I almost didn't read through another post dealing with music copyright as there are lots of others addressing the same things. But...I read through it anyway and got as much out of it as I usually do:

It's right.
It's wrong.
It's not hurting anybody.
It's hurting everybody.
It's plain as day.
It's the most confusing issue ever!

What I really wish to see, are our industry leaders address the issue here. The vast majority use mainstream music on their sites, slideshows, promo videos, etc., with a whole lot more at risk than the average photographer (if it turns out to in fact be illegal) if they get "caught". But yet, more and more, mainstream music used in their work seems to be the standard.

I'm sure we all can agree that we look up to, admire, respect, and seek out the advice of those who our industry deservedly elevates as the best of the best. Many also hold high personal values and aim to conduct their businesses with integrity (which should be inspiring and encouraging to all of us!). Many more still, have the legal backing and counseling (that many of us do not or have not used) to investigate the issue...and yet most have still come to the conclusion that it is ok and they proceed accordingly.

So, for the leaders, what are your thoughts and reasons? I wonder if this is even a topic that groups like WPPI and PPA would even be willing to touch for the sake and education of photographer's everywhere. It seems that this issue will never die which makes it all the more vital for the top in our industry to share some wisdom.

It's not right *and* wrong, it's wrong.

The rule for music or anything else is this: If it doesn't belong to you you need permission to use it from the one it does belong to. It doesn't matter where our "industry leaders" stand on it. Be your own leader.

Amen.

For an industry like photography that fights copyright issues (scanning prints, print screen, etc.) to not respect musicians'/song writers' copyright is ridiculous. It's pathetic enough for people who don't understand it to steal music, much less people who know the rules and still choose to ignore them.

+1

but but but


I bought the CD! I OWN music because I BOUGHT the song on iTunes!

The artist should be happy for the exposure. I'm doing them a favor!

I put note on my site w/song credit.

They'll never find out anyway... sheesh ... as if they'd care anyway.




OH. It's illegal????
lalalallalaaaaaa..... I'm not listening!!!lallalalalaaaalalaaaaalaa


Is anyone gonna respond to my post about how to deal with a client who only bought ONE FREAKIN 5x7, scanned it, and now she's printing all of her own stuff and putting MY pictures all over her mySpace page???? THE NOIVE OF SOME PEOPLE!!!!!

Roger that Mark. But what I'm really curious to hear is where many well-known photographers (who would obviously have more to risk...materially speaking) stand on this issue...regardless on whether it is right or wrong. I didn't want to simply start yet another thread on the "who's right-who's wrong" issue. What I wanted to do is give them the benefit of the doubt as many are people of good character, huge hearts, and great friends. With the legal access they have, I wonder what advice was given to them. While many of the people chiming in on these same topics are very passionate about how they read the law, we are not lawyers. What are their lawyers telling them? Surely someone with the level of exposure like DJ, Jessica Claire or many other top photographers don't just use mainstream music without first seeking legal advice on the topic.

I've read DJ's stand in other posts so I'll try to paraphrase it.

If you contact the appropriate people to license a song, the ones who should be collecting royalty fees, they don't respond. When we do, they tell us literally "nobody is EVER going to get back to you on that."

So eff em. It's LEGAL to use licensed music on your site. IF there was a process, people would use it more. There is no process for sole photographers. Movie studios, yes. Us, no.

I know of at least two photographers who use the work, send the royalty checks and never get questioned. Others just use it of their own free will & say "if there was a process, we'd use it."

If a client calls me, I will answer them yes or no. If I don't, I deserve whatever they do. That's my take.

With places like MySpace, it's easier and easier to find artists that are independent (no label attachment) that are great. What you do is find those artists that you love and ASK them to use their stuff. More often, then not, they will say yes because they want the exposure too. As I understand it though, if you aren't making money off of it, it's okay to use.

Of course, I will have to ask my husband because he is in the recording industry and could probably be a huge wealth of information. He works with a lot of songwriters, who are the ones who are really affected by this. I'd love to see something done that would allow us to actually license the music for slideshows and the web.

The first two songs on my website I have full permission (in writing) to use from the artist/writer of the song.

I know this was not meant to be a right-wrong post but I will chime in anyway. I work in copyright compliance at my church. It is a very serious yet complicated matter. Clear cut answer is though, unless you pay royalties/licensing fees/get permission to/from the copyright holders, it is illegal for anything other than personal use. Being that you are a business, it no longer qualifies as personal...profit making or not.

I have a recently launched blu site. I uploaded a couple songs for the galleries and I got this email...

Your Name:
SOCAN FEES

Email Address:
do.not.reply@socan.ca

Phone Number:
1-866-307-6226

Event Date, Location/Venue:
Unlicenced Intellectual Property

Your Message:
Mr. Deveau,
We are disappointed to learne you decided to use unlicenced commercial music works in a commercial capacity. We cannot find any invoice numbers from your company. You give us no choice but to pursue legal action to recover lost revenue for our artists such as sync fees, in addition to court costs and legal fees. If you would like a chance to discuss this situation please contact my office immediately.

Regards,
Peter Fera
Information Officer / Agent d'information
ferap@socan.ca
1.866.30 SOCAN (76226) English
1.866.31 SOCAN (76226) Français
Fax: 1.416.445.7108




I didn't respond and took down the music. I'm trying to find some good music that I can use legally. It's tough when so many other people do it. (that does not make it right)... but we all want really cool music to draw the client in and something to set the mood...

I feel like I'm now going to be watched so I can't do anything out of line...

