Photographers Stealing Music - Unfair Competition

Roscolo · Mar 11, 2009

almari wrote:
Anyone who knowingly puts copyrighted music

almari said:
on their site is putting themselves in jeopardy for a lawsuit.

You're spot on, chief. That hole gets deeper, but you just dig away!

I agree with your statement, and none of my arguments contradict it. Key words, you have to prove who the "anyone" is. And the other keyword is "knowingly."

If I hire a webhost, they build, host, maintain my site. All I do is send 'em some images I made. THEY put a song on the site. I sure as heck didn't put that song up there...heck, I don't know how...that's why I hired a WEB HOST / DESIGNER.

Sorry, but I'm not the one in jeopardy here. I didn't put the song up, and I did not direct them to. If anything, they assured me they are pros and have the rights and know what they're doing. They did the crime, they will have to do the time.

What part of "innocent until proven guilty" don't you understand?

Roscolo · Mar 11, 2009

Joe Federer wrote:
the core issues.

Joe Federer said:
Best of luck in your future.

The core issue is that if you want to prosecute or sue someone, you cannot ASSUME they are guilty, even if your song is on their site. You gotta take 'em to court, and you have to PROVE it.

If you are ever falsely accused of something, you'll thank God that this is how the system works. Protecting the innocent from being railroaded by others ASSUMPTIONS and ALLEGATIONS is waaaaaaaay more important than someone getting a few bucks for a copyrighted work. Again, prove your case, get paid. But you have to PROVE YOUR CASE.

That's the core issue, my man, "innocent until proven guilty." Let's hope we don't veer from that core issue ever, or tomorrow it could be YOU being dragged into jail or losing your house over something you did not do.

almari · Mar 11, 2009

Roscolo said:
What part of "innocent until proven guilty" don't you understand?

I totally understand "innocent until proven guilty" - but I also understand that just doing something because I might not get caught - and then if I get caught that they might have a hard time "proving" me guilty is a very immature approach to life. It could also prove to be very costly in legal fees - even though I may never be found guilty of anything.

And many photographers build their own websites. Since you might be a photographer (being on this forum) and claim you are a web developer - you would probably build your own site. Pretty hard to say - "it wasn't me.... i didn't do it". Personally - I built our websites using some templates. All of the content was placed online by me. Am I going to risk possible legal action with the attached legal fees even though I might never "be found guilty"? No.

But go ahead and keep advocating actions that violate law. It really says much more about your attitude towards intellectual/artistic rights than anything else.

Meanwhile - there are organizations that look out for the intellectual and artistic rights of their members. They make it easy for anyone to point out websites that may be violating copyright law.

http://www.siia.net/piracy/report.asp?gclid=CMr3sLLHm5kCFRk_awodHQw-DQ

http://www.copynot.com/

http://www.riaa.com/reportpiracy.php

http://www.mipi.com.au/report_piracy/report.cfm

http://www.ascap.com/index.html

http://www.bmi.com/

http://www.sesac.com/index.aspx?flash=1

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

Roscolo · Mar 11, 2009

almari said:
But go ahead and keep advocating actions that violate law. It really
says much more about your attitude towards intellectual/artistic
rights than anything else.

I'm not advocating any actions that violate law. On the contrary, it is those who assume that just because a song is on a site that they KNOW who committed the infraction, are, in fact, violating the law by making false accusations. By the way, making false accusations is a far more serious crime than violating copyright.

I will continue to advocate that the innocent are indeed INNOCENT until proven guilty, and, as much as you would like it to not be true, prosecutors and plaintiffs still have to PROVE THEIR CASE. Thank you.

almari · Mar 11, 2009

Roscolo said:
almari said:

But go ahead and keep advocating actions that violate law. It really
says much more about your attitude towards intellectual/artistic
rights than anything else.

Click to expand...

I'm not advocating any actions that violate law.

Yes - you are by your theory that there is no "right or wrong". Someone could easily assume that it is OK to steal the intellectual property of someone else.

Your own quotes on the matter from earlier in this thread reveal that you feel that this is a "non-issue" You stated:

Roscolo said:
"Much ado about nothing."

Roscolo said:
"This is a non-issue."

Roscolo said:
"...anyone is within their rights to use the song..."

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.

Roscolo said:
So, in the end it doesn't matter what's "right or wrong" or "legal or illegal."

And it is obvious that you keep avoiding one of my main points - even if you are not PROVEN guilty - it could easily cost you tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs.

