p.1 #1 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Why are so many wedding photographers using unlicensed music on their websites, slideshows and now videos as well? I wonder if those same photographers would want others to use their images without compensation.
Using music on a website seems pretty subjective as to the value of doing so, that is use it vs. not. But it seems to me that most photographers would want to highlight their work and not some ones music.
I just wish we as an industry would show the music industry the same respect for their work that we would want for ours.
p.1 #3 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
robert mariani wrote:
But it seems to me that most photographers would want to highlight their work and not some ones music.
Not every photographer uses music or likes it, but when was the last time you saw a movie without a soundtrack? The bottom line is that music can appeal to certain emotions in a film, and if used well, can do the same with images.
As for the copyright, I wish record companies would just be glad people got their song some exposure. The average photographers viewing audience is so miniscual that hundreds of dollars for a copyright seems a bit much.
As for the artists, I feel for them, and I'd be glad to pay something reasonable.
p.1 #4 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
fyi ... my video partner is a mod on vimeo.
he mentioned this last weekend that vimeo told at least its mods to remove all their video with unlicensed music.
somebody from the music industry was going thru vimeo and start going after users.
From my understanding.... this is fall out from the Tony Romo wedding video. The shooter had to pay a health fine for using unlicensed music.
p.1 #7 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
jneilosu wrote:
Not every photographer uses music or likes it, but when was the last time you saw a movie without a soundtrack? The bottom line is that music can appeal to certain emotions in a film, and if used well, can do the same with images.
As for the copyright, I wish record companies would just be glad people got their song some exposure. The average photographers viewing audience is so miniscual that hundreds of dollars for a copyright seems a bit much.
As for the artists, I feel for them, and I'd be glad to pay something reasonable.
Did not write "every photographer", nor did I imply "every". I agree that it would be great for those that would like to license music, to have rates that could be easily passed on to our clients. But there are some music services that do cater to wedding photographers.....they just don't have "A+" artists.....generally speaking.
In the end, it seems that there is NO professional rational for stealing someone else's work, which was that point of the thread. Lowering of licensing fees really is a whole different matter.
p.1 #11 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Very true, which only adds to the frustration.
I think a creative-minded PR campaign from a record company could actually earn a TON of public goodwill if they'd offer some kind of "deal" to photographers and videographers to use songs in this capacity. It's not like they're ever going to actually make a considerable amount of money off of us, because they're too lazy to make purchasing the rights feasible. They might as well publicly recognize this small loss (which is a loss of revenue that they won't get either way, so the term "loss" is deceiving).
Until people start leaving photographer's websites open on their browser all day and using it as a tracklist instead of pandora, is there really any damage done here? Hell, initiate a one song max for each photographer/videographer and warn that any more than that is fair game for a suit.
p.1 #14 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Guys I don't know about Vimeo but any video you post on youtube, you can use the audioswap feature and dub or mix in music. It's not illegal and I use it occasionally for things like slideshows.
He was probably sued for roughly $150,000. per use. Especially since it was used commercially. They can also go after any income he made from using the content times three. But that number might be negligeable compared to the $150,000. per use.
The labels wouldn't have a reason to deal with a single wedding photographer, that is small fry or very limited distribution to them. Honestly these guys license their top-tier content to movies, current TV shows, etc. with viewership in the millions. They don't want to undercut or cannibalize their cut on that business. If they start licensing out their top tier content to everyone and their mom, for videos with very limited viewership, the perceived value of that content drops. Because the rate they'd want to license their music, versus what the wedding photographer would be willing to pay for it -- it's too large of a gap too bridge.
p.1 #17 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
In Europe, exactly in Poland, you can purchase annual license from publishers for low volume use (ie. weddings) and have full access to any song published under that organization. The cost used to be less then $200 per year. Why nobody wants to do it here?
p.1 #18 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
G-Gore wrote:
In Europe, exactly in Poland, you can purchase annual license from publishers for low volume use (ie. weddings) and have full access to any song published under that organization. The cost used to be less then $200 per year. Why nobody wants to do it here?
Because agents and organizations like ASCAP (or whomever) would like to go after either high volume or high margin sales rather than deal with individuals. While I'm sure there are some artists that would benefit from being able to license their songs for an individual use, other artists (like say Aerosmith) couldn't be bothered because it might cut in to their million-dollar pepsi deal or whatever.
There are of course services that will let you get royalty free music, most of it is a pain to go through to find something you like and it certainly won't be anything you'd recognize. I think a lot of photographers (whether conciously or not) want to use top-tier music because people will say "I love this song" and hopefully associate with teh pictures they were looking at.
ETA: Also, what if the video or pictures being put up against the music suck? If you had worked hard to create a piece of art would you want someone to put it on an ugly wedding video for $60?
p.1 #19 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Not every photographer uses music or likes it, but when was the last time you saw a movie without a soundtrack? The bottom line is that music can appeal to certain emotions in a film, and if used well, can do the same with images.
Writing soundtracks is a slightly different art from writing standalone music. Even if two pieces can be said to evoke the same "feel," the artfully written soundtrack will better support the feel of the visual work, rather than detract attention from it. Notice that even when a standalone piece is attached to a movie, it's usually played over the credits--not during the movie itself (and if played during the movie, it's considerably muted). The standalone music is designed to be an artistic centerpiece in itself, not a support work.
I think a lot of photographers (whether conciously or not) want to use top-tier music because people will say "I love this song" and hopefully associate with teh pictures they were looking at.
I would consider this an artistic problem and would seek to improve my art if I ever thought I needed someone else's music to sell my work. In such a case, the visual art is merely supporting the music, not vice versa. I guess I'm just too arrogant about the importance of my own work to allow that to happen. I go to the effort (yes, it is effort) of selecting royalty-free music that enhances my work rather than vice versa.
p.1 #20 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
RDKirk wrote:
I would consider this an artistic problem and would seek to improve my art if I ever thought I needed someone else's music to sell my work. In such a case, the visual art is merely supporting the music, not vice versa. I guess I'm just too arrogant about the importance of my own work to allow that to happen. I go to the effort (yes, it is effort) of selecting royalty-free music that enhances my work rather than vice versa.