I use a song from a friend of mine for a commercial. Did some portraits for him in exchange for his music. It worked out nicely.

I know this is not exactly what the topic was about, but if anyone's interested...

A couple of years ago, The Beatles (or whoever owns their music), decided to make songs available for commercials. I think one of them ended up in a car commercial. You can bet that the company paid a fortune for the rights. Why? Because they were the only ones allowed to use it. I think the labels know that if the songs were being used all over the web by photographers (and other professions) that the value of their music would plummet. It's in their best interest not to let the song be overexposed. It looses value. Same concept when a fine art photographer only prints a limited number of a single image. The value of each image is much higher than if there were copies all over the place.

Yeah, it sucks that they don't want us to use it, but it's not really our decision (legally, anyway) to make.

There is a process. Many photographers are legally using commercial music on their Web sites.

http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/

All you need is to do some paperwork and send them some money.

Check out Zoom:

http://www.zoomlicense.com/

I am part of ascap but unfortunately that still doesn't make it legal according to the letter of the law...but I see the two camps out there being:

1. Those who believe the law is what is written
2. Those who believe the law is what is enforced

I'm a believer of the latter and since they are not enforcing it then I throw it in the camp of many of laws that are just outdated and need to be changed. We are working on changing them and just got an agreement from three mainstream labels to allow for music licensing online in Showit Web slideshows and on Showit Sites.

Check out the other crazy laws in our country... oh and how many of you who are furious about this stance drive 50mph in a 45 zone?

---------------------------------

Arkansas:

1. A man can legally beat his wife, but no more than once a month.

California:

1. In, LA, a man may legally beat his wife with a leather strap, as long as it is less than 2 inches wide, or she gives him permission to use a wider strap.

Illinois:

1. In Chicago, it is illegal to take a french poodle to the Opera.

Michigan:

1. A State law stipulates that a woman's hair legally belongs to her husband.

More awesome laws! Click here!

this has been a huge issue on another board I frequent... it's not right plain and simple. I'll admit I used to do a lot of things that bordered on copyright infringement but then I learned. I saw how it affected the people it belonged to and applied it to my own situation and business.

That being said, myspace is an AMAZING tool for finding musicians--and craigslist if you have access to it in your area.

I actually came up with a contest to find some new music for my site and launched it on my blog. The contest was for up and coming artists in my area that would agree to release 2-3 tracks for me to use commercially in exchange for a session for their own promotions. Im still going through responses, but it was overwhelming. I posted on my blog, myspace, and craigslist. I had about 50 people respond with information. Not only do they get a free session from me with 5-10 images on disc, they get free advertising on my blog and site.

For now, Im using a royalty free track provided by photobiz..... but after the contest is over, I'll hopefully have something a bit more personal.

Wow - read the fine print in the FAQ. While you can get the license to a song for cheap, if you want to use it on the Internet it's an additional $500 per song. If you just want to use it on a DVD that only the client will see it's cost effective, but not if you want to use it for marketing.

I need to check the other sites out, but I hit this one first.

this issue isn't only at our industry, how about a restaurant playing song in the background, or waiting room at a doctor's office or a popular club where there is the same DJ every weekend or starbucks they are all there for profit at what they sell and add music for mood same as photography. In this case they also need to get the licensing to play the songs, but i doubt they do. I don't wanna say its ok to use the songs but the philosophy of doing it, is almost everywhere.

Most businesses like that have a corporate office who typically use satellite delivered music. Typically there are 3 channels that a store may use out of an approved list. That's why there's no ads, or local news on most.

I used to work for Wal-Mart, Sam's Wholesale, Best Buy and Office Max. They all use that system. I'd wager you my business that Starbucks has enough cash to licence whomever they want by the way of large satellite licencing delivery.

Either way, I'm with David. If this was a huge issue, wouldn't RIAA be coming down hard on Photographers?

-tmiller
Tim Miller Photography
http://tmillerphoto.com

The only reason you where found is, BluDomain has a recently list of website who went live, its updated offen. Had you had that music, on a non bludomain website, you most likly would still be ok.

This isn't 100% correct.

I was actually able to license some very popular music for my website. Its not an easy process and it definitely wasn't cheap, but I learned a few things that might benefit others.

For most indy music (small band and small labels), they would usually be more than happy to let you use their music as long as you give visible credit. All it takes is taking the time to ask. When dealing with the Major (and larger) labels things get a bit more complicated.

First, you need to get a license to perform the music on your website. This is a fairly simple process. You can go to www.ascap.com or www.bmi.com (whichever represents the music you chose), and sign up for a web license. This costs about $300-400 a year. This give you the right to "perform" all of the songs in their catalog on your website. This does not give you the rights to use the original recording.

Second, you need to contact the publishers responsible for the recording for "mechanical" or "synchronization" rights, which are the rights to use the actual recorded version you chose. They don't make it easy to find out who to contact so it takes a little bit of effort. I contacted Universal Music Group using their website for television licensing. It was a shot in the dark, but I eventually heard back from them over a week later. They then were very helpful and sent me a ready made contract just for the purpose of using it on my website. The charged me exactly what I filled in on the 'budget field' in my web inquiry.

All in All, It wasn't easy and it wasn't cheap, but its doable. I'm just hoping they get there stuff together and make the legal path a little more accessible.

The music issue sure is a sticky one. I'm not gonna take sides or condemn anyone for using music illegally, but I can at least tell you there's now an alternative if you want to make sure the music you use is 100% legal.

Shawn Reeder Music.com has great music that comes with the perfect license for professional creatives and is very affordable. Check it out!