Roscolo said:
On the contrary, it
is those who assume that just because a song is on a site that they
KNOW who committed the infraction, are, in fact, violating the law by
making false accusations. By the way, making false accusations is a
far more serious crime than violating copyright.

What "false accusation"? If a photographer has the written permission to use a piece of music - then no charges will ever be filed. Everything is totally legal. If however - there is no written permission - then someone DID violate the law. If an artist or the organization that they belong to decide to sue you because there was a copyright violation on YOUR site - you still have to defend yourself even if it was someone else who put the music there unknown to you. Which BTW - is a totally bogus defense. I don't know of ANY photographer that lets a website developer select the music. The music is an important part of the entire experience. It might happen in other industries - but NOT in the world of professional photography.

Roscolo said:
I will continue to advocate that the innocent are indeed INNOCENT
until proven guilty, and, as much as you would like it to not be
true, prosecutors and plaintiffs still have to PROVE THEIR CASE.

No one said anything about changing anything in our "innocent until proven guilty" system. We are talking about the rights of the musicians that are being violated. And you have continually stated that you really don't care at all about those rights.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

Paul Grupp · Mar 11, 2009

Many of us have attempted to obtain synchronization rights for popular songs.

It's virtually impossible. It happens. But it's rare.

So yes, innocent until proven guilty, but chances are, guilty.

But YOU continue to miss the real point.

It's a 5 minute exercise to report a photographer to the RIAA. Then they can check with the copyright holder to see if a license has indeed been purchased. If not, they can then inform the copyright holder, who will then decide whether to prosecute or not.

The problem is -- I'd rather not spend my time snitching on other photographers. I'd rather see us self-police.

You're trying to turn this into a theoretical, philosophical discussion.

We're trying to sort out how we live in peace and harmony with each other, without needing to start reporting brother photographers.

So far, the only response I hear from you is, "forget about it, it's not important."

You're entitled to that opinion -- but I am also entitled to mine -- and I think it's worth discussing.

Paul Grupp · Mar 11, 2009

. . . in finding clever ways to evade the law and steal intellectual property.

In other words, you're advocating stealing food from my children's mouths.

I've heard enough from you.

Bye.

Roscolo · Mar 11, 2009

almari said:
No one said anything about changing anything in our "innocent until
proven guilty" system. We are talking about the rights of the
musicians that are being violated. And you have continually stated
that you really don't care at all about those rights.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

You're pretty good and throwing the stones! Just curious, how much did you pay in ASCAP fees last year?

You, and the rest of the self-righteous folk here, are aware that playing music in the background of your studio or sales room is NO DIFFERENT than playing music on your website? That you have to pay ASCAP for the privilege?

Looked into those ASCAP fees lately? It ain't cheap. But, hey, I'm sure you're respecting those artists rights and ponying up that few grand every year, right?

photoarts · Mar 11, 2009

Paul,the music You have paid for and used is excellent. True ,canned music will rarely hold the emotional power of popular songs. With musical artists themselves sampling so much of other peoples songs....,this is all over the place. Now how is that legal ?
So expect much more of the same.

Roscolo · Mar 11, 2009

Paul Grupp said:
Many of us have attempted to obtain synchronization rights for
popular songs.

It's virtually impossible. It happens. But it's rare.

Kinda like a lawsuit.

Paul Grupp said:
So yes, innocent until proven guilty, but chances are, guilty.

Not 'til you prove it in a court of law.

Paul Grupp said:
But YOU continue to miss the real point.

It's a 5 minute exercise to report a photographer to the RIAA. Then
they can check with the copyright holder to see if a license has
indeed been purchased. If not, they can then inform the copyright
holder, who will then decide whether to prosecute or not.

Again, ask them to take it down. They probably will. Depends if your motive is to stop the infraction or try to make a quick buck. Think we've established the buck probably won't be made, and it certainly won't be quick!

Paul Grupp said:
The problem is -- I'd rather not spend my time snitching on other
photographers. I'd rather see us self-police.

Self-police? Who says the sites using music don't have permission? YOU? Gimme a break.

Paul Grupp said:
We're trying to sort out how we live in peace and harmony with each
other, without needing to start reporting brother photographers.

Report me all you want, friend. Better make sure the accusation you make is accurate, though, or you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a more serious legal action than a copyright violation.

Paul Grupp said:
So far, the only response I hear from you is, "forget about it, it's
not important."

