Jim,

Thanks for your critique, I really appreciate your feedback.

Regarding copyight, I really did not want this thread to start another sync license/copyright debate. Yes i am aware of the copyright issue here. Yes I want any artist to get credit for their creation. Yes I am frustrated that the music industry has not created any unified system to clear music at an affordable cost for mico published video created for personal use. So I continue to make custom $200-$300 video so Bill and Judith can commemorate their 30th wedding anniversary at home with their children. Sorry if I sound like a smart ass but it gets discouraging when your creative process gets 1 line of comment and 14 lines of copyright lecture.

BTW, I purchase or create RF music for all business/commercial work.

jack

The montage, not to shabby.

The music ... someone should have to pay me for having had to listen to it.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

*chuckles*

the song was not my choice. I must admit It is a better choice than just about any Faith Hill song. Those drive me nuts.

jack

Ok, Music aside, it was still good. Nice work!
Jimmy

Nice job William, and a nice service you provide.
I liked the timing, and the judiciuos(sp?) use of the title/overlays.
I stay away from the copyright topic, only to say that this is an example of the type of works, that would truly benefit from some sort of affordable lisc. arangement.
I could go on but the post IS about Williams creative use and applied talent with Vegas.
And I think he has done very well in providing a quality product.

If all you seek is a critique of your work sans copyright lecture, post your work on a video game forum. You are posting to a forum dominated by artists who make their bread-n-butter by selling their work. THEIR work. I'm amazed that you have the unmitigated nerve to get smug with someone who politely reminds you that you are in flagrant violation of copyright laws.
I'm not looking to start a war with anyone but it's just plain wrong for anyone here to overlook the obvious for the sake of avoiding conflict.

Sorry folks if I came off as smug. That's not what was intended. Sleep deprivation and a wife in her final weeks of a pregnancy has made me a bit testy.

I appreciate all feedback.

jack

Jack

I found your work to be truly excellent.

I liked the music, which in my opinion fitted the montage perfectly.

Overall the montage, and tasteful use of Vegas effects gave me a very nice feeling.

Don't let the negative comments distract you from the course you are following.

Well done and keep up the good work!

BrianG

I understand all the copyright issues here. The bottom line yes it's wrong to use copyrighted material without the proper license. I don't want to start a debate here or it's not my intent to offend anyone, but who made all the negative people the Music copyright police? If the music copyright people will make it easy and affordable to get the licenses, I'm sure there wouldn't be any offenses. I'm out! Peace.

That's just my opinion, great work.

MAC

Have the people who are getting the video buy whatever song via CD or better yet download to reduce cost, then add the music that they own to their video. No copywrite problem and no making profit on another's work.

The artist gets the price for selling the song which is all they can expect.

Really, this is not a big deal. It adds, what, 99 cents to a project?

David

" Especially considering that the music is 50% of the project"

Those songs are worth exactly 99 cents because that is what they sell for on the open market. Now if the people who buy the video start charging admission to see the video, then royalties are due to the artist.

Other than that, this is a no brainer. Buy the song, add it to the cost of the video and move on.

The music industry is always trying to make the argument that they deserve more money, but the bottom line is that if a person buys a song, then they can add it to their own personal video, even if another person is paid to make the video.

dab

DaB,

FWIW, I ask all clients to either submitt original CDs or I buy the music on their behalf. I usually buy what I need off iTunes but I have had to purchase whole CDs off of Amazon because the song was not available online. I then give my customer an audio CD fo whatever I downloaded off iTunes along with their 2 DVDs I made for them. I also include a copy of the receipt to prove it was actually purchased. They are a bit puzzeled with this behavior but they appreciate my effort.

However, from what I've read that is not going to get you off the hook. The licencing process is not current with the way media is used today and tomorrow.

Mac,
My dream is to have an iTunes like sync licence clearinghouse online. With the explosion of digital video and use of NLEs, there is going to be a lot of small distribution releases (under 25 discs) out there. It's a revenue stream that needs to be tapped.

jack

"However, from what I've read that is not going to get you off the hook."

I am not your lawyer, but this is not rocket science. If you are paid to take someone elses pictures and someone elses purchased music that you know was purchased specifically for a video, then there is not a problem.

The song has a value, your work has a value. The song is worth 99 cents. You buy it on behalf of the customer and include it with the video. You also give them the backup copy in case the original is damaged.

Any thing that you read to the contrary is music business propaganda.

dab

William,

Nice job. I have just been doing this sort of thing myself. Lots of people giving me slides and junky photos to scan and give the montage treatment. I spend most of my time scanning and cleaning up the photos. Then I run the montage script in Ultimate S and its done in a second. If I have any time left I manually tweak each image or play with them more. Considering the consumer DVD software that is available to do this I don't know how good a business this really is.
The difference is the creative choices you make to bring a uniique style to the work. I liked your photo booth thing and alot of the other creative things you did. (The ooogah shaka oooogah oooogah ooogah will be in my head for the rest of the day ---THANKS ALOT!!!!)

Maybe we can trade some Veg files sometime?

