90 replies to this topic

[TheRealDrew]

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.

Yeah it was a bit awkward. And you can never have enough have coffee

[Drew]

Ron, it's pretty simple. Andy was referring to possibly legal uses of images, and you are referring to an illegal use of intellectual property. You may think it's harmless, but that doesn't mean it's not illegal and that the owner of the copyright can choose to sue or bill you later. It is not cost-efficient for the owner of the copyright to hunt down everyone who uses the copyrighted product, but it doesn't mean it's legal because they don't go after you.
You can't argue because music labels don't complain so it's ok. You are free to do what you want but what you are doing is illegal, no matter what your justifications are. If you don't have permission, it's illegal.

[ronscuba]

Ron, it's pretty simple. Andy was referring to possibly legal uses of images, and you are referring to an illegal use of intellectual property. You may think it's harmless, but that doesn't mean it's not illegal and that the owner of the copyright can choose to sue or bill you later. It is not cost-efficient for the owner of the copyright to hunt down everyone who uses the copyrighted product, but it doesn't mean it's legal because they don't go after you.
You can't argue because music labels don't complain so it's ok. You are free to do what you want but what you are doing is illegal, no matter what your justifications are. If you don't have permission, it's illegal.

I am not so bold or arrogant in my own sense of ethics to battle the industry or say I am above the law. The topic came up and I voiced my own justifications which I think are similar to others who also use copyright music. Not saying they are right, just sharing what goes on in the mind of a thief, er, a hobbyist who makes vacation videos using copyright music.

I don't mean to imply what I do is the same as what others do with model release. Just in my opinion, the ethics on use without permission feel similar to me. That's all.

Hey, at least the discussion seems to be interesting to people. I don't think any of my past post's have generated this much direct response.

[limeyx]

I am not so bold or arrogant in my own sense of ethics to battle the industry or say I am above the law. The topic came up and I voiced my own justifications which I think are similar to others who also use copyright music. Not saying they are right, just sharing what goes on in the mind of a thief, er, a hobbyist who makes vacation videos using copyright music.

I don't mean to imply what I do is the same as what others do with model release. Just in my opinion, the ethics on use without permission feel similar to me. That's all.

Hey, at least the discussion seems to be interesting to people. I don't think any of my past post's have generated this much direct response.

While the ethics may feel similar, I think the penalty in the US for copyright violation of music can be $150,000 per title copied so that may feel decidedly painful should one get unlucky/caught.

Since your initial post was trying to give someone else advice, I think you might want in future to be a little more careful with the wording

I think Drew's somewhat opaque post might be referring to specific exceptions in copyright law for Fair Use (parody, comment/newsgathering/reporting, reviewing material etc) which are also somewhat vague but recognized in many cases.

Edited by limeyx, 20 September 2010 - 02:39 PM.

[Andy Morrison]

I am not so bold or arrogant in my own sense of ethics to battle the industry or say I am above the law. The topic came up and I voiced my own justifications which I think are similar to others who also use copyright music. Not saying they are right, just sharing what goes on in the mind of a thief, er, a hobbyist who makes vacation videos using copyright music.

I don't mean to imply what I do is the same as what others do with model release. Just in my opinion, the ethics on use without permission feel similar to me. That's all.

Hey, at least the discussion seems to be interesting to people. I don't think any of my past post's have generated this much direct response.

Your model release question refers to using someone's likeness and not their copyrighted work, so the laws are different.

And this is a great discussion. But it's not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of law, and I think you are confusing the two. You may feel ethically entitled to use copyrighted music in your videos but you not legally entitled to do such. It's really as simple the music is copyrighted and legally you can't use it without permission. Now practically speaking, will you get caught and prosecuted, probably not. And this is where your personal ethics come into play. Do you knowingly violate a person's copyright or do you respect it?

[ronscuba]

While the ethics may feel similar, I think the penalty in the US for copyright violation of music can be $150,000 per title copied so that may feel decidedly painful should one get unlucky/caught.

Since your initial post was trying to give someone else advice, I think you might want in future to be a little more careful with the wording

I think Drew's somewhat opaque post might be referring to specific exceptions in copyright law for Fair Use (parody, comment/newsgathering/reporting, reviewing material etc) which are also somewhat vague but recognized in many cases.

Point taken.

I guess my wording is indeed poor since the intention of my 1st post was not to give advice. It was in response to the previous post.

The last 2 sentences of the post directly before my 1st post:

"I'm constantly amazed when people post their You Tube videos and slide shows with ripped off music and think there's nothing wrong with doing that, and in the same project post a copyright notice on their video/slide show. If you can't get permission find some royalty free music to use. There's plenty out there and some of it is pretty good."

