p.2 #1 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
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. ...Show more →
This is true, and there's gold in them thar old songs. Oldies like Sly Stone's "Everyday People" or James Brown's "I Feel Good" are being used on contemporary commercials right now. That value would have been nil if those songs had been licensed for small-time use ten years ago.
p.2 #2 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
RDKirk wrote:
This is true, and there's gold in them thar old songs. Oldies like Sly Stone's "Everyday People" or James Brown's "I Feel Good" are being used on contemporary commercials right now. That value would have been nil if those songs had been licensed for small-time use ten years ago.
Not seeing how this is true. what is wrong with having a tiered usage model?
TV/Movies pay a certain fee.
people that desire to use music in their slide shows pay on another scale.
What is sad is the music industry has not taken advantage of this.
A james brown song's value is nil if it is popular? Really.... so artist are losing out if a particular single song sells on places like itunes?
p.2 #3 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
RDKirk wrote:
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 didn't mean the composed pieces specifically made for the music. I meant the track of commercial songs used throughout the movie, and in the trailer.
p.2 #4 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Not saying the folks running the music industry are a forward looking bunch ( they aren't ),
but if they don't want to license their music to Joe Photographer, then they don't have to.
And just because they won't license the music at a fair and reasonable price doesn't mean you get to steal the music.
p.2 #5 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Yaryman wrote:
Not saying the folks running the music industry are a forward looking bunch ( they aren't ),
but if they don't want to license their music to Joe Photographer, then they don't have to.
And just because they won't license the music at a fair and reasonable price doesn't mean you get to steal the music.
ding, ding, ding, ding, give Yaryman a cigar........THAT IS the point of this thread!
p.2 #6 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
I like to see a big bone shaker clampdown on this, let the images stand on their merit, hit me
If it's not licensed be prepared to pay compensation to the creator of the Art.
In the same way you'd want and are entitled to compensation for the use of your Art.
In both cases the use of either is for Commercial gain, correct !
There are lots of avenues to take in getting music licensed and it's easy. It may not be in the Top 10, but then your images are the important factor right. Not every Artist want's there Art associated with Wedding's, in the same way you wouldn't want your images associated with Brand xyz.
The video went viral and Joe is on the top end of wedding videographers. At least now people are putting some money into legal licensing some good options are coming out:
p.2 #8 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Ziffl3 wrote:
Not seeing how this is true. what is wrong with having a tiered usage model?
TV/Movies pay a certain fee.
people that desire to use music in their slide shows pay on another scale.
What is sad is the music industry has not taken advantage of this.
A james brown song's value is nil if it is popular? Really.... so artist are losing out if a particular single song sells on places like itunes?
The James Brown song has a nil value if everyone is using it for their videos, slideshows and commercials. The value of a piece of music comes from three sources.
1) The popularity of the song (if everyone loves it, it's more valuable to use)
2) The quality of the song (which is subjective, the ability to strike the right tone and connect with the audience)
3) The ability to link the song to your product/brand (so when you hear the song, you might remember the commercial for example).
Letting 1,000 photographers play with a song shrinks the value of 3 to practically nothing.
p.2 #9 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
I didn't mean the composed pieces specifically made for the music. I meant the track of commercial songs used throughout the movie, and in the trailer.
Usually they are not, or, as I said, they will be substantially muted or only snippets will be played at particular moments. There are some period-piece movies that use popular music essentially as characters--but those are not in the main.
p.2 #11 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
rmric0 wrote:
The James Brown song has a nil value if everyone is using it for their videos, slideshows and commercials. The value of a piece of music comes from three sources.
1) The popularity of the song (if everyone loves it, it's more valuable to use)
2) The quality of the song (which is subjective, the ability to strike the right tone and connect with the audience)
3) The ability to link the song to your product/brand (so when you hear the song, you might remember the commercial for example).
Letting 1,000 photographers play with a song shrinks the value of 3 to practically nothing.
sorry ... letting 1K or 10K photographer/video shooter use a song is like #1. if anything it helps cements the songs legacy.
p.2 #13 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Ziffl3 wrote:
Not seeing how this is true. what is wrong with having a tiered usage model?
TV/Movies pay a certain fee.
people that desire to use music in their slide shows pay on another scale.
What is sad is the music industry has not taken advantage of this.
A james brown song's value is nil if it is popular? Really.... so artist are losing out if a particular single song sells on places like itunes?
