| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Slideshow music legality
Robert Scheer, Photographer
 |
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 11:07 AM on 09.23.10 |
->> Quick question:
I may produce some slideshows for clients' personal use. Legally, what would be the issues, if any:
1. They give me photos and copyrighted songs they like.
2. I work them up using FCP
3. Burn them a disk for their personal use, family show and tell, that sort of thing.
Thanks in advance! |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:14 AM on 09.23.10 |
->> In theory if the music is used for a public performance then it's a breach of copyright. Is a family show & tell a public performance? You'd probably be able to find a lawyer that would say yes and offer to sue, but at what cost? If they kept it at home they (and you) would probably be okay. If they made copies for all the relatives? Not so much. Realistically you're probably okay.
That in mind the RIAA is billing people $1500 per song for illegal downloads and getting it. |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 11:48 AM on 09.23.10 |
->> OK, lets turn it around:
1. They give me copyrighted photos and songs they performed themselves.
2. I work them up using FCP
3. Burn them a disk for their personal use, family show and tell, that sort of thing.
For 10 points, am I committing a criminal act? |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 12:10 PM on 09.23.10 |
| ->> Maybe, maybe not? If they'd bought the copyrighted photographs, Jim's answer (thank you BTW) should be the same, no? |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 12:13 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> In my original question, I'm assuming the photographs are family snaps, and the music is their own purchased stuff.
I can produce stuff like this in my sleep, and realize that it may be a good freelance opportunity, if truly legit. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 12:39 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> Robert,
It's a touchy area and I'll take the lawyer-like approach that will throw a kink into the argument (I had several close friends go through law school and I still can't figure out lawyer logic which is why this argument may be valid)
For a family producing a slideshow using downloaded music it comes under Fair Use and no violation.
But, if you are assembling this slide show and you are making a profit from it, does that break "fair use" and become a "business usage.?"
I'm sure that is what you are asking and it's a vague area. However, I will shoot this question to a friend who is an expert in copyright. He literally wrote a book on it. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 12:42 PM on 09.23.10 |
| ->> Interesting George, great point! I'll run it by my wife as well, who passed the local bar a few years ago. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 09.23.10 |
| ->> Your wife passed the bar, but you're asking legal advice of photographers? |
|
David Welker, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 2:01 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> Where would making videos of, say, weddings with music purchased by the couple legally. They give the music to you, and you put a slideshow together with said music and photos that you took? Where would that fall in this? The main purpose would fall under fair use, but I am not sure the legality of you making the video falls in that sense.
Sorry if that is somewhat of the same question as Robert's
*If there are any photographers that make videos for weddings on a regular basis, please chime in. How do you handle this?* |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 2:26 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> All you need to do to answer this question is insert the term "copyrighted photos" for "copyrighted music" ...
If you have no qualms with your clients duplicating your images and labeling it "fair use" ... you likely won't have any ethical problem profiting from the intellectual property of others. On the other hand if you are not as forgiving, you may want to license the music you use for slideshows.
I solved this issue by only using royalty free music I have purchased ... sure it may not be the tunes near and dear to the client's heats ... but doing so completely eliminates and doubts as to infringement.
* by the way there are VERY specific guidelines for "Fair USe" ... it is not a carte blanch one-size-fits-all exemtion to avoid copyright infringement issues or liability ....
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html |
|
David Welker, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 2:40 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> Butch,
Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it. I never really knew where music fit into that whole situation. I had been asked recently to shoot video for a wedding and if I do, I wanted to know where I needed to fall with this.
Again, thanks. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 3:30 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> @Jeremy: Easssssy fella, just getting opinions and resources, like Butch's link above.
From my wife, who's a law school grad, but does not currently practice:
"Yeah, I'm afraid it's probably illegal. The RIAA has such a stranglehold on music. I would ask somebody who does a lot of wedding videography, because surely this is an essential question. The stuff I'm seeing online indicates it probably IS illegal, and while plenty of people still do it, the RIAA is getting more aggressive with hunting down violators. Sucks, but I'd ask a fellow professional for advice ...
