Yeah, my friends always got mad at me because I wouldn't let them make a copy of a new CD when I got one. They thought I was crazy for not using Napster when it was up and running.

I didn't label them as unprofessional. I said they are often labeled as such by commerical still photographers and others in the music, broadcasting, publishing, and filmmaking industries because the wedding videographers ignore the law that other creative professionals consider to be at the core of their intellectual property rights.

But they're not making a copy for their own use - they're making a copy for sale to a third party, the B&G clients, as part of a commercial vienture.

Of course not, never said it was illegal, immoral, or fattening.

The harm is in copying the music into another work without payment of the licenses that the owners of that intellectual property desire for that specific use. It's their party and they have absolute right to total control of what can or cannot be done with it. They say it's ok to listen to it, it's not okay for you to copy it and sell the copy, even if it's only one copy. It's legal for you to make a copy of a magazine article for your own use, it's not legal for Kinko's to make a copy for you.

While posting to the internet is an even worse violation, even making one copy of the song in the video for the B&G is also a violation.

Steve, seriously, you're really beating a dead horse here. No one is (or has been) arguing that it is legal to use copyrighted music in a wedding video. The real debate is over the practicality of the current law and how artists and publishers really feel about the issue.

Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Professional photographers don't look down on videographers because they use copyrighted music. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, most photographers now do music slideshows and they do they exact same thing we are doing.

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in Dave's position where he seems to say it's certainly wrong to make a thousand copies of a music CD and give them to friends or to use unlicensed music in a clip on the internet because it exposes the music to massive copying or to post copied music on Napster back in its heyday, yet he doesn't seem to recognize that copying music by incorporating it into a commercial product and then selling that product to a customer is equally the wrong thing to do. Admittedly it is a market of 1 customer and they are buying a limited number of copies, but it is selling unlicensed copies of music as a commercial venture all the same, in no way different from selling pirated copies of software, music CDs, or movie DVDs.

In a purely legalistic sense, you're right. However, that's like saying killing someone in cold blood is just as illegal as double-parking. It's a true statement, but I think most people would agree that there is a definite difference between the two.

While it is illegal to use copyrighted music in a wedding video, there is a difference between that and straight-up piracy. With piracy, you're taking an artist's music, making copies, and then selling it to people that don't already have that music to listen to. With a wedding video, I'm taking music that the couple already has to listen to, and I'm simply syncing it with footage from a personal event in their life. In fact, in my case, I'm actually still purchasing a copy of the music, so the artist is making a sale they wouldn't have made otherwise.

I'm not saying that makes it "legal", but I think there's a distinct difference between blatant piracy for profit and using music in a wedding video.

I think this would be an excellent idea...why not make it something like iTunes..but for videographers/hobbiest etc?

Make the pricing fair and dare I say....more affordable?

My sister used to work for a big music company in New York. She has told me stories about how people used to always write letters for permission to use songs in wedding videos.

The problem is that there just isn't a system in place for the small time players to license music.

They are not going to bother negotiating with us--It requires too much man power and time for the fees they might get--they just don't do it.

So the basic answer would be "NO" for these requests.

I hope this changes, however.

Here's another interesting tidbit: I didn't realize that Rhino Records was originally a company that just makes compliations.

They go to the individual music companies with a proposal for a compliation album and the record companies might ask to see what other artists and songs will be on that album and then determine whether to grant permission and of course negotiate the final price.

Once that is done...they sell the record and they make money off of that. All you got to do is pick 15 songs!

How funny is that!

My Solution...Don't bother with signed artists period.
 

Use local, unsigned artists and bands. You'd be amazed at the pool of untapped talent out there. Many will give you all the necessary rights for free!!! I have about 15 bands signed up with me so far, 3 songs a piece, that's 45 songs currently available for my clients to choose from (length of contract -perpetual!). I also have a guy (one man band) in Niagara that has written and recorded about 200 songs and has indicated that I can use any and all, just send him the contract to sign.... Some artists and bands would like exposure too please, and will give it away, why don't you all try helping THEM out...


