slideshows in Aperture 3

[Bob]

Not only music.
I have a lovely Odalisque in front of a green screen just screaming for a nice shot of perhaps an Arabian slave quarters (hmmm) or desert oasis.
I have been looking around for images to use in the commercial areas.
It appears that it would be cheaper for me to fly to Egypt or Oman to shoot something rather than to buy a "limited artistic" use of an image for background use in creating a composite.
I am still looking around flickr for an amateur who might have something and be willing in collaboration, but until then, I guess I will just be forced to use what I have lying around.
I once worked in broadcasting and found to my horror that playing 45 rpm records at the high school dances (ok, just dated myself) was in the minds of the record companies a rights violation. There is something called the fair use doctrine, which allows the use of excerpts and certain things for personal use. The issue is partially, I think, what one defines as personal use these days. If were are listening to some music sitting around the fireplace in my home, I presume that it would fit into the relm of fair use, but when my friends are all sitting in front of computer screens it becomes a violation. Something is not really right here.
-bob

 

[jonoslack]

I defy anyone to claim they have never in their life broken copyright law... remember taping off of the radio, or taping your mates Deep Purple EP, or photocopying a page from a book...

K

I promise you. I really do promise that I have NEVER taped a Deep Purple EP

 

[kevinparis]

Sure ... trick question as i don't think Deep Purple did an EP .... LP's yes....

can't work out what you would have taped... Yes....Eagles...Neil Young...Simon and Garfunkel?



K

 

[kevinparis]

Just as an aside - I do find it amazing the 'reach' of the internet - Vimeo now give you pretty good stats on your videos

Since Sunday night the video in question has been viewed over 200 times in 35 countries

the only places i have posted links are here and one on the Canon forum at DP review

K

 

[LJL]

Bob,
To add more fuel to the fire, as it were, about the "fair use" thing and those 45s....a close friend of mine owns a high-end cigar store. He also sells pens, upland game shooting gear, and other high-end stuff. He used to bring his CDs to work to play on a small boombox he kept in the store for ambiance music. One day, a guy came into the shop to get some cigars. He noticed the music softly playing in the background and asked if the proprietor had secured rights to play it. Turns out, the proprietor was breaking the rules over fair use. Although the CDs were his, and he was not using them directly to sell something, the rules dictate that he was benefitting commercially from the music by creating an atmosphere that his customers enjoyed and might, not would, but might encourage them to spend more and frequent his place. Hard to believe. This was one of the main reasons "Muzak" was created....to allow widespread playing of "royalty free" tunes that resembled the originals. True story. Since then, my friend now has a silent shop, as the penalties could have been staggering. Totally sucks, but that is the way things are.

I agree that there should be some way to enjoy things on a larger scale than your headphones only, and the music industry is working on the pre-Internet business models, but that is the way things are today. So, sharing with friends should never become and issue, but the line becomes rather fuzzy from that point on, unfortunately.

LJ

 

[kevinparis]

just as an illustration of how labyrithine this whole issue is look at this

http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/musicforbusinesses/Pages/default.aspx

easy .. huh

 

[fotografz]

Kevin, sorry you didn't like the "tone" ... and you left out that I didn't use any tone of "you better watch out" in my initial posts on the other thread. Not until you started defending doing this did I offer a caution ... more as a caution to everyone, not just you. No personal disrespect meant.

The subject is worthy of discussion for sure.

As with the Cigar store example above, these companies will go after anyone that comes to their attention in order to make a point. Doesn't matter how small or even silly the infraction may seem. They can just offer a "slap on the wrist" cease and desists, or drop the hammer on a violator to make an example ... usually depending on how public the usage gets. If it is okay for one person to do it, then it is okay for 1 million people to do it. Then what?

Music rights is a complex issue because it is structured for those who do use music for commercial gain. Since there is little to no compensation to be made by small non-commercial personal use, the issue is not well defined, and tends to fall under the more complex fixed rules. This is what should be addressed given the take over of personal communications by the internet. But it hasn't, so the rules stand for now.

The internet does offer an interesting twist to the complexity. Basically, those who protect an artist's rights are primarily concerned with exposure, or better said, over-exposure that erodes the value of the original piece, or doesn't fit with the artists original intent (which is why their permission and/or compensation is required).... and why usage is usually based on three things: geographical area, (local, national or international) ... media used (radio, TV, internet, or all electronic media), impressions (how many times it will run, and to how many people are likely to hear it based on media impressions).

Internet was a bone of contention with many creative unions, and it turns out they were right back when they pushed the issue.

A lot of this is even more complex with music because there are often more than one copyright holder for a piece ... usually the composer/songwriter and the publishing house share it. On top of that, the musicians and singers that perform are often entitled to royalties. All parties have to agree with any usage.

