since David was nice enough to create this area to discuss Music Copyright... I'll start....

I'll admit though, this could just as easily been another post in the "other" thread for me...

for reference... this the "other" thread http://www.opensourcephoto.net/forum/index...=1700&st=60



I was surfing around here today and found this thread in the All About You area.

before you check the thread... I am in NO way suggesting that the sentiments/logic/thoughts etc. offered in this thread are wrong. In fact, I agree 100% with everything said. I just found the tone of the thread quite ironic.

I am curious if anyone else sees the irony.

http://www.opensourcephoto.net/forum/index...?showtopic=3144

Now some may point out that using copyrighted music in a slideshow is not the same as a newspaper selling prints...

but I believe they are more alike than not.

both are violations of the law and completely unethical and ultimately harm creative people. In the second thread, the tone of each reply is consistent. The newspaper in question should not have done it, even though the legality of it was never fully established until a later reply. A legal department was called. Action was taken. Contacting the governing body for photographers (PPA) was mentioned. Ignorance of what they've done (auto creating of the links) "doesn't make it right".

And it sounds like the sales offer for the prints in question was removed. True?


Fundamentally, is this not the same issue as photographers using a piece of music they have no rights to, for their benefit?

I don't imagine anyone is actually giving these slideshows away free. Maybe as a value-added item, but you can bet the hard costs and perhaps some of the effort to create them has been recouped. As a promotional item, a DVD slideshow handed out a dress vendor that results in a paid booking has financially benefited the photographer.

We are right as photographers to be angry and take action when our rights to our images have been violated and ignored. We feel strongly about this.

So how can we justify the adding of music to our images? Because we couldn't get permission from the artist? because a friend of a guy who knows a lawyer suggested that it's a low priority item for the music biz? because we perceive the chances of getting caught are low? because "it's just for their gramma... who gets hurt"? Because musicians like the Rolling Stones/Beatles/Eminem/et al already make obscene amounts of money?

Those are some of the ways I have seen photographers (not on this forum, but elsewhere) defend their positions.

I am anxious to hear feedback on this.


again... I am not a musician. Or a lawyer. I am not harmed by this issue, so have no stake in it.

I too am a wedding photographer. I try to conduct myself in all aspects of life as an ethical person. I know there are lots of silly laws on the books.

The protection of our rights in our work is NOT one of them.

what say you?

There are a number of differences. Musicians should be performers - and a good performer will make a living from performances even if they make nothing from recordings (just as they did before it was possible to make recordings).

The problem today is that the sale of recordings primarily benefits the recording industry and not the performers. It also allows the recording industry to dictate what music is available, what performers get exposure, and to foist "studio bands" on us (bands and performers whose "performances" can only be engineered in a studio because they lack the skills to perform live).

So while not adhering to copyright laws is obviously illegal, it's not necessarily unethical. In fact, I'd say that in this case, it could only lead to better things for both performers and fans. Most of the successful ones will continue to be successful (except for Justin Timberlake, of course - if you want to talk about a performer who owes his current success solely to the industry pumping huge amounts of money into him), and it will open up the field to a wider variety of performers and styles of music.

Lorne -

I totally agree. Let me see if I can write this a bit differently.

Slideshows are great. They show off the pics quickly, and create a mood and a buzz about the wedding, portrait session, whatever. You all would agree that without the music, the slideshows are not as powerful. The images may be great, but we all know the power music has to elicit emotion. Just watch any slidesow first without the music, then replay it with the sound turned on. That's the power of music.

It is totally beneficial to have a great soundtrack. Your image is better with the proper music, your pics look differently with different kinds of music. It helps you. You stand out. It promotes your business, and ultimately puts more money in your pocket (read I booked two clients after they saw the slideshows).

Just like in advertising, a picture conveys more than just words. And you should get paid for your pics. So should the musician.

Eric

What about buying the song each time? Everytime you use a song (I'm not talking about web slide shows, just personal DVD's) buy it for that customer. Or, have the customer buy you a song and provide it to you. Now, they BOUGHT the song. I know they will show it to poeple, and other people will hear it.