While this may not be the best solution for all, it very well should be until the record industry gets with it.

including copyrighted music in a wedding video need not be either immoral or illegal.

http://blog.timberlinevideo.com/?p=8

that interview has been pointed to many times, and the point that is consistently missed is that it's a discussion of *incidental* music. This is not the same is ripping a CD and putting the same song in as incidental music.
The question of incidental music is ambiguous.
What is humorous (I'm assuming now, since I haven't listened to that NPR piece for at least a year), is he talks about "as long as you're documenting the wedding and not making a movie about the wedding..."
Aside from the gross ambiguity there, it's also debatable that the wedding pros are "documenting" vs "making a movie." Does documenting include compositing, color correction, 3D titles, and professional editing? All are components of making a movie, too. Where is the line in the sand?
I look at the works of a guy like Glenn Elliot and I don't see "documenting." I see "cinematography/movie."
Either way, the NPR interview is silly overall; he doesn't truly address this question, he only "talked to an attorney." There are attorneys here on DVInfo.net that don't agree amongst themselves on this subject.
It's not just a wedding issue; it's an event issue,and it's discussed in virtually every event photography forum you can find.
It's an ethical/moral issue as well as a legal one. You just gotta figure out where you want to sit in this highly fenced issue.

The distinction between recording an event as it happens and "scoring" or "syncing" as is done in a movie for effect seems simple enough, but you do have the issue of editing...

I'm definitely uncomfortable with the approach of making a "wedding music video" that uses a whole track... and I've seen that way too often, wouldn't do that myself.

I do believe that from a practical standpoint, if you are recording a private event, and what you are doing is "documenting" and "editing" that PRIVATE event, your liability should be limited. Presumably we have the right to record ourselves or someone else for pay, and if there's music playing, it's "incidental" to the event which is the reason the recording is taking place.

In other words, you are not there to record the music being played, you are there to record the individuals (privmarily the B&G and family/guests), taking part in a one time event that no one else will probably even care that much about... "so what" if music is playing in the background? It's not like a movie where everything is carefully choreographed to be "just so". The song is not going to be played thousands of times on a big screen and DVDs, it's going to be in the background whenever a private party relives their event... It's not like it's going to released as "B&G's big fat adventurous wild wild wedding" for profit - at least we hope not... no matter how great a production it is!



Steve: you remind me of the types that intellectually would like media to self destruct 5 seconds after it's played, and then you have to buy it all over again... as a practical matter, it is possible to buy a CD, and "own" the content - SURE, there are those who want us to pay for EVERY instance EVERY time that a song is played, for EVERY possible use... it's a nice argument... but not very realistic, AND AFAIK the courts have not upheld that interpretation.

One doesn't buy a CD to play it once. You buy it to have and use as you choose for PERSONAL, PRIVATE use, and if that includes "format shifting", then I think you're within fair use guidelines. Making one or two copies in various formats (.wav, .wmv, .mp3, etc.) so you can listen on the device you choose - even if that device happens to be playing a video simultaneously (you're still playing a single copy of the music you own) - should fall squarely within fair use guidelines.

If the B&G give you their CD and ask you to integrate it into the recording of their day, all you've done is "format shift" the music for them, something at least in theory they have the right to do, or pay you to do for them.

Post that same thing on the internet or make a pile of copies, now you're over the line. I'd probably sue you if I was an atty <wink>. Then again there's those 54 million dollar pants - there are limits to the absurdity... but not to the arguments attys can make!



Travis: those photogs realize that their "slideshow" gets really boring really quick, and that having a "soundtrack" makes it "work better"... now they just crossed the line above where they are producing a "movie" (actually more of a "performance art" piece)... DOH@!

Tricky stuff this IP law. What makes it so difficult is that we all agree that compensation for work is inherently fair, but since the methods and scales for compensation are so obscure, or ineffectual, we can't get a handle on what is "right". If you pay for a song to use one way, it's bizzare in this digital age to say it cannot be "repurposed" or "format shifted"... welcome to the digital age... buckle up, it's going to get bumpy!



Marco: I agree if you can use unsigned talent that wants exposure, that's great, probably an EXCELLENT approach for the videographer that wants to avoid the copyright issue altogether for posted demos and such, and has access to that resource. BUT, how many couples have "their song", and it's by some unknown artist....?

