copyright infringement discussion

[Killer_Jay]

I believe that all entertainment establishments pay a blanket license, such as restaurants, clubs, hotels etc.

bro,

thanks for that.

but if its a blanket license, i believed it will be word in such a way tat ".....within the boundary of the development......". does it mean tat we can put certain song in the slide show to be played in the ball room or the church reception?

hmmm.....

jay the ponderer

 

[vince123123]

That's a very good question, I have no idea

Maybe must ask Compass. Its not so much law, but what the terms of the area license is.

bro,

thanks for that.

but if its a blanket license, i believed it will be word in such a way tat ".....within the boundary of the development......". does it mean tat we can put certain song in the slide show to be played in the ball room or the church reception?

hmmm.....

jay the ponderer

 

[jopel]

It is good to keep a company of musician friends. Else use Sony Cinescore or the like.

 

[razor]

so complicated.

anyway, using music as a slideshow accompaniment may not be a copyright because you are not taking the credit for writing, composing etc the song. It will fall under the scope of using a song.

So what we need to establish here is when or how to obtain permission to use a song/music as an accompaniment to the photos that u take.

 

[TheQuestion]

so complicated.

anyway, using music as a slideshow accompaniment may not be a copyright because you are not taking the credit for writing, composing etc the song. It will fall under the scope of using a song.

So what we need to establish here is when or how to obtain permission to use a song/music as an accompaniment to the photos that u take.

not so easy especially if you're putting the slide show online or sending it out to a mass audience with the idea of promoting your work. the fact you're promoting your work makes it go into the realm of commercialism. there is the fair use defense but that's a big grey area. by saying its not copyright because you're not taking credit for creating the music might sound like you're trying to rationalize the infringement.

 

[razor]

not so easy especially if you're putting the slide show online or sending it out to a mass audience with the idea of promoting your work. the fact you're promoting your work makes it go into the realm of commercialism. there is the fair use defense but that's a big grey area. by saying its not copyright because you're not taking credit for creating the music might sound like you're trying to rationalize the infringement.

Which infringement? copyrights or rights of use?

 

[TheQuestion]

Which infringement? copyrights or rights of use?

copyrights to say the least. though i have to add that i think its funny that research has shown that more times than not people get annoyed when they visit a site and it automatically plays music...and people who run their own sites seem to have the compulsive need to use music on their site that technically they shouldn't be using are annoying the very audience they are trying to attract. so what's the point of adding music to your site if its gonna serve to annoy your audience? can someone rationalize that for me?

 

[razor]

not so easy especially if you're putting the slide show online or sending it out to a mass audience with the idea of promoting your work. the fact you're promoting your work makes it go into the realm of commercialism. there is the fair use defense but that's a big grey area. by saying its not copyright because you're not taking credit for creating the music might sound like you're trying to rationalize the infringement.

copyrights to say the least. though i have to add that i think its funny that research has shown that more times than not people get annoyed when they visit a site and it automatically plays music...and people who run their own sites seem to have the compulsive need to use music on their site that technically they shouldn't be using are annoying the very audience they are trying to attract. so what's the point of adding music to your site if its gonna serve to annoy your audience? can someone rationalize that for me?

In summary, your point is that it is a copyright issue that someone uses a piece of music for their presentation because in your point of view, the presenter is taking credit for creating the piece of music. Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks.

 

[TheQuestion]

In summary, your point is that it is a copyright issue that someone uses a piece of music for their presentation because in your point of view, the presenter is taking credit for creating the piece of music. Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks.

i don't understand where you're getting the idea that i said that the presenter is taking credit for the music when i never once said such a thing. to go back to the example you quoted me earlier, using a piece of music in your presentation doesn't necessarily mean you're taking credit for creating the music as well. It's just uncited/uncredited. But my my point is: I'm saying its unauthorized usage, credit or not, if the rightful owner is using it without written permission pure and simple. and what does unauthorized usage lead to for any case? COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. unless you made the music for your presentation yourself, any unauthorized usage is an act of copyright infringement especially if the music is unaltered at all. Just like how any leecher who goes ahead and uses your photos for his own commercial presentation would be infringing your copyright. There is the argument of fair use but that only works if you're not using the copyrighted work to make money for yourself and even then its a big minefield to navigate. the earlier argument about private screening also depends on the nature of the private screening (e.g. if you charged money for admission) and the size of the audience. Razor if you want to know more about copyright law either go read the act itself or ask a copyright lawyer for advice.

