A theft is a theft is a theft, regardless...

[glassgowkiss]

A theft is a theft is a theft, regardless of the type of property- even if it is intellectual. I don't know why is it OK to use someone else's music for commercial purposes? So what's up with all the videos and slide shows of sponsored athletes, who use music without securing copy rights from the label? Don't musicians deserve a paycheck as well? If you post a youtube video for personal (non-profit) purposes I can understand. However it's hard to comprehend this mentality if a video ends up being a part of a promotional campaign of a multi- million dollar corporations like BD or Patagonia!

Here is an expamle vid

I know for fact these companies require "model releases" for all their photo submissions, so why isn't the same required for music? I wonder how would a "professional climber" react if his/hers photo was used in an add let's say by a major car company without actually getting paid for it?

Another example: vid and blog . WTF? A commercial guiding service promoting themselves, but using other people material to do so?

There are options like: "royalty-free music" or your local band looking for exposure (just post a free add on your local craigslist and your mail box will be flooded with responses).

BTW- Colin, don't treat this as personal attack, rather a disappointment with BD, who should use a better judgment.

[Doug]

so how do you know that in the case of the Haley Vid that BD didn't secure rights? A buddy of mine's brother works for EMI in New York and his job is arranging usage rights.

[Braydon]

A theft is a theft is a theft, regardless of the type of property- even if it is intellectual. I don't know why is it OK to use someone else's music for commercial purposes? So what's up with all the videos and slide shows of sponsored athletes, who use music without securing copy rights from the label? Don't musicians deserve a paycheck as well? If you post a youtube video for personal (non-profit) purposes I can understand. However it's hard to comprehend this mentality if a video ends up being a part of a promotional campaign of a multi- million dollar corporations like BD or Patagonia!

Here is an expamle vid

I know for fact these companies require "model releases" for all their photo submissions, so why isn't the same required for music? I wonder how would a "professional climber" react if his/hers photo was used in an add let's say by a major car company without actually getting paid for it?

Another example: vid and blog . WTF? A commercial guiding service promoting themselves, but using other people material to do so?

There are options like: "royalty-free music" or your local band looking for exposure (just post a free add on your local craigslist and your mail box will be flooded with responses).

BTW- Colin, don't treat this as personal attack.

 

Road goes on forever by Robert Earl Keen...not what I was expecting lol...

[glassgowkiss]

Road goes on forever by Robert Earl Keen...not what I was expecting lol...

Again, even if you buy a song on ITunes or such sites the usage is limited to "personal use". Promoting a guiding business hardly can qualify as such.

[wayne]

I have wondered about this and wanted to ask you about this Bob. I had a video silenced by utube and am obviously not commercial. No biggie to me.

There is a site where you can buy the song rights? What is the process?

[glassgowkiss]

Wayne, obtaining "managed rights" to music is almost a full time job. Some smaller labels are easier to deal with, still a major pain. The fees and agreements depend on your source for distribution (DVD, theater screenings, web), and your viewership- like how many copies are you planning on releasing.

You can purchase also from sites like: r-f music , also getty will negotiate agreements for you. up to 2500 copies it's usually 10 cents per song per copy.

Just post an add to craigslist for local musicians, what they gain is an exposure what you gain is music. A lot of it is great, but only deal with bands without label.

 

[glassgowkiss]

Wayne, also the difference is you are not using your films for commercial purposes. I think there is a big difference between posting some film about a climb on youtube and posting a video on BD web page as part of your marketing strategy. As the matter of fact Red Bull always secures permits for their films and slide shows (like for Glovach). Colin most likely made it for personal use, but I think BD should use a better judgement in using such material. This is why it is so important to pay attention to this- a good piece of footage can be unmarketable due to this issue.

Some time ago there was a documentary- the problem was music played from the radio in the background. The cost of documentary $1K- cost of clearing music rights- 300K.

 

[NoahT]

Wayne,

I had a YouTube notice about copywrite infringment on a video due to the music. I "objected" to it, though not with any legal right to, and the blockage went away.

 

I think it must be a computer program that detects and automatically notifys the offending party, but then doesn't necessarily follow-up on determining who does or doesn't have legal rights to use the music once it's been challeneged.

 

Probably protects YouTube legally, and leaves pursuing "offenders" up to the people who actually own the rights.

 

Anyways, might be worth a shot despite the serious sounding note they send.

 

Cheers,

 

Noah

 

[Mal_Con]

I did work for a Sportswear Company and we always secured rights for any music used in commercials etc. As far as I know that is standard operating procedure we also produced content and monitored to see if others used our property.

[Stonehead]

"Now let's not get frantic there... the cat in the bebop hat - watch out for them, they're livin in the past"

--Hendrix, 5/24/69

 

[video:youtube]v=_yC81QhR_xk

[video:youtube]v=7Q25-S7jzgs

[glassgowkiss]

Sorry, but I don't buy Larry's argument. Using a song in a video, which is subsequently used to promote a product is like using a picture or a part of a book for another promotional purposes. These laws don't strangle creativity- as the matter of fact they promote it. Here is a link to a movie made on a shoe string budget- [video:youtube]

[Stonehead]

His model doesn't disagree with yours, just that the copyright laws must be brought up-to-date with today's realities. For instance, take a look at the concept of the Creative Commons where there are something like four different categories of copyright, each one differing in how the material may be used/reproduced.

