OT - I'm finally posting some of my montage work

Back to post

Comments

JohnnyRoy wrote on 3/11/2005, 4:55 PM
I am not a lawyer either (just a musician and a videographer) and I have tried to stay out of yet another copyright thread but there is just too much disinformation and speculation to ignore it.

> 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.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Buying a CD only gives you the right to LISTEN to that CD. That’s it! You have no further rights to use that music. You don’t have the right to distribute it, you don’t have the right to make derivative works from it, you just have the right to listen to it for your own pleasure.

As soon as you sync audio with video you have to have a sync license. That’s the law. If you do it for your own personal use in your own home, it comes under Fair Use. If you do it and show it at a church group meeting, you are in violation of copyright infringement because you have created a derivative work without a sync license and schedule a performance in a public place without performance rights.

> ...as long as I did not use it to advertise my business or sell products or have people pay to hear it.

No money has to change hands. If you give a copy of the DVD to a member of your church group you are in violation of distributing that music without a license to do so. Check williamconifer’s web site. He is absolutely selling these DVD’s and in violation of copyright laws. This is NOT fair use. You need at least two licenses to do this. One is a sync license from the publisher to sync the music to video and another from the performer of that music to use their performance in the video.

> This is not rocket science.

No but it is the law, which is sometimes harder to understand than rocket science. The reason you need a sync license is so that you don’t take my song and create a derivative work that I don’t approve of. What if I don’t want my music to be used with images depicting racism, pornography, use of tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. I have a right to deny that usage. Buying my CD does not give you that right. These montages are derivative works and have nothing to do with buying CD’s in a store to listen to. There is a big difference.

You can complain that it isn’t fair, and you can complain that it doesn’t make sense, but you can’t call it fair use when money exchanges hands for it between complete strangers as williamconifer is doing. It’s a copyright violation plain and simple. He is making a living using songs that he has no legal right to use.

You can read more about it here.

~jr
goshep wrote on 3/11/2005, 6:11 PM
Thanks JR.

I knew the cavalry would show up eventually.
DaB wrote on 3/11/2005, 8:13 PM
I had a very long post but then deleted it.

The bottom line is that every one of your arguments is full of half truths - every one. This is the typical music industry attempt to define "fair use". Unfortunately the courts give almost all benefits of the doubt to the consumer. You may think that you can control the use of CR materials, but you don't for private use.

The difference between the music industry and the courts is that the music industry wants to define anything that is not specifically allowed by fair use statutes as illegal whereas the courts generally allow what is not strictly prohibited.

dB
BillyBoy wrote on 3/11/2005, 8:34 PM
The cavalry? You mean the same little group ranting and raving over the same threadbare copyright BS in a VIDEO FORUM? The topic has been beaten to death. Nobody is going to change their mind. Everyone knows what's legal, what's not. Everyone knows the absurdity of the curret system and how nuts it is especially under U. S. law. So I'm not commenting again on the law, only commenting on the crybabies that constantly whine over this topic in this INAPPROPRIATE place. Its so childish. Really.
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/11/2005, 9:11 PM
The Fair Use rulings almost always side with the public. The only times they don't, it is obvious why. ....

Cite your examples. Nexis says otherwise, Stanford Law School says otherwise, LOC, Use Copyright Office says otherwise, and the IP community says otherwise, statistics further show otherwise. This has been hashed, rehashed, beaten, broken down, linked to, cited, written about, screamed about, and discussed to death not in just this forum, but in every other video forum from the COW to WEVA.com. Reams of virtual paper have been written on the subject from IP attorneys like Brad Rich and Paul Trauger, and dozens of other attorneys in the biz that have represented both sides of the argument. On the subject of syncing copyrighted music to images, (video or stills) this is a fairly clean cut issue.
DaB, you are incorrect in what you are saying as relates to Fair Use.
Whether anyone would be caught or prosecuted is another issue. No point in regurgitating it further here.

now that I've taken the time to watch the video, rather than only responding to the copyright post... The video is very nicely done if it's what the family wanted, hoped for, and enjoyed. Frankly, what any of us think is inconsequential, because it's for the family's memories, and what we might enjoy vs what they hoped for or want to remember is what counts. For my personal taste, there might be a few too many FX, but again, maybe that's what they wanted. In short, nice work!
Grazie wrote on 3/11/2005, 9:30 PM
There is a shed load of fab Royalty free music out there - good musos have been waking up to the copyright thing now, and have been, creating music JUST for us! Mostly 'cos of this reason. Use it . it is great .. it is very creative and not with a little quality too! [ Be choosey though not ALL is good ] .. . PLUS PLUS PLUS we got ACID . .. it is very very easy to lay a beat and float over some solos of something - honest!