This does raise the interesting question of whether or not an artist is "harmed" by the exposure they receive by being "included" on a private personal wedding video... or would they feel honored to have their work mean so much to someone else that they wanted it in their personal event?

I presume deals are inked all the time for artists to "appear" at little or no cost/fee on a potential blockbuster hit movie or show so as to increase their exposure... it's called "cross advertising". Most movies have a soundtrack album now, and I presume the artist benefits from the sales of those (anyone actually buy 'em?).

Maybe including a little credit to the artist and info on where to get the song wouldn't be a bad idea? Credit where credit is due, and maybe someone else goes out and buys the song because they liked it on the wedding video their friend showed them...


Just some more random thoughts!

DB>)

I've never said that one should pay per use or that personal copying for one's own use should be illegal .. quite the contrary, I'm firmly opposed to such notions and a staunch defender of fair use and the right of individual consumers to make personal copies for their own use and backup. I've got a few favourite CDs, for example, that were very hard to locate - think I'm going to take them in the car with me on a trip where they're easily lost, stolen, or damaged? Not on your life! But there's a big difference between making a copy to take in the car (which is perfectly within the law, BTW) and making a copy to send to you and a huge difference if I incorporated the music from that CD into a product I wanted to sell to you to make it more to your liking.

Interesting that your response to Travis agrees that synching the music to a slideshow of still images is over the line and no longer fair use, yet you maintain that using a music track as the sound track and synching the moving images of the video in something such as "love story" segments or video montages of the B&G is acceptable. I think most of the people here would disagree that the role of the wedding videographer is that of a passive recorder of events - they're flat-out making movies and some of them do breathtakingy beautiful work. Some of the montages I've seen are wonderful examples of filmmaking and I'll be the first to acknowledge and admire the talent that's there. And that's the rub. We're not talking about incidental music where it's just a part of the background in the environment, like shots of dancing at the reception whîle a few snatches of the music they're dancing to is heard or interviewing the bride's father while we also hear the DJ's music being played in the background. We're talking about assembling a series of romantic clips into a storyline and cutting it to the music of the B&G's favourite song as the only or principal track for that segment of the show. The story of a wedding is a documentary movie that is just as crafted as "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," the only difference (aside from budget) being that the wedding video is a story of a real wedding while the Hollywood movie is fiction.

Read back over what you've written - what you've said, in effect, is that the wedding videographer crosses the line when his work makes it possible for third parties to copy the music as a result of his posting the video on the web etc, overlooking the fact that the wedding videographer's copying the music into the video's soundtrack in order to sell the video to the B&G is in no way different from anyone else making and distributing copys for whatever purpose.

Actually it already exists and is called Zoom http://www.weva.com/cgi-bin/newsread...o&storyid=3667. Unfortunately even with a national association and a company already set up and ready to go, the big 5 are completely ignoring their attempts to engage in negotiations.

Anybody know why they are unwilling to negotiate? what's the issue? It would seem like a win for everyone. For the big 5, a new revenue stream, fewer people pirating their property, lower legal costs defending their property. For the videographers, they pay the fee, obey the law, and sleep well at night. What am I missing here?

The line in the sand for me would be whether you are documenting a real wedding, or making a movie that contains a wedding where it isn't real, and everyone on screen is a paid actor. At that point, even the incidental background music is carefully chosen as part of the overall setting of the scene.

When you document, you have no directorial control of the elements (incidental background music included) or people in the scene except for stopping or reframing.

That's just my personal thought of where the line in the sand would be drawn. Using color correction, fx, and compositing are in my mind something that attempts, for lack of a better analogy, to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

-gb-

Wow. I just signed up for that and searched their database for a bunch of popular songs and artists and got ZERO results. Hopefully that will change at some point because I like the system they have set up.

Greg: exactly my point as to the event... and what Steve is saying about "producing" an event where you add non-incidental music is where the question lies... my argument is that if the B&G provide their own music to you to "add flavor" to the video for their own private and personal use, then they have format shifted their own music, and it's not illegal. If the videographer grabs a CD off his shelf... then he's made an "ilegal" copy...