 

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

[Wallstein]

Hey Bob not sure why you throw patagonia into the mix. You seam to be a guy that throws around facts and not conjecture. Patagonia does indeed require usage rights for music as I've had to deal with it before.

[glassgowkiss]

Hey Bob not sure why you throw patagonia into the mix. You seam to be a guy that throws around facts and not conjecture. Patagonia does indeed require usage rights for music as I've had to deal with it before.

Patagonia falls under "live performance" category. They sponsor a shit load of slide shows with people use copywritten material. Again, I see a big difference between showing some pics at my buddy's house vs. paid gig and part of marketing strategy. These shows do promote products, don't they?

I find it strange and frustrating that photographers and videographers are very protective about their work, but they don't think twice about using a music piece without permission.

[glassgowkiss]

His model doesn't disagree with yours, just that the copyright laws must be brought up-to-date with today's realities. For instance, take a look at the concept of the Creative Commons where there are something like four different categories of copyright, each one differing in how the material may be used/reproduced.

 

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

I think the law is simple enough in the cases I am talking about.

[Pete_H]

Patagonia falls under "live performance" category. They sponsor a shit load of slide shows with people use copywritten material. Again, I see a big difference between showing some pics at my buddy's house vs. paid gig and part of marketing strategy. These shows do promote products, don't they?

 

All the public slideshows I've seen are pretty low-key local affairs in which the climber / presenter is essentially doing the show as a favor to the community and maybe the local climbing shop. Even if the presenter mentions the companies name at the end of the show I would hardly call the show a "commercial" affair.

 

 

 

 

 

[glassgowkiss]

Pete, I think shows at Ouray, Banff, Red Rock Randevous, Squamish are good examples of events drawing several hundreds of viewers and go beyond "a favor to the community" or your "local climbing shop". If they were money losing ventures nobody would organize them.

[Pete_H]

I would agree Bob. Those kind of shows are definitly more commercial than Colin giving a show at Feathered Friends to about 50 people who know eachother.

[Blake]

Hey Bob,

 

This is an interesting topic. I wonder if a lawyer who specializes in copyright cases or internet/tech related issues would shed some definitive light on it. I'd be curious to hear your take on the following scenario.

 

Last fall I showed some photos and video clips on an evening down at Backcountry Essentials in Bellingham as a fundraiser for saving Index. A couple hundred folks showed up, and while video and pictures showed, I played some (copyrighted) music in the background off my computer's iTunes, never thinking twice about it, which may have been a mistake on my part. Although all the donations went to preserve Index, and there was no entry price, I'm sure that Backcountry Essentials, Cilogear, and Outdoor Research were mentioned or thanked for supporting the event (with free raffle prizes that night) or those climbing trips (with gear).

 

I think if Toyota or General Motors were using a band's copyrighted song in their car commercial, that would clearly be wrong. Likewise, I think that if I made a song-and-picture slideshow and played it for some friends who came over for dinner, that would be clearly ok. It's interesting where the line is drawn somewhere in between the two.

[Pete_H]

You probably ilegally downloaded the copyrighted music off the internet too. Thief!

[glassgowkiss]

I think this is an answer:

"A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances.) A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet. Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or his representative. However, there are a few limited exceptions, (called "exemptions") to this rule. Permission is not required for music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place (for example, a radio or television broadcast). Performances as part of face to face teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt."

[glassgowkiss]

Hey Bob,

 

This is an interesting topic. I wonder if a lawyer who specializes in copyright cases or internet/tech related issues would shed some definitive light on it. I'd be curious to hear your take on the following scenario.

 

Last fall I showed some photos and video clips on an evening down at Backcountry Essentials in Bellingham as a fundraiser for saving Index. A couple hundred folks showed up, and while video and pictures showed, I played some (copyrighted) music in the background off my computer's iTunes, never thinking twice about it, which may have been a mistake on my part. Although all the donations went to preserve Index, and there was no entry price, I'm sure that Backcountry Essentials, Cilogear, and Outdoor Research were mentioned or thanked for supporting the event (with free raffle prizes that night) or those climbing trips (with gear).

 

I think if Toyota or General Motors were using a band's copyrighted song in their car commercial, that would clearly be wrong. Likewise, I think that if I made a song-and-picture slideshow and played it for some friends who came over for dinner, that would be clearly ok. It's interesting where the line is drawn somewhere in between the two.

I don't know why Toyota or GM differ from BD or other companies? I am not going to speculate about a fund raiser for non-profit, but this is not what we are talking about here. We are talking well paid slide shows and movies, and a subsequent use of these shows a a part of marketing strategy.

I think Blake you should be also aware of your output.

[Blake]

You probably ilegally downloaded the copyrighted music off the internet too. Thief!

 

Probably so, probably back when we had a thing called Napster!

[hafilax]

Do DJs or clubs pay royalties when they spin tunes with a cover charge?

Edited January 25, 2010 by hafilax

[glassgowkiss]

They are supposed to. ASCAP sued 12 venues around the country for playing music without a license. I know DJ's are also supposed to purchase a license. These licenses are not like a royalty agreements for motion pictures, but rather a blanket license for all music played.