If someone buys an image, don't you want them to show it to poeple? You don't want them to copy it, but it is ok if they show it off. So, they will show people thier slideshow with the song they purchased themselves on it. Isn't that the same thing as if they had a party and played some music that they boght? Is that illegal too?

I still think we need to be careful with using copyrighted music these two ways. 1. On the web- Would you like someone to copy your image to promote themselves? Such as a venue... what if they copied one of your images, and had it on thier website without buying it or compensating you for it? Or 2. Copying and putting the same song on different slideshows. To me this is stealing because it is like our customer buying one print, scanning it, and passing it out to thier friends. Or, the venue scanning our picture and putting it on their promotional brochures and passing them out.

I am not a lawer, and I don't claim to be, but this is just my feelings on the issue. I de belive as part of the business where copyright violation is a factor, we need to be sensitive to it ourselves. I don't think I thought so much of it until I was a photographer.

Doesn't matter if they buy 100 copies. Once you combine the music they bought with your pictures in a slide show you've created a new derivative work with someone else's copyrighted material. You just broke the law. There's no loophole around it. It's not a fair use issue. Most artists don't control their material, recording companies do. They won't see it as you promoting the artist for free. They'll see it as stealing from them. It's not an ethics issue either. It's a copyright issue only.

I posted this in another topic but thought I'd add it here also. The other thread is a little old. For those that think that the music industry won't pursue them take note of this. This came off of slashdot. May just be a matter of time before lawsuits show up.
________________________________________________________________________
The Wall Street Journal is reporting on a tech start-up that proposes to offer the ultimate in assurance for content owners. Attributor Corporation is going to offer clients the ability to scan the web for their own intellectual property. The article touches on previous use of techniques like DRM and in-house staff searches, and the limited usefulness of both. They specifically cite the pending legal actions against companies like YouTube, and wonder about what their attitude will be towards initiatives like this.

From the article: "Attributor analyzes the content of clients, who could range from individuals to big media companies, using a technique known as 'digital fingerprinting,' which determines unique and identifying characteristics of content. It uses these digital fingerprints to search its index of the Web for the content. The company claims to be able to spot a customer's content based on the appearance of as little as a few sentences of text or a few seconds of audio or video. It will provide customers with alerts and a dashboard of identified uses of their content on the Web and the context in which it is used. The content owners can then try to negotiate revenue from whoever is using it or request that it be taken down. In some cases, they may decide the content is being used fairly or to acceptable promotional ends. Attributor plans to help automate the interaction between content owners and those using their content on the Web, though it declines to specify how."

You contradict yourself here. You say that when a person buys a photo you want them to show it off but you don't want them to copy it. I agree completely. The problem with using a song on a slideshow is that you are copying it, not just playing it. There is nothing illegal about playing a slideshow with music playing separately in the background. The illegal part is recording it on the slideshow as part of the slideshow.

Where the heck is that dead horse?

legalities are always about nit-picking aren't they so here goes...

this gets into the whole concept of "performance"

Depending on the circumstances of playing a music track concurrently with a silent slideshow, you may be right.

There are 2 rights you have to negotiate to use a piece of music. One is the sync right, as you point out. The other is for the song itself being played outside of the rights that come with purchasing (technically "licensing") a CD or legal download.

example 1 - the scene is christmas at the Smith house. Dad hooks his new iMac to the TV and shows a bunch of vacation images he took while in Mexico. There is no soundtrack (he's not that familiar with his new gear yet), so to convey the spirit of Mexico, he puts on a CD of Mexican-flavored music softly in the background.

I would say that no laws were broken here. No sync, no public performance.

example 2 - the office Christmas party held at a local steakhouse. Since John is a techhy, he is asked to put together a year-in-review type slideshow to be played during dessert. He solicits pictures from the gang, and using his PC, makes a 15 minute silent show. He read somewhere that he isn't allowed to record any commercial music along with the show, as that is illegal, so he brings a small boombox with a custom music CD he put together, to go along with the visuals. As he starts the slideshow on his laptop, he also starts the CD. He has purposely left the slide/music timing loose, as he practiced, but never quite got the timing right when starting 2 separate machines.