Accept what is there NOW in the law and move on. We all have choices . . . make yours now!

Grazie
DaB wrote on 3/11/2005, 10:54 PM
"DaB, you are incorrect in what you are saying as relates to Fair Use. "

Nice try, but as long as personal use does not compete with sales, it is a fair use of copyrighted materials. This includes personal use for creation of sync with audio and video.

Here is the link to the Stanford Summary of Copyright and Fair Use.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html

You will not find one thing in this document that disagrees with my statement.

Any time you find a statement that limits non-competetive personal use of either music or video for whatever purpose, it is equivalent to the bed manufactureres warning label that says it is against the law to remove the tag from a mattress. Nonsense!

dB
DGates wrote on 3/11/2005, 11:21 PM
Nicely done. I liked about 75% of it. The montage is a tad over-produced.

The photos should tell the story, not the effects. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. I can picture you editing the pictures, thinking, "Hmmm, now what can I put here?" A flare for the sake of a flare, etc.

But I can appreciate the effort you gave it.
JohnnyRoy wrote on 3/12/2005, 5:27 AM
> Nice try, but as long as personal use does not compete with sales, it is a fair use of copyrighted materials. This includes personal use for creation of sync with audio and video.

Yes, yes, yes, no argument here about personal use and fair use. BUT! What williamconifer is doing is NOT personal use. He is selling DVD’s with copyrighted material. This is a business that he charges money for. That was my point. It sounded to me like your post was telling him not to worry and he should worry. He’s advertising DVD’s on the Internet that use copyrighted music for which he has no sync rights to use. That’s clearly illegal.

~jr
Sput wrote on 3/12/2005, 6:42 AM
This is wayyyyy off-topic. You guys need to shut your mouths. He didn't ask to be lectured about copyright laws. You guys spend too much time ranting about copyright laws and not enough time in Vegas actually editing. He knows the laws, the risks, and the potential reprecussions. If you have nothing else to add then zip it.

Now on to my critique- I thought it was good. It was well timed and rythmic. I do agree with DGates about the effects "just becuase you CAN". Thanks for posting...hopefully the riots with torches and pitchforks won't scare you away from posting again. I think it's great that your posting work- more people need to do so. It's nice to see some of the techniques we all gab about actually seen in action.

DaB wrote on 3/12/2005, 8:25 AM
"He’s advertising DVD’s on the Internet that use copyrighted music for which he has no sync rights to use."

This I have, from the very first, said was the only problem with the business model. This does not need to be a problem because with ACID, Jammer and BIAB listenable music is easily produced. The customer will understand to possibilities of using their own music. People are not stupid.

"He is selling DVD’s with copyrighted material."

This is quite simply wrong.

He is selling a service that takes customer private use music and picts and combining them. He is not selling a product as both raw materials are owned by the customer and the end product is owned by the customer and he is not allowed to provide that product to any other customer. This is the definition of a service and not a product.

The only possible caution is that is if he thinks the end product is designed for commercial use. It is not his responsibility (it is the owner's of the product and not the service provider), but I think a clear conscience would refraim from using CR material for commercial use that he knows will never pay the license fee.

"Yes, yes, yes, no argument here about personal use and fair use."

Actually, what I said was opposed to your previous false definition of personal use. You said that valid personal use of music only allows for listening. This is simply incorrect. As long as one abides by the simple golden rule "buy one copy, privately play one copy", I can do whatever I want. I can mangle, rip, alter or sync.

Also, the whole argument of "it is illegal, but the courts would never prosecute" is completely bogus. The courts do not prosecute because it is simply not illegal. It is difficult enough for the courts to prosecute people who are finding new ways to distribute music for free without paying for multiple copies.

Now there is an obvious crime.

dB

PS

Public disclaimer: I am not, nor ever would be his lawyer. These are not legal services rendered. JMHO.



