Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 82

Thread: copyright infringement discussion

  1. #41
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Need ur attention

    Hehe thats up to them to decide :P

    Quote Originally Posted by TheQuestion View Post
    but is the risk really worth it?

  2. #42

    Default Re: Need ur attention

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    If you don't know, better don't use.
    definately. thats why i said i'd remember what he said when i'm doing the slides for my friend

  3. #43

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobman View Post
    oh i meant that we are alright to use the music or song for our webby (no one complains la) but if you use my images (kenna caught) is a no no.
    Please don't make a sweeping statement. All my commercial slideshows are only using Royalty Free music. I'm in the midst of working on a project with a composer and music engineer on a new piece for my website. I may use it or not, depending on suitability. So please don't assume all local photogs do that. The few posts I've seen you make strongly insinuates that.

    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.

  4. #44

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by shinken View Post
    Please don't make a sweeping statement. All my commercial slideshows are only using Royalty Free music. I'm in the midst of working on a project with a composer and music engineer on a new piece for my website. I may use it or not, depending on suitability. So please don't assume all local photogs do that. The few posts I've seen you make strongly insinuates that.

    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.
    I don't think so all are using royalty free music. And if it is, where is the credit to the music creator or composer (as it was highlighted in "Giving credit to a photographer"); unfortunately I don't see one in most of the slideshows, only credit to themselves like Photo by so n so but no music by so n so. Run down the wedding portfolios then you tell me whether I assume or not.

    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.

  5. #45

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by MonoBeauty View Post
    I don't think so all are using royalty free music. And if it is, where is the credit to the music creator or composer (as it was highlighted in "Giving credit to a photographer"); unfortunately I don't see one in most of the slideshows, only credit to themselves like Photo by so n so but no music by so n so. Run down the wedding portfolios then you tell me whether I assume or not.

    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.
    I agree with everything you have said, including the view whereby an infringement is an infringement.

    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.

  6. #46
    Senior Member velasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    PARISris , Singapore
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    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.

  7. #47
    Member TheQuestion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    PenguinVille.
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by velasco View Post
    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.
    fan art based on japanese and american pop culture is tolerated by the mutual copyright holders because they know that their characters get free publicity and actually gives them more exposure. that's why at comic cons you see alot of artists doing comic char sketches without any worry. photographs are a different beast all together esp if you're posting celeb photogs that aren't taken by you.
    Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone's got one.

  8. #48

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by shinken View Post
    I agree with everything you have said, including the view whereby an infringement is an infringement.

    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.
    Not at all, friend. Precisely, it is frequently visited by so many people. The thing is if you are so against infringements and want to punish people that use your image, why on the other hand you are using copyright music or royalty music without crediting anyone, people has eyes to see.

    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.

  9. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Stad van Manneken Pis
    Posts
    561

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    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.
    Come visit my Flickr :)

  10. #50

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    Bob

    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!

    -- Marios

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    East of Singapore
    Posts
    1,750

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    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

  12. #52

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by yqt View Post
    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
    hmmm i dunno, but rmb the issue recently when that political film "One Nation Under Lee" was confiscated at a private screening? i think even if it is private it still qualifies as broadcasting. (or maybe thats a different matter all together. heh)

  13. #53
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    That film was confiscated not because of copyright infringement, but because the Board of Film Censors claimed that it was not cleared for censorship issues or something like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by vonlichenstein View Post
    hmmm i dunno, but rmb the issue recently when that political film "One Nation Under Lee" was confiscated at a private screening? i think even if it is private it still qualifies as broadcasting. (or maybe thats a different matter all together. heh)

  14. #54

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    That film was confiscated not because of copyright infringement, but because the Board of Film Censors claimed that it was not cleared for censorship issues or something like that.
    haha still, supposedly a private venue. It was confiscated for not being approved by the film censorship board for screening.

  15. #55

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    are we talking about this type of fees
    http://www.rips.com.sg/rsr.html#catF

    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.

  16. #56

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by splim View Post
    are we talking about this type of fees
    http://www.rips.com.sg/rsr.html#catF

    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.
    Speaking of restaurants, wasn't there this issue where radio stations wanted to charge restaurants which played their stations? 'cause it contributes to the ambience. or something like that.

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: Need ur attention

    Quote Originally Posted by jkaiser View Post
    i got a photo slideshow taken off facebook before, cos i used one of michael buble's songs... that being said, if it's a public screening, i think u need to secure right of use from the IP owner.

    The biggest question, is a wedding dinner public or private. I would say private since u have a controlled guest list. Problem here, guest list so big...
    well even for a "private" party, showing them the slide with the music is consider showing to the public(the guest themselves are consider public already, iirc)

  18. #58
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    That follows a different set of laws altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by vonlichenstein View Post
    haha still, supposedly a private venue. It was confiscated for not being approved by the film censorship board for screening.

  19. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    458

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    hi all,

    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

  20. #60
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: copyright infringement discussion

    I believe that all entertainment establishments pay a blanket license, such as restaurants, clubs, hotels etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer_Jay View Post
    hi all,

    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

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •