The second issue is, EVEN IF there's infringement, the use of the music is completely different. We are only comparing apples to apples if photographers are using other people's music and sell it as their own. Or trying to get jobs as musicians with other people's portfolio. Your attempt at a moral judgment on the local photographers using this instance, I am afraid, is not a fair one.
Last edited by shinken; 5th August 2008 at 09:24 AM.
Second issue. If there is an infringement, its a infringement. There is no such thing as comparing apples to apples. We had discussed that whether it is used for commercial or not, its still illegal, period. Although you are not selling the music but the music enhances your slideshow and thus in other way, helping to sell your photos better. Indirectly you are gaining commercial value by using the music.
Fair???? I will come back on that.
The reason for my post, and the tone of my post, is that I am worried about the image of the industry. CS is not just visited by photographers. It is also frequented by potential clients who mostly just read the posts without participation. I am quite sure that in some corner of the country, word is already spreading amongst brides-to-be that "Many photographers' portfolio don't even know real or not" because of a black sheep. Now it's going to be "Photographers cry murder when their own rights violated, but go around infringing others'" or "wah, photographers pelting each other with apples"
My apologies for making the emotional and subjective posts in this thread.
well then those montages that we used for like tvshows, as a tribute to our favourtie stars all cannot?
Anyone here do fanarts, like blends of your favourite artists? its very widespread in US.
In Deviantart, my account was deleted as they say I'm not supposed to use celeb photos since i donot have permission from the photographers.
But i find that strange cause all fansites use photographs taken by photographers as their graphics.
Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone's got one.
Black sheeps or hypocrates, there are plentiful. I remember one photographer said here few years. Experience photographer steals, Amateur copies.
Like joe, inexperience and no resource and only copy and paste. For those who are experience, they can get the idea and create their very own image, I mean same image different subject, different location and then call them their very own and we all praise him like "Sheng"..... Only constant show of works then we know that whether this guy is real or not, maybe.
The only thing I know its fair is that all of us will die. Other than that, its a dog eats dog world.
Only in Joe's case then we can see the heart of a man. Good luck, Joe.
Ideally you should not use the music for your slideshows and all. It is still broadcasting as someone pointed out.
If you say that it is only to showcase your work, then you shall generate income based on that. If you again say its your work which shall give you work (generating income) then you don't need use the music. The music is an integral part of the presentation that shall give you the work and the money. So
When we use images or words for our papers and thesis, we have to obtain permission and also modify the words to explain in our own way.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. Fullstop. Lets get over that. "I broke the law but so did xyz" does not hold anywhere. Ask for people to think carefully before dragging someone down is a good and honorable thing to do. But suggesting that others do similar things so.., I think that's a dangerous direction and would send the wrong signal.
Singapore would have benefitted tremendously if wedding photogs (i don't do weddings , but i did do a funeral ) would ask from musically inclined friends of theirs to play them / compose a piece of music for their presentations. Just give these guys a few hundred bucks (for a piece that you can put in any number of weddings) and there you go, musicians would not go hungry neither and the local music industry would pick up also, i.e. artists (photogs) helping artists (musicians), now that's a novel idea!
In my humble opinion, best place to start would be at one's own. Refuse to use copyright materials without liscence. Clients do appreciate the honesty. Your loss one day will turn to gain, or at least you can sleep really well without a worry in the world!
From what I know, music/songs are not for public broadcast, but is a wedding/company event/etc considered Public? It's suppose to be a private event where only invited guest who are known to the host are invited. It's help at a location reserved for the event. There's no marketing for profit during the event. Is it not considered a private matter? I've never been able to get a proper answer to this question
I get paid more shooting part time ...... damn, I should find more time to shoot part time
are we talking about this type of fees
for the music in slide show, should be Cat F, but don't know if it can be included as part of the hosting facilities like restaurants.. where they should have already paid for.
i have a question/scenario. we all have been to a wedding dinner/reception and i can say tat 100% of all this wedding dinner or reception will play some kind of music to bring up the mood.
so does it mean tat the hotel or restaurant or church had pay for the copyright of the music or songs they will play? if they have paid, is it a blanket kind of license or just a few songs?
if its a blanket kind of license does it restrict to music being played by the staff? will temp staff (F&B Dept hire students for wedding) be consider staff? if yes, then will photog hired by the client consider temp staff?
if its not a blanket license, then if the client bring their own CD to be played (cos its their 1st dance where they know each other) be consider as copyright infringement?
the above is just for wedding dinner/reception, i haven't go into shopping centre or road shows having a song station broadcasting songs of varies artiste all day long.
jay the killer