Media Player Visualizer Copyrights

Alvin Smith wrote on 5/25/2010, 7:20 AM
Hi ... thankyou for your endurance,

Problem: Wish to understand any legal copyrights (nature & status) of Microsoft Media Player's "Visualizer" video output, for the purpose of adding a visual element to YouTube audio presentations (private, "not for profit", musical audio programs).

Discussion: I wish to capture/acquire a full-screen image (either directly or by "shooting the screen during playback") ...
I have noticed many YouTube Audio presentations, which use a static "title screen" ... I would prefer to use something more visually interesting, as a visual backdrop, for personally composed and mastered "songs".
This media Player feature is much like the DAZZLE screensaver, of old ... just generates a random battery of synthesized, animated, geometric visual patterns, based on some audio wave-form analysis algorythm.

Solution/Conclusion: So, is this a grey area of legality or, "cut-n-dry" (with precedents) ??

I am also aware that there are commercially available libraries (on DVD?) of animated backdrops, for keying your videos over ... There used to be several popular titles, in SD aspect/resolution ... have these evolved for HD/wide ?

Titles? ,,, Links ? ... Methods for generating such on "no budget". ???

PS: I also wonder if I, as an aspiring commercial DJ would likely "get away with" projecting this same "visualizer" random content onto a large projection screen, during commercial (local event) DJ (Paid gigs with public access).

I hope this topic is within the scope of this forum, as it might be a handy tool for many projects (for all of us). Wishful thinking?

= Alvin =

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 5/25/2010, 7:32 AM
I suspect you'll not get much cooperation from Microsoft on this, although it does no harm to ask.

I do know that [u]many DJs, live concerts, and even some music videos use Milkdrop output from Winamp. I have seen each at one time or another. Whether each of these instances mandates a licensure agreement or not is unknown to me, and something you absolutely would need to find out before uploading or displaying anything.

You need to get this notion of "commercial" or "noncommercial" use out of your head. It makes absolutely no difference if you are working in the US. The definition of copyright is perfectly clear:

"" . . . a series of exclusive rights granted to the author [which] include the right to prohibit others from reproducing (copying), adapting (making derivative works), distributing, publicly performing, or publicly displaying the work.."

As far as your other question, yes there are many video background packages and even commercial software vis generators for DJs available. Google is your friend.

Alvin Smith wrote on 5/25/2010, 7:50 AM
Thanks for the response ... I have already speculated, as much ... Your advice is too general and is not based on knowledge ... just "wise conjecture" ... Done that ...

... As far as Google being my friend? ... knew that, too, ... Asked here because I want to know which products are most popular and maybe learn which ones are worth it, or not.

The "notion of commercial or non-commercial" (i.e. profit/non) certainly DOES come into play, as does venue, estimated audience, fore-knowledge of "wrongdoing" and "local vs. national" broadcast.

Awards are based on calculations of "harm done" or "profit gained".

Does anyone have ANSWERS and have used HD backdrops libraries ... Wasn't there something called "Jump-Backs" ?

= Alvin =

.
richard-courtney wrote on 5/25/2010, 8:02 AM
The visualizer was included in Microsoft's .NET and Visual C or Visual Basic
development software. Possibly the DirectX SDK. It has been years since I even
opened a book. Neat stuff and yes it looks at peaks and can tied into frequency
so it follows with the audio.

I'll look but perhaps someone else can code you a program or lead to one.
farss wrote on 5/25/2010, 8:26 AM
There's heaps of libraries of animated backdrops from Digital Juice, Artbeats, Pond5 etc, etc.
Artbeats are currently giving away a freeby per day although most are stock footage rather than looping backgrounds but sign up and I'm certain you'll eventually strike something.
Pond5 give away a clip per week.They also pretty much "give away" a whole collection of footage and backgrounds for nothing more than the cost of delivery.

As for the copyright for anything created by Winamp etc I fail to see how it could be. The software itself is obviously copyright. What it creates based on your input is copyright to you, the creator.

Bob.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 5/25/2010, 9:18 AM
I'm pretty sure it's the visualization itself that you'd need to worry about, not using media player. If media player itself were the case then every person who plays a video on a projector via media player would be in hot water, but they're not.
musicvid10 wrote on 5/25/2010, 9:21 AM
"Your advice is too general and is not based on knowledge"

Then maybe you should consult an attorney specializing in intellectual property rights.
No, I'm loath to give you specific advice because I'm not entitled to do so, nor would anyone else in their right mind attempt to do so in a public forum.
That in no way makes anything I said conjecture, nor is it based on anything but experience.