Now... let me say 2 things first... yes, I went waaaay out of my way on example 2 to prove my point. And yes, the scenario is so innocent in example 2, that any music biz type who would see an issue with it is a bit of an .... ummmm... "insert your own euphemism here"

But, sadly, example 2 is illegal. John has no right (LEGALLY!) to play music in a public place. Now, if the restaurant pays ASCAP/BMI fees, and they have a soundsytem, they could play the CD and that performance would be legal.

nutty huh?

From bmi.com...



That quote comes from a very recent article on the public use of iPod-type devices... makes an interesting read, and is very relevant to this whole topic.

http://www.bmi.com/news/200612/20061212c.asp


I know this stuff makes people crazy, but it's an issue. Technology marches ahead much faster than the laws do. Wedding photographers up until about the early 90s or so, NEVER had to think about their clients making a "quality" copy of their proofs. The technology may have been in place, but the costs were prohibitive.

same with music.

In the homemade cassette years, I don't think the music industry cared a whit, because it was pretty much for home/car use only. Sharing between friends was a 1 to 1 deal, and cassette copying was done mostly in real time. I can recall making tapes for friends, but only those who were worth the 2 hour investment in time it took to make a copy.

hey.. that's sarcasm isn't it...


I agree .. I am growing weary of this issue as well. But until the various photographic communities accept the facts for what they are...



see... I can be sarcastic too...

I don't have any music slideshows on my website.

....Good one.

I have placed a PDF primer on BMI's management of rights on my website.

feel free to download...(right click and save as) ~5 MB

BMI Brochure

another FAQ list from BMI http://www.bmi.com/licensing/business/generalfaq.asp

BMI has a nifty online license purchase site too....

https://account.bmi.com/DLCFlash.html

and in their list of "BMI licensed websites" is a photographer, although I couldn't see any music being used.

http://www.bmi.com/licensing/webcaster/websites.asp

I went to investigate the possibility of purchasing the rights to the music I use and after spending 10 minutes searching in their repertoire, they did not have ANY songs from the artists I like (I checked some of the crap pop artists just to make sure it was working). I should have expected as much when they said they determine play statistics based on 3-day samplings from the radio...

Ok so I get that we cannot use music for free, and maybe I just got tired of reading the arguments, but how do you purchase one song for your website then? I am confused on all of this and want to have a song on my site legally? How do I do that? I was told to go to ASCAP but I cannot seem to figure out how to have rights for a website. All it talks about is to perform the music, or is that the same thing? I am sorry if this is repetative, up to this point I have an independant artist who lets me use his music for free and we have a doc stating that! It has worked but I am sick of using the same songs over and over! I just want one song on my site:) THanks guys, I am glad peeps are concerned about doing the right thing!

Renee,
To use music on your website, you need to use music that is ROYALITY FREE. That means that the artist of that music has recorded for the purpose of things like this. You can play it many times without paying "Royalities" No popular songs will be royality free. You can find all kinds of royality Free music if you google Royality Free music. They range in price from cheep to very expensive. It seams most songs are around $50.

But what about wanting to use music from Jeremy Camp, or Anna Nalick, Emiliani Torrini, etc. How does one get rights to use those kinds of songs? BMI has a specific website usage license for an annual fee calculated by your annual revenue.

ASCAP has more artists but could not find a clear way to apply for rights?

With all the issues with pirating and the RIAA, I think I'll play it safe using cheaper or FREE music. I saw the link posted by another OSPer but I can't seem to find it anymore. It's a site which has royalty free music and it's $7 per song. Each song incluse several durations depending on how long your slideshow is.

There is a free system and it's based on a "buddy" referral system. That's how I got a free song! I created a new account after clicking the link posted by the OSPer. So, I'm going to leave my referral link here so someone else may get a free song as well:

Stock20.com creates high quality music for media production. If you create a free account using my referral link, they will give you a $7 store credit (which will get you one free song).

