Using music on websites and client DVD's

[tammyb]

Hi everyone, not sure if this has come up before as I'm not allowed to search the forums yet but I was hoping to start a discussion about the use of music in studios, on photographers websites and client DVD's.
Whether it be on the web or on a DVD I think adding the right music adds so much to the photo viewing experience but for me the licensing costs are just too great at the moment (don't get me wrong I think artists of all types should be recognised for their efforts, after all you wouldn't want someone using your images on their website without your permission!). Instead I use the music generator on my pinnacle video editing software which creates a loop of music to go with whichever theme I pick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx1AIvjTAQQ). iVideo has a similar thing but I haven't worked out a way to loop it yet so that there are no gaps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqWOjLhEyNA). But none of this music has the emotive effects that a beautiful, well fitting song has. So I am interested to know how others are going about this?? It seems most photographers these days are using music on their websites but I see very few that state they have permission??

For the studio, I am assuming this license is all one would need and it's very reasonably priced I think: http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/downloads/file/Music%20Consumers/BG_GeneralRetailLicence.pdf

So does anyone have any creative ideas for making the client experience more enriched whilst staying within the law and giving appropriate recognition???? Classical music??? Music created over 70 years ago??? Royalty free? If so, which ones? Any suggestions?

I would be interested to get your thoughts! :)

P.S. here is some info I found about what is required:

http://www.mipi.com.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Videographers%20-%20Are%20You%20Doing%20The%20Right%20Thing[1].pdf

http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/MusicConsumers/Findalicencetosuityourneeds.aspx

http://www.musicloops.com/

[JM Tran]

There is a 'wedding photographer' in Melbourne who uses an original Black Eyed Peas song for his website in the wedding section. Im pretty sure he doesnt know about licencing/royalty/copyright fees etc when you use something for a commercial purpose. But hey, prove me wrong!

[Adrian Fischer]

I think, having read the website and pdf's I can see that there would be a lot of people who arent complying. Every tradesmen that uses a radio for him and his workers needs one. The office christmas party should have a license. Every restuarant etc etc. Hands up...who here has license for the music they play (if they do) when they have a session with a client to set the mood?

[ricktas]

An APRA licence is imperative. I have worked in several places and always brought them up to speed on the requirements to hold an APRA licence to broadcast music/tv/dvd's etc.

Doing so without having a licence is opening you up to being sued for quite large amounts. Amounts that would severly affect most people's business/personal life. Just like pirated software, do it at your own risk

[ricktas]

Also note that discussions encouraging, advising, helping other members regarding illegal activity is not allowed on AP, so keep this thread above board. You risk being banned from the site if you suggest/advise on illegal activity.

[ricktas]

There is a 'wedding photographer' in Melbourne who uses an original Black Eyed Peas song for his website in the wedding section. Im pretty sure he doesnt know about licencing/royalty/copyright fees etc when you use something for a commercial purpose. But hey, prove me wrong!

The problem with posts like this is that you are not 100% sure that he doesnt have the necessary licences. I walk into shops etc all the time and never ask if they have an APRA licence, so how are we to know unless we ask the person directly. Whilst I respect that you didn't name anyone, but the scenario you present whilst probably common in occurance, really doesn't show us anything other than 'hearsay' at this point.

We need to be careful that we discuss factual information in relation to using licenced music, and what the licences allow, rather than just random comments that could or could not be true.

[tammyb]

Also note that discussions encouraging, advising, helping other members regarding illegal activity is not allowed on AP, so keep this thread above board. You risk being banned from the site if you suggest/advise on illegal activity.

I in no way intended that when I started the thread - or to 'out' people doing the wrong thing. I'm hoping that by bringing it up it might make people aware that they need licenses (and the background music one is not actually that expensive!) and to share legitimate ways of using music in your business. The website that I listed at the bottom of the original post has HEAPS of royalty free music that you can use in your workplace, on client DVDs and on websites - you pay a one off fee for the song and then you can use it as you wish (there are some things you can't do with it like redistribute it but it's all there on their site).

Cheers

[I @ M]

I have never really thought about this one because maybe I am in the minority of web surfers who when confronted with a website that starts bombarding me with unrequested music hits the big X.

