DONT DO IT !!!!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14986508
Why not so much with musicians? I don't see a difference. Please explain, as I am interested to see why you think "not so much" with musicians, as compared to photographers.

You see, Tom, where this thread has gone? That's why I made the comment of post #4.

As soon as you compare photographers to musicians, the thread turns into a "we hate RIAA and Sony" thread, and whatever there might have been said about copyright with regard to photography gets lost.

It would probably make more sense to compare photography with other graphic artists or with writers. The music industry has gone too far in a different direction.

RDKirk wrote in post #14986781
To the extent--which will be pointed out by someone sooner or later in this thread--that it's not really the muscians who benefit by the copyright on their work, but rather the corporations.

If you are referring to ASCAP or BMI then that statement is misleading, musicians or their label retain copyright of their work whereas ASCAP and BMI license the use of that content to be played for commercial purposes and those licensing fees are paid back to the artist or label minus a management fee, this frees up the label or artist to continue the pursuit or marketing and producing more content while ASCAP and BMI handle the collections of license fees and the enforcement of commercial unpaid unlicensed infringement.

Now for the use of content in say a video production neither ASCAP nor BMI can issue a license for that purpose and the producer proposing using such content must gat a license directly from the label or musician who actually retains the copyright.

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #14989459
If you are referring to ASCAP or BMI then that statement is misleading, musicians or their label retain copyright of their work

No, I was referring to the label.

I've seen a hundred of these threads in different photography forums. As I just said to Tom, as soon as someone compares photographers to musicians, the discussion instantly derails to hatred of copyright because of the actions of record companies and facets of the copyright issue that have nothing to do with photographers.

It doesn't seem like anyone can have a sensible discussion about copyright that doesn't involve RIAA...as though record companies were the only entities that are involved with copyrights.

Someone needs to come up with a law. Here is is,

Comparing music to photography is different and here is why. if someone steals your photo you go after them. With the recording industry, they sign on with this group who collects "royalty fees" from companies who may or may not be using protected works, and they strong arm then into doing so. Imagine a photo society approaching every business out there and strongarming them by threat of lawsuit that they need to join x organization because they use photographs in the process of doing business. Oh, and you get a miniscule cut of that action... I can understand such an organization for radio and television, perhaps even a jukebox company for bars. However, with photography it is a different story, and there are stock sites that already exist. nobody forces a company to do business with a stock site by threat of lawsuit.

pwm2 wrote in post #14989300
That is very much depending on how/when/where that recording is made. Fair usage does include recording from radio/TV for later consumption. Even so much so that US professors have been debating the legality of the copyrights on some video disks as blocking the user from making a copy for playing on vacation, in cabin etc.

Facepalm. Seriously, why are you so intent on arguing this? Do you have nothing better to do? I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RECORDING FROM THE RADIO. I AM TALKING ABOUT COPYING CASSETTES, RECORDS, CDS, ETC. What part of this are you not understanding? I've repeatedly clarified this and yet you're still arguing against a point that I've NOT made.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RECORDING FROM THE RADIO.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RECORDING FROM THE RADIO.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RECORDING FROM THE RADIO.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RECORDING FROM THE RADIO.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RECORDING FROM THE RADIO.

You're obviously either not actually bothering to read my posts, are being stubborn for fun, or are genuinely not understanding what I'm saying due to some kind of linguistic barrier, although I find that unlikely as your English seems perfectly fine to me.

I'm just going to ignore your posts from now on, because I've wasted enough time with you.

mikeinctown wrote in post #14989912
Comparing music to photography is different and here is why. if someone steals your photo you go after them. With the recording industry, they sign on with this group who collects "royalty fees" from companies who may or may not be using protected works, and they strong arm then into doing so. Imagine a photo society approaching every business out there and strongarming them by threat of lawsuit that they need to join x organization because they use photographs in the process of doing business. Oh, and you get a miniscule cut of that action... I can understand such an organization for radio and television, perhaps even a jukebox company for bars. However, with photography it is a different story, and there are stock sites that already exist. nobody forces a company to do business with a stock site by threat of lawsuit.

You're obfuscating the point. This isn't about ramifications or consequences of being caught and who ends up making any demands as a result, it's about the principle of it.

- A photographer is the author of their work
- A musician is the author of their work
- Using a photo on a website without permission from the photographer is unethical
- Using music on a website without permission from the musician is unethical

Honestly, anyone arguing against this and using the tediously predictable "RECORD COMPANIES ARE EVIL!!!11" argument is being hypocritical. You can't get up in arms over unauthorised use of photography while trying to excuse the unauthorised use of music. They both boil down, in principle, to exactly the same thing. This isn't about record companies or lawsuits or strong arm tactics, it's about the simple principle of using a creative work without permission from the owner.