My solution is to support a local talent and commission a piece for my website. That is not an option when just making a slide show or movie for fun ... and when these video camera DSLRs get more prolific out there, it may well become a bigger issue in future ... and maybe it'll all get fixed and make more sense ... but I seriously doubt it will be any time soon.

-Marc

 

[kevinparis]

Marc

stop treating us as if we are ignorant about the implications... and stop fostering a scaremongering attitude... which is exactly what the publishing companies want to do as an alternative to actually working out a solution to the problem.

There are wrongs in the system as it exists today..the old concepts of geographic region, estimated impressions are all gone... they can now work out how many plays where... but they don't really want to know that because its too much detail for them to digest. They dont have a model or mechanism to address this new world and they are scared.

If we run away from the problem it will never get fixed

I applaud your support for local talent and wholeheartedly agree that artist should be paid for their work... but in the meantime I am not going to let the vague scaremongering of large corporate organisations who care little for the artist and much more for their bottom line stop me from creating what i want to create and share that with the world.

K

PS as for "when" those video DSLRS get out there... wake up its happened... they are there now... heck even the mainstream old school broadcasters are using them... the final episode of House this season.... shot entirely on Canon 5D

 

[fotografz]

Okay Kevin, what ever you say.

I'm not intimidated by your personal likes or dislikes concerning my part in this discussion, and couldn't care less about your defensive POV ... I didn't use someone else's creative product without permission ... you did ... and no amount of disagreement with current copyright law, its enforcement (scare-mongering or not), or any personalized counter rhetoric is going to change that.

If you are so sure of your POV, and the "cause of user rights", why don't you simply send a link to the publishers and see what happens?

If I get banded from this site or admonished for my stand on artist's rights, so be it. Being a victim of it has made me more aware of how rights are under attack all over the place.

Bye.

-Marc

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Marc is right, of course, and in principle, I have no problems agreeing. What leaves me with a rather foul taste though, is the way the music (and movie and to some extent the software) industry is handling these matters. While I like to think that the industry is protecting the rights of musicians, and all musicians, it's far too often becoming clear that they are only protecting their own profits, or at least trying to.

Nothing wrong in that, of course, we all do when we can. But the way they do it, the way they complicate matters for "normal" people and the way they more or less exclude the expression "fair use" from their vocabulary, pisses a lot of people off. It pisses people off to a degree that they don't care, and encourages them to copy, use and abuse music regardless of what the obese dinosaur of a music industry thinks about it.

Yes, I'm all for protecting rights for musicians, photographers, writers and anybody else who make a living from creative work, but I'm also sure that those rights would have been better protected if the industry that is supposed to speak on behalf of the artist, had been more in touch with reality and had a more realistic perception of technology's consequences for their own business and the businesses of their clients.

Unfortunately, there are an abundance of examples that show that breaking copyrights will lead to less problems than trying to comply with the rules, if one is going to use copyrighted material at all. It's wrong, but it is how the world has become, and I'm afraid the industry to a large extent has to thank itself for that development.

When a record company demands that the proud mother of a three year old who dances to the latest Deep Purple EP on Youtube, remove her video "or else", or when Apple tells me that I can only change zone on iDVD 5 times to play DVDs legally bought in other parts of the world, or when it's easier to make pirated software work than a proper copy, these industries are not working for their own future, but for a reality that doesn't exist any more. So, people lose respect. They lose respect for the industry and they lose respect for copyright as a phenomenon, and that is damaging to artists.

 

[LJL]

Jorgen,
I actually think the entire mess has been made worse by some recent things. For example, iTunes had to jump through a lot of hoops to get record labels on board to start changing their business model. It actually started to drag them into this century. At the same time, apps like iPhoto and now Aperture, have promoted the integration of music and images for creating great slideshows. Aperture is a worse culprit on some sense, because it is billed as a app for professionals, and talks about how easy it is to create and deliver these sorts of outputs.....good for your business, Mr. Wedding Photographer! Fact is that is encouraging the sort of use that does start to bend the rules and usage rights, but there is no accessory app to toggle to obtain online permission for that limited sort of use. Want to really change the industry, Steve Jobs, and not just the Apple share price? Build an app that integrates with iPhoto, Aperture, iTunes, etc., that automatically sends the labels notification that the following music will be used under "fair use" provisions by the photog or whomever, for very small commercial applications (much like only being able to burn five copies of a DVD or something), or asks for quotes on minimal royalty payments to be made and managed for the artists/labels. Now that would possibly be something useful, rather than Kevin, or Marc, or you, or me having to write to each artist/label asking for permission every time we wanted to create a killer slide show for a new couple client, or our family reunion shots, or post it on our .Mac accounts, etc. That would really promote the software they are building that now encourages us to bend or break laws and usage rules, but does nothing to move the industry to some new model protecting rights in this digital age.

