Expressing songs through photographs

[usayit]

People are too uptight about law suits.

"Uptight" ... you are not kidding.. man... people need to loosen up.

Canadian Hockey Celebration: Beer, Champagne & Cigars On The Ice! (PHOTOS)




btw.. Awesome and inspiring. I think I'm going to hang it up too!

 

[skieur]

...that hangs printed over my desk, btw.

Inspiring,...but it won't prevent you from getting sued if you are not careful. Disney for example has even sued school boards for showing Disney videos to the students without permission/license.

skieur

Oh relax. People are too uptight about law suits. If you have no assets all that can happen is a cease & desist letter. They're not going to spend $6,000 on a lawyer to stop a high school kid (or a grown up living paycheck to paycheck). And fine art is fair usage. It seems like he is doing .

So "people are too uptight about law suits", eh? Well, Disney sues anyone who violates their copyrights as a matter of policy. They setlled for $60,000 out of court on the example I mentioned. Some other companies have followed their lead. A student was successfully sued for 6 figures for running a music sharing site in the U.S. That would destroy your credit rating and perhaps your chance to even get a job, since wages would be garnished. It would mess up any chance of getting a mortgage and perhaps insurance as well since credit rating is now being checked by insurance companies.

skieur

 

[Iron Flatline]

:roll:

 

[MrRamonG]

:roll:

I think Batman has a point.

 

[MGriff240]

Create good work, then worry about whom your pissing off.

You sir, speak the truth. :thumbup:

I'm gonna have to try this...Could be fun.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I'm hoping to choose songs and express the emotion or psychology of the songs in a photograph. Im struggling with how to express different genres or types of music I listen to into photographs. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks...

Although a lot of photographers have done this type of thing, you should be aware that it violates the copyright of the song in several ways Principal among these are: public performance without the permission of the music creator and illegally modifying the "context" of the song by linking it to a particular series of photographs.

If you had the "misfortune" of having someone in the music business see your photo/music presentation, for example, you could be in financial hot water to say the least.

skieur

skieur, you are either off your rocker or you know something I don't. Would you please explain how a photo inspired by a song violates the song's copyright? I'm sure I would not be the only one interested.

:thumbup: Love the quote. Love the man and his work.

 

[skieur]

I'm hoping to choose songs and express the emotion or psychology of the songs in a photograph. Im struggling with how to express different genres or types of music I listen to into photographs. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks...

Although a lot of photographers have done this type of thing, you should be aware that it violates the copyright of the song in several ways Principal among these are: public performance without the permission of the music creator and illegally modifying the "context" of the song by linking it to a particular series of photographs.

If you had the "misfortune" of having someone in the music business see your photo/music presentation, for example, you could be in financial hot water to say the least.

skieur

skieur, you are either off your rocker or you know something I don't. Would you please explain how a photo inspired by a song violates the song's copyright? I'm sure I would not be the only one interested.

.

To explain, I have to tell you a bit about my experience. Half my career has been spent as a media consultant to organizations which included the law related to presentations and current lawsuits related to areas from elementary through university education to television stations throughout North America and there were and are several pending.

What I am saying now has been backed up by successful lawsuits in the US and Canada and by the copyright law as it is written in both countries.

1. Public performance which is defined as playing a piece of copyrighted music in public is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. Fees are paid by radio stations, television stations, movie producers etc. for using copyrighted music. As a photographer playing a piece of music along with showing photos is "public performance" and it is ILLEGAL and a violation of copyright unless you are paying fees to the music copyright holder.

Google the copyright act if you wish confirmation of what I have stated.

2. By linking the copyrighted music to photos you are interpretting his music in a public venue. Only the copyright holder of the music has that right in law.

To put it even more simply PUBLIC use of copyrighted material requires the permission of the copyright holder as does any implied change to the content or meaning of the copyrighted material through the linking with photos etc. By the way "fair use" does not apply in this situation either in the US.

skieur

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Although a lot of photographers have done this type of thing, you should be aware that it violates the copyright of the song in several ways Principal among these are: public performance without the permission of the music creator and illegally modifying the "context" of the song by linking it to a particular series of photographs.

If you had the "misfortune" of having someone in the music business see your photo/music presentation, for example, you could be in financial hot water to say the least.

skieur

skieur, you are either off your rocker or you know something I don't. Would you please explain how a photo inspired by a song violates the song's copyright? I'm sure I would not be the only one interested.

.

To explain, I have to tell you a bit about my experience. Half my career has been spent as a media consultant to organizations which included the law related to presentations and current lawsuits related to areas from elementary through university education to television stations throughout North America and there were and are several pending.

What I am saying now has been backed up by successful lawsuits in the US and Canada and by the copyright law as it is written in both countries.

1. Public performance which is defined as playing a piece of copyrighted music in public is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. Fees are paid by radio stations, television stations, movie producers etc. for using copyrighted music. As a photographer playing a piece of music along with showing photos is "public performance" and it is ILLEGAL and a violation of copyright unless you are paying fees to the music copyright holder.

Google the copyright act if you wish confirmation of what I have stated.

2. By linking the copyrighted music to photos you are interpretting his music in a public venue. Only the copyright holder of the music has that right in law.

To put it even more simply PUBLIC use of copyrighted material requires the permission of the copyright holder as does any implied change to the content or meaning of the copyrighted material through the linking with photos etc. By the way "fair use" does not apply in this situation either in the US.

skieur

I guess you don't know anything I don't Where did you read that the OP is planning to use copyrighted music in public? Or maybe I'm just going blind...

 

[Overread]

pssssssssst skieur - they are talking about making a photo which represents a song - kind of like what an album cover would be - instead of the far more common thing of putting images to a series of images.

