Photographers Stealing Music - Unfair Competition

almari said:

We have had many customers tell us how much they like the music on
our flash site.

I value that input a great deal more than the opinions of other
photographers. And considering that many high end photographers do
use music on their sites - I feel that we are in good company.

Click to expand...

What you fail to realize is that the reason you haven't heard from those who don't like music on a website is because they usually hit the 'X' in the upper right hand corner of the screen and leave the website, and move on to someone else.

This whole issue was discussed at length for years over on the DJ chat boards, and the same arguements and conclusions occured there as well.

And music IS their business.

On thing you have to think about is that many brides-to-be are looking for their wedding photographer, DJ and other wedding vendors from their work computers, and when music starts blasting out of the speakers at their place of employment, well, this is just not a good thing.

Now, music is OK as long as the visitor knows it is coming and has the option of turning it down or off, but when it is forced on the viewer without any way to turn it down or off, or at least no way to bypass it, you may possibly be chasing perspective customers away from your website, not to it.

--
J. D.
Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

MusicDoctorDJ said:

On thing you have to think about is that many brides-to-be are
looking for their wedding photographer, DJ and other wedding vendors
from their work computers, and when music starts blasting out of the
speakers at their place of employment, well, this is just not a good
thing.

Click to expand...

Or those of us who use their computers to listen to music while they're doing anything and everything on it, then having another track start playing over top of what we actually want to listen to! good times.

NT

cheers,
Fabian

I was at a famous photographer's site the other day and immediately recognized the music he was using for the main track -- a recent Coldplay hit. For reasons you've explained well, it is doubtful that he had obtained the rights. Seems pretty reckless to take something (a) so recognizable and (b) from one of the world's biggest-selling bands, who surely have a battery of lawyers in their employ.

I use a few paid-for stock-music tracks on my site, mixed in with a couple of tracks composed and recorded by a friend of mine, a pro musician and sound-studio owner. It's good, it works OK -- but it can't compete in direct emotional power with a popular track by Coldplay or what have you.

Much as I share your irritation about the hypocrisy evident in photographers protecting their own copyright while walking over the rights of musicians and their labels, a lot of blame must also fall on the music industry, which is forehead-slappingly clueless about the whole situation. They'd reap hundreds of millions of dollars annually if they set up a web-based clearinghouse -- a one-stop-shopping solution where small-time business owners can go to license copyrighted tracks with just a few clicks.

You are miffed on the principle of the thing, and you're right. Still, it's hard to muster much sympathy for a music industry so categorically foolish and so catastrophically set in its outmoded ways.

dc

Paul Grupp said:

Nope -- I'm not going there. It's not my job to play little policeman.

I had hoped for a more rational response -- but everywhere I've asked
this question of other photographers, the responses range from "bah
-- I have more important stuff to worry about," to "ah -- those
musicians and their recording companies are just too greedy, so it's
ok to steal from them."

Pretty disappointing, to hear this from fellow members of a
profession that depends on income from artistic expression, just like
musicians.

Time for me to move on to other things -- but I have to say, I'm
disappointed.
--

Click to expand...

MusicDoctorDJ said:

almari said:

We have had many customers tell us how much they like the music on
our flash site.

I value that input a great deal more than the opinions of other
photographers. And considering that many high end photographers do
use music on their sites - I feel that we are in good company.

Click to expand...

What you fail to realize is that the reason you haven't heard from
those who don't like music on a website is because they usually hit
the 'X' in the upper right hand corner of the screen and leave the
website, and move on to someone else.

This whole issue was discussed at length for years over on the DJ
chat boards, and the same arguements and conclusions occured there as
well.

And music IS their business.

On thing you have to think about is that many brides-to-be are
looking for their wedding photographer, DJ and other wedding vendors
from their work computers, and when music starts blasting out of the
speakers at their place of employment, well, this is just not a good
thing.

Now, music is OK as long as the visitor knows it is coming and has
the option of turning it down or off, but when it is forced on the
viewer without any way to turn it down or off, or at least no way to
bypass it, you may possibly be chasing perspective customers away
from your website, not to it.

Click to expand...

Please at least try to read my entire post.

As I posted above - we offer TWO different sites - one flash site with music and one HTML with no music for those people who prefer no music, are at work, or have slow connections.

I know what my customers like because we talk to them about it.

I really don't care what DJ's or other photographers think on the matter - our booking rates and number of overall inquiries INCREASED with the addition of the flash site compared to having just the HTML site.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

almari said:

Please at least try to read my entire post.

As I posted above - we offer TWO different sites - one flash site
with music and one HTML with no music for those people who prefer no
music, are at work, or have slow connections.