You can get a "sync license" for $3.50-$5 per song for a lot of music, but who wants to bother with that?" |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 4:07 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> It's illegal to use copyrighted stuff without permission. Even for your own use, if it's not your own, you might be violating exclusivity agreements with licensees, etc. You should know this already.
For a lot of popular artists check here: http://www.bmi.com/licensing/
And here: http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/
You can also contact the artist directly; a lot of small artists are more than happy to just get the publicity.
It ends up not being very expensive at all. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 09.23.10 |
| ->> Sorry Robert. |
|
Daniel Malmberg, Photographer
|
Huskvarna | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 6:44 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> It doesn't need to be expensive to license music.
I just did a "slideshow" for use on Youtube to promote my own business.
Of course i wanted to license the music.
After some search on Google i found this, quite cheap way to do things the right way:
http://www.stockmusicsite.com/
(If anybody is interested in the "slideshow, it's found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=176d_tZ12qg ). |
|
Brad Moore, Photographer, Assistant
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 8:09 PM on 09.23.10 |
| ->> Why not just attach a hold harmless clause to the contract...whereby the client assumes responsibility to obtain any necessary licensing for the presentation? |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 8:32 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> John ... because licensing must be acquired before the resulting works are produced ... while you technically can negotiate licensing after the fact ... you are at the mercy of the copyright holder if they want to grant the license ... or sue for infringement ... you can't be held harmless if you knowingly infringe the works beforehand .... at least if someone stole my images, profited from their use, THEN asked for permission to use them ... I would be deeply upset and would hold ALL parties involved responsible regardless of whatever contract they had with each other ... they didn't have a contract with me ...
This is really simple ... we as photographers must honor the intellectual property rights of ALL artists... if we want society to respect OUR copyrights we need to hold ALL copyrights as sacred... and not ignore stepping over the line when it may be convenient to do so ... |
|
Keith Tharp, Photographer
|
Londonderry | NH | usa | Posted: 8:40 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> Fair use doesn't necessarily cover you for personal use, and it definitely doesn't cover the OP, regardless of whether they are using it for personal use, you are profiting on it and that would make it comercial use and technically speaking illegal. Of course, I'm not a lawyer though.
There is lots of great RF and Creative Commons stuff that you can use though without the worries.
Jamendo.com has a lot of great stuff, along with some not so great, but much of it can be used in your suggested fashion legally for free. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 9:05 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> Butch, your interpretation would bring commerce to a stand still. I also think you're factoring that the OP is obtaining the material on his own, not that he's simply compiling content provided to him by the contracting client... It's unlikely that Queen sued all the workers at the studio the night Vanilla Ice cut his Ice Ice Baby track.
This is a pretty common clause used under such situations...
XXX gives no rights and makes no warranties with regard to the use of people, names, trademarks, logos, registered, unregistered or copyrighted designs or works of art depicted in any Content. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, no model, property, team logo, trademark or other releases are delivered by XXX in connection with the delivery of Content. Licensee bears the responsibility of obtaining all necessary individual, property, team logo, trademark and other releases, approvals and clearances from third parties prior to using the Content. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 9:14 PM on 09.23.10 |
| ->> John ... I think the key wording you are presenting in your example is ... "Licensee bears the responsibility of obtaining all necessary individual, property, team logo, trademark and other releases, approvals and clearances from third parties PRIOR to using the Content." |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 9:33 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> Absolutely...
without delving into "merchant" or "sophistication of the parties," If someone gives you a handful of widgets and hires you to create a pleasing arrangement with them, you simply need a good faith belief that he is allowed to have an arranged handful of widgets.