 

[razor]

i don't understand where you're getting the idea that i said that the presenter is taking credit for the music when i never once said such a thing. to go back to the example you quoted me earlier, using a piece of music in your presentation doesn't necessarily mean you're taking credit for creating the music as well. It's just uncited/uncredited. But my my point is: I'm saying its unauthorized usage, credit or not, if the rightful owner is using it without written permission pure and simple. and what does unauthorized usage lead to for any case? COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. unless you made the music for your presentation yourself, any unauthorized usage is an act of copyright infringement especially if the music is unaltered at all. Just like how any leecher who goes ahead and uses your photos for his own commercial presentation would be infringing your copyright. There is the argument of fair use but that only works if you're not using the copyrighted work to make money for yourself and even then its a big minefield to navigate. the earlier argument about private screening also depends on the nature of the private screening (e.g. if you charged money for admission) and the size of the audience. Razor if you want to know more about copyright law either go read the act itself or ask a copyright lawyer for advice.

HI,

What I am trying to establish here is your (maybe perceived) understanding of the difference of copyright infringement ie Plagiarism vs unauthorised usage.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. unless you made the music for your presentation yourself, any unauthorized usage is an act of copyright infringement especially if the music is unaltered at all.

Are you really sure about this? If its has been altered, what the status?

 

[pianodancer]

Personally, I 'work around' this copyright issue by insisting the wedding couple provide their own background song for my slideshow creation. I am merely creating a piece of visual work against a piece of copyright music. It's as good as creating a slideshow without music and then asking the couple to manually play a CD while the slideshow is run. Not sure whether this holds, and precisely why my slideshow creation service is not actively promoted as a commercial service.

As for broadcasting the slideshow during banquet or any other location, it is the client's responsibility to make sure the broadcasting (performance) rights are paid. In all cases, the hotels would have already paid an annual license to COMPASS to have permission to broadcast copyright music throughout the establishment, including banquet halls.
http://www.compass.org.sg/cIndex28.aspx

If clients want to broadcast in a location where there are no coverage in the performance rights, e.g. HDB void deck, they need to pay a license to COMPASS.

 

[TheQuestion]

Personally, I 'work around' this copyright issue by insisting the wedding couple provide their own background song for my slideshow creation. I am merely creating a piece of visual work against a piece of copyright music. It's as good as creating a slideshow without music and then asking the couple to manually play a CD while the slideshow is run. Not sure whether this holds, and precisely why my slideshow creation service is not actively promoted as a commercial service.

As for broadcasting the slideshow during banquet or any other location, it is the client's responsibility to make sure the broadcasting (performance) rights are paid. In all cases, the hotels would have already paid an annual license to COMPASS to have permission to broadcast copyright music throughout the establishment, including banquet halls.
http://www.compass.org.sg/cIndex28.aspx

If clients want to broadcast in a location where there are no coverage in the performance rights, e.g. HDB void deck, they need to pay a license to COMPASS.

it works better than u putting the music in yourself. Putting the onus on the couple...very clever maneuvering :thumbsup:

 

[johannesp]

As for broadcasting the slideshow during banquet or any other location, it is the client's responsibility to make sure the broadcasting (performance) rights are paid. In all cases, the hotels would have already paid an annual license to COMPASS to have permission to broadcast copyright music throughout the establishment, including banquet halls.

Yup I was in a discussion with a restaurant lately and managed to check with them.
They have already paid for the broadcasting license to COMPASS already.
Thus when a couple wants to get married within the premises, they are allowed to play their music from CD's ( Eg : March-in Music , Ambiance Music etc ).

However there's something i'm not entirely sure about : Technically, a photographer can include the music in the presentation and broadcast it because it's in the same location.
However it does in one way or another also promote the photographer's works. Does this also mean that the music has been used for "commerical purposes" ?

Having said that, so is playing music from a CD while running a sound-less slideshow a good work-around for a photographer since the same effect is achieved?

 

[TheQuestion]

Yup I was in a discussion with a restaurant lately and managed to check with them.
They have already paid for the broadcasting license to COMPASS already.
Thus when a couple wants to get married within the premises, they are allowed to play their music from CD's ( Eg : March-in Music , Ambiance Music etc ).

However there's something i'm not entirely sure about : Technically, a photographer can include the music in the presentation and broadcast it because it's in the same location.
However it does in one way or another also promote the photographer's works. Does this also mean that the music has been used for "commerical purposes" ?

Having said that, so is playing music from a CD while running a sound-less slideshow a good work-around for a photographer since the same effect is achieved?

ask a copyright lawyer about this.

 

[johannesp]

ask a copyright lawyer about this.

Sadly i do not know any copyright lawyers.

lol any copyright lawyer reading this now?
please advice :bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

I think this is a good solution and should be adopted by all wedding photographers. Give the slideshow without music. This will ensure you will never get into trouble for copyright infringement.

Just for discussion sake, where the wedding photographer uses copyrighted music in his slideshow, his only liability is creating a reproduction of the music within his slideshow. He is not liable for broadcast infringement (if any) because it is the couple who broadcasts the work.

As for the part in bold, I think you can promote it actively, I don't see any problem with your approach.

Personally, I 'work around' this copyright issue by insisting the wedding couple provide their own background song for my slideshow creation. I am merely creating a piece of visual work against a piece of copyright music. It's as good as creating a slideshow without music and then asking the couple to manually play a CD while the slideshow is run. Not sure whether this holds, and precisely why my slideshow creation service is not actively promoted as a commercial service.

As for broadcasting the slideshow during banquet or any other location, it is the client's responsibility to make sure the broadcasting (performance) rights are paid. In all cases, the hotels would have already paid an annual license to COMPASS to have permission to broadcast copyright music throughout the establishment, including banquet halls.
http://www.compass.org.sg/cIndex28.aspx

If clients want to broadcast in a location where there are no coverage in the performance rights, e.g. HDB void deck, they need to pay a license to COMPASS.

 

[vince123123]

Once again, I would like to emphasize that when assessing copyright infringement, one should NEVER EVER look at whether it is "commerical use" or "non-commercial use" to see if it is safe or not to do a particular act or deed.

My views to your questions are, the photographer should not include the music in his presentation - give the presentation without music to the couple.

The couple can choose to play their own music if they want. They will then be the primary party responsible for broadcasting it. If the hotel already paid the blanket license, then they will be in the clear.

Yup I was in a discussion with a restaurant lately and managed to check with them.
They have already paid for the broadcasting license to COMPASS already.
Thus when a couple wants to get married within the premises, they are allowed to play their music from CD's ( Eg : March-in Music , Ambiance Music etc ).

However there's something i'm not entirely sure about : Technically, a photographer can include the music in the presentation and broadcast it because it's in the same location.
However it does in one way or another also promote the photographer's works. Does this also mean that the music has been used for "commerical purposes" ?

Having said that, so is playing music from a CD while running a sound-less slideshow a good work-around for a photographer since the same effect is achieved?

 

[pianodancer]

I think this is a good solution and should be adopted by all wedding photographers. Give the slideshow without music. This will ensure you will never get into trouble for copyright infringement.

Just for discussion sake, where the wedding photographer uses copyrighted music in his slideshow, his only liability is creating a reproduction of the music within his slideshow. He is not liable for broadcast infringement (if any) because it is the couple who broadcasts the work.

As for the part in bold, I think you can promote it actively, I don't see any problem with your approach.

Once again, I would like to emphasize that when assessing copyright infringement, one should NEVER EVER look at whether it is "commerical use" or "non-commercial use" to see if it is safe or not to do a particular act or deed.

My views to your questions are, the photographer should not include the music in his presentation - give the presentation without music to the couple.

The couple can choose to play their own music if they want. They will then be the primary party responsible for broadcasting it. If the hotel already paid the blanket license, then they will be in the clear.

Just to be clear, so far I have been compiling the background music in my slideshows for clients. I am just stating the underlying intent that by requesting the clients to provide their own music to me, my job is to sync the slideshow to the music that they appoint.

But now from what I gather from vince and TheQuestion responses, it is definitely a great idea to provide 2 slideshow versions to clients: one without music, and one with music. Therefore, my liability is only to provide a music-syncing service on top of my visual slideshow creation. I can also argue that I am charging the clients for the slideshow without music, while the version with music is done as a personal favour.

In similar context, I have clients requesting me to edit/remix copyright music to fit a certain length. My approach is that I am providing a service to mix music but I am not responsible for the copyright that the client has to bear when playing the music in public places. I also do not SELL the copyright music - meaning the client must provide the music for me to edit.

 

[splim]

Just to be clear, so far I have been compiling the background music in my slideshows for clients. I am just stating the underlying intent that by requesting the clients to provide their own music to me, my job is to sync the slideshow to the music that they appoint.

But now from what I gather from vince and TheQuestion responses, it is definitely a great idea to provide 2 slideshow versions to clients: one without music, and one with music. Therefore, my liability is only to provide a music-syncing service on top of my visual slideshow creation. I can also argue that I am charging the clients for the slideshow without music, while the version with music is done as a personal favour.

In similar context, I have clients requesting me to edit/remix copyright music to fit a certain length. My approach is that I am providing a service to mix music but I am not responsible for the copyright that the client has to bear when playing the music in public places. I also do not SELL the copyright music - meaning the client must provide the music for me to edit.

:think: I thought the "ACTION" itself, to reproduced without permission from the creator, is an infringement, not so much on who provide you the music, unless the provider itself is the creator. :think:

 

[pianodancer]

:think: I thought the "ACTION" itself, to reproduced without permission from the creator, is an infringement, not so much on who provide you the music, unless the provider itself is the creator. :think:

Hmm then can I argue that since I am being paid to do the work, the reproduced/altered work belongs to the client and therefore it's the client who will face infringement? Afterall, the commissioner owns the rights to any creative work (unless otherwise stated in writing).