I know what my customers like because we talk to them about it.

I really don't care what DJ's or other photographers think on the
matter - our booking rates and number of overall inquiries INCREASED
with the addition of the flash site compared to having just the HTML
site.

Click to expand...

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed today . . .

By the way . . . I did read your entire post.

--
J. D.
Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

...take it down. Right?

Roscolo said:

...take it down. Right?

Click to expand...

I guess what you are saying is that it is OK to use someone elses music or image . . . until you get caught.

--
J. D.
Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

I for one, plan to stay with rights-free or properly licensed music.
1) It's the right thing to do
2) My son is a musician.

3) My associate / photographer moved from California where she was a paralegal for an international law office specializing in intellectual property rights. She still telecommutes as her day job with them. It's NASTY the problems you can get into when the intellectual property world gets wind of your infringements.

Have a nice day!

No. It's not right - getting caught or not, it's still wrong.

--
jOE FEDERER
Websites: Most recent:
http://www.willowlakefarmwedding.com

...it's about the established protocol for dealing with these sorts of violations. I thought that's just how it worked. Like, Youtube, for example, leaves anything up until the artist or copyright owner asks to take it down. Once the offended party makes the point that they are, in fact, offended, you take it down. You can't just assume that someone is going to have a problem with using a song. And you also, as the OP erroneously has done, can't assume that the websites where you have seen songs in use did not use those songs without permission. For all you know, they have permission. And that agreement or lack of one, has nothing to do with you, i.e., it ain't your business. Granny's advice is still good 100% of the time, "Mind your own business."

If that's the established protocol, then, sure, anyone is within their rights to use the song as long as they follow protocol and remove it when asked to.

Sounds fair enough to me. Pun intended.

You can only follow the protocol. If you get into debates about "right" or "wrong" well, if you ask 100 different people, you'll get 100 different answers about "right" or "wrong."

Roscolo said:

...it's about the established protocol for dealing with these sorts
of violations. I thought that's just how it worked. Like, Youtube,
for example, leaves anything up until the artist or copyright owner
asks to take it down. Once the offended party makes the point that
they are, in fact, offended, you take it down. You can't just assume
that someone is going to have a problem with using a song. And you
also, as the OP erroneously has done, can't assume that the websites
where you have seen songs in use did not use those songs without
permission. For all you know, they have permission. And that
agreement or lack of one, has nothing to do with you, i.e., it ain't
your business. Granny's advice is still good 100% of the time, "Mind
your own business."

If that's the established protocol, then, sure, anyone is within
their rights to use the song as long as they follow protocol and
remove it when asked to.

Sounds fair enough to me. Pun intended.

You can only follow the protocol. If you get into debates about
"right" or "wrong" well, if you ask 100 different people, you'll get
100 different answers about "right" or "wrong."

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

It's about LEGAL and ILLEGAL.

There are laws on the books with specific penalties and fines for copyright violations.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

No, it's illegal to STEAL another persons work... whether you get caught or not. I consider this a "right and wrong" issue. Sure, I won't get sued if I don't get 'caught'... but that doesn't make it right.

Take it out of the 'ethical' area and you it's still such that if you STEAL a song and put it on your website, you could get sued, straight-away by the copyright holder for a LOT of money. 5 figures per song is not uncommon.

Standard protocol of youtube has nothing to do with the law with regard to a individual stealing music and broadcasting it via a commercial website.... their protocol is a balance between trying to not get in trouble for hosting illegal community-uploaded media and the logistics of effectively running a community-built content service.

In the past, in my ignorance, I didn't understand my discretions, now I do.

It's a bummer the legal path is such a pain and fraught with complication that, even with a 4-figure budget for music, I'll end up simply going without any music at all.
--
jOE FEDERER
Websites: Most recent:
http://www.willowlakefarmwedding.com

Personally, I think well chosen public domain or obscure music seems more professional than music that is popular and easily identifiable. After all, the music shouldn't be a distraction from the real content.

Take television and movies for instance... every song or piece of music used has a specific purpose and it will rarely be recognizable unless the producers want the viewer to pay attention to the song. take a show like "Grey's Anatomy," the songs used to stir emotion on that show are not generally well-known until they are featured on the show.

I've been looking at the selection on iStockAudio today and was wondering if anyone has tried them yet. I think they just started selling music very recently but if their standards for music are as tight as their photo standards then the quality should be pretty good.

