Not Posting Clips For a While

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Patrick Moreau

Steve,

As you are obviously so concerned with following all of the rules, perhaps you should reread the forum rules yourself and try and practice a little more discretion. Perhaps next time you feel the urge to discuss an issue so passionately, you could start a separate thread and refrain from using members as specific examples. I think it can safely be said that the majority of members here would prefer to have others share their work and be inspired, even if that means living without your very insightful and well-timed criticisms.


Chris,

I would like to echo what has already been said. Thanks for sharing your work and perhaps you will try again down the road. It really is a huge benefit to the majority of users.

I'm confused ... you're saying it's a good thing for members to create video clips in flagrant violation of both the letter and spirit of the law, and not okay for other members to point out that they are doing something improper and they should change their business practices because they are doing the wrong thing? Are you saying we hold up these practices as examples of good and proper working methods to lead and inspire us, encouraging us to for forth and do similar wrong things? Does not fair treatment of the people who created and own the music mean anything to you and its absence touch something inside you that says people should do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do? It just seems so obvious to me that people in the creative professions should operate from a position of total respect for the rights of others in similar creative endeavors and should join together to encourage those who do not do so to mend their ways. If we don't, who will? Or do you choose to live in a world where the only definition of right is who has the better lawyer?

I find your reactions and those others who have expressed similar opinions to be very disconcerting to say the least. In truth I would have expected the majority opinion to be 180 degrees opposite. Perhaps you can explain to me why you seem to find business practices that are both illegal and harmful to the profession and to other artists to be examples of the way people ought to act, practices that are to be applauded, encouraged, and rewarded?
Do you similarly hold software and movie pirates to be cultural heros to be applauded when it happens that they are very very good at what they do? Or should we have a moral compass in our business life that is guided by a higher standard than expediency?

[Patrick Moreau]

Originally Posted by Steve House

I'm confused ... you're saying it's a good thing for members to create video clips in flagrant violation of both the letter and spirit of the law, and not okay for other members to point out that they are doing something improper and they should change their business practices because they are doing the wrong thing? Are you saying we hold up these practices as examples of good and proper working methods to lead and inspire us, encouraging us to for forth and do similar wrong things? Does not fair treatment of the people who created and own the music mean anything to you and its absence touch something inside you that says people should do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do?

I'm saying that your ruining the potential of this particular message board for many others. You have made your opinion known, why don't you leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Steve House

Do you similarly hold software and movie pirates to be cultural heros to be applauded when it happens that they are very very good at what they do? Or should we have a moral compass in our business life that is guided by a higher standard than expediency?

I think that is another very misleading comparison. I think many users here are acknowledging a problem in the system and practicing civil disobedience until the problem is addressed or they are forced to stop. If there was a viable option to produce the same kind of product legally than most would adopt that method, but until that method is available we have the option of complying with the letter of the law or not. You have said, repeatedly, where you stand on the issue, as have others.

While your intentions may be morally guided, you also have to consider the net effect of your actions. Those who will no longer share clips have not changed there practices because of you, they are simply not sharing them. You have not made things better, or more legal, you have simply tainted something that is an excellent resource ofr many of us. There are much better tactics to present your point of view, perhaps you could consider some of those next time.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Patrick Moreau

...
I think that is another very misleading comparison (comparing use of copyright music without license to software piracy - sjh). I think many users here are acknowledging a problem in the system and practicing civil disobedience until the problem is addressed or they are forced to stop.
...

I think not. How does it differ from a situation where someone obtains some of your own video, lets say some fantastic and rare scenics, shots that you have gone to great difficulty and considerable expense to obtain and that reflect a personal style that took you years as a videographer to develop, and uses them without your permission as cutaways to enhance the production values in a video they are selling to their clients or preparing for broadcast? Or lets say they sought your permission but you declined their offer, either because you had other purposes in mind for your work or you felt they had not offered what they were truly worth, or perhaps just because you felt ornery that day. Would they be justified in using them anyway since they felt you weren't being fair in hogging such wonderful video all to yourself? Or would you feel justifiably outraged? And then lets say they post their work here - should it be admired and held up as a model for others to follow, applauded and encouraged because they had done such a terrific job of merging your material with theirs? How about our fellow forum members - should they admire and applaud this practice and its fruits, condemn it, or just keep silent? I'm going to go out on a limb here but I'll wager you'd be outraged if your hard work and talent was appropriated in this way and then rewarded by the accolades of your fellow professionals without comment on the injustice you had been done in the process. So how does it differ if the medium is music instead of video and the artist is Celine Dione instead of Patrick Moreau? Remember, if you say it is okay to use copyright music because those bad people won't cooperate by selling you a license at the price you're willing to pay, you're also saying it's open season on your own work, fair game for anyone to use as they see fit whether you like it or not.

[Patrick Moreau]

Steve,

Let it go.

[Ash Greyson]

Get real... quit acting like it is the same to put a minute of a song in a one-off wedding montage as it is to bootleg DVDs and sell them on the streets of Hong Kong as originals. I have recently completed a feature doc that has many famous songwriters, most I became friends with. I cant imagine ANY of them having a legal issue with someone putting a song on a wedding DVD or sharing a clip on a website.

The fact is, that more artists are taking back their own publishing in an effort to ENCOURAGE this kind of use and exposure. In the next 10 years you will see many artists making their new songs and catalog available, either for free or for a small standard fee with NO red tape, for independent film makers and videographers.



ash =o)

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

Get real... quit acting like it is the same to put a minute of a song in a one-off wedding montage as it is to bootleg DVDs and sell them on the streets of Hong Kong as originals. I have recently completed a feature doc that has many famous songwriters, most I became friends with. I cant imagine ANY of them having a legal issue with someone putting a song on a wedding DVD or sharing a clip on a website.