TomE

.DaB said...............If you are paid to take someone elses pictures and someone elses purchased music that you know was purchased specifically for a video, then there is not a problem.



Wrong

"Wrong"

I forgot the music industry must have reps here.

Fair use of CR material is absolutely covered in 1 copy of song sold for 1 video. if the video is not for distribution. Video cannot be distributed, but that is owner of the video's responsibility.

I am all for musicians rights as I also am a musician, however Fair Use statutes almost aways favor the user over the CR holder in personal use cases. The only exception is when the song is being distributed to multiple users without compensating the CR holder.

This is not the case. In general common sense solution applies: 1 song+ 1 video + 1 private end user = no problems. Private use also includes all non-comercial end use.

dB

I know Spot is dry in the throat from this hashed and re-hashed topic but I'd love for him to bang some heads together just one more time.

It's not as simple as 1+1=no problem. You've taken a copyrighted work and created a new work with it. Whether it's purely audio or audio over video it's a new work. The guy putting it together has made a sum of money from the production of that work. He HAS distributed it to the end user. The end user doesn't have to be 20 million people. He used a copyrighted work and distributed it for money. The copyright owner of that work is entitled to compensation.

You say you're a musician and hence you understand. You may play an instrument and by definition be a musician but I don't understand how that gives you a better understanding of the business. Unless of course you are signed with a label which I assume is unlikely. Forgive my assumption if you ARE signed with a label or if you are an attorney practicing in this particular field.

Let's suppose you receive word from your attorney that some videographer makes a practice of using one your hit songs in all his wedding montages. He charges $1,400 per shoot/montage. The montage is a critical component of his package because the music (your music) evokes such powerful emotions from his customers. Out of respect for you, the artist, he insists his customers pay the .99 for the copy of your work which he will use to turn a $1,400 profit. Are you going to try to convince me that this would be acceptable to you? Later that day your attorney sites twelve nationally aired television commercials that also use your music. Now we're talking tens of thousands of dollars. Luckily the twelve advertisers paid the .99 out of respect for you, the artist. You've made $12 in advertising alone! Are you still happy with that?

I'm just as sick of this argument as the next person but I can't sit idle when people complain they're being lectured or try to justify what they're doing. As I said earlier, take it someplace else and you'll have an easier time. Would you hop on the PETA forums and brag about your new fur coat and not expect to be "lectured?" Again, there are many professionals on this forum who give freely of their time and knowledge. Heck, I've seen some finished works offered free-of-charge, yet it seems for some this isn't enough.

Be creative, post your work and express your opinion. Just don't complain when you meet stiff resistance in the face of something so obviously wrong.

Jack,

I viewed several videos on your site. I noticed that you often have the borders of the photos showing (while I always crop all borders and move within the visable image). However, on several you overlayed them on blurred backgrounds. A simple technique, but made for a nice effect.

In addition, I noticed you used frame-by-frame editing on several pieces. I've also used this approach, but you blurred the images--for the 70 year old Montage it worked very well since it appeared to take you back through the years within a dreamy haze. Nice effect.

I won't critique anything that I would have done different, since we all see things we would change a week later anyway. Thank you for sharing these with us. Also, nice to see your business model and website.

Actually, neither of your examples would fall under the Fair Use principles for personal use CR materials. The main problem and the only problem that is happening in this case is that a person is using the music to advertise his business. This is a problem.

However, as far as CR use goes, you could ask me to make you a photo movie and even pay me and there still would not be a problem. as long as I did not use it to advertise my business or sell products or have people pay to hear it.

This is not rocket science.

db

I do one-of-a-kind photo montages like william conifer, butI agree with goshep. I wish there was a buyout service that had pop songs for licensing. I have yet to find a buyout or licensing website that has pop vocal music, and I've looked almost everywhere. There are plenty of instrumental music, but there not of the same quality

If I'm wrong and anyone knows of a service out there that has pop songs, I'd love to know about it and would be willing to pay: $20-$40 to license one song seems reasonable.

"Be creative, post your work and express your opinion. Just don't complain when you meet stiff resistance in the face of something so obviously wrong."

I am not in that business although I do make my own for personal use (not for sale). While having done very well, I still could not make enough pay the rent. If someone can make a living at it that is great. I could not and only do it now for pleasure.

As far as taking someone's private music and using it solely for their video and being paid to do it, this is a no brainer. The problem comes in advertising the business. Quite frankly, with ACID, Jammer and BIAB (plus a great general purpose software synth) very listenable music is only a couple of hours away (less when you get good at it, it is done in corporate music all the time).

The Fair Use rulings almost always side with the public. The only times they don't, it is obvious why. If I dedicate a song from my collection to a video and decide to pay someone for the their effort to do this, this clearly falls under fair use.The person doing the work is no more liable than the studio tech in a movie is liable.

The only problem is in plugging the business, the pieces one uses to advertise with. And even then, people are not stupid. They will bring their own music that they like.

dB

Does Reel to Reel video in NY have licensing for the custom music do you suppose? (I think it's in NY) They do photo slide shows to music, and they just charge a little extra to use a personal song, I wonder if someone like ASCAP let's them do it since it's such a HUGE volume that they do?

Dave