DaB wrote on 3/12/2005, 8:58 AM
As I have not commented on the videos, I would like to make one comment.

I think the videos are slightly "unde"r produced. I have done these for my family and I carefully watch their reactions to pictures that they have seen a thousand times being a little over-produced.

The result is amazing. It is their one chance to be a star and the small bit of over-production is really an important part of the feeling. Putting something out for general consumption makes it look over-produced because the pictures have no meaning to the general audience.

However, to the people the videos are being produced for, the effect is tremendous.

Good work and don't be afraid of a little over-production.

dB
BillyBoy wrote on 3/12/2005, 10:23 AM
I agree. Such "special' projects have more meaning not to the general public or any would be critic, but for the small circle of people that are going to see them that cherish their life's moments, so going a little over the top is not only allowed, but frequently the smart thing to do.

Case in point, this last Thanksgiving I made a special slideshow for my cousin and also restored some 40 and 50 year old photos, then printed them out on glossy paper. She was thrilled. I arrived early and didn't expect her to show any of the restored photos to her dinner guests, I just did them for her. Not only did she want to show them off, she took her favorite, a cute picture of herself when she was a very pretty teen, she stuck it in a fancy picture frame and put in on the piano where everybody entering the dining room would see it.

That's why I consider it almost vulgar for some to jump on somebody simply asking for a critique of what he does and instread get read the riot act. I don't give a crap about the legal issues, this forum isn't the place for that kind of discussion. What matters in this kind of situation is helping sombody enjoy memories more. I further can't think of a single artist who's work that got added "without permission" that no doubt adds greatly to somebody's enjoyment of old restored photos or a special moment like a wedding or anniversary that would get their shorts all in a bunch over such trival bending of copyright "laws" when used thusly.

DaB wrote on 3/12/2005, 11:30 AM
Well said.

I have posted an educational (my education) work of a project for my sister. I am not in the business and bought the music specifically for the project, but you will see that the production was way overboard and she just loved it.

Here is the link to the interim work (requires real player):

http://ImageEvent.com/bloomfamily/movies

BTW, imageevent is a very good price for storing this type of stuff. I used to have the screenblast subscription, which was a great service until thay closed it down. Imageevent is even a little better because of the broader file handling capability.

dB

PS

How did you get the http to show as a clickable link? I cannot find the tool.
BillyBoy wrote on 3/12/2005, 12:07 PM
Another nice slide show. Without the music, it wouldn't be the same or as appreicated as much.

To embed a link you can use simple HTML like below. I left off the beginning and ending brackets < > so the markup and not the link shows. Just add those back; front and end and change the address.

a href="http://www.bb-video.net/" TARGET="_blank">www.bb-video.net</a
goshep wrote on 3/12/2005, 1:35 PM
No one here jumped on anyone. The original suggestion that the work may be in violation of copyright law was met with a little frustration and anger. Subsequently, apologies were offered and seemingly accepted. The thread was shifting from an inflammatory tone to one of understanding and tolerance until the usual suspects showed up. Those who seem to gain some sick satisfaction from fueling the fire and stirring up more anger. Sir, I submit that your fascination with instigation is ripe with vulgarity.
BillyBoy wrote on 3/12/2005, 3:02 PM
Funny commentary goshep, considering who's saying what. Scroll back up and read your own INFLAMATORY words. Never mind, I'll help you out.

First this little tidbit: "If all you seek is a critique of your work sans copyright lecture, post your work on a video game forum."

That implies you get to decide who posts what, where. I don't think so.

Followed by this:

"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."

That implies Spot's view is the only view that matters and everybody else better shut the f... up. We don't want to go down that bumpy road again do we?

And then this:

"Those who seem to gain some sick satisfaction from fueling the fire and stiring up more anger."

Oh? Lets review who actually stired things up. You said all of the following:

1. "If all you seek is a critique of your work sans copyright lecture, post your work on a video game forum."

2. "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."

3. "Thanks JR. I knew the cavalry would show up eventually."

What I always find comical is so many threads get turned into another rant over copyright issues when the original poster started a thread about something totally different as is the case again in this thread and the person wasn't asking for and didn't need another scolding from the same crowd that thinks they have some right to do exactly that anytime they feel like it.

