Copyright music

[ronscuba 4]

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 September 18, 2010 by ronscuba

[Drew 0]

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 37]

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 September 19, 2010 by decosnapper

[Drew 0]

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

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37863

[ronscuba 4]

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 September 20, 2010 by ronscuba

[TheRealDrew 0]

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 1]

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 4]

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 0]

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 4]

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 September 20, 2010 by ronscuba

[TheRealDrew 0]

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 0]

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 4]

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 0]

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 September 20, 2010 by limeyx

[Andy Morrison 1]

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 4]

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 September 21, 2010 by ronscuba

[decosnapper 37]

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 September 21, 2010 by decosnapper

[ronscuba 4]

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 September 21, 2010 by ronscuba

[Andy Morrison 1]

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 37]

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 26]

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 19]

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 37]

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 September 26, 2010 by decosnapper

[Andy Morrison 1]

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 4]

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 September 26, 2010 by ronscuba