Using music on websites and client DVD's

[JM Tran]

Frankly I think you're wrong. Prove to me that you're using legal copies of all your software? Well are you? And I'm sure you're now asking "Why should you" ? Of course you dont need to.

I think this type of accusations of "I can say any derogatory remark as long as I complete it with "prove me wrong"" is utterly unhelpful.

This topic should be about needing a licence to use music. Not an opportunity for making derogatory assumptions about another photographer. I certainly believe in this country's principles that you're innocent until proven guilty - clearly you think the opposite that this unnamed individual (and by not naming, that, in my view, is indirectly a slur on all male Melbourne wedding photographers) should be required to "prove you wrong".

You would appear to me to be selecting an individual and getting extremely personal with your accusations, and regardless of their ability, frankly lets down this forum's ideals, and is extremely unfair.

You would appear to me to have no knowledge of this individuals business records, other than a subjective view of their standards.

Your response gives no insight into the quite complicated issue of APRA licensing for use in photography.

Some helpful information:
As far as I know this link is the closest thing that covers photographers in particular - and the cost is Standard $496.75 or Standard Plus $708.92
(the last time I was involved in discussion on this, there was an actual gap by APRA-AMCOS in how their licensing options didnt specifically cover stills photography - and it seems dissappointing that after a great deal of lobbying, that organisation have not adapted with the times and provided a specific answer)

http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/musicco...ographers.aspx

this link suggests the various licence options - in regards to different uses/businesses

http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/MusicCo...yourneeds.aspx

http://www.aria.com.au/pages/licensing-faq.htm

Contact information for music licensing should be directed to

APRA-AMCOS

APRA|AMCOS Head Office

16 Mountain Street
Ultimo NSW 2007

Locked Bag 5000
Strawberry Hills NSW 2012

General Inquiries

+61 2 9935 7900

apra@apra.com.au

Music Consumers

Licensing Services
1300 852 388
licence@apra.com.au

As far as I'm aware, just like all my other business related documentation/licensing requirements/and software licences - none of them have to be publicly displayed.

And personally, I'm with Andrew, and music on a website is always a turn off for me. I actually think that in the situations of wedding photography, and research shows that the key search times are both during office hours, and more specifically late at night, music suddenly and unexpectedly coming from your computer is a proven switch off. But everyone to their own taste.

As an update:

I recalled that this area is like so many - very grey - and very complex. For instance there is some restrictions on how you use even licensed music - called synchronisation rights, with limitations place on how digital files are synchronised or not, with the music; there are limitations on whether the photographers name can appear with the music - or not, and of course as APRA-AMCOS only licence some music within or for Australia use, there is then some limitations on use for the web, which can mean further limits. Unfortunately, APRA-AMCOS have seemingly still not put answers to the questions that were being raised just 8 - 10 years ago; and have simply not moved with the times to enable people to do the right thing.

However royalty free music has already been mentioned, and the best site around - specifically designed and produced for Photography is:
http://triplescoopmusic.com/

and another highly recommended one (which can produce lyrics to suit as well):
http://musicbakery.com/

HTH

hmmm didnt expect such a touchy response from you William from. Maybe I shall dig deeper. Keep you updated.

[Longshots]

Actually I didnt think it was touchy, simply fair and straight forward, and of course just my opinion - I'm sure there are plenty of differing ones.


The most important thing is responding to the actual question posed, which I've made an attempt to do.

[JM Tran]

Actually I didnt think it was touchy, simply fair and straight forward, and of course just my opinion - I'm sure there are plenty of differing ones.


The most important thing is responding to the actual question posed, which I've made an attempt to do.

Or you could have missed my point I was trying to make or saw. All of the best wedding photogs in the world - well from the websites I have been on anyway - they either have no music, or select those that are indistinguishable without having to pay such a high fee for something big. Whereas for my example of a lesser known photographer using a Top 30 hit was bemusing for me as I had never seen that before.

The most important thing is responding to the actual question posed, which I've made an attempt to do.

and good for you for doing so.