I like music but when perusing photographs, someone else's choice of music does nothing for my viewing pleasure.

[nickoff]

If you are playing music other than in a private situation - your home, car, hotel room, boat, iPod etc you need a licence. The fines are incredible - you don't want one!

Have a quiet read here: http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/MusicConsumers/FAQs.aspx

Cheeeeeers.

[Redgum]

Back to the original question and I guess this affects me as a filmmaker more than a photographer - I understand where you're coming from.
The television industry is a prolific user of licensed music. Everything that goes to air is logged and reported daily to APRA and other authorities. The other authorities include "labelled" music primarily the most current and popular tracks and especially vocals. My website has a document on "Copyright" which could be helpful to you.
I often use up to 40 minutes of music/sound effects in a one hour documentary (yes! sound effects are licensed too) and a primary source of music is often "royalty free" (Some people call this copyright free but there is no such thing). Royalty free music can be bought just about anywhere and there is some really good stuff in Oz now. Since the advent of digital music I often troll places like MP3.com and a good number of docos have included tracks found there. I always liaise with the artist and come to a suitable arrangement with them for a specific license. More often than not this will be a simple credit on the documentary. Just as an example I made a doco on Zoe Reed (From the Inside Out) which included a three minute vocal from a budding artist. That doco won the Chicago Documentary Film Festival in 2004 and because that particular vocal was so good the artist ended up getting a recording contract and is now well recognised in the US.
Royalty free music in Oz is available from Wavetracks (with whom I have no relationship or commercial arrangement) - just do a Google - but there plenty of others worldwide. You should be looking to pay around $120 for a seven DVD set but others could be dearer. Most of them can be sampled online before buying.

PS: Three years ago I did a commercial and used 12 seconds of Britany Spears for national use and it cost us $72k for a four week run.

[JM Tran]

The problem with posts like this is that you are not 100% sure that he doesnt have the necessary licences. I walk into shops etc all the time and never ask if they have an APRA licence, so how are we to know unless we ask the person directly. Whilst I respect that you didn't name anyone, but the scenario you present whilst probably common in occurance, really doesn't show us anything other than 'hearsay' at this point.

We need to be careful that we discuss factual information in relation to using licenced music, and what the licences allow, rather than just random comments that could or could not be true.

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.

[farquar]

Can a taxi driver listen to cd's?

Anyway... Im on the side of the fence that gets annoyed with music on websites. As for slideshows and DVDs, I use animoto. It has some good and some not so good features but it works great for what I do. (kids/family portraits)

Hope this helps ;)

[tammyb]

I have never really thought about this one because maybe I am in the minority of web surfers who when confronted with a website that starts bombarding me with unrequested music hits the big X.

I like music but when perusing photographs, someone else's choice of music does nothing for my viewing pleasure.

hehehe, I know what you mean Andrew! I have a tendency to open way too many tabs at once and sometimes I'll have 3 or 4 random songs blaring out at me and it can be quite hard to work out where they are coming from sometimes! It more often than not annoys me when a homepage has music that starts by itself BUT if I have chosen to watch a slideshow/photo DVD I like to have some well fitting music with it... does that make sense? Well chosen songs can really create some strong emotions (I have made several funeral remembrance DVD's and music selection is SOOO important) and can therefore help to sell your images and your business.

[tammyb]

Thanks so much Redgum - great suggestions! I haven't had a very extensive search yet but most of the stuff I have seen so far was $25 - $35 per song so $120 for a seven set DVD sounds like a bargain!!
72k for Britany Spears.... I have no words for this :)

[Redgum]

One other comment about royalty free music. Most sites now have a "listen first and buy" policy. You only need to buy individual tracks rather than complete DVD's and you can download on the spot either a WAV or MP3 file.

[peterb666]

BBC's Radiophonic Workshop use to produce royalty free sound effects and incidental music albums, primarly intended to be used in compiling soundtracks on cine film. A lot of the music was pioneer electronic stuff.

I don't know if you can still get this sort of thing but the album covers do say they are royalty free but there may have been restrictions, e.g. only for non-commercial work.

[Longshots]

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.

