morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Very true - to some extent I think some operations manage to hide crap work under (fantastict) illegal music - not good for business of the honest.
Vimeos new Copyright Match
- Thread starter aonavy
- Start date
Very true - to some extent I think some operations manage to hide crap work under (fantastict) illegal music - not good for business of the honest.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
I'm glad to see there are some creative professionals that are prepared stick up for other creative professionals' work by not stealing it. I wonder how many of the serial copyright abusers would scream bloody murder if a single frame of their "art" (I use that in the loosest possible sense) was misappropriated? I think we know there would be a ton of complaints.
The $0.99/75p price of an iTunes song does not give you the right to crap on the rights of the musician, did you even have the curtesy to ask if they would mind you using their work? They have a right to be asked if they want their music associated with your work even if you're a big fan and think the exposure might do them good, there's always a good chance they don't share your enthusiasm.
There are many high profile blogs and camera gurus that churn out videos that are really only of interest because they've been shot with a new camera and the content almost always someone else with a new camera could do just as well but underpinned by a fantastic soundtrack seem more epic in scope. But who is making the money here? Yes, the camera guru by publicity, adverts on their blogs and the camera manufacturer BUT certainly not the musician whose work has probably had a disproportionate effect on the whole production.
A technique one of my lecturers at university (a hundred years ago) was to get us to watch our productions back muted to see if the images and editing could stand on their own. How many of those mundane happenings captured on pre-release cameras can really stand on their own? I worked for a large production company in London many moons ago and they got hundreds of showreels sent to them they watched them all with the sound muted so as not to be swayed by the music. If you use Vimeo for your showreel just put it up without sound that's how it's going to be watched anyway.
Sync rights are incredibly expensive simply because of the power of the music to transform the reception of the images and as such the musician should be rightfully rewarded for their work. For some to glibly say they're creating new art and want to use the best music is simply false and a walk around video of everyday things in a modern european city is not art by a long way and certainly took less time to throw together than it took the musician to craft their work that was casually appropriated.
I also see calls for Vimeo to somehow tie up with Spotify to stream a track as the video is playing? Great! Have you any idea how little money a musician receives via Spotify? No video producer would produce work for as little and if you think this is the way to go you'll just hasten the death all of the really interesting music and musicians.
There are myriads of places to purchase high quality production music pre-cleared for syncing, even through Vimeo too, so there's absolutely no excuse for theft or abuse of someone else's copyright. It's astonishing that people will spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment, computers and software yet baulk at spending < $100 for a decent piece of music.
Personally I applaud Vimeo getting tough with the abuse of other's work.
The $0.99/75p price of an iTunes song does not give you the right to crap on the rights of the musician, did you even have the curtesy to ask if they would mind you using their work? They have a right to be asked if they want their music associated with your work even if you're a big fan and think the exposure might do them good, there's always a good chance they don't share your enthusiasm.
There are many high profile blogs and camera gurus that churn out videos that are really only of interest because they've been shot with a new camera and the content almost always someone else with a new camera could do just as well but underpinned by a fantastic soundtrack seem more epic in scope. But who is making the money here? Yes, the camera guru by publicity, adverts on their blogs and the camera manufacturer BUT certainly not the musician whose work has probably had a disproportionate effect on the whole production.
A technique one of my lecturers at university (a hundred years ago) was to get us to watch our productions back muted to see if the images and editing could stand on their own. How many of those mundane happenings captured on pre-release cameras can really stand on their own? I worked for a large production company in London many moons ago and they got hundreds of showreels sent to them they watched them all with the sound muted so as not to be swayed by the music. If you use Vimeo for your showreel just put it up without sound that's how it's going to be watched anyway.
Sync rights are incredibly expensive simply because of the power of the music to transform the reception of the images and as such the musician should be rightfully rewarded for their work. For some to glibly say they're creating new art and want to use the best music is simply false and a walk around video of everyday things in a modern european city is not art by a long way and certainly took less time to throw together than it took the musician to craft their work that was casually appropriated.
I also see calls for Vimeo to somehow tie up with Spotify to stream a track as the video is playing? Great! Have you any idea how little money a musician receives via Spotify? No video producer would produce work for as little and if you think this is the way to go you'll just hasten the death all of the really interesting music and musicians.
There are myriads of places to purchase high quality production music pre-cleared for syncing, even through Vimeo too, so there's absolutely no excuse for theft or abuse of someone else's copyright. It's astonishing that people will spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment, computers and software yet baulk at spending < $100 for a decent piece of music.
Personally I applaud Vimeo getting tough with the abuse of other's work.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Can't argue against that, Nirv. Except one point: Spotify pays about as much as YouTube does for every play, and there are loads and loads of people creating content for YouTube, so pay-per-play is a viable option. It is crappy content 99% of the time, I'll give you that...
There needs to be a way for us to license music that doesn't take months or years of legal hassles and outragageous expense.
I simply won't slap in a commercial track even though it would make my productions better. I spend a lot searching and buying royalty free music (and often still gets flagged).