[Longshots]

Oh I didnt disagree with your point, nor did I miss it. And I agree that music (as a purely personal and subjective opinion) is not really necessary.

I simply thought that the way you chose to highlight your message was unnecessary, nor fair to the person concerned - which was my point.

[Pat Redmond]

Have you had a look at this site: http://www.opensourcemusic.com/

I'm not 100% sure that all the songs would be free and legal, but it sure looks like a good place to start looking.

[pitdroidtech]

great resource.

these might be worth a look

*removed - member with under 30 days membership and 50 posts*

however be aware: free music downloads don't necessarily mean royalty free - might be free to down the song for personal use, but not for commercial use.

*removed - member with under 30 days membership and 50 posts*

* Please read the site rules, members with under 30 days membership and 50 posts can only post links to their personal photographic website *

[ricktas]

Hence I wrote prove me wrong! Judging by his limited portfolio I'd say he hasnt been around long enough to know about APRA and whatnot, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, for now.

You are asking us to prove you wrong on a scenario where we have no idea who you are talking about. This would be impossible! I still believe this thread should be about providing as much useful information as possible, rather than hearsay that is not able to be verified.

[Redgum]

I think the OP has the response she sort as complex as it may be. The simple answer is that you have to pay for a licence to use music/vocals whether that's through a body like APRA or one of its international counterparts or directly through the copyright owners (musicians/writers/composers). The benefit of royalty free music is that many of these channels have been dealt with when you buy a CD/DVD but always keep in mind that limitations also exist on royalty free music as well (most royalty free music cannot be broadcast on radio or television without an extended licence). A clue. Learn to create good music or be friends with someone that can. Plenty of budding musicians out there.

[JM Tran]

You are asking us to prove you wrong on a scenario where we have no idea who you are talking about. This would be impossible! I still believe this thread should be about providing as much useful information as possible, rather than hearsay that is not able to be verified.

Hence I have already contacted the said person already via email out of curiosity, been 2 days now and no reply. Can PM anyone interested in his website but will not post publicly.

[Redgum]

Whilst you're at it JM there are probably 70 or 80 million other sites you can follow up. Music licensing opens a can of worms that would keep the fishing industry in bait until the 22nd Centuary.

[JM Tran]

Whilst you're at it JM there are probably 70 or 80 million other sites you can follow up. Music licensing opens a can of worms that would keep the fishing industry in bait until the 22nd Centuary.

Oh I coulddddddddddd but my cousin who is a wedding photographer also knows this person, so I only asked him out of curiosity

[snappysi]

I think it is also worth considering that the music that everyone here is referring to wqas also produced by someone. Much like every photograph that is produced and so carefully watermarked as to protect the "maker", ( see most of what is offered on this site ), music can be a little harder to "track". All the royalty money that does get paid does go to some one out there as payment for there "services". I am a member of apra and stil have my first royalty cheque framed !! A little off topic but none the less worth considering...
Simon.

[farmer_rob]

Or just point it out to APRA and let them sort it out.

(BTW, I have a real problem with APRA's interpretation of the law that playing a radio in public is a public performance and hence an *additional* licence fee should be charged. IMO - non-lawyer - as an unencrypted radio *broadcast* it is already a public performance, and the radio stations are paying to broadcast songs. I know it is slightly OT, but what do others think? Note - the UK Performing Rights Society is actively policing this in the UK in a quite draconian fashion, although I have not heard of APRA doing this.)

[Longshots]

I think it is also worth considering that the music that everyone here is referring to wqas also produced by someone. Much like every photograph that is produced and so carefully watermarked as to protect the "maker", ( see most of what is offered on this site ), music can be a little harder to "track". All the royalty money that does get paid does go to some one out there as payment for there "services". I am a member of apra and stil have my first royalty cheque framed !! A little off topic but none the less worth considering...
Simon.

An excellent point Simon, and well worth repeating.