YouTube is currently operating in a gray area when it comes to copyrighted material. The material produced by the members falls pretty well into "fair use" and "derivative works" in some cases. The issue comes when they post unedited clips from commercially produced recordings/videos... YouTube takes that stuff down mainly to avoid the hassle of trying to defend it... Its difficult to argue commercial use for a lot of the derivative works though since YouTube doesn't seem to run ads on its video pages. I'm not a lawyer but I heard some interviews with IP lawyers a few months ago and that was the gist.

Photographers using copyrighted works without license for commercial purposes is not in such a gray area.

With all due respect, do you know the difference between something that "sounds like it's true," and the facts?

Service providers who host content put up by others have a different set of rules than you do: their actions are governed by Digital Mellenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA creates allows service providers to not be held directly responsible for YOUR copyright violations, provided they follow a specific set of protocols.

What a service provider is obligated to do under the DMCA has NOTHING to do with your personal obligations and liabilities as an accused copyright infringer.

If you, as a photographer, are pursued by the owner of a copyright you have violated, merely "pulling down" the content will give you absolutely no protection from a lawsuit.

Copyright is actually very simple -- don't use somebody else's property unless you have their permission. Not, "go ahead and steal it as long as nobody complains."

What's so difficult about that to understand?

...that IF one is "illegally" using a song, then the onus is on the person whose copyright is allegedly violated to sue the infringer. Again, it's not about "right or wrong" or "legal or illegal." It's about the onus to protect copyrights being on the copyright owner.

Again, we have protocol for dealing with this. Either notify the infringer if you just want to have the song removed, or sue them and take them to court and prove your case.

Much ado about nothing. The OP assumes that all of these people are using songs without permission. I don't think I would waltz into court on an assumption...especially an assumption that doesn't involve you.

There are lots of songs, and services of packages of songs, or "stock" song packages available just like stock photo disks, available for cheap use on websites.

This is a non-issue. If someone is upset their song is being used, they need to go to court to prove their case. Taking that case to court isn't going to be cheap, however. When the website designer winds up being in Romania or some other eastern European country (as so many are these days), good luck collecting any damages you might be awarded!

Again, just because music ends up on the background of a website on which my photographs appear, that does not prove that A - I broke the law, or B - that I directed someone else to break the law. If someone else breaks the law, and I have no knowledge that they have broken the law, I cannot be held responsible for the crimes of others.

I have put out web jobs, translations, etc. on websites that eventually were contracted and subcontracted, perhaps subcontracted several times, to numerous web designers and translators in Romania, Ukraine, Belarus, etc. whom I don't even know! I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others, unless someone can prove that I directed them to break the law, and I certainly have never done that. If I contract a job to a web designer and they use a song, I assume they have the right to use that song. If they don't have the right to use that song, I'm not in trouble; they are.

Any of you guys ever been to Ukraine or Belarus? Let's just say these legal arguments over songs and copyrights probably aren't exactly at the top of the agenda right now.

Joe Federer said:

No. It's not right - getting caught or not, it's still wrong.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me.

That was not my stance, but was me responding to the stance of the poster just above my post.

--
J. D.
Colorado



Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

Roscolo said:

Again, just because music ends up on the background of a website on
which my photographs appear, that does not prove that A - I broke
the law, or B - that I directed someone else to break the law. If
someone else breaks the law, and I have no knowledge that they have
broken the law, I cannot be held responsible for the crimes of others.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true in the US. It IS true if you are functioning as a service provider for others. The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA would protect you, as long as you follow their protocols. But if you are a photographer, and you put up music on your website that is unlicensed, or you direct someone else to do it -- you will be held personally responsible for that act.

Roscolo said:

I have put out web jobs, translations, etc. on websites that
eventually were contracted and subcontracted, perhaps subcontracted
several times, to numerous web designers and translators in Romania,
Ukraine, Belarus, etc. whom I don't even know! I cannot be held
responsible for the actions of others, unless someone can prove that
I directed them to break the law, and I certainly have never done
that. If I contract a job to a web designer and they use a song, I
assume they have the right to use that song. If they don't have the
right to use that song, I'm not in trouble; they are.

Click to expand...

In most countries, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I would guess the web designer would have you sign a contract that releases him from any and all liability for copyright violations.

Roscolo said:

Any of you guys ever been to Ukraine or Belarus? Let's just say these
legal arguments over songs and copyrights probably aren't exactly at
the top of the agenda right now.

Click to expand...

I can appreciate that. But I started this thread because in the US, it is an issue. OK if I talk about issues in my own country? Besides, the US is still one of the world's major producers of music and other entertainment. Ukraine and Belarus. . . not so much. So perhaps, given the fact that here in the US music and entertainment is just about the only thing left that we do produce, it's not surprising that we want to protect our property, even in places like Ukraine.