Steve: It's great trading ideas, I think we're in general agreement - if a photographer or a videographer syncs a music track (which I'm presuming he owns for personal use) for a public promotional display (it's sort of "for profit", per se, but I'm not sure that would stick...), he's on dangerous ground - in my mind there's no reason he shouldn't use one of the programs out there to compose an original track that is thematically appropriate. Of course, it's the songs we recognize that "move" us... thus why the urge to use those songs is so strong...

Let's say you (Steve) have a video you made, and you want to use some of that rare music on the CD's you agree you have the right to format shift, as "ambience"... as long as it's for personal private non profit use... you're OK, right?

Now lets say you don't have the equipment, but you want a video of a special event, and you want that same "ambience", you hand the guy doing the video a copy of your CD, and say "use track #3" - you're the "producer", you're using your own music, why is the guy who just does you the service breaking the law? What you're saying is that by providing the service the videographer is breaking the law, that's where I disagree

All that said, I'll be diggin' into that Zoom site - looks like it might answer these questions, IF popular music is available, and that looks like a BIG if as of the moment, but maybe over time and with enough requests... lets all go over and start requesting!!!

DB>)

After having no luck searching for popular songs and artists at ZOOM, I decided to just browse through the 186 pages of artists/songs that they DID have.

I examined about every 5th page, and only found one song by an artist that I recognized (Rocky Marciano). I was very surprised, considering they are touting that hundreds of songs from "popular" artists have already been cleared. I'd say they have about zero still.

The only people who can answer your question are the 5 presidents of major corporations and their lap dogs the RIAA. From there follow the money or the possible perceived lack of money in this case.

Or just plain bull headedness. One person who should be in the know or at least claims to be, told me once that "why should they raise a hand to help you, your the crook." How can you argue with that illogic?

When it comes to Zoom, someone discovered a while back that they are actually owned by an independent label that evidently has no ties to the major 5 and exists on their own. Most of the music that is approved evidently comes from their library. Evidently there are some forward thinkers out there.

Other things I have been able to piece together. Evidently they were close to signing Universal, in the hopes that with one major on board the other 4 would join. Near the end of negotiations Universal pulled out, have not ever been able to find out why. But from comments that the president of that universal music has made about other issues recently, I can guess why... Pure greed.

I believe and I have no confirmation of this that Zoom is using the music request submittal numbers in an attempt of lobbying the corporations by saying, look at how many have requested the song and if you sign on you'll make... This is my guess, but it would make sense.

My assumption on Zoom is they won't get far any time soon. In an industry where they are doing their best to make market entry as impossible as possible to reduce competition, a third party label with their own forward thinking idea isn't going to go far in getting the big guys on board. After all they have found a way to "tax" even music that is owned by the independent artist and is given away by that artist.

At this juncture I think it is also a good question as to who exactly controls the industry? The 5 or the RIAA? If you follow the money, it appears to be the RIAA! Even with the setbacks they have recently suffered, the RIAA is getting rich off of lawsuits and they have publically/proudly proclaimed that they are keeping all of the winnings from the cases to in their words "launch additional lawsuits". The RIAA is getting a double whammy, they are being paid by the 5 to fight these court cases and they get to keep the spoils, you do the math. We are just another potential revenue source for a pack of lawyers down the road. The 5 can take a few bucks from us or keep their raving dogs happy with plenty of treats. Follow the money.

Anyways, my last point, the laws are so screwed up, I'm not even sure such a program is actually attainable. Technically you need the label's and the artist's permission and either one can say no for any reason. So every artist has to have signed off on the program and I'm sure paid to do so and the labels have to sign off.... It's a mess, that is the one fact that can be said.

There isn't much to add to this thread, other than to say that the label has usually little/no say in who can or cannot license, approve, use, permit the use of a composition.
The publisher does, the artist does, depending on their agreement with the publisher. That's it, in most cases.
The RIAA has no control over licensing any more than the MPAA has control over who can license film clips, or than the NAB has over television licensing/radio licensing, etc.
While the process may be convoluted, it's actually quite simple.
All that said, not one person in any community in which I've seen/responded to/debated with/informed in 12 years has come up with a financial model that makes even the least amount of sense for a publisher or artist to administratively/fiscally deal with.
Australia has the best model thus far (IMO), but they have an exceptionally limited pool compared to the USA. Their model incorporates US copyrighted works.

looked at Zoom... whole lotta nuthin... good idea, but no "inventory"... back to the drawing board.