You're entitled to that opinion -- but I am also entitled to mine --
and I think it's worth discussing.

Yep. So, how much have you paid in ASCAP fees? You are aware that if you play music, even just commercial radio, in the background of your business (studio, sales room, etc.), that you are required by law to pay ASCAP fees? No different playing a song on the background of your website or in the background of your business...you have to respect artists' rights and pay. So, how much have you paid ASCAP to respect those copyright holders?

almari · Mar 11, 2009

Roscolo said:
Roscolo said:

No one said anything about changing anything in our "innocent until
proven guilty" system. We are talking about the rights of the
musicians that are being violated. And you have continually stated
that you really don't care at all about those rights.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

Click to expand...

You're pretty good and throwing the stones! Just curious, how much
did you pay in ASCAP fees last year?

You, and the rest of the self-righteous folk here, are aware that
playing music in the background of your studio or sales room is NO
DIFFERENT than playing music on your website? That you have to pay
ASCAP for the privilege?

Looked into those ASCAP fees lately? It ain't cheap. But, hey, I'm
sure you're respecting those artists rights and ponying up that few
grand every year, right?

We do location shooting only - no studio for customers. We do not do DVD slideshows because of the copyright issues.

The music on our website was purchased from Stock20.com. They produce royalty free music and sell it with full license for all uses. You can view our license here:

http://www.stock20.com/commerce/index.php?main_page=conditions

So - no "sin" at least in copyright issues in our studio.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

almari · Mar 11, 2009

Roscolo said:
Report me all you want, friend. Better make sure the accusation you
make is accurate, though, or you'll find yourself on the wrong end of
a more serious legal action than a copyright violation.

Almost all of the reporting services allow anonymous posting of music piracy.

And if you are legal - you simply produce the written permission that you obtained from the artist and the matter is over. If you are in copyright violation than there is just cause for the piracy report to be made and you would have no case to sue the person who reported the piracy.

And that piracy report does not name any person - it names the website that has possibly violated the copyright laws.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

Roscolo · Mar 11, 2009

almari said:
We do location shooting only - no studio for customers.

Wow. So no studio option for customers? And no place where they can meet you at your place of business? Hey, if it works for you, that's great.

But, if you play any music to relax your subjects on location, just remember you have to pony up ASCAP fees, Gotta respect those rights, remember?

Will you be joining the "self-policing" squad others have suggested and be turning in fellow photographers playing music in their studios, offices, location shoots, etc.?

ASCAP and RIAA are out of control. And their business model of sue everyone who plays a song makes as much sense as me trying to sue everyone who puts a picture I shot on their Facebook page. All it does is kill your business in the end when you have the reputation of a litigious A$$hole who doesn't understand the internet age of communication. Don't believe me? Try enforcing copyright on all your weddings / seniors and whatever portraits you can do without a studio and see how long people continue to come and do business with you after you have sued all their friends. You may get a few $$ in the short term, but in the end you will accomplish what the RIAA has accomplished, even your former friends are now your enemies. Face it gang, copyright as we have traditionally known it is dead, and while there are some drawbacks, the gains and advantages far, far outweigh the negatives.

Roscolo · Mar 11, 2009

almari said:
Almost all of the reporting services allow anonymous posting of music
piracy.

And if you are legal - you simply produce the written permission that
you obtained from the artist and the matter is over. If you are in
copyright violation than there is just cause for the piracy report to
be made and you would have no case to sue the person who reported the
piracy.

And that piracy report does not name any person - it names the
website that has possibly violated the copyright laws.

And none of that means a hill of beans in court. Those are the intimidation methods RIAA uses to threaten people for money. Kinda like mafioso asking for money for "protection."

Nope. All that person has to do is refuse correspondence and have his day in court, where, again, you have to PROVE YOUR CASE. No threats, no racketeering, no "anonymous" accusations...you gotta prove it in a court of law, bud, and try as you and the RIAA might, you gotta have a case, and you gotta PROVE it.

almari · Mar 11, 2009

Roscolo said:
..no place of business? gotta be rough

No - it's GREAT!

Used to have a studio years ago - this is much better and less overhead.

Roscolo said:
... Face it
gang, copyright as we have traditionally known it is dead, and while
there are some drawbacks, the gains and advantages far, far outweigh
the negatives.

So you're just going to ignore the copyright laws and do whatever you want to do?

