Copyright music

[TheRealDrew 0]

It happened to me and I'd wager happens all the time.

 

 

I had people take photos on the internet. I have said this before - take a photo, write some music, write some software, shoot some video and revisit the issue when someone takes it ....

[ronscuba 4]

Ditto what TheRealDrew said. And copying a CD, or a movie, to put on an iPod or play in your car for PERSONAL use is permitted. Now if you take that copied movie and broadcast it then you are violating the copyright.

 

Ronscuba, suppose you were to take in a digital file of your favorite photo from a trip to be printed at the local photo store. You drop it off and come back a couple days later to pick it up. The girl behind the counter asks you if you'd mind signing another copy of the photo which she printed out because she liked it and wanted to hang it on her wall. What would you do? She didn't ask for permission mind you. And this isn't a hypothetical. It happened to me and I'd wager happens all the time. Would you happily sign the print and give it to her? Would it matter if she were going to hang it on the wall of her flat or in the store window?

 

 

Interesting question. When you say sign the print you mean like "autograph" or something ? I would not autograph. Store window, yes I have a problem with it because it helps the store generate business. If she wanted to hang it in her flat I would not have a problem as long as she didn't try to sell it. I think there in lies the issue.

 

Does a musical artist really care I used their music for my vacation video and then share my video on the net ? I'd suspect they really don't care as long as I don't try to profit from it. But how can they guarantee that I or any other person out there will not try to profit from it ? They can't, so it's illegal to copy and broadcast for all purposes, profit or no profit.

 

I wonder if what Youtube is doing will be the future model. From what I understand, the artist or record company tells Youtube to mute the audio or create a link for purchase. Last I checked all of my videos on Youtube that have content ID, have a purchase link. Sounds like a win win situation.

 

 

If someone takes my video and puts it on their personal website, facebook page, I don't have a problem. If they try to make money off it or use it for promotional purposes then yes I have a problem. I'm not a hypocrite. I use commercial music in my videos, but I don't put copyright labels on my videos. I can't guarantee people don't steal my videos and use them for personal or profit use. I have had some companies ask for permission. I've both granted and denied requests depending on the situation.

 

 

Tell me what you want, what you really really want. Posh Spice is pretty hot. There was another one I liked, that I used to call Slutty Spice. I forgot her real spice name.

Edited September 17, 2010 by ronscuba

[Andy Morrison 1]

Interesting question. When you say sign the print you mean like "autograph" or something ? I would not autograph. Store window, yes I have a problem with it because it helps the store generate business. If she wanted to hang it in her flat I would not have a problem as long as she didn't try to sell it. I think there in lies the issue.

 

But that's not really the issue. It just doesn't matter if it's for profit or not. Stealing is stealing. Can I go to the local art museum and steal a painting from the wall, take it home and hang it? No. Can I steal a print of said painting and hang it at home? No, just because it isn't worth as much it's still not right. Bottom line is it still is against the law whether you agree with it or not. And to me, a person who makes a living as a photographer, I take offense to copyright theft. As long as people continue to to infringe on others rights then my profession is in even more trouble than it already is.

 

The Youtube example isn't really a win-win. It's more like the copyright holders are trying to salvage a bad situation. It'd be too cost prohibitive to go after everyone stealing their music so I'm guessing they're trying to do the best they can.

 

Unfortunately I think attitudes are unchangeable towards copyright infringement at this point and it will only get worse.

[SimonSpear 65]

From the U.S. Copyright Office - How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

 

Granted this has been challenged before such as musicians sampling etc and this is from the U.S. Copyright Office so it may be different over there.

 

No matter what the distribution it's illegal in the case of re-distribution or publication. From my media law class years ago if more than two people see a body of work it's considered published no matter what the form. It seems to me if we as photographers are going to get upset when someone uses one of our photos without permission, no matter what the distribution, it's pretty hypocritical to use copyrighted music. 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.

 

I'm sorry Andy perhaps I misunderstand but are you suggesting that I am a hypocrite or that I use copyright material without permission? I've re-read your post a few times and I'm struggling to see any other meaning behind your words....

[TheRealDrew 0]

Does a musical artist really care I used their music for my vacation video and then share my video on the net ? I'd suspect they really don't care as long as I don't try to profit from it. .... They can't, so it's illegal to copy and broadcast for all purposes, profit or no profit.

 

 

Many artist do care alot where their music winds up. There are extensive provisions (depending on the artist) limiting what the record company and publisher can do with their recordings and compositions. The internet is the wild west, and things are taken. If an artist has enough juice, they can make waves. Ultimately things like the YouTube issue, which cause a big riff, was settled with the licensing scheme because, as Andy pointed out, trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me what you want, what you really really want. Posh Spice is pretty hot. There was another one I liked, that I used to call Slutty Spice. I forgot her real spice name.

 

Excuse me, I need to put an ice pick in my ear right now, the song is going round and round in my head. My fault for bringing the Spice Girls up of course. Maybe I should just blast Master of Puppets or something instead.....

 

As to id'ing a particular Spice Girl, I would have better luck trying to ID nudibranchs, which isn't going to happen either

[TheRealDrew 0]

I'm sorry Andy perhaps I misunderstand but are you suggesting that I am a hypocrite or that I use copyright material without permission? I've re-read your post a few times and I'm struggling to see any other meaning behind your words....

 

 

Bottom line is Simon that except for some exceptions that Andy cited, generally you cannot use copyrighted material. There are actually two things in play. There is the recording and then composition. You need permission from both the owner of the recording (the thing that is the sound) and also the person(s) who wrote the material... (U.S., U.K. may have slightly different rules). Practically there may be times where people do not care, or think it is cool, that someone is using their songs. But legally, no so much Pandora's Box was opened with the internet (Thank you Al Gore ) and Napster and the rest. We are seeing an erosion of a right that is important to any of us who create....