Also whilst I don't dispute the legality; youtube is full of songs put to images where often nothing used is signed or agreed to with the copywrite holders.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

pssssssssst skieur - they are talking about making a photo which represents a song - kind of like what an album cover would be - instead of the far more common thing of putting images to a series of images.

Also whilst I don't dispute the legality; youtube is full of songs put to images where often nothing used is signed or agreed to with the copywrite holders.

:thumbup: but will this be enough to wake him up from his self important-know-it-all administrative slumber?

 

[skieur]

skieur, you are either off your rocker or you know something I don't. Would you please explain how a photo inspired by a song violates the song's copyright? I'm sure I would not be the only one interested.

.

To explain, I have to tell you a bit about my experience. Half my career has been spent as a media consultant to organizations which included the law related to presentations and current lawsuits related to areas from elementary through university education to television stations throughout North America and there were and are several pending.

What I am saying now has been backed up by successful lawsuits in the US and Canada and by the copyright law as it is written in both countries.

1. Public performance which is defined as playing a piece of copyrighted music in public is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. Fees are paid by radio stations, television stations, movie producers etc. for using copyrighted music. As a photographer playing a piece of music along with showing photos is "public performance" and it is ILLEGAL and a violation of copyright unless you are paying fees to the music copyright holder.

Google the copyright act if you wish confirmation of what I have stated.

2. By linking the copyrighted music to photos you are interpretting his music in a public venue. Only the copyright holder of the music has that right in law.

To put it even more simply PUBLIC use of copyrighted material requires the permission of the copyright holder as does any implied change to the content or meaning of the copyrighted material through the linking with photos etc. By the way "fair use" does not apply in this situation either in the US.

skieur

I guess you don't know anything I don't Where did you read that the OP is planning to use copyrighted music in public? Or maybe I'm just going blind...

Well, come on. Do you really think the purpose was for the private enjoyment of the photographer? Sharing is public performance and showing it to one friend escalates into showing it to a group. I know that I get asked to do lots of public presentations as I expect most photographers do.

skieur

 

[c.cloudwalker]

To explain, I have to tell you a bit about my experience. Half my career has been spent as a media consultant to organizations which included the law related to presentations and current lawsuits related to areas from elementary through university education to television stations throughout North America and there were and are several pending.

What I am saying now has been backed up by successful lawsuits in the US and Canada and by the copyright law as it is written in both countries.

1. Public performance which is defined as playing a piece of copyrighted music in public is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. Fees are paid by radio stations, television stations, movie producers etc. for using copyrighted music. As a photographer playing a piece of music along with showing photos is "public performance" and it is ILLEGAL and a violation of copyright unless you are paying fees to the music copyright holder.

Google the copyright act if you wish confirmation of what I have stated.

2. By linking the copyrighted music to photos you are interpretting his music in a public venue. Only the copyright holder of the music has that right in law.

To put it even more simply PUBLIC use of copyrighted material requires the permission of the copyright holder as does any implied change to the content or meaning of the copyrighted material through the linking with photos etc. By the way "fair use" does not apply in this situation either in the US.

skieur

I guess you don't know anything I don't Where did you read that the OP is planning to use copyrighted music in public? Or maybe I'm just going blind...

Well, come on. Do you really think the purpose was for the private enjoyment of the photographer? Sharing is public performance and showing it to one friend escalates into showing it to a group. I know that I get asked to do lots of public presentations as I expect most photographers do.

skieur

??????????????

I repeat: where did you read the project involved public (or private) playing of the music that inspired the image?

 

[skieur]

pssssssssst skieur - they are talking about making a photo which represents a song - kind of like what an album cover would be - instead of the far more common thing of putting images to a series of images.

Also whilst I don't dispute the legality; youtube is full of songs put to images where often nothing used is signed or agreed to with the copywrite holders.

Well, the US and Canada are in talks to further tighten copyright laws around music and the internet, so no matter what you do or don't do, it makes sense to me not be sued for sheer stupidity or ignorance of the law, such as the school administrator who said on national television that he used Disney videos to entertain the students during a teacher strike. The settlement for Disney out of court was $60,000. There was no defense possible.

Although when I think about it, perhaps it is to my advantage if people are ignorant of the law, since I just recently successfully settled my first very substantial lawsuit as a plaintif.

skieur

 

[Iron Flatline]

skieur, I don't usually follow these kinds of arguments to the end, but I really need to speak up here. I founded record labels, I ran big record labels, and I have been in the entertainment industry for 25 years, all of them as a leading executive.

What this kid is doing, what a lot of people are doing, is the modern digital equivalent of writing a band's name on the cover of a notebook. As a digital medium it is obviously much simpler to distribute an item like this... but the ONLY two reasons any company will use a lawyer is because of revenue (missing out on it, not wanting someone else to earn money off your IP) or because of damage to the "image" of the Act - someone using your music (or other IP) for an unrelated product that substantially hurts the reputation.

I can't comment on the specifics of any case... but the little info you offer there has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about here. If a school uses a video to entertain students during a strike they are entering into commercial exhibition... those stupid disclaimers we all fast-forward through at the beginning of each movie make it pretty clear that it is a big NO!... since the days of VCRs btw, that's not new.

Entertainment companies will also sue for cases that have an illustrative power - some kid using a university network to set up a file sharing system, for instance.

I will give you the last word, I don't want to spend my free time and my hobby talking about these things, but please mitigate the alarmism.

...and does ANYBODY know where I can legally download that song I was asking about? It is REALLY cool!

 

[dtzitko]

...and does ANYBODY know where I can legally download that song I was asking about? It is REALLY cool!

No clue, but Atmosphere is pretty ****ing awesome. They remind me of Jurassic 5 a little.