I "thought" that my forty years in live performance and stage production, and related memberships in professional organizations, might provide a little "general" insight. Although falling on deaf ears in this case, the lesson I've taken is that it's better to be safe than sorry, even if taking the precautions means a bit of overkill.

Since it seems you may be intent on delivering the content and taking your chances on whatever collateral issues may come later, then I agree, your amount of commercial involvement (gain) might weigh on the degree of any potential damages.

However, as a director for a registered non-profit for many years, I am reasonably certain that our non-commercial status, as well as any of the other conjectures you offered, do not isolate the corporation pre-emptively from the application of copyright ownerships where they exist. If you "really" have any 501c experience, then you should know this. But if you are just here seeking validation for a different point of view, then you are entirely welcome to test your theories, and I agree, my "general" thoughts are of little or no value to you.

"fore-knowledge of "wrongdoing" ? Where did you get that?

For anyone else, my "general" advice has always been the same:
Just ask permission. The worst they can do is say 'no'.

rs170a wrote on 5/25/2010, 9:47 AM
MovieTools is another source for free looping backgrounds in a wide variety of styles.

Mike
Alvin Smith wrote on 5/25/2010, 11:32 AM
Thanks so much ... ALL of you.

I, also, have been a producer, for many years and, I have even sat on panels, for copyright issues on local broadcast ... That 1 hr program ran in any dead slot the cable station had, for like ten years. Thank god my hair turned grey because, for the longest time, people would come up to me on the street and say, "I saw you on TV!" ... And I was like ... "YES you DID!".

I *DO* think, in my case, that it might be best to "beg for forgiveness" than to "ask for permission". How many individual YouToobers have posted copyrighted content?? ... What happened to them ... They were instructed to take the content down, or, it was taken down for them.

Even in the sw industry, where the very "look and feel" of a screen may be copyrighted ... I gotta side with Bob, here.

If I wrote the song ... Then ... Any output from Winamp Visualizer (or it's code) would be entirely unique. .. In fact, I seriously doubt that the same exact content would ever generate the same output, twice in a row. In full screen mode, no menues, logos, or other "aspects of layout" are visible.

I am sure that MS might WANT to claim rights but, on what grounds?
... It *might* fall under the category of "process", but that would be Patent Law .... Hmmmmm.

What to do? ... I might just try a 15 second "video" upload and leave that up, for awhile.

Funny thing is, that I have never seen anyone else attempt it (AFAIK).

= Alvin =


farss wrote on 5/25/2010, 3:48 PM
I have uploaded two videos to Youtube that contain copyright music on behalf of my client who has used them in public perfrormances.
Youtube detected the owners of both pieces, the last one BMG, Youtube notified me of this via email, simply to inform me that I needed to take no action and neither would they as they had an arrangement with the copyright owners. So anyone watching the video now gets an offer to purchase the music from iTunes. Sanity prevails.

As for the general question of copyright, I'm still amazed at the number of people who don't understand it. It's not that hard to get a grasp of at least the basic principles without paying a lawyer. Clearly in complex matters one is well advised to seek legal assistance and from someone competant in the field.
Our right to use software exists under a grant of licence from the copyright owner. In general the licence will permit you to use the software for any purpose. It may of course exclude certain uses e.g. academic licences do not permit use for commercial purposes. The licence to use Vegas could, in theory at least, exclude you using it to create pornography. Breach of that condition is not a copyright issue, it's a breach of contract and terms of contract are subject to a considerable number of legal tests. Your status as a NPO may or may not have bearing on the rights granted to you by Microsoft. Certainly nothing created by any tool, software or otherwise can be copyright to anyone other then the creator. Such a notion is absurd in many ways. Software cannot own copyright.

Bob.
Alvin Smith wrote on 5/25/2010, 4:01 PM
That whole NPO thing was a misinterpretation of my meaning, by the first responder, on this thread.

What I meant was (regardless of the producer auspices) that the amount of financial (tangible) "gain" acheived by leveraging the "subject content" does bear upon the magnitude of the infraction, and any awards.