=====================
Here's how:
Click this link, then create a free account (it takes about a minute):

http://www.stock20.com/gvr.php?rc=65xl2nv5903asd5v2x

You will get a gift certificate by e-mail for $7 of in-store credit.

Note: You can be assured that Stock20.com will not give away your info. They send out one e-mail per month when they release their new songs.
=====================

That's it!

Good luck on that one David. I don't know the answer, other than you probably can't do it. Good luck trying to find out.

Hi there

I didn't necessarily want my first post to be like this but it's an interesting subject and I might be able to put a slightly different perspective on it. I have been making records since 1993, both as a writer and as an artist. As I still make my living as a writer I appreciate that this is even an active discussion in the photography community.

Anyway, I seriously doubt that anyone would even use my music for their slideshows (unless the clients are really into electronic music) but assuming they did, my copyright would have been violated, even if you purchased my track. More specifically, my record label and publishing companies copyright will have been violated...and they really don't like that!!

Personally, I don't have a problem with anyone using my music in this way and lets be honest, I'm never likely to find out about it. What I do have an issue with is people selling DVD slideshows containing my music to clients without the proper license to do so. I don't know about the US but here in the UK there are licenses available from the PPL for Private Function Videos & DVD's. These licenses are really easy to get a hold of, cheap (cheap enough to recharge to a client!) and ensure that the writer (me) receives a royalty for his work.

Lets be honest, Mr & Mrs Smith's wedding slideshow isn't really hurting me and it certainly isn't killing the music industry...file sharing is taking care of that nicely thank you. It's just important to understand that without the right license it's illegal and that the license does actually help musicians receive their royalties - especially artists without publishing deals and major record company backing.

I have also seen it suggested that this could be seen as promotion for the artist's music which for the most part I would agree with - if there was a "Music by.." credit and a direct link from the slideshow to a digital download site or website to purchase the artists song. Generally, this seems to be overlooked by most which I find disappointing. I notice that David Jay does include these links on his website which is great, good music too. I just wish more people would at least take the time to do that for the artist.

I guess I'm a little bit bias on this whole subject. Unlike photography music is so incredibly easy to copy and share and I seriously doubt that there's an underground network of photo-pirates trading high-res wedding pictures!! Just for the record (no pun intended) I really do understand and appreciate the importance of good music on these slideshows. The right song/music can make all the difference to a presentation and more importantly to the client. When the majority of royalty-free music isn't that good then what are you supposed to do? I don't know.

By the way, I'm not some kind of internet troll scanning messageboards for threads I can jump on with a first post. I'm a keen photographer and am very interested in making the move into weddings when I have enough experience, knowledge (and confidence) to do so. I only found this board a few days ago and have thoroughly enjoyed reading the posts. So, to finish this long-winded rant I would just like to introduce myself to you all and say 'hello'!!!

Regards

Alan Bremner

Hi Alan...

I believe your input is valuable, as you are looking from the other end. And as a potential "violated party". you are likely expressing a feeling that most musical artists have... in that their companies will be much more outraged that the artist...

but you are dead wrong on the above 2 points... maybe not quite as easy, but it can be done... if it's on the screen, it can be copied... what makes our issue worse, is that a great deal of those who copy from us (lo-res screen grabs from slideshows, scans of marked proofs, etc) are perfectly willing to accept reallly bad quality for their ill-gotten gains. The colors are often horrible, the cropping worse, dust and scratches and so on.. and then they tell the viewer... oh Lorne Chesal took this picture.. isn't it great?... ummmmmm no... best make a note of that name...

imagine someone getting your tracks from a 16kb internet stream with dropouts and echoes... burns a CD, and plays it for his/her friends... some won't know... but some will think eewww... that's crap... they won't blame the process... they'll blame you, as if you had anything to do with it...


and on the 2nd... you're right, they are not underground, they are very obvious and blatant about it... and they are our customers... I'd be willing to bet that a great percentage of the "phot books" being order through Kodak/Shutterfly, MyPublisher, et al, are being created by brides using poor scans and/or screen grabs and/or 4x6 72 dpi files given them by the photographer. A photographer who likely did not grant/license the images for this purpose.

