to misunderstand or misinterpret what someone is saying on these forums which is why I appreciate the clarification. Btw I know what its like with young ones about

Cheers, Simon

Edited by SimonSpear, 18 September 2010 - 02:38 AM.

[Andy Morrison]

Hey, her Clannad days made for some cool music. And I heard even the hardest core metalhead have Orinocco Flow somewhere in their ipod.


The grey area, as it were, is in the enforcement, isn't it? I know a band who sold their music online directly, gave listeners a choice of to pay or not, then later resold the same material on itunes once it became popular. Their T&C was cloudy and the song was passed along as a free song on the internet.
The music labels make it grey because they like the publicity that goes with virus marketing like Bloom's shorts or TV trailer placements. Neither are preauthorized but obviously very easy to target legally. All of the music industry guys (including the artists) I've spoken to are also ambiguous about this. The marketing promotion/publicity aspect is appreciated in the wallet, but technically is illegal. If the owners of the copyright are ambiguous in enforcement, then the public will interpret their inaction as a licence to use. Sorta like jaywalking, which is illegal and hardly enforced unless you get a police trap for jaywalkers (yes they do exist!)

Point taken. The issue for me is that I don't want to be a party to the eventual erosion of my rights, and I can't very well defend my rights tooth and nail while infringing upon someone else's.

[DeanB]

If you don't mind someone stealing/borrowing/loaning etc etc your work for whatever reason then do not do it to another ... we are all artists in some way or another... You want to promote your work with someone else's 'work' then pay up or maybe man-up and do it yourself... 'No such thing as a free lunch' I think someone said.

SIMPLES

Dive safe

DeanB

[ronscuba]

.......
The music labels make it grey because they like the publicity that goes with virus marketing like Bloom's shorts or TV trailer placements. Neither are preauthorized but obviously very easy to target legally. All of the music industry guys (including the artists) I've spoken to are also ambiguous about this. The marketing promotion/publicity aspect is appreciated in the wallet, but technically is illegal. If the owners of the copyright are ambiguous in enforcement, then the public will interpret their inaction as a licence to use. Sorta like jaywalking, which is illegal and hardly enforced unless you get a police trap for jaywalkers (yes they do exist!)

I understand property is property. A picture, video footage, music, a nail, etc.. It's all property. But obviously, music is thought of differently by many, including myself. Someone here used the term IP, intellectual property.

I respect and agree with all here when they speak about their photos, but this thread started as a discussion on music.

Make your own music ? Yes we can, and for commercial uses it's basically that or royalty free music in lieu of paying big $$$$ to get use rights. As a hobbyist, I have done both. My own music and others. Whichever I felt fit my needs.

Drew brings up very interesting points. The music industry and artists themselves are unsure of their position. So what is the public supposed to think ?

The issue of music hobbyist use and/or non commercial use vs. music for profit use is being viewed by some as irrelevant. I wonder, do people feel the same about photo model release ?

Edited by ronscuba, 18 September 2010 - 09:04 AM.

[SimonSpear]

I wonder, do people feel the same about photo model release ?

Ron you're gonna open up a whole new can of worms with that one!!

Cheers, Simon

[Andy Morrison]

I understand property is property. A picture, video footage, music, a nail, etc.. It's all property. But obviously, music is thought of differently by many, including myself. Someone here used the term IP, intellectual property.

The issue of music hobbyist use and/or non commercial use vs. music for profit use is being viewed by some as irrelevant. I wonder, do people feel the same about photo model release ?

I'm baffled why you think music is not someone's intellectual property? Ask any musician and the real money is in owning the publishing rights. Or at least it used to be.

The model release thingy is pretty simple. If you're using a person's image commercially then you need a model release. If used editorially you don't. So if you're just putting together videos for YouTube or your own use don't worry about it. If you want to sell said videos you would need model releases if the person is identifiable.
All that scuba gear we wear should make that a moot point mostly.

[decosnapper]

I understand property is property...................

...................The issue of music hobbyist use and/or non commercial use vs. music for profit use is being viewed by some as irrelevant.

For the reasons stated; amateurs/hobbyists enjoy the same legal protection over their creative works (music/film/images) that professionals do. Copyright exists on creative media and makes no distinction.

It is therefore not irrelevant. It is the very core of what allows amateurs and professionals alike to say "no" to anyone who wishes to exploit their creative endeavors.

[Andy Morrison]

For the reasons stated; amateurs/hobbyists enjoy the same legal protection over their creative works (music/film/images) that professionals do. Copyright exists on creative media and makes no distinction.

It is therefore not irrelevant. It is the very core of what allows amateurs and professionals alike to say "no" to anyone who wishes to exploit their creative endeavors.

Extremely well said!

[ronscuba]

Back to Youtube. The music label and/or the artist have a choice to mute videos or let the music stay with a link option to buy. So when they pick the link option, isn't that giving permission ? How is it stealing if they are giving permission to use ? They get additional exposure and make whatever tiny bit from the mp3 if people decide to buy. If they don't like that payoff, they can decide to mute. How is that different than putting a price tag of $5000 on use and the buyer deciding no thanks, I think that is too much and then the buyer does not get to use the music. Sounds like the same thing as the mute-link to buy option to me.

The music industry found a way to identify their property on Youtube and then a came up with the mute link buy option. Maybe all industries should be heading this way ? Photo, video, etc..

I didn't say music wasn't intellectual property. It is. Sorry if I was not clear. My intent was to differentiate between intellectual vs physical property and that some people treat them differently.

My statements about hobbyist use vs. professional use meant to clarify my opinion that use of music in a hobbyist home video is different than use of music in a commercial video for sale. Some here argue it is irrelevant if the music is being used for hobbyist video or pro video use. I used that sentence as a lead in to my question about model release. If my wording was not clear, I apologize.

Why are model releases for photo's not required for hobbyist use but required for pro use ? If you are a pro trying to sell you work, don't all the photo's you broadcast promote you and your abilities ? What if people saw an amazing picture of a stranger you took. People went to your site because of that picture. They are not interesting in buying that picture but are so impressed that they want to hire you or buy some of your other work. You don't need a model release because you don't sell that picture, but didn't that person provide value to you ?

I bring up the model release topic, not to create a riot or enrage people. I bring it up because I find it strangely similar to the arguments on music use. A never for profit person can't use music in their vacation video because they didn't pay for use rights, but a pro photographer doesn't need a model release because he doesn't sell that particular picture even though it helps promote his business. Dare I say hypocritical ?

Edited by ronscuba, 18 September 2010 - 03:56 PM.

[Drew]

The music industry found a way to identify their property on Youtube and then a came up with the mute link buy option. Maybe all industries should be heading this way ? Photo, video, etc..

Well it could be just asking youtube overseers to apply this based on a certain criteria to try salvage rampant copyright violations. While I may have inferred that the labels/artist are ambiguous about this, it does not mean it's not illegal. It may well be their effectual surrender to the overwhelming onslaught of infractions on their copyright.

I bring up the model release topic, not to create a riot or enrage people. I bring it up because I find it strangely similar to the arguments on music use. A never for profit person can't use music in their vacation video because they didn't pay for use rights, but a pro photographer doesn't need a model release because he doesn't sell that particular picture even though it helps promote his business. Dare I say hypocritical ?

No, it's not hypocritical. They are also liable. Photog Peter Beard was sued for just such a thing. Of course, he would've never guessed the picture he took in Kenya of of a local girl would actually become a real model in the US and see the picture he took of her in a gallery in NYC and ask for compensation years later! Point is you DO need a model release should you display the picture of the model in any public domain and use it commercially.

Ron
Andy and Simon are on the side of NOT using any intellectual property they did not pay for, which is the legal thing to do. You seem to think it's ok because the owners of the copyright haven't complained. I should add that EVERY person I've talked to wished they'd get paid for every single use of their work. The fact is they target the commercial side because it's a bigger payout for the effort spent vs going after every Tom, Dick and Mary who've used their work.

Finally, I wasn't very clear in what I was trying to say with my posts. It is illegal to use copyrighted works. Awhile back, someone emailed me about using a track from a well known band, and asked why I broke copyright laws. I'm not going to justify anything but to say I did not, nor do I condone people to do so. I was merely adding the aspects of confusion to the matter and how some people have created a grey "use" zone because of the reverse benefit of additional publicity the copyright owners enjoy and thus do not enforce their legal rights. It does not mean it's not illegal and they cannot pursue it.

[decosnapper]

Although not always required (editorial for example) model releases allow the commercial exploitation of the subject's likeness, but do not act in any way to alter or otherwise change the fundamentals of copyright protection on creative media.

I would suggest that linking disparate ideas - in this case copyright infringement and model releases - to legitimse the theft of music tracks is looking for a parallel where none exists and is not something I can add anything further to.

Edited by decosnapper, 18 September 2010 - 11:31 PM.

[Drew]

I've split the thread so that model release topic can be discussed here:

http://wetpixel.com/...showtopic=37863

[ronscuba]

I have used music that is copyright protected because of my own sense of ethics. A big part of my own justification is am 100% hobbyist. I don't sell anything, I don't get any monetary benefit from any video I make. I understand it's irrelevant. Stealing is stealing regardless of benefit or lack of. I get it.

My use of hypocritical was incorrect. However, I do find the ethics of model release interesting in that professionals receive monetary benefit from every photo they put on display. If they don't get paid for the actual photo, they are still receiving exposure and promotional benefit which in turn provides monetary benefit.

Edited by ronscuba, 19 September 2010 - 07:08 PM.

[TheRealDrew]

However, I do find the ethics of model release interesting in that professionals receive monetary benefit from every photo they put on display. If they don't get paid for the actual photo, they are still receiving exposure and promotional benefit which in turn provides monetary benefit.

And they are running a risk by putting the photos on display, even if they are not paid. It is not that much different than using music without permission.

[Andy Morrison]

And they are running a risk by putting the photos on display, even if they are not paid. It is not that much different than using music without permission.

Not if the photos are used editorially as oposed to comercially. If used editorially the photographer is not directly profiting off the subjects likeness, ie, they are not using that person to sell something. That is the difference and why a model release isn't needed.

[ronscuba]

Not if the photos are used editorially as oposed to comercially. If used editorially the photographer is not directly profiting off the subjects likeness, ie, they are not using that person to sell something. That is the difference and why a model release isn't needed.

Sounds similar to the ethic/morals justification I use for music in my hobbyist videos. Maybe, just maybe our opinions on permission and use are not so far apart. At least from an ethics point of view.

[TheRealDrew]

Sounds similar to the ethic/morals justification I use for music in my hobbyist videos. Maybe, just maybe our opinions on permission and use are not so far apart. At least from an ethics point of view.

Not really, there are instances where model releases are legally needed (or not needed) depending on the use of the image and there are instances where music licenses are legally needed (or not needed) depending on the use, as both are set forth in various laws. If something is is not required legally in one instance, which while it may be similar to another situation, while it is legally required in such other situation does not validate the use in the later situation. Copyright vs Right To Publicity/First Amendment exceptions, etc. are different animals as it were. What Andy was describing in the use of images in certain cases where a model release is not needed is a permitted use....

[ronscuba]

Whoa Drew. I must be getting old or need more coffee. Let me re-read and re-read that.

Maybe as I get older, my hair is not the only thing turning grey.

Edited by ronscuba, 20 September 2010 - 12:22 PM.