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

almari · Mar 11, 2009

Roscolo said:
almari said:

Almost all of the reporting services allow anonymous posting of music
piracy.

And if you are legal - you simply produce the written permission that
you obtained from the artist and the matter is over. If you are in
copyright violation than there is just cause for the piracy report to
be made and you would have no case to sue the person who reported the
piracy.

And that piracy report does not name any person - it names the
website that has possibly violated the copyright laws.

Click to expand...

And none of that means a hill of beans in court. Those are the
intimidation methods RIAA uses to threaten people for money. Kinda
like mafioso asking for money for "protection."

Nope. All that person has to do is refuse correspondence and have his
day in court, where, again, you have to PROVE YOUR CASE. No threats,
no racketeering, no "anonymous" accusations...you gotta prove it in a
court of law, bud, and try as you and the RIAA might, you gotta have
a case, and you gotta PROVE it.

Just more of your "respect" for other artists - in this case musicians.

You total lack of respect for musicians and their rights is disgusting coming from a photographer.

Roscolo said:
intimidation methods RIAA

No - they are following the letter of the federal copyright law. You should read it sometime:

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

Roscolo said:
...All that person has to do is refuse correspondence and have his
day in court, where, again, you have to PROVE YOUR CASE....

Enjoy paying your legal fees and very possibly the damage to your reputation in your community just because of the charge.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

Roscolo · Mar 11, 2009

almari said:
So you're just going to ignore the copyright laws and do whatever you
want to do?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but billions of people doing exactly that have effectively redefined copyright. Again, there are some drawbacks and losers (RIAA, ASCAP, MPAA), but the new opportunities far, far outweigh the few drawbacks. Some people want us to go back to buying celluloid disks and putting 'em on the Victrola. Guess what? Ain't happening!

Better to adapt to new means of communication rather than being grumpy old grampa wanting to turn back the clock to the "good old days." Looks like RIAA and MPAA are finally getting the message, albeit too late to save much of their industry while they wasted money pursuing "copyright." That's time that should have been spent adapting to new models, creating new models.

So, no, I'm not going to outright ignore copyright, but I am going to adapt to new models and new technology instead of mucking around trying to turn back the clock. The genie is out of the bottle. I talked to him. He says he ain't going back in - no way, no how!

Roscolo · Mar 11, 2009

almari said:
Just more of your "respect" for other artists - in this case musicians.

LOL! So many of my clients / friends are musicians and THEY hate the RIAA and ASCAP! They must know something you don't - like, thuggery and intimidation is a crappy business model!

almari said:
You total lack of respect for musicians and their rights is
disgusting coming from a photographer

See above!

almari said:
almari said:

intimidation methods RIAA

Click to expand...

No - they are following the letter of the federal copyright law. You
should read it sometime:

I guess that's why RIAA has issued a press release saying they are stopping all their stupid intimidation suits. It has killed the music business faster than all the file sharers, people playing music in their studio, on their website COMBINED!

RIAA has threatened grandma's who don't even know how to use a computer...how could they be violating copyright? Nope, RIAA's dropping of the suits only shows they KNOW they have been guilty of illegal intimidation and threats comparable to the mafia.

almari said:
Enjoy paying your legal fees and very possibly the damage to your
reputation in your community just because of the charge.

I just turned the music up extra loud in my studio. Talk to any real, working musicians lately? I live in a famous music city and I don't know any musician who defends the actions of the RIAA. You're outta touch in more ways than one!

Cheers!

Paul Grupp · Mar 11, 2009

Yes, some musicians violate copyrights. Some police officers and government officials break the law too.

I don't see what that has to do with anything, unless you're an anarchist.

The vast majority of musicians I know try pretty hard to stay legal in terms of copyright. But even if they didn't, it still wouldn't rationalize stealing from them.

almari · Mar 11, 2009

Roscolo said:
LOL! So many of my clients / friends are musicians and THEY hate the
RIAA and ASCAP! They must know something you don't - like, thuggery
and intimidation is a crappy business model!

Amazing how you turn the theft of intellectual property into a rant against the RIAA and ASCAP.

I really don't care at all about the RIAA and ASCAP - but I do care about artists that are having their work stolen by people with attitudes like yours - i.e. since the model of copyrights is out-moded I'll just ignore it.

And you promote that attitude all through this thread!!!!

Good bye - I no longer have the stomach for your attitudes toward other artists.

--
http://www.almariphoto.net

Photographers Stealing Music - Unfair Competition

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts