music downloading

[pbyd]

For those that think it is a right to use music on their websites without the copyright, read this article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

[Cajungaltx]

Wayne,
Don't even get me started on the whole using popular top 40 music on your site... as someone whose entire business is build on the whole 'buy your prints from me, don't print screen/right click & print your images from Walmart'.... when I load another photographers site... or someone sends me a site so I can see this awesome image.... I almost go irate.

I had a high school classmate whose sister has 3 top 40 songs on her photography website... her sister had gave me the link...and I politely told her, that she might want to consider buying her song from one of the sites... cause she could get in trouble using those songs unless she bought the commercial rights.

The response was: She bought the commercial rights.

Now.... maybe it's just me... and maybe I don't know much.... but there is NO way this girl bought the rights to ALL 3 songs....

But, I bit my tongue... and went on about my life....

But it aggravates me because if someone took a photo off of their website, and used it... how quickly do you think they'd be calling PPA or someone else to 'defend their ownership'...

[CaptainTom]

Actually, buying the commercial rights is not a complicated process.
Contact ASCAP and "just git er done".

Customer Licensees
License Agreements

ASCAP Experimental License Agreement for Non-Interactive Services - Release 5.1

Non-Interactive 5.1

The Non-Interactive 5.1 license is intended for services that perform ASCAP music in a non-interactive manner, meaning performances of specific songs are not selected by users.

Examples of transmissions that qualify for Non-Interactive 5.1 include:
'Webcasts'
Streaming background music
Previews or 'samples' (song excerpts that are 60 seconds or less in duration)

[Brains]

I'm curious if anyone has experience with the costs involved with licensing a popular song from ASCAP/BMI/etc. I tend to seek out music licensed under Creative Commons licenses, and pimping the artist on the site somewhere. I feel not only is it nice to hopefully get an artist a touch more exposure, but the music is nice and fresh vs. something everyone has heard 1000 times before.

[BWangPhoto]

Originally Posted by Brains

I'm curious if anyone has experience with the costs involved with licensing a popular song from ASCAP/BMI/etc. I tend to seek out music licensed under Creative Commons licenses, and pimping the artist on the site somewhere. I feel not only is it nice to hopefully get an artist a touch more exposure, but the music is nice and fresh vs. something everyone has heard 1000 times before.

Yes,

We wanted to use Jason Meraz "I Am Yours" and called ASCAP about the cost of licensing the song on the website. I believe it was right at 470.00 a year for rights to play that song on the website.

Needless to say, we don't use that song on our website.

[kimberley]

It also drives me nuts from someone who pays a license fee of 150 per song per year for the songs I use, it cost me alot but I pay it...and I use 3 songs..so add'er up thats alot of dough but its done right :0

[carrbowl]

Or how about the professional photographer that uses a copied version of Photoshop??? I had one admit that to me in a workshop....I had all I could to to be quiet.

[pbyd]

As people complain about this, maybe you will see why some past members of TPF believed in a level playing field for all photographers, we had a member that felt we should pay taxes fairly also. So many of the people that are out charging clients money for photography not only use the music with out paying, they also don’t pay their fair share of the tax burden that legal business pay, so many I have talked to do not even research to find they should pay not only sales and income taxes but business personal property taxes also and should (if in Houston city limits) have an occupancy permit. I do know many do not want this to start again, but it fits in the same area of doing business legally. Can we really just pick the area that we feel is wrong.
Wayne

[Cajungaltx]

Originally Posted by pbyd

As people complain about this, maybe you will see why some past members of TPF believed in a level playing field for all photographers, we had a member that felt we should pay taxes fairly also. So many of the people that are out charging clients money for photography not only use the music with out paying, they also don’t pay their fair share of the tax burden that legal business pay, so many I have talked to do not even research to find they should pay not only sales and income taxes but business personal property taxes also and should (if in Houston city limits) have an occupancy permit. I do know many do not want this to start again, but it fits in the same area of doing business legally. Can we really just pick the area that we feel is wrong.
Wayne

Wayne,
I think you are right.... I think part of it is that photographers - generally speaking - don't come from a 'business background'. At least most of the ones that I know don't.

So the aspects of 'running a business' are foreign to them....and it makes it hard. I think that it's hard to know where to focus your attention....and the reality is, that you have to think differently when you start doing this as a 'business' versus just a hobby.

Most people don't though... they start doing it as a business.... by printing of business cards... and presto... now they are in business.

I think though... some growup...and fix the things that they weren't aware of... and work to make it more 'legal' in all areas... the further along they get... it's just a natural consequence of doing more... you know?

Some well known businesses started in people's garages... and didn't get 'legit' until further down the road.

Donna

[pbyd]

Donna, You are so right. For those of you that are looking at photography as a way to earn money, GREAT! Just take the time to call people in business and find out what to do.

[Cajungaltx]

Originally Posted by carrbowl

Or how about the professional photographer that uses a copied version of Photoshop??? I had one admit that to me in a workshop....I had all I could to to be quiet.

Honestly....I think this is one of the hardest areas for some folks. And it is really frustrating.

You almost HAVE to have the program to MAKE money.... but you can't MAKE money without the program... which means you probably couldn't afford it. Unless you've got extra cash just hanging out in your bank account... *lol*

Software is just as big of an investment at times as the computer equipment is...

[AndrewCCM]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Actually, buying the commercial rights is not a complicated process.
Contact ASCAP and "just git er done".

Maybe times have changed.. About 10yrs ago, I tried to do that for my videography biz and couldn't get sync rights and for that matter, hardly would even receive a response other than generic.

I ended up using a stock music agency instead. Still use one of the tunes today for my current website.

[carrbowl]

Originally Posted by pbyd

As people complain about this, maybe you will see why some past members of TPF believed in a level playing field for all photographers, we had a member that felt we should pay taxes fairly also. So many of the people that are out charging clients money for photography not only use the music with out paying, they also don’t pay their fair share of the tax burden that legal business pay, so many I have talked to do not even research to find they should pay not only sales and income taxes but business personal property taxes also and should (if in Houston city limits) have an occupancy permit. I do know many do not want this to start again, but it fits in the same area of doing business legally. Can we really just pick the area that we feel is wrong.
Wayne

Well educating people about the issue and beating them over the head is two different issues.

[pbyd]

“Well educating people about the issue and beating them over the head is two different issues.”

Renae,
I really do not believe that letting someone know what is expected by law would be beating them over the head. If someone is guilty of not doing things legal and my statements offend them, I really feel sorry for them. I have never tried to offend and have always given free time and training to anyone interested in photography. I have spent many years in being educated and in business and have always been open to share that knowledge. You can just ask people on this forum and many professional photographers about me and what I try to do for those wanting to be in this business, and you will find out the one thing I am not doing is beating anyone over the head.
If you did not mean this in the way I took it then let me apology now or if you would like to explain what you meant to say you may call me anytime at my studio.


Wayne

[tresorph]

Originally Posted by BWangPhoto

Yes,

We wanted to use Jason Meraz "I Am Yours" and called ASCAP about the cost of licensing the song on the website. I believe it was right at 470.00 a year for rights to play that song on the website.

Needless to say, we don't use that song on our website.

$39 a month for one of the top 5 wedding songs of 2009 ain't to shabby.