Dear all,
My rambalings carry on!!!
What are your thoughts on Copyright?
Are the Copyright holders, money pinchers?
Do you believe in Copyright 100%?
My own thoughts on this are that If I want to put someone elses music into my films, then I will! I`m not making any money from it? This may seem ok but it really isn`t legal is it. You are still pintching someone elses work from the CD and putting it onto your computer.
So, when we do this are we stealing or is it ok?
The IAC does a really cheap copyright license for about £9.00 or thereabouts. This covers everything from copying, storeing on your computer, editing, puting into your films, burning your film, to showing your film and entering it into competitions!
Great value you say. It is!!
Your Thoughts on Copyright?
Your Thoughts on Copyright?
Ian Gardner
Film Maker
Film Maker
Here in the USA we have no equivalent to the IAC music licence system. However, perhaps the US Copyright laws are different from those in the UK. In the law here there is a section that permits "Fair Use" to cover educational use of copyrighted material where the use may not impact the potential earnings of the copyright owner or be used for commercial purposes. So AMPS and AMMA are registered to include education in their mandate.
Mark Levy, past president of AMMA and AMPS member is a Patent/Intellectual Rights lawyer and assured us that we can operate within the Fair Use category for our Festivals and Conventions. This is why the AMPS winners DVDs are loaned free of charge to members for study.
ned c
Mark Levy, past president of AMMA and AMPS member is a Patent/Intellectual Rights lawyer and assured us that we can operate within the Fair Use category for our Festivals and Conventions. This is why the AMPS winners DVDs are loaned free of charge to members for study.
ned c
A so much better way Ned C. `Over Here` we have to pay for everything, even the films that we have made and entered in IAC competitions, we have to hire from it`s library!
For the shot`s I filmed in the 75 Year IAC film (a bug bearer for me at the moment!) If I want to see myself on how it come out the film, then i`ve got to pay to watch it! Cheaper to go to the Cinema or buy a DVD from Woolworth`s!
Life is Life.
For the shot`s I filmed in the 75 Year IAC film (a bug bearer for me at the moment!) If I want to see myself on how it come out the film, then i`ve got to pay to watch it! Cheaper to go to the Cinema or buy a DVD from Woolworth`s!
Life is Life.
Ian Gardner
Film Maker
Film Maker
-
billyfromConsett
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: Consett
We all have moments where our mouths (or finger[s]) go into gear before our heads. If you later, upon reflection (and after a few angry PMs) realise you made foul up, then either apologise, or do a simple re-edit to correct your trigger-happy fingers.stingman wrote: I don`t like to re-edit posts that have already been sent. I think it`s a bit of a lie to post something and then retract it like nothing has happened!
Re the costs of things. I understand that our IAC subscriptions are a basic fee to cover the costs of running the place. If any of use want 'extras', then it sounds fair to me to pay as you play. I know you're on about your own work, but you're not going to get a library tape with purely your own work on, cos if that's the case I've got a suggestion- keep a copy before you send it off.
-
billyfromConsett
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: Consett
I forgot to mention about the copyright bit.
We use music to enhance our films. If our 'mood' films had no music, would they still win things, or even be as good? Maybe not? Well then, somebody should get something small for giving their bit of creativity to boost our creativity.
If you make a heap load of cash from doing that, I'm calling the police.
We use music to enhance our films. If our 'mood' films had no music, would they still win things, or even be as good? Maybe not? Well then, somebody should get something small for giving their bit of creativity to boost our creativity.
If you make a heap load of cash from doing that, I'm calling the police.
If you read the posts again. Your see that It`s not Just my own work. Some of us were asked to Interview ourselves and also to include insert edit material. Yes, we didn`t do it for a free copy! We did it to surport the IAC. But it`s nice to see your work in the finished film. Also, for us on here that were involved. It`s nice to see the other members of this forum on camera.billyfromConsett wrote:We all have moments where our mouths (or finger[s]) go into gear before our heads. If you later, upon reflection (and after a few angry PMs) realise you made foul up, then either apologise, or do a simple re-edit to correct your trigger-happy fingers.stingman wrote: I don`t like to re-edit posts that have already been sent. I think it`s a bit of a lie to post something and then retract it like nothing has happened!
Re the costs of things. I understand that our IAC subscriptions are a basic fee to cover the costs of running the place. If any of use want 'extras', then it sounds fair to me to pay as you play. I know you're on about your own work, but you're not going to get a library tape with purely your own work on, cos if that's the case I've got a suggestion- keep a copy before you send it off.
So I`m not being a cheapskate. It`s what I do If I do a film and interview someone. I ALWAYS give them a copy of the finished film. It doesn`t cost alot. DO YOU
!Ian Gardner
Film Maker
Film Maker
-
Dave Watterson
- Posts: 1878
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
- Location: Bath, England
- Contact:
As someone who makes a living as a technical author I ought to feel strongly in favour of copyright ... but I don't.
The basic argument is that if I were to build widgets and sell them I would hope to get a fair price for each one I made. If a customer then used that widget to make him or herself a fortune I would not expect to get a royalty.
In fact my work usually entails being hired by a company to write a handbook for them. I get paid for writing the book. So I have had my reward for the work. After that I don't care what happens to the book or how the text in it is used.