Finally, do I get any satisfaction pointing out the hypocrisy of the guy now pretending to be the victim? Duh, boy do I. LOL!
goshep wrote on 3/12/2005, 3:54 PM
Thanks BillyBoy. Now let me help us both....... [IGNORE]

JohnnyRoy wrote on 3/12/2005, 4:01 PM
> ...and the person wasn't asking for and didn't need another scolding from the same crowd that thinks they have some right to do exactly that anytime they feel like it.

Not sure if you were referring to me but just for the record, I stayed out of the copyright topic until DaB said it was alright to commercially sell DVD’s with copyrighted music synced to video as long as you buy the music CD and give it to the customer. I didn’t want anyone who did not understand the issue to think that all they have to do was buy a music CD and that somehow gave them a Synchronization License. It does not!

So I was trying to clear up a misconception for the benefit of those who don’t follow the issue as close as some.

~jr
BillyBoy wrote on 3/12/2005, 4:42 PM
My comments were to nobody in particular, except for my last post prior to this one. Its interesting that the first reply to the original poster's thread contained another typical don't you know about copyright, blah, blah, blah rant. Everybody would be better served if they stayed on the TOPIC of the thread, especially when we all know how they always end up once copyright raises its ugly head again.

If the original post was asking about copyright issues and the legality of doing X, Y or Z then the door is opened, under those cirmstances the poster is ASKING ABOUT copyright. Here, clearly he wasn't, yet he got lecured and scolded anyway.

Seeing countless threads in this forum that result in copyright rants is what's disruptive to this forum, not the replies to the rants or the posters starting innocent threads asking for opinions about what they did with Vegas. Which gosh damn, is what this forum is suppose to be about.

I have no argument with anybody, but I have in the past and will continue to defend posters that get attacked. That's what happened. Again. Its sad that so many threads either turn into a is too, is not, or somebody needing to lecture on one of their pet peeves. Guess I'm doing that now myself.
riredale wrote on 3/12/2005, 5:06 PM
Ok, guys, points have been made and taken. For the sake of this Board, let's please just let this drop now.

BTW:

"Sir, I submit that your fascination with instigation is ripe with vulgarity."

What a great line. I have GOT to remember it so I can use it some time on somebody. Maybe at a dinner party.
DaB wrote on 3/12/2005, 5:37 PM
"DaB said it was alright to commercially sell DVD’s with copyrighted music synced to video as long as you buy the music CD"

A complete mischaracterization of what I have said.

That's OK, in 3 posts it is easy to see that you specialize in half truths and misrepresentation. For the record I said: customer owns music, customer owns picts, customer pays for service of personal use only combination then there is no problem.

Quite frankly, because of the sweeping rights recognized by the Betamax case in the 80's, personal private "golden rule" use is not even in question.

You have stated that owning a CD only allows a person to only LISTEN to it is the biggest lie in the market. The simple proof is that there would be NO used CD sales in the country if that were true. If you had your way, ther would be no "skip" or "Fast Forward" on a player because that violates the CR laws.

"So I was trying to clear up a misconception"

Is that like military intelligence?

dB
JohnnyRoy wrote on 3/12/2005, 5:38 PM
> the posters starting innocent threads asking for opinions about what they did with Vegas. Which gosh damn, is what this forum is suppose to be about.

I guess I owe an opinion on the photo montage then. ;-)

I loved the title work but I though the photos changed too quickly. I know the web site says MTV-like video and I guess that’s what is delivered. Fast pace, lots of transitions, lots of fast movement. So the bottom line is the video delivers what was promised. I just don’t subscribe to it. (you can tell I didn’t grow up with MTV in the 60’s)

I prefer a slower pace. The sad fact is that aunts and uncles and spouses die and you go back to these keepsakes and want to hang onto every moment if of every picture and then they flash by in an instant. When I create photomontages I keep the pace slower and the movement more purposeful trying to focus on the emotion within every picture. But that’s just me. There is no right and wrong, just different styles.

And in case you’re wondering, I use ACID or buyout music on my photomontages. Get yourself a copy of Hark Loops’ Gorgeous Pianos 1 & 2 and you can evoke a lot of emotion with ACID.

~jr
goshep wrote on 3/12/2005, 6:14 PM
What a great line. I have GOT to remember it so I can use it some time on somebody. Maybe at a dinner party.

Enjoy it my friend! It's copyright-free! :D