...This particular issue isn't about copyright, it's a matter of respondeat superior or contributory infringement, depending upon the evolution of the chain of commerce. |
|
Randy Sartin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Knoxville | TN | USA | Posted: 10:44 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> Israel makes a great point, and Triple Scoop is the bomb.
But what Butch says, "All you need to do to answer this question is insert the term "copyrighted photos" for "copyrighted music"" really hits home with me. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 11:07 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> Regardless of how you feel about the issue, if a lawsuit were ever to arise from the use of the content you produced with copyrighted materials, you'd get sued along with the people who hired you. It would then be up to your attorney to defend you - an attorney who gets paid whether you win or lose.
It's not on the level of "receiving stolen property", but it's in the ballpark. You know the material is copyrighted. You know it's a grey area. You know there is some question as to the legitimacy of what you're doing. You've said as much when you started the thread.
But the real dumb part is you've just posted to the world using your own name that you're wondering about the issue - a conversation that will show up on search results for years to come. Even a lawyer fresh out of school could easily build that into "knowingly and willingly" if you ever wound up in court.
At this point the smart thing to do would be to back away from the grey and find something else to do for clients. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 11:51 PM on 09.23.10 |
->> John - You're the attorney, not me, but I'm just not buying the notion that all one needs is a hold harmless. I certainly am not willing to bet my house on it.
1) A professional photographer, especially on who is a member of a site where the topic of licensing and copyright infringement is frequently discussed, claiming a reasonable belief that the client owned such rights just does not seem reasonable - absent proof of licensing. Try going to wal-mart and simply claiming that you have the right to reproduce an image. My daughter was refused at the photo-desk when trying to print off her pre-prom pictures until she showed up with a copyright release signed by me. If all that was needed was a hold harmless signed by the customer claiming they owned the rights, why would they risk pissing off their customers by requiring a proper release signed by the photographer?
2) Such an agreement won't keep you from getting sued for infringement - will it? It simply gives you an avenue to sue for compensation. So once you're sued into bankruptcy - you can hope to sue the client to get your money back? Not exactly the plan I want to take.
3) Are you really arguing that properly licensing intellectual property, rather than knowingly violating copyrights and hoping to negotiate licensing later would bring commerce to a halt? Really? How about this - properly licensing material, obtaining required permits and otherwise adhering to the law actually facilitates commerce as it provides for the orderly transaction of business, without the disruptions caused by litigation. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 12:11 AM on 09.24.10 |
->> No dummies here, and you're 100% right David, I'm absolutely opening myself up if I ever do something like this. Nothing to back away from, as I'm 100% free and clear with my past work, so had no regrets posting this thread. When I do slideshow pieces professionally or otherwise, I use music I have the rights to (local musician friends), or I make my own music in Soundtrack.
I do have some colleagues who have done projects like this in the past for clients, and I have toyed with doing it myself, so I put up the thread. I'd just been trying to envision a scenario where I could legally (and cheaply) produce a slide show of Skip and Buffy's Senior Prom set to their favorite Lady Gaga and Usher tunes. A tall order, especially given that Skip and Buffy would probably slap it on Youtube before I'd pull out of the driveway. Luckily, and thankfully, I'm employed, so I don't need the extra gray-area cash to put food on the table.
It's a topic worth discussing, as I know it's applicable to what some of us do/have done/will do, whether it's been made public or not.
Peace and thanks for the thoughtful comments! |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 12:52 AM on 09.24.10 |
| ->> Both Lady Gaga and Usher are represented by BMI. It's cheap... Just get a license. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 10:03 AM on 09.24.10 |
->> Mark I agree with you, and what I think often gets lost on this board is the delineation between reality and academia. I would be confident making the argument that the OP is not liable... However, I would never do it myself . Not because I don't believe my argument, but because I'd be forced to wage a war of attrition if someone called me out...and it's not worth the headache.
I attended a IP cle at WVU before a game last year, and this is clearly an area where professors' interpretations collide with judges' application. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|