When I write for the open market - sending an article to a commercial magazine, for example, I also get paid if they take it. After that I don't care what happens to it.
The catch is that someone has to pay me because the work is worth it to them.
I see that as being the basic position taken by suppliers of royalty-free music CDs. They get the profit from selling the disc and after that ...
The catch comes when the creative person cannot get a fair payment for their work from the first purchaser. A composer may persuade an orchestra to use his/her music but will not get paid enough to compensate for the time, energy and talent they put into writing it. Therefore they want to be able to retain the work and just hire it out (license it) for each use.
In practice most copyrights for music and many images are held not by artists or composers starving in a garret but by huge corporations who have bought them and simply seek to maximise the income they can get.
BUT as for us using them in videos ... in the privacy of your home who knows or cares what you do! But if you want to show your work to a wider audience at the club, in a competition or to the public ... then you should make it your own work, or buy the rights.
Dave (slightly muddle-thinking) W.
The basic argument is that if I were to build widgets and sell them I would hope to get a fair price for each one I made. If a customer then used that widget to make him or herself a fortune I would not expect to get a royalty.
In fact my work usually entails being hired by a company to write a handbook for them. I get paid for writing the book. So I have had my reward for the work. After that I don't care what happens to the book or how the text in it is used.
When I write for the open market - sending an article to a commercial magazine, for example, I also get paid if they take it. After that I don't care what happens to it.
The catch is that someone has to pay me because the work is worth it to them.
I see that as being the basic position taken by suppliers of royalty-free music CDs. They get the profit from selling the disc and after that ...
The catch comes when the creative person cannot get a fair payment for their work from the first purchaser. A composer may persuade an orchestra to use his/her music but will not get paid enough to compensate for the time, energy and talent they put into writing it. Therefore they want to be able to retain the work and just hire it out (license it) for each use.
In practice most copyrights for music and many images are held not by artists or composers starving in a garret but by huge corporations who have bought them and simply seek to maximise the income they can get.
BUT as for us using them in videos ... in the privacy of your home who knows or cares what you do! But if you want to show your work to a wider audience at the club, in a competition or to the public ... then you should make it your own work, or buy the rights.
Dave (slightly muddle-thinking) W.
I think David is still suffering from jetlagg 
Seriously, he is quite right, but how many of us think that one law is more inportant then another? The law is the law. If a cop gets me for sppeding (never happened yet! They cannot catch me on two wheels!!!!) then I`ll call it a fair cop! If a speeding camera gets me, then I think it`s no so fair and i`ll be mad.
So, we all do it and get away with it, but really, if we look hard into it, we may find that we are breaking the law even if we don`t know it!
It`s up to us. I still think we can use copyright music in our films, but it`s proberly wrong. See other posts for reasons.
Seriously, he is quite right, but how many of us think that one law is more inportant then another? The law is the law. If a cop gets me for sppeding (never happened yet! They cannot catch me on two wheels!!!!) then I`ll call it a fair cop! If a speeding camera gets me, then I think it`s no so fair and i`ll be mad.
So, we all do it and get away with it, but really, if we look hard into it, we may find that we are breaking the law even if we don`t know it!
It`s up to us. I still think we can use copyright music in our films, but it`s proberly wrong. See other posts for reasons.
Ian Gardner
Film Maker
Film Maker
-
billyfromConsett
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: Consett
I don't know any wedding videographers, but dabble in it myself, maybe once or twice a year. I don't do it for people I don't know or advertise. As for the music, I do own a IAC licence and don't charge more than expenses.
From the pro forums I occasionally look at, the guys know the rules, and I get the impression that many at least look at being legal.
From the pro forums I occasionally look at, the guys know the rules, and I get the impression that many at least look at being legal.
-
billyfromConsett
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: Consett
-
Dave Watterson
- Posts: 1878
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
- Location: Bath, England
- Contact:
Hey guys ... let's not get into the confusion between "amateur" and "amateurish" here ... we have enough trouble with that when dealing with people in the outside world !!!
Being an old-fashioned type I like the distinction between the amateur who does something for love and the professional who does it for money.
I do not like the assumption that an amateur is not good at doing it while a professional is.
Dave
Being an old-fashioned type I like the distinction between the amateur who does something for love and the professional who does it for money.
I do not like the assumption that an amateur is not good at doing it while a professional is.
Dave
-
tom hardwick
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am
Ned, here in the UK we wedding videographets have to have a recording license that allows us to record the hymns in church, the music the string quartet might play, the music from the disco and of course the music we might add to the sound track from CD, MP3 player, cassette, LP, whatever.
The license allows us a total of 4 DVDs to be made and limits the number of minutes of copyright material you can include. You get a holographic sticker to apply to the DVD case. They used to insist the sticker went on the DVD itself, a stupid requirement.
Of course the bride and groom can happily and easily copy your DVD and distribute tens or hundreds of them around the world. So much for copyright.
tom.
The license allows us a total of 4 DVDs to be made and limits the number of minutes of copyright material you can include. You get a holographic sticker to apply to the DVD case. They used to insist the sticker went on the DVD itself, a stupid requirement.
Of course the bride and groom can happily and easily copy your DVD and distribute tens or hundreds of them around the world. So much for copyright.
tom.