Abuse of Copyright Law?

[KdLaneJr]

Instead of taking down a music video of her kid dancing (youtube), This lady is suing for abuse of copyright law.

http://tinyurl.com/3382t4

Do you think we'll see an impact from lawsuits like this?

[ndsimm]

this is usually how it starts - someone claiming their rights were violated (when they were in violation of the law) and then laws are changed because of it

[KdLaneJr]

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate "Fair Use"

[jeffkohn]

It seems to me like that 30sec clip should definitely fall under fair use. The problem is that these companies are issuing takedown notices, and service providers seem to be blindly complying with the take-down notices rather than evaluate whether they're actually legitimate infringements or not.

[kenw]

the 30 second video is certainly under Fair Use imho.

What isn't (in most opinions) is when that 30 second clip gets distributed (ie, posted) , is copy-able (ie; denies revenue to the owner), and/or generates revenue (ie; for the hosting company via traffic and therefore advertising $$).

Fair use typically ends when the use becomes non-private. This one is going to need some definition by the courts.

Here's one that is broiling currently, involving photographs but no lawyers:
http://www.railroadforums.com/forum/...ad.php?t=20327

[wjmphoto]

These are the simple facts of life, whether we like them or not. Purchasing a CD, downloading music from itunes or other legal avenues of purchaing music only allow the end user to play the music for personal use in their homes. It does not give us the right to sync music to photo slideshows, use it in videos, trade it with other people, or anything else without paying royalties to the artist and distribution company for its use. Just because people do it all the time or we really want to make videos wit music and distribute them all on utube, does not mean that the music industry is wrong or going overboard in enforcing their right under US copyright laws to have people remove videos that violate the EULA that we inherently agree to when we purchase a CD.

The lady is violating copyright - period. Instead of taking down the video whe is making up a "poor me" fight acting like a coprporation is doing something wrong against a little kid.

What I find amusing is that on a board filed with photographers who, for the most part, readily complain the moment a customer scans or sopies an image rather than paying for reprints or paying for the file people are defending another form of copyright violation as rational. Would you be so ready to say the shooter is wrong for taking a customer to court because a mom copies a shot of her baby and puts it all over the web and makes copies for her family and friends in violation of that photographers intellectual property right because it is a shot of a kid? The subject matter is irrelevant because in either case, the woman in question is, in fact violating intellectual property and copyright laws.

What I find offensive is how willing people are to have this woman win her case and weaken intellectual property rights and copyright laws for everyone as part of the end result. These types of cases do not only effect the music industry, but also other industries in which intellectual property is important. Each time that some dirtbag wins a case like this, it makes it just that much harder for us to protect our rights with the work that we create and collect damages when people steal from us.

[KdLaneJr]

Most all of us have seen more than one thread where a photographer is asking "how much do I charge" for an image that xxxx wants to use for yyyy.

The answers generally include some web links to various pricing indexes that attempt to place the price on type of usage, distribution, etc.

Some of these threads even go so far as to recommend taking into account the net worth of the company.

Intellectual property is extremely diversified in its content and usage and the net result is that it makes a one size fits all copyright law questionable.

The recording industry has a rather interesting take on things. Over the years many musicians, bands, singers, etc. have lost out on the bulk of the value of their "intellectual property" due the nature of recording contracts. Some are fortunate to be receiving royalties that add up quite nicely. In the majority of these cases, the marketer of the media dictates the royalty in the initial contract as they control the marketing and distribution.

I'm sure there are some models that receive a royalty every time their image is sold by a photographer, but I'd suspect that these are only the top models and not the norm for your average model release.

How many of you have a business model that includes paying a model a percentage of sales of their image?

I would have expected that a rendition of music for usage in a commercial nature would have a licensing requirement, but I wouldn't have expected a 30 second clip used for non-commercial purposes to require licensing.

Here is an attempt to protect intellectual property

And here is how the case was decided.

What exactly constitutes fair use will continue to evolve. Hopefully that will not be to the point of being ludicrous in it's definition.

[Coelus]

Purchasing a CD, downloading music from itunes or other legal avenues of purchaing music only allow the end user to play the music for personal use in their homes. It does not give us the right to sync music to photo slideshows, use it in videos, trade it with other people, or anything else without paying royalties to the artist and distribution company for its use.

So would you see the linking ability of the Zune mp3 player as a device that violates copyrights?

I see muscians and possibly videographers getting hit much harder than photographers for royalties. There's just not as much illegal file sharing with photos as there is with music. I also think it's easier to change our business model than it is for the music industry.

If you can show your customer that your print is better than the Wal-Mart 1hr photo then chances are they'll pay you for your product. If you can't do better than why should they pay you the mark up? After all, you proved yourself a better option than "mall chain studio A" and "other photog in the phonebook B" didn't you? If you're getting paid for your creativity, charge it up front. Why wait to see if they might buy more prints from you. Most people today would rather their friend email a photo to them than get a desk or wallet photo in the mail anyway. Sell to the market.

[Jake]

So let me get this straight.
The music was playing in the background while the child was dancing?
It was not synced after the video was shot?

If that's the case, then if someone post a picture of their kid and a wall portrait that I shot can be seen in the background, I can sue for copyright infringement?

[zach-e2]

Originally Posted by thejakestir

So let me get this straight.
The music was playing in the background while the child was dancing?
It was not synced after the video was shot?

If that's the case, then if someone post a picture of their kid and a wall portrait that I shot can be seen in the background, I can sue for copyright infringement?

seems like it.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by thejakestir

So let me get this straight.
The music was playing in the background while the child was dancing?
It was not synced after the video was shot?

If that's the case, then if someone post a picture of their kid and a wall portrait that I shot can be seen in the background, I can sue for copyright infringement?

the music playing was an integral part of the clip; the kid was dancing "to the music". It is a performance of the music just as much as it is a perfomance of the kid.

[DeLeon]

Originally Posted by kenw

the music playing was an integral part of the clip; the kid was dancing "to the music". It is a performance of the music just as much as it is a perfomance of the kid.

Sorry..just don't buy it. Just seems silly to me. I get on to my 3 yr old all the time for having the "hey thats mine!" attitude. I guess it just never goes away.

[MikkiStreak]

It's almost amusing to see how people get their their panties in a twist and want to see the woman raked over the coals by the courts for something that has always been a common thing. Before Utube, people were still creating mini-movies set to music and playing them publicly at events. Hell, I know a lot of wedding photographers who create slideshows that are set to music in the background and most of them don't pay royalties for using the music. And, how about when photographers loan their equipment to each other for paying jobs--- that is something that should be legally pursued by the manufacturers according to some of the arguments I've read....

I gotta say tho---- I know of a wedding photographer on another forum who always advises brides to ask for the rights to their images. Until I started reading these threads, I didn't really think much about the implications behind this. But now, I realize what a smart piece of advice that is.

[Mike G]

No one I see here is wanting to see her raked over the coals, she was asked to remove the video, not sued. She is the one filing suit.

You did read that, right?

[studiocygnet]

I'm a musician, and in my opinion, 30 seconds of a 4:39 minute song playing behind a dancing baby does not copyright infringement make. I agree with the Jakestir's take on this, but here it would be maybe 20% of your photo in the background. And if she had taken the video a few minutes later, it would have been a different song playing, so the specific song is incidental to the performance on film. Like if she turned the camera and there was a different portrait on the wall.

This is totally different than using a complete song as a soundtrack. Heck, if you look at my band's website, we have 30 second clips of a bunch of our songs available so that you can check them out and see what they sound like. Most bands do that. The whole song is the art, so if it is not at least the major percentage of the song, I don't see the problem.