O.K., finished with that rant.....carry on ;-)

LJ

 

[fotografz]

I don't think that is a rant LJ. It's thoughtful.

It is VERY frustrating to have these abilities at our finger tips now, and not be able to use them completely. We now can have full mastery over presenting our photographic works whether for limited pay, or for personal projects with a wider audience, because we create the visual content ourselves.

Due to the proliferation of total media experiences, we have become accustomed to music as an integral part of that experience. Yet, even for something like my business which is barely a break even side-line proposition (like a majority of wedding photographers), there is no recourse for including a decent piece of music on my brand new, but limited exposure website which is mute as of now ... while others just grab most anything they want and risk the "or else".

If there was a simple option on the iTunes store to purchase a one year usage for a website application with a sliding royalty scale set by the producer based on popularity or whatever, then at least it could help keep it honest.

For example, I found an obscure RAP instrumental version of Pachelbel Canon in D that's killer for a wedding site. If I could use it for a year for $500. or even $1,000. along with a credit line for the music, I'd do it in a heart beat.

On the other hand, I doubt that would stop outright theft of music in a majority of the cases. And I seriously doubt it would be manageable. Personally, my sympathies lie with the music houses, and by extension the artists. Call them big bad business if you wish ... but without profits, many artists would never be published. Antidotal examples of artist that got screwed aside, there are a ton of multi-millionaire artists because millions buy the work that was promoted, protected and distributed by these music houses.

So, in the end, just because we now can and want to, doesn't mean it is okay ... any more than it is okay for me to use someone else's images to enhance say a layout for one of my graphics clients because I can and might want to ... or to make a personal slide show with someone else's graphic content because its cool looking.

-Marc

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Marc,
It is manageable. Look at iStock. Thanks to their ridiculously low prices, many who used to steal photos now actually buy them. Theft will probably never be reduced to zero, but if it's cheap enough and convenient enough, it can be reduced a lot, and all parties will increase their profits.

Record companies and some musicians would probably make a lot of noise because of the low prices, but it's a lot better than getting nothing. iStock does actually sell some music btw.

 

[jonoslack]

LJ
Interesting stuff, and I quite agree, it would work well.

Marc
I think that the point about this is really about whether it's to be used commercially or not. Whether that's where the law sits is different (and probably it's different in every country).

What I'm getting at is that for you to use music on your wedding site is definitely commercial - whereas Kevin posting his take on the Paris Marathon is definitely not commercial . . . . . if he put google ads on his webpage it would change again.

My feeling is that it is defensible morally to use music you have purchased for strictly non-commercial purposes. It's conceivable that someone could try and take you to court over it, but pretty unlikely I'd have thought.

 

[fotografz]

Marc,
It is manageable. Look at iStock. Thanks to their ridiculously low prices, many who used to steal photos now actually buy them. Theft will probably never be reduced to zero, but if it's cheap enough and convenient enough, it can be reduced a lot, and all parties will increase their profits.

Record companies and some musicians would probably make a lot of noise because of the low prices, but it's a lot better than getting nothing. iStock does actually sell some music btw.

Hi Jorgen.

As a former art director/creative director in an ad agency, I am very familiar with the reasonably priced stock photo houses. Frankly, most of the content is a dumping ground for lower quality or cull shots. It provides scrap for layout intent to show clients like the "mood boards" we used to create for presentations ... and some lower end advertisers doing retail. But, admittedly, it has gotten better over the years, and if you have enough time to wade through all the junk to find the occasional gem it can be worth it.

I actually started my commercial photo studio because I could shoot some of the stuff we needed for less than the rights to the better stock pieces ... when we would tell them what is was for, the price jumped enough to justify doing it myself.

What you will not find in low price stock photo collections is the equivalent to a famous piece of music. The images are more akin to the Royality free music LJ listed, most of which is not really what we'd like to enhance our visual presentations.

Really, quality is the issue. We'd all like some high quality elements to use to enhance our little shows, but want it at bargain basement prices. Heck, my clients would love it if I'd shoot their wedding at a Craig's List photographer's $400. price tag. I doubt either is going to happen, or at least I hope it doesn't :ROTFL:

-Marc

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Yes, quality is the issue, but there are thousands of small time musicians out there who make good quality music. With the right kind of distribution, the millions of websites, multimedia presentations etc. made every week, would represent a sizeable market and an interesting income for them, even if they only got a few dollars per download. For that Deep Purple EP, one would have to pay a bit more, but the important part would be to establish a distribution channel that makes it possible.

iTunes on iStock, why not?

 

[fotografz]

Yes, quality is the issue, but there are thousands of small time musicians out there who make good quality music. With the right kind of distribution, the millions of websites, multimedia presentations etc. made every week, would represent a sizeable market and an interesting income for them, even if they only got a few dollars per download. For that Deep Purple EP, one would have to pay a bit more, but the important part would be to establish a distribution channel that makes it possible.

iTunes on iStock, why not?