I can't sell Cheetos with a Poster of MJ hanging behind me, for instance ... His estate might use that as a basis for a claim against any profits (above trend) that exploiting MJ's image might have promoted.

So ... Some kid dancing to the BatMan theme, in his pajamas, on public access cable broadcast, would have a commensurately more limited liability. (nor does this damage or significantly cheapen the value of the property).

Additionally, if the sound-track is a pristine digital (ripped) copy, versus a very poor recording of his room, where the music was playing on his clock-radio, ... the usefullness of the quality ... also is "factored".

= Al =
musicvid10 wrote on 5/25/2010, 7:41 PM
What I meant was (regardless of the producer auspices) that the amount of financial (tangible) "gain" acheived by leveraging the "subject content" does bear upon the magnitude of the infraction, and any awards.

So, you are really not questioning whether you are liable or not based on intent or financial gain from the use of the content, but how much you will get dinged when someone taps you on the shoulder. I see . . .

I too, have uploaded clips of licensed performances. I at least called the pub and got a verbal before doing so. Believe it or not, there are some who actually like the exposure, especially if it's a popular clip. There are certain pubs I don't call (and don't post) because I know what there response will be. If everyone treated it more like business and less like a game, we wouldn't have threads like this.

Since many of the forum members here are professional producers, artists, and developers who derive a significant portion of their income from selling and licensing copyrighted content and collecting residuals, I again question if you are here seeking validation or enabling for your POV, or merely playing devil's advocate?

But I think I just answered my own question. Really Alvin, 30 posts in one day?? That's got to be close to a record. Is it just boredom, or something else that's got you?
Alvin Smith wrote on 5/25/2010, 8:07 PM
Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way ... Gosh ... You must REALLY hate me to be counting my posts and issuing spankings.

... Get over it, big fella ... Your original response was useless and pajorative, just as your tone is now ... like some stern parent who wants to warn and to punish.

... Anything positive or useful, to say? ... helpful? ... constructive ?

... Or.. Just waiting around to poo-poo the next OP who's views ansd opinions are not as conservative, as your own?

I was very polite and thankful, to you, initailly ... I think if you read ALL opinions, here, yours is the most extreme, by far, and the least founded in any sort of fact or precedent.

= Eat my shorts ... tough guy =
musicvid10 wrote on 5/25/2010, 8:10 PM
I'll let the immaturity of that rant speak for itself.
I suspected that's what you were about.

"pajoritive"?
cya
Alvin Smith wrote on 5/25/2010, 8:16 PM
Such a tender ego !

Sad thing is that, you prolly DO know something that I don't and, one fine day, I may need you and you won't be there.

I was hoping to patch up any misunderstandings, in future but ... meh.

YOU are the one who decided to get all advesarial.

Here come Da Judge !!

= Alvin = (I am still open to more positive relations, on some better day)
musicvid10 wrote on 5/25/2010, 8:24 PM
Fair enough. Maybe this would make a good common starting point for us.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/corporate/terms#forum
Alvin Smith wrote on 5/25/2010, 8:48 PM
agreed ... not out of the realm of possibility that we may one day be on the same side of an issue.

I have come to respect and to learn much even from those folks who's philosophies and opinions that I consistently hate ... one guy comes to mind ... we STILL clash a LOT but he is a pretty funny guy and we sometimes play-it-up, for the kiddies.

= Al =
BudWzr wrote on 5/25/2010, 10:15 PM
Why not whip up your own visualizations with Vegas?

Hahaha, that stuff you're talking about marks your production as MickeyMouse, everyone's seen that stuff a zillion times.

For inspiration, check out sites like http://www.youtube.com/user/djdownloadmix, or search for ibiza deejays on YouTube.
farss wrote on 5/26/2010, 6:09 AM
"That said, in the matter of copyrights; if you did not create it from scratch yourself, then you do not own it. "

So any work we use Vegas to create belongs to Sony, not us?

Bob.
Spot|DSE wrote on 5/26/2010, 6:50 AM
Alvin,
Musicvid gave you a very general, but very accurate answer.
If you want to discuss at the level you took it, there are thousands of videos of the Microsoft visualizations. If they haven't attempted to protect from those, then they cannot attempt to protect from yours.
Pretty simple, really.

