| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2009 12:35:07 PM · #26 |
| Madness, what next, people complaining beacuase our images are being used without consent on other peoples blogs. |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 12:37:26 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Madness, what next, people complaining beacuase our images are being used without consent on other peoples blogs. |
I'm not sure but your being sarcastic, right??
MAX! |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 12:46:40 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Madness, what next, people complaining beacuase our images are being used without consent on other peoples blogs. |
r = ///
s = //////
t = //////
l = ////
n = ////////
e = //////////////
You owe me 41 pence for that post, buddy! >:-(
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 12:54:16 PM · #29 |
Have any videos where your family is singing "Happy Birthday"?
You may be in violation of copyright...
//www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 12:56:52 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Madness, what next, people complaining beacuase our images are being used without consent on other peoples blogs. |
You know, I have no problem whatsoever with someone using an image of mine in such a way, as long as they weren't claiming ownership or making a profit from it. Putting up a school play video on youtube is doing neither.
I know that this is sarcasm, but there are plenty of people on here that would be 100% serious about this, and it's a little ridiculous. It's pure and simple greed when it comes down to wanting money for every little instance of use, and that's what's happening here.
 quigley, I get that there are gross manipulations and atrocities against artists and royalties out there, but this kind of thing doesn't fall under that. Fair use is falling under fire here because of pure and simple greed. |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 01:02:52 PM · #31 |
I live in New Orleans and there are hundres of cover bands here and in casinos in Mississippi. I know one band that the singer alone makes near 100k per year...I bet they don't pay a dime in royalties....but a school does....
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Are you kidding? My kid's grade / high school already pays thousands of dollars to copyright holders to do concerts and plays. The school does OUTSTANDING concerts and plays and I guess someone found out and now the copyright holder wants their take!!! |
This has always been the case, as far as I know. I mean, I was in high school in pre-computer times, of course, and even then the school was paying royalties to do stage productions of copyrighted works. And I don't see anything unusual in that, actually; makes perfect sense to me.
R. |
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 01:17:51 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Simms:
Madness, what next, people complaining beacuase our images are being used without consent on other peoples blogs. |
r = ///
s = //////
t = //////
l = ////
n = ////////
e = //////////////
You owe me 41 pence for that post, buddy! >:-( |
$0.61, not a bad profit.. ;p
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 01:24:21 PM · #33 |
I know that many of you have seen this before, and I know there are people who may not agree with everything he says, but I think he brings up many important points on copyright law and how stifling it is to the creative communities.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 01:53:41 PM · #34 |
Is "Carmina Burana" is too new to be performed publicly without a copyright or have the performance posted up on a website? According to Wikipedia, it was written between 1934 and 1935, making it 74-75 years old. Ravel's "Bolero" premiered in 1928, was used and reused over and over in different places over the years, and I haven't found an example of anyone suing for the rights to it.
Speaking of "Bolero"... what about transcriptions of/variations on classical pieces that were written 10-20 years after the original? Paganini's first work, "24 Caprices for Solo Violin" was published in 1819, as a "theme and variations." Almost immediately (starting in 1831, actually), composers were writing studies and variations on the work. I don't think Paganini complained to the composers of the dozen-plus works for "stealing his work." Liszt published his "Grandes Etudes de Paganini" (The "Transcendental Etudes on a Theme by Paganini") in 1838 and re-edited in 1851, and the work was (and still is) considered great in its own right. Maybe we should all follow Paganini's (and dozens of other composers') precedent. An "illegitimate" performance of (or variation on) someone's work actually increases its popularity and helps boost (rather than diminish) creativity.
Same goes with movies - why should people have to pay the Beatles (or whoever owns the copyright) millions of dollars to use their music? Their music's popularity is already increased by the reuse in a movie. If anything, THEY should have to pay to have their music included (okay, maybe that's pushing it; but millions of dollars? That's way too much). Note that I'm not saying this applies to photography - if my image gets used in a movie, it's not like a million people are gonna flock to my website to buy prints of it, unless it's something extremely recognizable (like the image of the sailor kissing a random girl, if the artist was actively selling prints of it). But popular music is like other popular products (e.g. Coca-Cola), and having it used in a popular movie should be considered a privilege.
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 14:06:51. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 06:58:13 PM · #35 |
Copyright in the US is 95 years for a work that's owned by a corporation, which would mean that Carmina Burana is still under the original copyright.
When a performer performs a piece, they have to get permission to perform the work. For a live performance, this is usually done by paying the licensing fees to ASCAP or BMI. The performer pays the ASCAP fees, sends their program in after the performance, and ASCAP forwards the royalties on to the copyright holder. The fee for a live performance is based on the type of organization, size of the hall and the ticket prices, so for a school concert it wouldn't be much. I would assume the school does pays the licensing fees. Licensing for an audio or video recording "performance" is separate from licensing for live performance, and there are separate fees for that, which I would assume the school doesn't pay. Recording your kid's concert for your own personal use is fair use. Putting it on youtube for the world to see isn't. Carmina Burana, being one of the more popular classical works is probably a cash cow for Schott, so they would be pretty aggressive about enforcing their copyright. I would be if it were my piece, anyway.
Once the copyright on a piece expires and it goes into public domain, a publisher can publish their own "edition" of the sheet music. The publisher owns the copyright to that print edition, which would effectively stop someone from copying the sheet music, But holding the copyright to the sheet music of a public domain work wouldn't stop performances, since it would be hard to tell which copyrighted print version (if any) of a public domain work was actually being performed. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 09:06:48 AM EDT.