In the first place he is not simply assembling materials created by the B&G. He is making a movie, taking video he shot of an event and assembling it into a coherent storyline that tells the couple's personal story. Think a film of an event that the filmmaker doesn't personally control isn't a powerful story all the same? Take a look at Leni Reifenstahl's film about the 1936 Berlin Olympics!

If you take a photo from a magazine and put it into your scanner and copy it to make a neeto desktop wallpaper for your computer, you're legal. But if you take that photo to Kinkos and ask them to make a poster of it for you, they'll refuse because it is illegal for them to do that.

You said "you're using your own music" [on the CD you own]. But it's not you music, it remains the property of the publisher. All that you own when you buy a CD is a plastic disk.

Same
 

The classical music they DID have was limited..... but most importantly..... there is no preview! How can I tell if the song might fit my need if I can't hear it? What if the version of Canon they have is horrible? Or too fast? OR uses lots of brass and I wanted a more mellow string sound?

And the meta data is lacking too. No the performer / composer are mixed up many times.

Too bad really..... I would LOVE to use their stuff! Magnatune looks like the only source of high quality classical recordings but their license costs are HIGH. An example is $17 for a song with 5 or less DVDs sold. A Wedding takes a 6 or so songs. so that is ~$100 in Music! Cutting back on the number of songs, or mixing in some Cinescore stuff could probably make the production possible.

Of course this is still better than anything available from the major studios.... that is to say they offer nothing.

jason

That's actually pretty reasonable costs, IMHO. Look at it this way - even going illegal and buying into the (inaccurate) rationalization that if you buy the CD the song is on, you can copy it to the video, you'd be looking at buying 6 CDs (how often are all 6 songs from the same album?) at $15 to $20 a pop. $100 for music is peanuts, just add it into your rates.

In addition to Cinescore, look into the new layered music offerings from SmartSound Sonicfire. Very impressive.

Use buyout instead
 

Smartsound and Digital Juice produce some great buyout music and at good cost. There are always specials going on at DJ so you can get a good variety of music. Granted they are all instrumental but they are far from elevator music. I have used them extensively for montages and videos - you can always find something that fits.
Smartsound allows you to fit the music to the length of the video and their library is extensive.

Jim

Reasonable Costs
 

I was comparing Magnatune's prices to royalty free music where you buy the song for $30 and have practically unlimited use of the song in an unlimited number of projects.

Regarding Cinescore, I am liking it less and less. Too clumsy for controlling the score. It really is more of a "fire and forget" sort of app. Best if you just need some background filler. I have not looked into Smartsound yet. I just signed up for their demo download so I'll see what it is like.

jason

The problem with this is that the wedding party B&G now, especially with digital, scan the prints given to them and make ink jet copies by themselves. So for wedding still photographers it is becoming harder and harder to turn a profit. Also the fact that most BG now what a DVD of all the image in Hi-Res to make all the copies they want after the fact. Making resale of images almost obsolete. Actually I never looked down at videographers as I always assumed they were professional and had to acquire skills to produce a video, whereas these days, anyone with a digital camera that can push a button is now a photographer, and I have photographed hundreds of weddings. What I do look down on is the guys getting into the still photography game undercutting you every which way possible and in the end giving poor quality. You get what you pay for but it seems these days the clients could care less abotu quality and are all about qunatity.

This is the reason I am leaving the commercial side of photography all together.

Let me see if I understand this;

What about the music teacher and a student, are the now criminals also because they sit down together and the teacher places the students CD into his radio to listen to one of Eric Clapton song that the student wants to learn. Now the teacher is listening to a CD he did not purchase therefore breaking the law as the CD was bought by the student for personal use only. Then the teacher shows the student how to play the song that the teacher did not write or create and the teacher MAKES money form giving the student a lesson how to play a song that is not his. The student then goes home with the sheet music that the teacher created and learns the song as well as plays the guitar along with the song on the radio , now that the student is an expert the student now plays the song for his friends and family.