Go on any wedding forum geared to brides and search for a thread on making photobooks... they trade secrets and even advocate downloading Photoshop CS2 to remove the "do not duplicate" marks the "stupid photographer put on all my proofs." Of course they are kind enough to advise, the software is "kinda hard to learn" and only lasts for 30 days, so get right on it.

As an example of how deep in the culture of brides on a budget this is... we, in all of our services, give (and are duly compensated for) hi-res files and the written rights for the couple to print away for their personal use. Always done it. Works well for us.

One bride was angry with us for putting her proofs inside acetate sleeves in her proof album. She said "now I have to remove them all for scanning" So, I smiled and gently reminded her that she had the files, and did not need to scan... Oh... OK...

at some point, music makers will realize the potential goldmine that is multimedia music rights for folks like us... let's face it, they all whine that their traditional revenue stream (ie: records) is in sharp decline.... while our needs for nice music is on the rise... talking should help..

Hi Lorne

I'm sorry if my comment came across as a little insensitive to this issue, this was not my intention. I wouldn't necessarily say that I am wrong but perhaps I should clarify my point.

I appreciate that low-res prints from screen captures, cheap printing from bad scans and a general disregard for quality by the budget conscious bride is a major problem for photographers. However, this is much like me sending my latest effort to a record label only to have them butcher my music by sending it to a cheap mastering engineer who squeezes all the life out of my tracks dynamics, just to make it 'louder' on a CD...it's a quality issue and as much as it pains me, what can I do about it? The record company have already paid me for my music - they own it and they do with it what they will.

As you quite rightly pointed out there is massive potential for a photographers reputation to suffer at the hands of sneaky brides and their photoshop 'skills'. I'm 100% on your side about this but in the brides eyes, right or wrong, she has paid for her pictures and they are hers to do with what she will. As a photographer myself I appreciate how bad an image can be made to look by ways of poor printing and low-res scanning but as you said, the only way to try and combat this is to supply a DVD of the hi-res files.....and as you pointed out, you are duly compensated for this.

The only point I was really trying to make with my comment is that in most cases the people responsible for violating a photographers copyright is their client, by sharing the images with friends and family. I'm certainly not 'whining', far from it, but do you know how disheartening it is for a promotional copy your record to be sent out on monday morning only to find 20,000+ sharing it on monday afternoon? That's 20,000 potential sales lost, 3-4 weeks before it's even released!!! But, this thread is about music copyright, not the morals surrounding file sharing. I just wanted to clarify the point I was trying to make...but lets move on.

Funnily enough, I sat up very late thinking about the potential here. Multimedia music is obviously not a new thing and I myself have written music for friends websites in the past. I think the main hurdle that we encounter is that like photographers, musicians & writers are very reluctant to sell any rights to their material without being adequately compensated...and a lot of us music types don't even understand what rights we are actually selling.

For instance, a lot of people in my boat believe (and quite rightly in some cases) that your potential royalties are your potential pension. Publishing companies sign people with lures of upfront cash in order to control and collect your royalties - and make a tidy profit on it. Is it any wonder that people maybe shy away from giving up their royalties for things like royalty-free music? Maybe that is the reason why I see so many people saying that the majority of RF music isn't as good as they would like it to be.

That said, I have very little knowledge of how much of a 'potential goldmine' that this area actually is. I'm intrigued now so perhaps someone could explain the potential to me?


Alan

Hi Alan...

not at all insensitive, just uninformed... totally different... let me apologize for sounding miffed.... I am not ...


this is certainly a hot button for us creative types.. my sentiment did not come across in the written word...


Your example of a company owning your stuff to do with it what they wish is a good one. That agreement was made by you, and you accepted that loss of control. Presumably your compensation from the 3rd party was based on losing copyright control.