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/musicconsumers/makingrecordingsbusinessuse/videographers.aspx

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

http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/MusicConsumers/Findalicencetosuityourneeds.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

[rellik666]

Thanks for bringing this up. I have developed a video for my car club and wanted "stop the rock" as the soundtrack, however after much searching I have gone down the route of getting a friend to compose the work for us. Cheaper and I can tailor to the video....

Music on websites....no...:eek:

[Speedway]

I am another one who hits the X when music or sound effects come up on websites.
Keith.

[darkbhudda]

Classical music???
You'd still need to license the performance, eg the orchestra, so you still have to pay.

From: http://www.ppca.com.au/About--US.html


It’s important to remember that if you need a licence of the type offered by us, you’ll probably need a licence from APRA (Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd) as well. That’s because there are at least two copyrights in most recordings and music videos:

1.the copyright in the song (lyrics, composition etc.) – licences available from APRA;
2.the copyright in the recording and/or music video of the song (a particular recorded performance) – 'blanket' licences available from us, or individual licences available from the copyright holders.


Royalty free music or making friends with musos is your best bet.

[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/musicconsumers/makingrecordingsbusinessuse/videographers.aspx

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

http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/MusicConsumers/Findalicencetosuityourneeds.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. :D

[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. :D

Oh I coulddddddddddd but my cousin who is a wedding photographer also knows this person, so I only asked him out of curiosity:th3:

[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 :th3:"

And illegal = not legal

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

[farmer_rob]

...
If you use pirated software it's illegal...you can be prosecuted.
By whom? (This is the semantic part.)

[kiwi]

Every person in the chain...the ripper, the distributor and the end "user" is my understanding....is it not ?

[farmer_rob]

I meant "who will be doing the prosecuting?" - in my understanding, it will be the owner of the copyright or their agent, not the police or public prosecutor. I see this as a crucial (or nitpicky:)) difference between "illegal" and "unauthorised". Alternatively, if someone can point me to the section of the copyright act (I believe it is still the 1968 act with amendments) that indicates copyright infringement by an end-user is a criminal act, I'll back down.

[kiwi]

Oh I see, not sure, but I'll go with theft in a criminal court.

[ricktas]

My guess is the Business Software Alliance would be involved, even if just contacting companies and reporting individual cases of software piracy to them, and then it would be up to the companies to pursue it. Although it must be covered under a law somewhere, as are copying movies etc.

More information on how and who : http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/htcb/1-20/htcb003.aspx

[Longshots]

I dont doubt that "someone" will prosecute Rob, so I'd have to say that you're playing with semantics here. It really would depend on a case by case scenario. The reason I used both terms is because both are applicable.

While government supported criminal sanctions against copyright infringement is particularly low, civil actions against copyright infringement is more usual.

Rob, you asked about who would be doing the prosecuting ? Well albeit not many, but the DPP.


The DPP reported that in 1997–98 there were seven convictions recorded
for copyright infringements, and six in 1998–99.2 The penalties imposed
ranged from non-conviction bonds to fines of up to $4 800. Under
subsection 132(6A) of the Copyright Act, the maximum possible penalty
for infringement is $60 500 or 5 years' imprisonment in respect of
individuals, and $302 500 in respect of corporations.

Source is from a House of Representative inquiry on this subject was announced in 1999, and a report completed in Dec 2000
Copyright Industries Section
Intellectual Property Branch
And if you're interested here is the report:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/copyrightenforcement/contents.htm

What might answer your point of debate is the issue of criminal sanctions - this chapter of the report will assist you understand that yes this clearly does and has happened:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/copyrightenforcement/chap4.pdf

But arent we going off topic anyway ? The point now being missed, is that a few have suggested dobbing the person in for (in theory) using music without (again in theory, and clearly an assumption) an appropriate licence or (in theory) permission.

All well and good, but bringing it back to what I said, yes all very good for the judgemental out there, but are "you" also doing the right thing ? Is (for example) all your software (whatever you want to call this _ I 'd have to admit that I do think you're being "nitpicky" ;) ) correctly licensed ? After all in most cases, when you're purchasing software, you are actually purchasing a licence to use it, not the actual software.

As to who, and whether its a breach of the copyright act _i'm not a lawyer so I cant and wont say if it is or not a breach of the copyright act, but in all honesty, I think instead of saying "hey show me where it says it is" and prove it - just read the licence agreement - because it says in fairly plain english that it is.