[SimonSpear 65]

Bottom line is Simon that except for some exceptions that Andy cited, generally you cannot use copyrighted material. There are actually two things in play. There is the recording and then composition. You need permission from both the owner of the recording (the thing that is the sound) and also the person(s) who wrote the material...

 

Drew I never use copyright material without permission, which is why I'm a bit bemused and confused by what Andy is maybe, possibly or potentially suggesting. Hey its late here, so maybe I've got it wrong, but I would appreciate an explanation from him.

 

Cheers, Simon

[ronscuba 4]

But that's not really the issue. It just doesn't matter if it's for profit or not. Stealing is stealing. Can I go to the local art museum and steal a painting from the wall, take it home and hang it? No. Can I steal a print of said painting and hang it at home? No, just because it isn't worth as much it's still not right. Bottom line is it still is against the law whether you agree with it or not. And to me, a person who makes a living as a photographer, I take offense to copyright theft. As long as people continue to to infringe on others rights then my profession is in even more trouble than it already is.

 

The Youtube example isn't really a win-win. It's more like the copyright holders are trying to salvage a bad situation. It'd be too cost prohibitive to go after everyone stealing their music so I'm guessing they're trying to do the best they can.

 

Unfortunately I think attitudes are unchangeable towards copyright infringement at this point and it will only get worse.

 

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.

 

I know my opinions are shared by many other hobbyists. I wonder if there is a discussion on the net someplace where Bloom or some other well known industry people debated the topic.

 

"Choosing the right music is always a tough one. This is a personal project, not a paid job so I tend to use copyrighted music in it as it’s not for financial gain for me. Very much a grey area but music labels are getting more relaxed about these things."

Edited September 18, 2010 by ronscuba

[bvanant 195]

Drew I never use copyright material without permission, which is why I'm a bit bemused and confused by what Andy is maybe, possibly or potentially suggesting. Hey its late here, so maybe I've got it wrong, but I would appreciate an explanation from him.

 

Cheers, Simon

I think Andy was answering the original post that suggested a limited clip might be OK to use. You chimed in that a limited Clash recording would cost a lot of money, but I don't think Andy was answering your post as much as the first one. In any case, this is a tough one; I have authored a bunch of IP (patents mostly) and I tend to not use copyrighted stuff very often and if I do it is only for limited, at home viewing.

Bill

[peterbkk 110]

Even though you'd love to have some favourite song on your video, this is best avoided.

 

Have a look at a system called SonicFire 5. Royalty free music beds that can be tailored to match your video down to the frame level if necessary. You have a lot of control of how it sounds so your video does not sound like anyone elses. Big range of music types that can be bought by disk or downloaded as required. Even does vocal tracks. Integrates well with FCP. http://www.smartsound.com/sonicfire/

 

Regards

Peter

[RWBrooks 26]

Hi,

Firstly thank you for all the feedback, this subject does raise some important issues over how we personally value other peoples work. It is true i have used copyrighted music on youtube/facebook but in all fairness it was more of a celebration of the music and visuals in combination, certainly not for profit. What's the difference from saying that I was inspired by someones music? We've seen this a few times already here...

The current film to which this thread is addressing is something different, it is something I intend to enter into film competitions and also it's meant for publication in a wider arena hence my desire to know the legal limits on the issue of music rights. The rest of the film contains music from Soundtrack/Garage Band etc so no problems there and it was only one late night as I was sitting there listening to some Sting that the idea popped in my head to experiment with using a short section as an intro.

I will contact Sting's music label and I will ask because as they say"nothing ventured......."

I do not intend to rip off Sting I would like to have his blessings to use what i think is a particularly fitting piece of music given the context of the film.

 

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.....

 

Can't have it both ways I guess!

 

Richard

[Andy Morrison 1]

I'm sorry Andy perhaps I misunderstand but are you suggesting that I am a hypocrite or that I use copyright material without permission? I've re-read your post a few times and I'm struggling to see any other meaning behind your words....

 

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.

[Andy Morrison 1]

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.

 

I know my opinions are shared by many other hobbyists. I wonder if there is a discussion on the net someplace where Bloom or some other well known industry people debated the topic.

 

"Choosing the right music is always a tough one. This is a personal project, not a paid job so I tend to use copyrighted music in it as it’s not for financial gain for me. Very much a grey area but music labels are getting more relaxed about these things."

 

Well we certainly are on different sides of this issue, and I dare say I'm on the side of the law. Profit has less to do with it than publishing or broadcast. And music labels may be getting more relaxed about prosecuting but that doesn't make the area grey.

[ronscuba 4]

Just to be clear, I did not write it. I found that on a blog of a well known industry director of photography.

 

I posted it because I agree with the statement and to show the opinion is not just limited to hobbyists.

[Drew 0]

(very selective quoting. apologies in advance)

 

Thats a crime here in the UK..............

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

 

Well we certainly are on different sides of this issue, and I dare say I'm on the side of the law. Profit has less to do with it than publishing or broadcast. And music labels may be getting more relaxed about prosecuting but that doesn't make the area grey.

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!)

[DeanB 19]

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 September 18, 2010 by DeanB

[decosnapper 37]

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 65]

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 September 18, 2010 by SimonSpear

[Andy Morrison 1]

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 19]

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 4]

.......

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 September 18, 2010 by ronscuba

[SimonSpear 65]

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 1]

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 37]

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 1]

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!