Most of my competitors blatantly use all sorts of mainstream music even on their websites and promotions. Even if their video work is vastly inferior, the soundtrack gives it a huge boost.
I would gladly pay a reasonable fee to license music if such a system were in place. $100 - $500 for a wedding.
But you simply cannot pay $60,000 - $700,000 to license music for a $1500 wedding or a $3000-$10,000 corporate job AND take months or yeasrs to clear it.
Heck. I've given my footage away for free when people saw it on youtube and asked for it, but I don't expect them to do the same with music.
I simply won't slap in a commercial track even though it would make my productions better. I spend a lot searching and buying royalty free music (and often still gets flagged).
Most of my competitors blatantly use all sorts of mainstream music even on their websites and promotions. Even if their video work is vastly inferior, the soundtrack gives it a huge boost.
I would gladly pay a reasonable fee to license music if such a system were in place. $100 - $500 for a wedding.
But you simply cannot pay $60,000 - $700,000 to license music for a $1500 wedding or a $3000-$10,000 corporate job AND take months or yeasrs to clear it.
Heck. I've given my footage away for free when people saw it on youtube and asked for it, but I don't expect them to do the same with music.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
I understand this point of view and I too would love to pick the best tracks I've bought and sync them to a project I'm employed on but I don't see a how an easy licensing system can be brought in to allow that to happen. The way music is owned and marketed can be extremely complex and many different companies may own rights to a particular track, it is a minefield and hence you need the clearence. Music licensing for small projects has become much more difficult with the rise of the internet, social media and mobile apps. Many years ago the MCPS in the UK used to do a student/freelancer music license that would cover DVD showreels and non broadcast limited circulation projects but these types of licenses have disappeared along with VHS tapes.
In my experience writing to smaller labels explaining to them what you'd like to use and what you're doing may get a positive response. I did this for my final year drama short and much to my surprise the record company gave me permission to use a massive amount of music for free within strict broadcast parameters i.e it could go to festivals and be used on my showreel but I could not make money directly from it. Which was fair enough. But you must make sure you are actually getting the permission from the right copyright holder. I also heard of a wedding producer being asked to include the bride's favourite music, he declined on the basis of copyright infringement but undeterred the bride wrote to the record label and got permission to have it on the DVD.
I am just completely against the idea of just using someone's music because you like it or because you think it'll give someone exposure like is often said. Imagine being a musician and finding your music used as a bed for some political message you despise? The artist/owner should always have the right to say no as any of us would want. I'd never work for a cause that I was totally against not for any amount of money.
I don't think there are going to be easy answers given the vested interests in the Major labels and the fact that while someone may have obtained a license in the UK only for that to be invalid in the US and vice versa?
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Nirv. Purely for your amusement - the first video I ever made .. which was the launch weekend of the nikon D90 - simple solution - I composed my own with garage band.. innocent days 
Nirv
Carbonite Member
Nirv. Purely for your amusement - the first video I ever made .. which was the launch weekend of the nikon D90 - simple solution - I composed my own with garage band.. innocent days
Infinitely better than theft.
I think social media could come to the aid of filmmakers and music makers in helping them connect. Video forums and music forums are still separate entities and there perhaps needs to be a bit of social glue between the communities.
Over 2 years old now but the Resonance project brought together filmmakers and audio artists who produced fresh new work that has gone on to be quite influential and not to mention plagiarised. Maybe this is more the template for Vimeo users wishing to avoid copyright issues?
P.S. I shoot the mundane...
hscully
Veteran
I'm stickler for maintaining copyright. I don't think many here are interested in using music without it. I don't have any problem with Vimeo putting this in place. It just makes it hard to show works in progress using temp tracks as placeholders and it looks like it's been taken off private videos.
On reflection, I would do fine without sharing temp tracks. It's time consuming and places responsibility for suggesting scoring on the wrong end. I think that directors or producers coming to a composer or editor with a suggestion based on what THEY found and what THEY like or would like to emulate from a piece of music is the right direction - say the director comes over with their iPod - "It should feel like this, melancholy but not dire - plus I love the solo piano" - stuff like that. Not the other way around where composers or editors are making suggestions using copyrighted material. It may seem a distinction without a difference but I wonder about it.
On reflection, I would do fine without sharing temp tracks. It's time consuming and places responsibility for suggesting scoring on the wrong end. I think that directors or producers coming to a composer or editor with a suggestion based on what THEY found and what THEY like or would like to emulate from a piece of music is the right direction - say the director comes over with their iPod - "It should feel like this, melancholy but not dire - plus I love the solo piano" - stuff like that. Not the other way around where composers or editors are making suggestions using copyrighted material. It may seem a distinction without a difference but I wonder about it.
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
man, was that hurting my ears...Nirv. Purely for your amusement - the first video I ever made .. which was the launch weekend of the nikon D90 - simple solution - I composed my own with garage band.. innocent days
BTW, I wouldn't consider it theft if you post it on youtube: the copyright owner gets the choice to either get money from ads posted on your video, or to put it down. I think it's a fine arrangement, and the easiest one to follow for both parties. But you bear the risk of having your video put down.