I would suggest that more time be spent on educating those who are currently ignorant of the law, which I personally find a great deal more palatable; as opposed to following the suggestion of dobbing someone in.

On the issue of licensing, statistics from the appropriate sources, suggest that at least 80% of users are doing so with illegal or unlicensed software. How many here on this forum have legal copies of the software that they depend on ? And if so, do you really have legal licensed copies of everything ?

[farmer_rob]

Illegal software - IMO no such thing. Software that infringes copyright, or is not correctly licensed - entirely different. As someone who has made his living writing software in the past, I believe it is important to purchase the software that I rely on.

[farmer_rob]

Oh, and appropriate sources are? FAST and other pro-DRM/anti-piracy groups have figures that are questionable and rubbery.

[Redgum]

Illegal software - IMO no such thing. Software that infringes copyright, or is not correctly licensed - entirely different. As someone who has made his living writing software in the past, I believe it is important to purchase the software that I rely on.

Rob, that's not right. Illegal software is softare that's being used illegally, software that you haven't acquired legally and where you can be prosecuted by law. Microsoft claim that over 60% of its software is used illegally (to use their words). Adobe makes a similar claim. Calling it incorrectly licenced or infringing copyright is a play on words - simply put - it's illegal.
Every piece of software on my machines is legal as is any music I use. With large amounts of trial software available now I hope and trust many others do the same.

[Longshots]

Illegal software - IMO no such thing. Software that infringes copyright, or is not correctly licensed - entirely different. As someone who has made his living writing software in the past, I believe it is important to purchase the software that I rely on.

Not sure if my point was misunderstood. But I do want to make it clear in case what I meant to communicate. Illegal copies of software - hopefully that makes that clearer ? Because IMO there are so many people who tell me that they cant afford a legal copy. ie Adobe PS and yet quite happily spend on new gear constantly. And to be specific, I did actually say "illegal or unlicensed software".

And FYI, the appropriate sources was a reference to a Microsoft survey:

The poll of 1,000 people showed that pirated software is nearly as popular in the workplace as it is at home. Microsoft said that the trend is alarming because chunks of its revenue are lost each year to pirated software.

One in eight employed adults surveyed admitted using pirated software at work, aligning with the fact that 57 per cent of respondents believed that their boss would consider the practice acceptable.

Microsoft was keen to point out the risks of using illegal software, claiming that it has led to the introduction of a computer virus in 62 per cent of cases, a loss of personal data in 31 per cent of cases and a system crash in 38 per cent of cases.

"Computers are now central to the way in which we interact, work and consume media, and we need to make sure our awareness and understanding of the dangers of downloading pirated products improves too," said Michala Wardell, head of anti-piracy at Microsoft UK.

Certainly agree with you Rob on the comment that its important to purchase the software that you rely on

I dont doubt that figures may be "rubbery"; my point was that its common and acceptable by many.

So while we're discussing whether people respect a music licence, or that they dont use software that shouldnt be copied, then they're not going to worry about sharing or using an image that isnt theirs and using it without the photographers permission. Thats an important point.

[farmer_rob]

I agree that any copyrighted work (image, music, software, whatever...) should be used with appropriate permissions and payments, as required by the copyright owner. To do otherwise is wrong - if you use it, pay for it.

I don't accept "illegal", but it is a semantic argument, and we may just have to agree to differ .

BTW, Microsoft and others tend to argue the view that unlicensed software is a "lost sale" and hence "lost revenue". However, some people who use unlicenced software/music/images would never purchase it (if they couldn't get it unlicenced, they wouldn't get it at all), so to count it as lost revenue is deceptive. Don't take this as support of copyright infringement, just that I am quite cynical about the figures bandied about by some very successful and very wealthy companies that don't want to cop the bad PR of "I don't care, I own the copyright so you pay me to use it".

[kiwi]

Quite easy to spot too...."I am a newbie, have a new sir and 18-55 kit lens and us cs5 and light room for editing and don't know how to use them...yeah right "

And illegal = not legal

If you use pirated software it's illegal...you can be prosecuted.