All of a sudden the teacher hears how good the student is and now wants him to play the song at a recital. And now a full audience of people hears the student play the song that is not the student to being with. The family of the students hires a videoagrapher to video the event with the music being played by the student.

So under the rules outlined in this thread wouldn’t this make every single person in the scenario criminals, breaking the law where now all can be sued for infringement?

Where does this lunacy end?

I am all for paying fees but not everyone can afford a $50,000 fee to put a minute or two worth music of the bride’s favorite song from a current popular artist for their highlights in their DVD. I do not do wedding with video and I tell you this is definitely discouraging to say the least as I had no idea.

I can see how a lot of people will lose a lot of business if they do not use the BG music that they want. You ever try telling a bride no? I can just imagine what the bride will say when you tell her, listen you can’t use that song from the CD you just bought fro your wedding to because it is illegal and I wont do it. She replies with what! I bought the CD, I own it, get out of here I am going to find some else.

What I do not understand if that if the BG and even the videoagrapher buys a copy of that song ( 2 sales ) and makes 1 DVD for the couple how it is illegal. Yes I read the thread but it makes no sense as everyone bought a copy of the music and the artist is being compensated not once but twice.

Your sentiment about photography can apply to video as well in this case.

The whole crux of the matter is that the people when produced & published the music want to have full control over their product, after all they created and paid for it.

Wedding videography is an industry that gets caught in the middle.

The music producers do not want unauthorized use of the content and a wedding video in not important to anybody but those involved.

So this will perpetually go on deaf ears.

The music folks spend a lot of money to create an image ect... associated with their hits, and wedding video is not one of their end goals, due to its varied quality and small demographic.

I must say, I can not fault them on wanting to guide their product with their vision, not anybody elses.

I think photographers did it to themselves. It's called pricing yourself out of business. Charging $19 for a 3x5 print is a tad bit on the greedy side if you ask me.

This past year I've been working with a lot of photographers that don't even bother with proofs or an album. They might touch a few photos up but they all end up on a CD and handed over complete with full copyright.

I shoot all my weddings with film using MF and LF (8x10) cameras ( i guess you an say I am old school ). I then make prints by hand for my clients from the proof they select. When I charged my clients I charged for an entire package and if after they paid in full and were delivered the final package, I would give them the negatives and let them go at it, if they wanted me to make another 8x10 print for example I would charge $25-50 depending on how much work went into making the first one. I always tried to be fair and still make a fair profit. Now people are just getting greedier and putting out bad quality. What has really hurt the still photography market in my humble opinion is digital DSLR as now everyone is a photographer.

Just because you own a piano does not make you a pianist ;)

I wonder what all those BG's will do in 25 years when their home printed ink jet stills have faded into yellow and their DVD backups don't play.

They shoulda hired Kevin!

That's digital's dirty secret: Lousy archiving.

Ah well. This the age of instant gratification...

This whole thing is not about listening to the music, it's about using the music synced with video. The original copyright holder has final say in who can use their music for anything that is synced with visuals.

There is a compulsory license for covering a song and selling cds or copies of that music -say you want to record an Eric Clapton song to put on your next album... as long as the original has been published before, you can re-record it all you want by paying a statutory rate.

BUT, you could not then use that with your video because you do not own the original copyright. You would have to ask Eric (if he still owns the copyright) to even do a music video of that song.

If you want to use popular music in your wedding/corp videos, lobby your congressman to make a change to the copyright laws that would induce a statutory rate on sync rights. But good luck with that!
my $.02

No, that's one of digital's greatest assets: lossless archiving. Cheap HDD backups with weekly rotation to an offsite location is all it takes to insure your photos. Negatives, on the other hand, do suffer with time, and are a much greater hassle to clean and scan.

Okay well I've got a drawer filled with 40 year old negatives. They print out into beautiful stills even today.

Hard drives? my record for longevity is 3 years. A hard drive must be the worst place in the world to archive. They don't last and are currently looking down the barrel of obsolesence.