It's not about the record companies being evil or not, nor is it about who owns the work. I was pointing out that the music industry is using a group to strongarm people/companies to join to collect royalties, even if said company isn't using music that is part of the collection.

As photographers, if you use someone's work, you deal with them. if you use a stock photo, you sign up with the company and pay for the use. there is no company going from business to business demanding ou sign up for their service because you use photographs in the course of your business ventures.

onona wrote in post #14990003
Facepalm. Seriously, why are you so intent on arguing this? Do you have nothing better to do? I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RECORDING FROM THE RADIO. I AM TALKING ABOUT COPYING CASSETTES, RECORDS, CDS, ETC. What part of this are you not understanding? I've repeatedly clarified this and yet you're still arguing against a point that I've NOT made.

The part where you assume I am talking about duplicating cassettes when I specifically say I'm not. You are the one who introduces "copying cassettes" to a post I made that contained "recording".

And who continue to burp about duplication and broadcast when I have already told you my post related to the right to make own recordings from radio/TV for own, private use.

This thread of debate is specifically about you jumping in on a post I made that wasn't involving you. But where you decided that I must mean duplicating CD:s etc.

So why the hell do you then say I am wrong when I never talked about anything else than fair use rights regarding radio/TV? You are trying to kick in a door that no one have locked. You are trying to explain how I am wrong about an argument I have never claimed.

So turn hat repeated shouting back into:
OOPS, I ONONA HAVE CONTINUOUSLY DISAGREED WITH SOMETHING THE OTHER SIDE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED.

OOPS, I ONONA HAVE CONTINUOUSLY DISAGREED WITH SOMETHING THE OTHER SIDE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED.

OOPS, I ONONA HAVE CONTINUOUSLY DISAGREED WITH SOMETHING THE OTHER SIDE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED.

OOPS, I ONONA HAVE CONTINUOUSLY DISAGREED WITH SOMETHING THE OTHER SIDE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED.

Yes, that is a serious facepalm. The twohanded kind.

Did you notice that I did make _two_ posts. One with a quote from one of your posts. One with a quote from another persons post. And you are taking arguments from the post that was not relating to you and applying it as if I made them for your post. Then you are complaining that I am not bothering to read your posts.

That's what happens when you don't check if you have a case to argue about before starting...

mikeinctown wrote in post #14990046
It's not about the record companies being evil or not, nor is it about who owns the work. I was pointing out that the music industry is using a group to strongarm people/companies to join to collect royalties, even if said company isn't using music that is part of the collection.

And there’s something wrong with that?

Well then maybe it's time for photographers to pool together the same manner instead the whack-a-mole chasing infringements one at a time, with licensing handled by one or two well known agencies of which photographers could become members for a small fee an infringer would be left with little excuse to claim they could not after a “diligent search” locate the photographer to obtain a license from and the photographer would have the experienced legal department of the agency to go after infringers freeing up the photographers time to do (you guessed it) photography instead of chasing down infringers one at a time.

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #14990143
And there’s something wrong with that?


Well then maybe it's time for photographers to pool together the same manner instead the whack-a-mole chasing infringements one at a time, with licensing handled by one or two well known agencies of which photographers could become members for a small fee an infringer would be left with little excuse to claim they could not after a “diligent search” locate the photographer to obtain a license from and the photographer would have the experienced legal department of the agency to go after infringers freeing up the photographers time to do (you guessed it) photography instead of chasing down infringers one at a time.

Wayne

Might sound good. But would only be good for the big image agencies. Most photographers have a very small business. How many have a big staff to keep everything flowing and make many millions every year from their photography?

The model used by the music industry is definitely not working so well for the smaller artists. There are always problems when small companies/organization​s gets represented by huge companies/organization​s. And when that huge organization have both tiny clients and huge clients.

Too much here for me to read through but I just wanted to let you all know that I HATE websites that play music. Seriously it does not help your site in any way. Its just cheesy....

Kronie wrote in post #14990223
Too much here for me to read through but I just wanted to let you all know that I HATE websites that play music. Seriously it does not help your site in any way. Its just cheesy....

I actually feel the same way. I always mute music on websites.

Kronie wrote in post #14990223
Too much here for me to read through but I just wanted to let you all know that I HATE websites that play music. Seriously it does not help your site in any way. Its just cheesy....

That is a quite common view. Nothing wrong with sites with music - if they have a button to let the visitor manually decide to play that music. And the majority will avoid it.

Kronie wrote in post #14990223
Too much here for me to read through but I just wanted to let you all know that I HATE websites that play music. Seriously it does not help your site in any way. Its just cheesy....

It worked for Hampsterdance

Nature Nut wrote in post #14990309
It worked for Hampsterdance

And Badger..Badger..Badger​..Snake.