I'd suggest that if you want to seriously argue that copying software or using it without an appropriate licence is OK (ie "pirated software"), then you should have a look at this link - the Business Software Alliance
http://www.bsa.org/country.aspx?sc_lang=en-AU

As I said before, if we dont respect someone's IP, then we should expect our own IP to be used without our permission. :cool:

[kiwi]

Ok, i see that a personal end user is a civil matter, distribute or use for profit a criminal matter

So, yes, Rob...quite right

http://www.bsa.org/country/Anti-Piracy/Know%20the%20Law.aspx

[Longshots]

Regarding the Australian Copyright Act

Rob asked which section of the copyright act covers the area of software.

As I'm not a lawyer I cannot specifically state which sections, but if you want to have a browse, you'll see that courts seem to fall on a coup;le of diferent sections (namely 36, and 38 of the Copyright Act). Heres just one of many court settlements noted on the Copyright Council's website:

http://www.copyright.org.au/news-and-policy/details/id/1714/

And regarding Personal end user debate - I have been speaking about the issue of using software from a business point of view, so have assumed that starting position. The whole part time/full time photographer position is then going to be part of a court debate on whether someone is an end user or "use for profit". So again this is simply splitting hairs IMO. Because that decision would be one made in the courts on a case by case basis.

[Redgum]

The whole part time/full time photographer position is then going to be part of a court debate on whether someone is an end user or "use for profit". So again this is simply splitting hairs IMO. Because that decision would be one made in the courts on a case by case basis.
Actually, that's a decision made by the "complainant" or their legal team well before it gets to court. Litigation is usually taken on the basis that you can recover your losses. For instance, Microsoft would only be interested in prosecuting a "software pirate" if the case sets a precedent (fine) or they have an opportunity to recover their loss (compensation).
Anyway, I don't think the OP really wants to go to court to buy music. Back on topic?

[ricktas]

Ultimately, you use pirated software/music etc at your own risk. The chance of being caught is minimal, but are you prepared to pay the legal fees, accept the court's decision, etc IF you are caught, charged and convicted. Up to each and every one of us to make that decision for ourselves. All this thread can do is advise on the situation, the implications and repercussions. Then it each person's choice what they do, cause they cannot come back and complain if they get caught, after ignoring all the advice presented here.

[campo]

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


And if you're running a business and selling you work that was processed by the illegal software then they're gonna come down harder on you. I'm proud to say my computers have no illegal software - everything is licenced properly. In this day and age with activation it pays to do the right thing cos one day, the focus will get down to the individuals

[farmer_rob]

I would like to point out that I *never* advocated using software or any other copyrighted item without paying the correct fee.

I also suggested passing details to APRA - APRA have the licence information, and can very easily check if the person/company has an appropriate licence. I don't see that as dobbing, merely supporting copyright enforcement, which everyone else appears to advocate as a 'Good Thing'.

BTW, I will accept that aspects of copyright infringement can be described as illegal - thanks for the supporting documentation. (Longshots - I did not ask where software is covered in the copyright act. I asked where copyright infringement by an end-user is a criminal act in the copyright act. )

I do get nitpicky about this, because "theft", "illegal", "piracy" etc are very emotive words, and are used to paint a very black and white picture. However, it isn't black and white. There is a fair argument to be made that grey-market cameras are infringing copyright - the camera contains software with copyright owned by the camera company. They licence the distributor to resell that software embedded in the camera in a particular region. Buy it grey and you are breaching those licence conditions.

There is also the situation that video shot with a 5dmk2 (or other DSLR with video) and used commercially potentially infringes copyright (via the suppliers of the codecs - look in your camera manual.)

Under the copyright act, there are a number of "fair-dealing" exemptions - such as use for criticism - but the anti-circumvention provisions introduced in the 1999/2000 amendments effectively limit fair-dealing rights because you have to break DRM to exercise them.

Look at what Sony and others are doing concerning limiting mod-chips for playstations via the copyright act.

As for "am I clean?" - I am sure I am not, because there are so many grey areas and hidden licences and limits. By the same token, I am sure no-one else is either. However, I try to ensure that I pay for what I use, or get the free software equivalents (ie those where the copyright owners do not ask for licence fees). (I don't use images except for ones I have taken, I don't have songs on my website, and I have paid for the music I listen to.)