The fact is, that more artists are taking back their own publishing in an effort to ENCOURAGE this kind of use and exposure. In the next 10 years you will see many artists making their new songs and catalog available, either for free or for a small standard fee with NO red tape, for independent film makers and videographers.



ash =o)

It absolutely is the same thing. It is taking someone else's property without their permission and using it to your own benefit and profit. It doesn't matter much it is a song clip or a bootleg copy of Star Wars.

I think it's great that some artists are making their work freely available and I heartily endorse those who choose to set up new and reasonable licensing arrangements. But in that case it is the artist and copyright owners that are choosing to do that. You simply cannot ethically justify someone coming along and simply taking the work from them whether the artist wants them to use it or not. It is for them to initiate the process and give, not for us to take without permission until we get caught. Just because someone feels that artists *should* give away their work doesn't justify taking it.

There's a boatload of music available free or at very affordable licensing right now. What is wrong with restricting oneself to using the work of the artists who are presently making their work available under the arrangements you suggest or using buy-out and needle drop libraries, creating one's own music with software such as Acid, or collaborating with a musician to develop your own? The appeal of using popular and classic music is the fact that is popular and classic and that's why people want to use it. It's unlikely a tune as popular as "Theme from Titanic" will ever be included in the no-fee or low-fee catalogs such as you see on the horizon any more than you'll find it in a buy-out library today. But if artistic merit is the criteria, I'm sure there are hundreds of songs available at affordable prices that are musically of as good ln quality or better without the need to wait for new licensing models to evolve - why not use them? If many of the famous songwriters in your documentary have no problem with someone using their work in a wedding video, how about simply obtaining a license from them and being legal about it? If they truly are willing and they haven't yet sold their rights, it could be accomplished in matter of moments for the effort of a couple of emails.

Think you can't do quality wedding video without using popular music? Take a look at the sample clips on San Francisco's Big Pookiehead Productions website.

Speaking of famous songwriters and performers, our own forum here has several Grammy and Emmy winners participating. Pop up into the audio forum and ask Doug Spotted Eagle or Ty Ford how they'd feel about you using using some of their work in your next wedding video.

[Pat Sherman]

Originally Posted by Steve House

I think not. How does it differ from a situation where someone obtains some of your own video, lets say some fantastic and rare scenics, shots that you have gone to great difficulty and considerable expense to obtain and that reflect a personal style that took you years as a videographer to develop, and uses them without your permission as cutaways to enhance the production values in a video they are selling to their clients or preparing for broadcast?

Easy.. It's on the owner to track down the infringing user and ask nicely for some payment for the use. If I had a manager or label I would expect them to do that for me and if not, it is up to me to get my payment or stop the infringment. Just because you have a copyright doesn't mean jack unless you the owner enforce it or choose to enforce it.

AND since we all know nobody seems to be doing anything about it.. I figure they know when they want their money and when they want to do something about it. I mean I think it's pretty evident enough of us have done the leg work trying the legal way and we all get the standard response from the big labels and publishers in that 4th grade teach tone "Oh that's so cute for your little wedding video. Well we don't have anything in place to do that but just don't make a bunch of copies and I hope the video turns out for you. "

As in my work I suppose if another videographer rips it. Well it's fair game I mean I can't really copyright it since I am using "THE BAD MUSIC". So if they rip it good.. Now I can advertise even more and show how others like it so much they use my work as well..:) Then again in court I could say, "Oh I didn't create that So and So did, check out his site I just downloaded it to watch it"..

Now if I did all original and someone ripped it. Then I would send a nice letter asking for a monetary amount in exchange for the use. Again, it would be on me to do that..

I personally feel at this time the only musicians to benefit from a lengthly highly publized trial against the videographer community would be Enya and Celine Dion since every darn demo seems to use their music..ROFL!


(Yes Steve I know multiple muscians under one label, yadda yadda)

P.S. The only thing I am worried about his David Bonner kicking my butt for over using his DVD Cover design and using some of his techniques.. Dave tell me where to send the check..:)

[Pat Sherman]

Originally Posted by Steve House

There's a boatload of music available free or at very affordable licensing right now.

Yeah true.. Maybe you can help.. I got this Bride who wanted Butter Fly kisses for her Father/Daughter dance.. So I'm in a dilema now:

Smartsound Maximum Action: Texas Rock or Smartsound Fashion Dictates. I'm kinda partial to Fashion Dictates over the Texas Rock.

Copyright music threads are useless. Some people choose to drink and drive, some choose to load software to friends, some choose to not yeild on arterials and some smokers toss lit cigarettes out their car window, some people don't report that $300 slot machine win, some people murder people, some people rob people, some people speed, some people use trial software pass the trial period, some people take other peoples land and force them to live on reservations, some people read these forums, some people don't read these forums and some people have nothing better to do than do the work of the RIAA for free..

In all fairness to Steve he is doing and saying the right thing and if he were to apply with the RIAA he could have some good reference material. But I have to ask the question. Does he even do wedding videos and I can't imagine a Bride going with Smart Sound or Dewolfe over say Shania Twain per say..

Well let me be honest.
"HI. My name is Pat and I'm a license Abuser"

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Chris M Watson

Instead, I got a very different reception. One that I felt was unwarranted and disrespectful.

My apologies for this. I'm working with the other forum moderators to find a viable solution. Some members here are far, far more militant than they need to be, and there will be some changes coming soon. I really hate to see good threads hijacked and new members railroaded, no matter what the seeming justification is... in my opinion there is no "justification" for that sort of bad behavior at all. Once again, I'm sorry about this, and trust me there will be a big change in this highly negative atmosphere very soon.

(for Glen, I'm closing this thread; let's chat by email. thanks -- CH)