My 1st post, which directly followed the above:

"I can't speak for everyone, but I think the line for many people is whether or not someone is profiting from the use.

A video or slideshow using copyrighted music, shared on youtube so friends and family can see it. That is a lot different than using music, photo's or video as part of something being sold and generating revenue.

Now if someone is using music as part of a video or DVD to sell, then yeah I agree that's hypocritical if they claim copyright on their photo's or video."


My intention was not to give advice. I match the person the previous poster was describing minus I don't post copyright notice on my video. The poster was "amazed" at how and why people like me do what we do. So I gave an answer to why people like me, do what we do.


I am not confused about the differences between ethics and law. I know what the law is. I realize my personal ethics do not protect me from the law, but it does allow me to sleep without guilt. The post I originally responded to did bring up ethics. I feel it is a good contribution to the discussion for people to hear the point of view of someone who uses copyright music. "What goes on in the mind of a thief ?"

I wonder if Mr. Bloom participates in lengthy discussions such as this. IMHO, his violation is more severe than mine, since his help promote him and his business.

Edited by ronscuba, 20 September 2010 - 06:06 PM.

[decosnapper]

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.

There is a very simple reason why images/video used editorially do not require model releases - freedom. Although one might object to seeing their face splashed across the newspapers, it (usually) serves the public interest.

Example; A policeman is photographed assaulting someone on the street. If model releases were required for publication, their actions could go unpublished by the newspaper for fear of being sued.

Would anyone want to live in a society like that where rights and freedom of the individual could be abused by those in power with no checks or balances? Not me.

The downside to this freedom (IMHO) is the never ending parade of "celebrity doing/looking stupid/has cellulite" images gracing acres of tabloid press when there are more important issues worthy of coverage, but I guess you can't have it both ways.

Conclusion? Press freedom has value to wider society and using the model release reasoning (in an editorial context) to explain hobbyist video music use won't fit.

Sorry RonScuba, feel like I'm bashing you........but the entire thread has been very useful for me to think things through - and it has been a pleasure to see a thread develop without descending into name-calling one-upmanship and for that I'm grateful.

Truth is most of the public at large have no idea about copyright - Here's a useful link explaining why Battling Copyright Ignorance. The article points out the obvious, things that we all forget sometimes. The article explains how copyright protected works have been impacted by the internet as a medium, and how the aspect of IP protection cuts both ways but is often forgotten. It's best summed up by this quote from the link; " First, most people are not aware of their rights in their own works. the second is that they unintentionally infringe upon the rights of others".

Edited by decosnapper, 20 September 2010 - 11:22 PM.

[ronscuba]

I don't feel like you or anyone else is bashing me. Just people passionate about their work and protecting their rights.

My experience on Wetpixel is the discussions are pretty civil compared to other boards. You could see emotions were high on this discussion, but it never got personal and I never felt attacked. Just a few times I felt people didn't really read my posts and were jumping to conclusions. But that's very common with discussions on the internet.

Forgetting about music copyright. On the subject of model release, their seems to be some disagreement on when it is required.

Here is something I found on the net when I googled model release. Danheller.com.

"people are entitled to control how their "likeness" is used for purposes of promoting a product, idea, political or religious view—or, to imply support for any of those things. If the use of the photo meets this test, then consent must be given by the subject of the photo, which is called "a model release."

Don't know who Dan Heller is or if what he says is accurate. Does this mean a picture of a person on a pro photographer's website needs a model release, regardless if the photo is for sale? Is the photo considered promoting the pro photographer or commercial use as promoting the photographer ?

Edited by ronscuba, 21 September 2010 - 01:15 PM.

[Andy Morrison]

Does this mean a picture of a person on a pro photographer's website needs a model release, regardless if the photo is for sale? Is the photo considered promoting the pro photographer or commercial use as promoting the photographer ?

I believe a photo used on someone's website is exempt from needing a model release because it's considered part of that person's portfolio and as such, falls under fair use, ie., it's ok to promote your own work. However if the photographer tried to use that same photo to sell Coca Cola they'd need a model release because that is definitely commercial in nature.

[decosnapper]

I don't feel like you or anyone else is bashing me. Just people passionate about their work and protecting their rights.

My experience on Wetpixel is the discussions are pretty civil compared to other boards. You could see emotions were high on this discussion, but it never got personal and I never felt attacked. Just a few times I felt people didn't really read my posts and were jumping to conclusions. But that's very common with discussions on the internet.

Thanks Ron.......Wetpixel is indeed a good place to debate.....a credit to it's respective membership, after all what is a forum without people?

[RWBrooks]

When a person makes a video and puts someone elses music to it and broadcasts it, could that be considered mutually beneficial as it's advertising the music as well? I know you may be using the music without permission but doesn't the artist benefit from the exposure with quite potentially a well made and thought provoking film that could quite possible expose the artist to a whole new demograhic?


Richard

[DeanB]

When a person makes a video and puts someone elses music to it and broadcasts it, could that be considered mutually beneficial as it's advertising the music as well? I know you may be using the music without permission but doesn't the artist benefit from the exposure with quite potentially a well made and thought provoking film that could quite possible expose the artist to a whole new demograhic?


Richard

You'd have thought... It's basically all down to greed

Dive safe

DeanB

[decosnapper]

When a person makes a video and puts someone elses music to it and broadcasts it, could that be considered mutually beneficial as it's advertising the music as well? I know you may be using the music without permission but doesn't the artist benefit from the exposure with quite potentially a well made and thought provoking film that could quite possible expose the artist to a whole new demograhic?
Richard

Yes.......and no.

1. The artist has the right to say "no" and refuse permission.
2. On this planet, having money in the bank really helps make life easier.

As an example for point 1 the Abba chaps are objecting to their music being used to promote a far-right political movement in Denmark. It is a fundamental right to deny use, and one of the reasons the Stop43 campaign was successful when it came to removing Orphan Works from the Digital Economy Bill here in the UK.

For point 2 if the artist promised Tescos to "give them a credit" or suggested "Knowing I shop here would be good exposure" when it came to paying for the goods the in-store security guards might have something to say about it.

Permission must be sought and obtained first.

Edited by decosnapper, 26 September 2010 - 12:51 AM.

[Andy Morrison]

I'm sorry but the good exposure argument is a crutch for those not wanting to pay. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone wanted to use my images telling me I'll get a byline in lieu of payment because "it's great exposure." I'm not so naive to believe that exposure isn't worth anything, but like Simon states, try using that to pay for groceries. And those publications offering "great exposure" are often smaller publications with little readership, which is why they can't pay. The publications where exposure would really be valuable are the ones paying IMO.

[ronscuba]

I'm sorry but the good exposure argument is a crutch for those not wanting to pay.....

Or can't afford to pay. I know, if you can't afford it, don't use it. Just sayin'. Who can afford to hire Hans Zimmer or pay thousands for using a song ? Whether you are creating for commercial or hobbyist use, you want your video to be as entertaining as possible. The choice of soundtrack/music, how you edit to make the audio and visual work together is a big challenge. Professionals making movies, TV shows, commercials, etc., don't worry about copyright because they can afford to pay. They just concentrate on what audio works best.

I wonder what price range music labels/artists charge for use. Lawyer fees running $300/hr +. I imagine there is no standard since use can vary as well as the popularity of the artist/song. Web, TV, indie movie, hollywood movie, commercial, hobbyist video, etc..

Anyone know of a hobbyist that contacted a well known artist/label asking for the price to use a song on their personal video to be shared on youtube or vimeo ?

Edited by ronscuba, 26 September 2010 - 11:47 AM.

[Andy Morrison]

Or can't afford to pay. I know, if you can't afford it, don't use it. Just sayin'. Who can afford to hire Hans Zimmer or pay thousands for using a song ? Whether you are creating for commercial or hobbyist use, you want your video to be as entertaining as possible. The choice of soundtrack/music, how you edit to make the audio and visual work together is a big challenge. Professionals making movies, TV shows, commercials, etc., don't worry about copyright because they can afford to pay. They just concentrate on what audio works best.

I wonder what price range music labels/artists charge for use. Lawyer fees running $300/hr +. I imagine there is no standard since use can vary as well as the popularity of the artist/song. Web, TV, indie movie, hollywood movie, commercial, hobbyist video, etc..

Anyone know of a hobbyist that contacted a well known artist/label asking for the price to use a song on their personal video to be shared on youtube or vimeo ?

I understand the desire to produce the best package you can. But again, it's as simple as my mother taught me - if it isn't mine don't take it without asking. I'd love to drive a Bentley so should I just take the one the guy down the road from me has? What if the keys were left in it? I mean would it be ok if I washed it when I was done? After all he'd be benefiting from it. Fact is I can't afford to drive a Bentley so I drive a Ford and you know what, it gets the job done just the same. If you're going to be broadcasting your videos/slideshows use royalty free music if you can't afford to license what you want. Or at least have the decency to contact the artist and ask if you can use it. That's really the legal and moral thing to do.