Because the highest tier is the one that makes them the most profit, and they fear the others might detract from that. Perceived value, artificial rarity, elitism / exclusivity, etc. For instance, the movie director sees that other creators are able to use the top-tier content for much less, so he demands a lower price too.
It's something along the lines of why you don't see a brand of car known for being super-expensive and luxury or high-performance suddenly deciding to sell a low-cost, economy model.
This is how the music industry thinks, remember for instance in the earlier days of the internet 'we don't want to sell music online, because it might undercut CD sales'. It's not necessarily the smartest strategy, but it is the strategy they live and die by, time and time again.
Like with iTunes someone might beat the labels to the punch and make off with some money or a permanent cut of the business. But we're talking low-volume, low-cost licensing here, unless it was somehow bundled up (ie. a great number of wedding photographers offering a larger sum of money) they labels are probably still not going to want to talk to you.
p.2 #14 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
Access wrote:
Because the highest tier is the one that makes them the most profit, and they fear the others might detract from that. Perceived value, artificial rarity, elitism / exclusivity, etc. For instance, the movie director sees that other creators are able to use the top-tier content for much less, so he demands a lower price too.
It's something along the lines of why you don't see a brand of car known for being super-expensive and luxury or high-performance suddenly deciding to sell a low-cost, economy model.
This is how the music industry thinks, remember for instance in the earlier days of the internet 'we don't want to sell music online, because it might undercut CD sales'. It's not necessarily the smartest strategy, but it is the strategy they live and die by, time and time again.
Like with iTunes someone might beat the labels to the punch and make off with some money or a permanent cut of the business. But we're talking low-volume, low-cost licensing here, unless it was somehow bundled up (ie. a great number of wedding photographers offering a larger sum of money) they labels are probably still not going to want to talk to you....Show more →
I call BS. You can buy a song for ninety nine pennies. Not with commercial rights, but that isn't the point.
Charging a fair license fee does not cheapen usage in movies etc...
p.2 #16 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
TTLKurtis wrote:
I call BS. You can buy a song for ninety nine pennies. Not with commercial rights, but that isn't the point.
Charging a fair license fee does not cheapen usage in movies etc...
The problem is the disconnect on the value of the license, it's worth more to them than you're willing to pay for it. Intellectual property doesn't have a hard value, it's based wholly on perceptions and things like that. The notion of a 'fair price' doesn't exist.
It's BS from your perspective, but what about theirs? Ultimately it takes two sides to make a deal, and if people can't agree on value, then no deal will be made. It's like the guy who wants you to shoot his wedding for $250 and won't pay more than double that. That's how the record companies see you wanting to license their music. They're used to people willing to pay much more because their productions are much larger. You can't necessarily reason with these guys, 'It's only a small number of views so the price should be lower.' It would be like if the $250. guy told you 'oh it's only a small wedding, shouldn't take very long... probably just a few hours' etc.
One reason a song sells for 99 cents is because of the volume, you have a whole lot of people buying songs for 99 cents online.
I don't support the view, and I understand the sentiment 'this is BS'. It's just how businesses work, sometimes. The only way to know for sure is to wait, maybe in a year there will be a deal or maybe there won't be. If there is no deal, that's probably why. It won't be for lack of trying, for sure.
p.2 #17 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
You can't necessarily reason with these guys, 'It's only a small number of views so the price should be lower.' It would be like if the $250. guy told you 'oh it's only a small wedding, shouldn't take very long... probably just a few hours' etc.
And that guy is convinced that you're trying to charge him $4,000 for just four hours of standing around with a camera.
p.2 #18 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
I wouldn't want my images used without my permission and I am sure the music artist feel the same way. With that said, I use Triple Scoop and just pay the $60 for the license - done deal.
p.2 #20 · Illegal use of commercial music on websites
THANK YOU to xtremediver & Jimsokay for bringing this thread back to where it should be!!!! It is amazing to me how this thread has meandered from the MAIN point....Don't steal music, pay for it.
It doesn't matter if you think the pricing structure is unfair for the music you want. All the rationale about pricing structure really has nothing to do with illegal use of another artist's work. Shame on anyone who doesn't pay for music on their videos or websites ( unless it is a real gift to you from a musician ) .....eventually you will get caught, then what are you going to do - cry that the pricing isn't fair, give me a break!