NOW, that is an opportunity just waiting to happen! :thumbup:

Why does it have to be one of the big boys on the block? Why not some enterprising entrepreneur that has an ear for music?

Think of it, a site where talented beginners can get some exposure, make a bit of cash and go from there. Maybe sell their stuff for a limited usage based on time (1 year to 3 years) and retain the copyright for future sales. Hell, I know all kinds of Garage Bands that have a great sound.

Plus, there could be a provision to commission an exclusive piece at a price that wouldn't choke the buyer in need of quality but for limited usage.

Maybe something like this already exists, but I don't know about it.

-Marc

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Sure ... trick question as i don't think Deep Purple did an EP .... LP's yes....

Actually, they made at least three. They were kind of "Best of" collections, but here they are:

New, Live & Rare (EP) released in 1977 UK#31
1. Black Night (Live) from the Made In Japan Concerts
2. Painted Horse from Who Do We Think We Are! sessions
3. When A Blind Man Cries from Machine Head sessions, B-Side of Never Before

New, Live & Rare Volume 2 (EP) released in 1978 UK#45
4. Burn (Live) edit from Made In Europe
5. Coronarias Redig from Burn sessions, B-Side of Burn and Might Just Take Your Life
6. Mistreated (Live) edit from Made In Europe

New, Live & Rare Volume 3 (EP) released in 1980 UK#48
7. Smoke On The Water (Live) from In Concert 1972
8. Bird Has Flown (BBC 1969)
9. Grabsplatter (BBC 1970)

 

[kevinparis]

Hahahahahah Jorgen... now your dark secret is out.... you were a teenage Deep Purple fan

 

[LJL]

Started giving this a bit more thought...... I do think that the path may be through something more ubiquitous, like iTunes, since the breadth and depth of music is mostly there (though there is lot of good stuff missing also). Since one does not know exactly what kind of music is desired for which kind of slideshow, you sort of have to leave a lot of options open, I think. The concept of "iTunes for iStock" could work if the music and apps had some sort of tag and trigger. For example, as you are assembling your slide show in iPhoto or Aperture, you decide to grab a great tune, much like Kevin did for his Paris Marathon piece. As you drop it in Aperture, a usage box pops up alerting you of the need to pay some fee for usage. (This is where it gets tricky, but maybe this is where the "tag" gets tacked onto the tracks selected, much like Digimarc or something now used on images.) If the creation gets burned to a DVD as part of slideshow, or placed on the Internet, the user will again be alerted of the usage fee. They could have the option of checking a box such as "personal use only", and no fee assessed, or some other category like "commercial wedding or event", and have some predetermined fee assessed and a usage license issued (another "tag" to the file?). For stuff that might get much bigger use, such as "commercial campaign", a larger fee, or some sort of assessment for use is created. Now, admittedly, many folks would check the "personal use" box to avoid fees, but the internal tag on the creation would stick, and thus provide a means of tracking or alerting on misuse somehow.

I know that is sounding complicated and full of loopholes, but things have to start someplace, and Apple, or whomever, could probably gain much more interest from the labels and artists for trying to keep things more honest and actually collecting some usage fees, much like the original price of the selected tune, or some other reasonable fee. It would not be the gravy "negotiated" fee that a label or artist would get if folks actually went through the process properly, but it could add up pretty quickly, and the "sliding scale" charges could be easily assessed as popularity of the tune grew for incorporation into slideshows. (This sort of thing is now done with "ringtones" for phones, so it is not that different a concept.)

I seriously think this could be a start to getting folks to think about who really owns the creative stuff, and why those folks should be compensated. It could also spawn a separate section on iTunes (or wherever), that featured music created for things like weddings and events, including the "royalty free" stuff. The idea is not to charge so much as to encourage continued "cheating", but make up for one or two pricey contracts with many usage contracts at lower fees. As usage is tracked, scales of fees could change, or more detailed usage contracts could be arranged between the labels/artists, and the user, like if you started to get into serious broadcast commercial stuff or something.

Have not thought all of it through, but I think it could have some legs, and really not be all that hard to implement. Now, there are still going to be folks that will skirt the system, but as was mentioned already, if the labels/artists are getting something in good faith, it is better than nothing and chasing after folks with expensive lawsuits that may never get settled in their favor. Maybe I am just too idealistic and naive, but I think if you give folks a reasonable opportunity to do the "right thing" (honor usage rights), they can be educated and be willing to go along.

Just more thoughts on this, as the problem is not going to go away anytime soon, and I hate thinking about breaking usage rights laws just because I now can, hoping not to get caught.

LJ