What I meant was (regardless of the producer auspices) that the amount of financial (tangible) "gain" acheived by leveraging the "subject content" does bear upon the magnitude of the infraction, and any awards. I can't sell Cheetos with a Poster of MJ hanging behind me, for instance ... His estate might use that as a basis for a claim against any profits (above trend) that exploiting MJ's image might have promoted. So ... Some kid dancing to the BatMan theme, in his pajamas, on public access cable broadcast, would have a commensurately more limited liability. (nor does this damage or significantly cheapen the value of the property). Additionally, if the sound-track is a pristine digital (ripped) copy, versus a very poor recording of his room, where the music was playing on his clock-radio, ... the usefullness of the quality ... also is "factored".
I'd suggest there is a lot you don't quite understand about copyright, because much of what you wrote in this paragraph is very in accurate.
You're confusing damages with violation, and they are two very distinct and different things. A violation is a violation. Period. Damages are how much someone may be compensated for violation. A violation without damages is still a violation.
I'm not an attorney either. I just play one on the Internet. ;-)
BudWzr wrote on 5/26/2010, 6:56 AM
Hahaha, too funny.

===============================
"pajoritive"?
cya
musicvid10 wrote on 5/26/2010, 7:39 AM
... Anything positive or useful, to say? ... helpful? ... constructive ?

In addition to what I've already said?

Well, yes I do. I did a little research on my own this morning because I love Milkdrop. The author not only encourages its use by VJ's, he even has a special mode for them. I've seen it a lot at clubs and small concert venues. He also encourages screen recording, even provides tips for doing so. So there you have it. No M$, no EULA, no restrictions, no branding, and no contention.

Searching 'milkdrop' on YouTube brought up 1,532 hits. Everything from trance/house remixes (one has 337,000 hits!) to tech tuts on how to set it up for live venues and recording. WMP Vis is, and always has been a joke compared to Milkdrop (that's an opinion).

BTW, thanks to two real pros, John Cline and Douglas Spotted Eagle for signing in on this discussion. My tendency of erring on the side of caution has rarely been met with such a, shall we say, pejorative response.

Now, to put on my tie-dyed shirt, fire up Milkdrop, and trip out on some acid jazz . . .
(Probably looks pretty silly at my age, kinda like Dave Crosby before breakfast . . .)
farss wrote on 5/26/2010, 2:30 PM
"The author not only encourages its use by VJ's, he even has a special mode for them. I've seen it a lot at clubs and small concert venues. He also encourages screen recording, even provides tips for doing so. So there you have it. No M$, no EULA, no restrictions, no branding, and no contention. "

None of which has anything to do with the question of copyright.

SCS encourages all of us to use Vegas. That in absolutely no way alters it being copyright to SCS.
Milkdrop and Vegas are copyright of their authors as are the M$ Visualizations unless they specifically place the software into the public domain.
None of the above has anything at all to do with who owns the copyright of works created by someone using the software.
Both yourself and the two other "pros" have shown a remarkable lack of understanding of the basic foundations of copyright. Either that or again they failed to read the original post carefully. I could probably dig up a couple of old posts by Spot where he pretty carefully explains what copyright is and why it has nothing to do with the matter being discussed here.

Bob.
farss wrote on 5/26/2010, 3:35 PM
"If I created it, you may not use it without my permission. "

That's entirely correct of course. SCS licence Vegas for us to use and we may use it in any way unless excluded by the licence.

The exact same applies to Microsoft's Vizualisations. So long as you have a licence to use them then the animated patterns that you create by feeding your music into them are copyright to you, you may do with them as you please so long as the licence does not explicitly exclude you from using the software to do so.

Bob.
musicvid10 wrote on 5/26/2010, 3:51 PM
Bob, Could it be that there are some differences in copyright law (and application) between Australia and the US?

Here are two quotes from the Milkdrop documentation which bears Nullsoft's copyright notice:MILKDROP 2.0d (January 2008)that someone distributing free software containing this plugin would freely provide means and tips for this kind of usage and then claim restrictions on the same usage they encouraged.

That being said, if I was going to use Milkdrop in a show or video, I would still ask, and I would get written permission if performing in a licensed venue (which is usually the case), just because I am aware of details. That represents no departure whatsoever from my original statement. Splitting hairs and and asking permission to use the software, or the output, or both makes absolutely no difference. Either they say yes or no.