Most times, photographers DON'T agree to the loss of copyright control, or the client ASSUMES they have PURCHASED copyright control when in fact they haven't.

I'll repeat a point I made elsewhere on this subject... no consumer ever really OWNS the music they purchase. They have licensed it for a certain use. Been that way forever, but was a somewhat moot point, as historically, consumers never had viable ways to violate the licensing terms. Now they do. In spades.

So now their misconception about ownership has consequences it never had before.

Photographs are almost the same. The law boils down simply to "unless otherwise stated, copyright belongs to the client" Most photographers retain copyright by specifying in their contract that they are doing so. The client signs the contract, bingo, copyright stays with the photographer.

The general public just can't wrap their head around the concept of intellectual property. And really, I can see why. It takes lawyers and courts to "interpret" the laws.

You hire a contractor to come in and redo your kitchen. He uses your ideas, some of his own, and materials that you pay him for. He charges a fee on top of that and you're thrilled with his creativity and love his finished work. *Fundamentally*, in the minds of john q public, how is that different than a portrait?

The idea that you can't alter his work in the kitchen again down the road without his permission is absurd. As is the concept of not being able to use his ideas again elsewhere in your home. Or if he left you a can of paint for touching up in the future, expecting you to call and get his OK to use it in the kid's room. What is it you Brits say? ... rubbish!

What about "the custom-made wedding dress" Do you think a seamstress could demand that a bride not alter the dress in the future, or restrict where and when it can be worn? It was a work of art.

It is my belief, we may never educate the public enough. Most of the chatter I hear about between a violated photographer and a copier/client is of the "I'll sue you" or "go ahead and try" variety. A good deal of us have opted to get our fee up front and not look to reprints as income. This causes the upfront costs to go up, which perversely, fuels the desire on the client's end for even cheaper prints. However, armed with good files, they are at least getting great prints and your work looks more or less as you intended. Lets also acknowledge here that the majority of piracy is done without the knowledge that laws are being broken.

And to be honest, I have never understood what value retaining the copyright to wedding images is. I don't think there's a huge stock image value to them. Stock houses who need wedding images can pick from images created solely for stock. Perfect brides, perfect grooms, perfect settings, perfect little flower girsl, all created in a real world, where 200 hungry guests aren't waiting for them to be finished.

Now I am proud of the images we cerate at our weddings.... damn proud. But I can't see anyone outside of the client's friends and family wanting prints. In the event that we capture a singularly spectacular moment that could make me a fortune, I'll pursue that with the couple at the time. Naive of me perhaps, but I sleep better at night.

Perhaps a realistic case for protecting your copyright is about commercial use. A website for a new photographer using your images as his own (happens quite a bit!) , a dress shop making posters for themselves... their dress, your pictures... even worse, a porn site grabs one of your racier/flirty images and uses to it to promote www.bridesontheirhoneymoon.com.



hmmm gold mine...

all I know is... there is a demand not being filled... in Canada, we average about 140,000 weddings a year. If 20% of those use a wedding photographer who needs to license a nice piece of music for a DVD/Website/slideshow etc., that's 28,000 licenses annually for somebody. The Excited Sates of America is 10x the market, so let's assume 250,000 there, the UK is about 2x Canada, so another 56,000 licenses and so on... The main seam in the gold mine is tapped out, but there are smaller seams to be found...

Hello again


I know you're not miffed and you're probably right about me being uninformed. I was completely unaware of the lengths that brides would go to save money!! However I would like to make it clear that I do understand the extremely valid copyright issues you have outlined, and maybe this hasn't come across in my replies.


More importantly, we are agreeing on this particular point. The problem is that the client doesn't understand that they have not purchased the right to do whatever they want with 'their' pictures...much in the same way as the photographers who use copyrighted music material on their slideshows because they (or the client) 'purchased' the song. It's pretty simple, I just don't understand why people seem to find this hard to understand.


Yes we do.


I agree, and it's discussions like this that help make some people aware that they are perhaps unknowingly breaking the law.