That is just simply untrue. I don’t not want to hijack this thread or look like a jerk as this is not my intention, but I am tired of these types of untrue statements. I am a photojournalist and have been in still photography since I was a kid, my uncle was doing photography before I was born and all his negatives and mine are in tact, unfortunately, due to the nature of being a journalist, I was forced to go digital or be out of work so I have first hand experience with both sides of the equation. With that said, I have archived all my work for years and if I do not re-make CD every other year I lose images. I have a huge archive of DVDs, CDs, HD, etc. And in the last 6 years ½ of my CD/DVDs are no longer readable. I also have had hard rives that crashed after 3-4 years and most manufactures do not warranty hard drives after 3-4 years, why is that?

I have negatives that are from my great great grandparents generation and they still print as good today as they did when they were created. I have negatives that are over 40 years old and they print just as good toady as they did when my grandparents took them, I have negatives from my high school days they also print as good today as they did when I shot them over 25 years ago.

I can’t same the same for my digital work.

If negatives are stored properly they are not full of scratches or hard to clean, that is also a fallacy. I have CDs that were stored properly in sleeves; in cases in cool places and they still went bad. Consumer CD and burners are not good and the CD will not last.

Also if you scratch a CD most of the time you are hosed and you lose a large portion of the data on them. If I scratch a negative, a little nose oil or spotting of the negative or print I still have a image.

I also remember reading somewhere and I cant remember who the Military was stating that some of the images form the first Iraq war that was shot digitally is being lost. So much for digital being archival. I wish I could find that link. I will definitely search for it.

I am not anti digital, I just do not like statement that are just not true.

Sorry for the rant but I get tired of hearing this line that is simply not true time and time again.

Please forgive me if I offended anyone.

That's what I say. It's digital's dirtly little secret. I've heard DLT abnd LTO tapes are a decent solution but they aren't cheap.

The advantages of digital backups in rotation
 

Kevin,

You are right. I erred in stating that negatives would need cleaning.

You are correct in stating that film is less risky to store, untouched, for years or decades at a time. Such a strategy is far too perlilous with digital data, as your experience bears out. Yet there a simple solution to become immune to all the problems you mentioned and more: rotation.

Specifically, one needs to use a second backup drive and push the power button every other day. That simple measure insures against HDD crashes, accidental deletion, malware, etc. by ensuring that there is always at least two separate and unconnected copies of the data at any one time, and furthermore, that each copy is automatically vetted during the normal course of the backup rotation.

For protection against fire, flood, etc., a third hard drive rotated to an off-site location fits the bill perfectly. One may balance the frequency of rotation and its associated inconvenience with the amount of data lost in the event of a fire. I can live with losing a week's worth of data in case my house burned down, so I only rotate drives weekly.

It's a very cheap and easy solution if you have less than two terabytes of images (one half-million photos at eight megapixels). The weight and cost of drive arrays are still reasonable until around ten terabytes, but after that, DAT tapes are the best solution because of their portability.

There are other advantages to online digital backups. It only takes a few seconds to find an image by date or keyword, and a few minutes more to make an exhibition-class print. Finding negatives in a filing system and sending them to the lab would require much greater time. With digital, every pixel of every image is available for critical review in an instant. But with film, one must make do with contact sheets, proofs, or a loupe.

I'm glad that all the film stocks you and your Uncle shot did not suffer from any degradation. However, many film stocks did, even with hermetically sealed, temperature- and humidity-controlled storage; that includes Eastman Ektachrome, LPP, SP, Estar, and Fuji Color.

How do you figure, do you charge your client based on the price of the DVD you will burn.

Handing over a CD of images is like handing over the unedited footage from a wedding. Don't you feel the end result will suffer.

I am not saying we don't off a cd of images, but only after they purchase a package. I want them to see what the finished project should look like, not what walmart feels it should. I have had many customers who have the CD of Hi Res images still come back to me and say its not the same.

I would be willing to bet that we all break copyright laws all the time, throw in a CD while entertaining, questionable copyright issue.

Most computer programs are one user, which means you can put in on more than one machine, but only one person can use that program.
Take Photoshop for example, I can have it activated on 2 computers, but because my wife and I both work on images we have to have 2 licenses and the second lic is the exact same price of the first, no discount. So if you let anyone sit down to your computer chances are your breaking many lic. issues.