[Drew]

Ron
Many feature films use music they can afford vs the actual music they want on the film, because of the costs of licensing the material. Plenty of Music Directors worry about copyright because they can't afford some of the music they want.
ASCAP has gone after many people and organizations, including the scouts for playing songs at camp in the 90s! There are fees each organization (be it TV broadcast etc etc) can pay to have unlimited use of copyrighted material under the auspices of ASCAP.
As for asking for permission, I know a few people who do ask, myself included. In fact, Vince LaForet's Reverie, was an exercise that could be argued to be a hobbyist project. It was like a film school project, yet permission for "Extreme Ways" was applied for and granted.
Now of course, Youtube has paid ASCAP for certain licenses which may cover someone's chosen soundtrack. I believe Vimeo is arranging for that too. This of course, does not pertain to Richard's (the OP) question regarding Sting's music, which of course would be illegal to include in his film, which I assume will be a commercial venture.

[TheRealDrew]

I wonder what price range music labels/artists charge for use. Lawyer fees running $300/hr +. I imagine there is no standard since use can vary as well as the popularity of the artist/song. Web, TV, indie movie, hollywood movie, commercial, hobbyist video, etc..

Prices vary for a variety of factors, including the ones you described. As to getting permission from record labels and publishers, there are also factors that will come into play. Not sure what you mean by "hobbyist," but very often you may not even get far enough to get permission. Having someone who can get your request in will help, but just dropping a line to the general label or publisher may not make it very far through the process. Never hurts to ask or try of course, sometimes you may be pleasantly suprised, but that will often be the exception rather than the rule.

[ronscuba]

What I mean by hobbyist is someone who is 100% hobbyist, never sells ANY of their work or uses their video/photo to promote a business. Typical example of what I call hobbyist are vacation videos with music posted on the net to share with family and friends. I consider myself a hobbyist.

I don't consider anything La Foret or Bloom show on the internet to be hobbyist. They are pro's and everything they show promotes them, their business and services.

Currently, it looks like videos on Youtube might be ok. Hopefully Vimeo goes that route too.

Just did a little reading on ASCAP and the Boy Scouts. Ridiculous. At least their threat was retracted. Glad to read the courts ruled against them on ringtone and public playing of music.

Sorry Richard for slightly side tracking your post on using music for a DVD sale.

Edited by ronscuba, 26 September 2010 - 05:12 PM.

[Drew]

What I mean by hobbyist is someone who is 100% hobbyist, never sells ANY of their work or uses their video/photo to promote a business. Typical example of what I call hobbyist are vacation videos with music posted on the net to share with family and friends. I consider myself a hobbyist.

I don't consider anything La Foret or Bloom show on the internet to be hobbyist. They are pro's and everything they show promotes them, their business and services.

Currently, it looks like videos on Youtube might be ok. Hopefully Vimeo goes that route too.

Just did a little reading on ASCAP and the Boy Scouts. Ridiculous. At least their threat was retracted. Glad to read the courts ruled against them on ringtone and public playing of music.

Actually no. It is not all clear for using copyrighted music on youtube. BMI and ASCAP represent the labels, and while the artists usually sign over the POA to the labels to represent them in licensing deals etc, many established artists control their music rights (like Moby for eg.) Youtube paid off ASCAP and BMI to avoid a huge lawsuit. It is not carte blanche to use any of the listed songs on the ASCAP and BMI catalogs, although it addresses many of the copyright issues. Artists/Songwriters still retain the right of use. Furthermore, ASCAP and BMI only represent US rights, and not global, which is what youtube is. The ASCAP/BMI catalog doesn't represent all songs and artists either.
So unless you put your hobbyist video on a server which does not have public access and only members of your family and friends can watch it (ie: Google or any other search engine won't find it), it is an infringement of copyright. As is making multiple copies of a DVD for distribution.
If your youtube hobbyist video has a shot that some firm finds and wants to use it or hire you as camera person, are you going to say no? If not, then It could be argued that you are promoting your work publicly as well.
Basically this thread has turned into discussion about how people view copyright laws. It is a little US centric since ASCAP and BMI only are mentioned but it does reveal how little people know about licensing and use of copyright on the net and perhaps make them check out what is legal to use or not. Or for those who want to continue to feign ignorance or choose to outright use unlicensed music, it should educate them enough not to be surprised if their videos are pulled down or audio muted and maybe even a lawyer's letter be in the mail asking for compensation.