How can we support the copyright of others - Music on Websites

[jc5066]

As photographers we are all concerned about our copyright and keeping others

from stealing (copying) our work.

 

So why is it [some] of us are willing to steal music and use it for our own

gain? Why should one respect your copyright when you are not willing to respect

others?

 

This is just a friendly reminder that music is copyrighted, just as our

photography is. Please don't steal music to use it for your website, slide

show, etc...

[kevin cook - stratford upo]

How do you know they haven't paid to use the music? How do you know its still under copyright (laws vary from country to country)?

[phule]

[[This is just a friendly reminder that music is copyrighted]]

 

Some music is copyrighted just like some photographs are. Do not make blanket generalizations.

[waltflanagan]

Music may be copyrighted, that doesn't mean you can't use it. The music may have an expired copyright. It may be licensed. It may be royalty free.

[gary_lester1]

Hi,

 

Jon Curtis did say "some of us".

[buckry]

I heard Jon Mayer on a photographer's website the other day. Seems very unlikely that has been licensed for that use...

[purmar]

On the same note... How do guys work with slide shows? What music do you use and what if some client requests copyrighted material? Would it be possible to buy for them the CD and just give it to them with the actual DVD slide show? Or would it be still illegal? I know that it is not legal to use it on web, but on DVD that you give only to the client?

 

Thanks for input.

 

Martin

[mark_harrington1]

While I do not choose to use music on my website I don't know why this is an issue for discussion. It comes across as being hall monitored by some self-appointed do-gooder. We are all adults and capable of understanding the risks of using work that isn't our own. Having said that perhaps the best way of addressing this issue would be from that of a personal experience if and when it occurs. For example, someone who was caught using copyrighted material explaning what his/her experience was.

 

Should you want to really stimulate conversation, it is my belief that as photographers we have all copied the style or theme of someone else's picture. Obviously there are some very unique shots that we have attempted or would like to copy. Just because we use a different model/subject doesn't mean that we haven't stolen the original artist's idea and intellectual property.

 

I guess what I'm saying in a long winded way is that I'm offended by someone telling me something that is obvious to me and it makes me ask "who appointed you?".

[jc5066]

Mark you should only feel "offended" if you are guilty.

 

You hear so many people here complaining that someone made copies of their work, yet many here also have music, which is copyrighted on their websites.

 

As far as "legal" music, there are a number of sites that sell royalty free music. Feel free to send me an email and I can suggest one that lets you have one for free, just for trying them.

[kevin_swan1]

<blockquote>

<i>So why is it [some] of us are willing to steal music and use it for our own gain? Why should one respect your copyright when you are not willing to respect others?</i>

</blockquote>

 

<p>To be frank, the answer is, "because they feel they can gain more in profits by using copyrighted music without a license than they think they'll lose to others using their photos without permission." That is, using copyrighted music without permission gives them an "edge" over their competition (who may be unwilling to either pay to license the same music or steal the music themselves), that they believe translates into higher profits that would more than offset any revenue they'd lose to people treating their own photographs as "free stock photos."

 

<P>So they're willing to use music illegally, knowing (and not caring) that others are using their photographs freely without permission, or they may even be hypocritical enough to still try and protect their own photos while stealing others' music. Money can override ethics, in the minds of some.

 

<P>I'm not saying I do it or condone it, but it's not really that difficult to understand why people do it.

[regas chefas]

Jon Curtis said:

"Mark you should only feel "offended" if you are guilty.

 

You hear so many people here complaining that someone made copies of their work, yet

many here also have music, which is copyrighted on their websites.

 

As far as "legal" music, there are a number of sites that sell royalty free music. Feel free to

send me an email and I can suggest one that lets you have one for free, just for trying

them."

 

Maybe the motive for frequently posting this topic finally comes out?

 

The truth is that many photographers license copyrighted music through BMI or make

arrangements directly with the band or other copyright holder. Just because there is a

popular song on a website does not mean it's 'stolen'. In addition, there is some

ambiguity about the music laws pertaining to making slideshows, the internet and how

they might or might not fall under 'fair use'. Photographers do the best they can to make

a decision about their business and go with it.

 

Until someone makes an effort to clarify/modify the current laws, I think that's what we're

stuck with.

 

I think using popular music through someone like BMI is cheaper in the long run than

using royalty free music. Others disagree. But the problem is that it's not clear if

licensing through BMI really gives you the license to use the music on your website if you

synchronize it with a slideshow, for example.

[jmarshall]

Another answer to the question of why people "steal" music is that the recording industry has an absolutely ridiculous approach to licensing intellectual property. Do you think it would be reasonable to tell someone who wants to license one of your photos that they can do so only if they pay an exorbitant fee to license the entire photo.net library? That's exactly what the RIAA does with its music. You CANNOT license the use of an individual song for anything approaching a reasonable fee.

 

The other problem with the recording industry's licensing approach is that it's difficult for people to understand what's OK and what isn't. Try explaining to your client that even though she legally downloaded a song from iTunes and legally used it on the slideshow she made of her vacation photos, you can't do the same thing to put her wedding song on the slideshow of her wedding photos because it's commercial use. And before you start explaining to me what the difference is, let me assure you that I understand the difference (I spent 10 years managing an intellectual property licensing program), so you don't need to explain it to me. What I'm saying is that it's a difficult concept for people who don't deal with IP issues everyday to wrap their brains around.

 

Why doesn't PPA work with RIAA to create a master license under which PPA members can use (for a fee) copyrighted music with permission? Create a special download site, allow photographers to download songs for use on websites, slideshows, etc. for different fees (with the agreement that the license fee gets paid for each client on whose behalf they use the same song). PPA gets more members, RIAA and artists get paid more (because they probably get almost nothing from the photographic community today), photographers have an easy, legal and affordable way to use copyrighted music with permission. Will some people cheat? Probably, but it's still better than what we've got now, which is basically no legal access to copyrighted music by most small photography businesses.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

We just had a thread on this recently, do we really need another editorial opinion?

[alexie_jenkins]

Years ago I worked for one of the big music companies. It was quite depressing actually. :) Licensing any major label artists is virtually impossible, esp. for non-broadcast use, because one, their systems are not set up for it, and two, there's just not enough money in it for them to bother with it. I once saw a flowchart that had about 20 steps for getting approval for licensing a major artist's song - ugh. And all the deals are done essentially by negotiation, who you know, who you are, etc. I still know people in the industry and they tell me little has changed even with all the new technologies, etc. When a national commercial uses a 15-second clip of a major artist, there is no formula for how much it costs so it varies widely but the magnitude is like $60K. So it is highly unlikely that a song has been legally licensed when you hear a "popular" song on a photographer's web site. I guess not impossible because maybe the photographer is friends with the artist and the artist happens to own the rights to their music - which is unfortunately rare if you've heard the song on the radio. I think Dave Matthews now owns the rights to his music so I guess you can contact him. Prince now owns his music. But the majority are owned by the labels or some big, bad organization. :) Anyway, as a photographer, I would hate it if someone stole and used my work so I personally would feel guilty stealing another artist's work. I've heard of a lot of royalty free music sites, some better quality than others, at recent seminars and on blogs so it's not like there are no legal choices now.

[jerrymat]

The entire idea of copyright has become, by the numbers, unenforceable. I recently read an article that suggests that some

new search engine can look at over a billion photos that are on line. If I looked at each of these at the rate of one per

second, twenty-four hours a day, with no breaks, it would take me nearly 32 years to see them all. I assume that soon the

web will have multiple billions. Isn't that just like trying to copyright all the flowers that bloom in the world? I don't want

people copying my photos but how is that going to be enforced in the future?