Yes, I know - veering badly OT. Sorry!

[Longshots]

BTW I did understand the difference re th copyright act, and criminal etc - I thought that the supporting documentation/links demonstrated that it was ? Albeit very small number of prosecutions though.

And yes the entire area is so "grey" that its a huge task to ensure that one is always "clean". The main issue with APRA which I just dont understand is that I recall dealing with a group of wedding photographers who were encouraging APRA to produce a specific licence to accommodate the "new" needs of photographers using music in their multimedia displays, and APRA had given an assurance that they would produce a solution to the "new" need. Clearly they've done bugger all in response ;)

And while it might have been off topic, its been an interesting and enlightening discussion :)

[kiwi]

Based on how rampant it is, the number of prosecutions is totally underwhelming.

[Redgum]

William, a couple of interesting statistics for you to follow up. Close to 30% of fees recovered by APRA have not been distributed (because APRA cannot identify the proper owner). And a great majority of those fees have been held in excess of ten years. It is estimated that close on 60% of fees paid to APRA will never end up in the rightful hands and as a consequence go to consolidated revenue.
Rob, APRA doesn't have the resources to pursue licence infringements and I can't remember them ever doing that. What they can do is provide evidence to those who have the time and money to do so. The cost of so doing is prohibitive other than with large scale offences. Hence the issue of blanket licences for low level events (including weddings) and other one-off events particularly with less than 100 pieces of media (say DVD) distributed.
Rob, you said
There is a fair argument to be made that grey-market cameras are infringing copyright.
In case you are not aware "grey market" cameras are legitimate hardware sold by the manufacturer to a reseller outside the normal "channel". Absolutely no copyright infringement here at all. There may be warranty conditions not offered or restricted by the manufacturer to the reseller but apart from that the camera or hardware is legitimate in every sense.

[Redgum]

Based on how rampant it is, the number of prosecutions is totally underwhelming.
Kiwi, they're only Australian figures and I've got no idea if they are accurate at all but remember that those companies that have been sued have collectively paid billions of dollars for their indescretion. Always wise to sue less for more because you will see behavioural changes and stronger precedents.

[farmer_rob]

...
In case you are not aware "grey market" cameras are legitimate hardware sold by the manufacturer to a reseller outside the normal "channel". Absolutely no copyright infringement here at all. There may be warranty conditions not offered or restricted by the manufacturer to the reseller but apart from that the camera or hardware is legitimate in every sense.

I am aware of the nature of "grey market" items, but disagree that it is not a breach of copyright. The "right of first sale" doctrine is being steadily eroded in America, and Sony's playstation cases are making it pretty clear that they consider you do not own your playstation outright, and Sony actively attempt to limit your rights to do any modifications to it. It is not a long step from there to viewing the use of camera software outside the licenced territory as a breach of copyright. That the camera manufacturers don't do it is more indicative of their attitudes to their distributors, and an awareness that it might really p*** people off.

The copyright act allows similar territorial issues for books - this is why (apart from shipping) it is cheaper to buy books from Amazon than buy them in Australia, because (to paraphrase) it is a breach of copyright to sell books from America in Australia without the local publisher's permission.

(BTW, although later amendments may include software, the use of the copyright act to cover software was because of the written nature of software - much easier to use copyright than patents. Look into the history of the BIOS for IBM PC clones.)

[Longshots]

Kiwi, they're only Australian figures and I've got no idea if they are accurate at all but remember that those companies that have been sued have collectively paid billions of dollars for their indescretion. Always wise to sue less for more because you will see behavioural changes and stronger precedents.

Its also worth noting that I posted a link which indicates the amount of prosecutions by the DPP - there was a great deal more civil actions, which is the normal course of action - and I posted that to answer Robs point about the difference between criminal and civil actions.

Thanks Redgum for the info, but to be honest I wouldnt be chasing APRA up myself :) I only post infomation if Im aware of an answer to a question, which doesnt mean that I personally agree with every element of that information :) . As an organisation they seem incapable of meeting the market and adapting to people really wanting to do the "right thing"; and if they're collecting and not distributing then (which doesnt surprise me) to the people or groups concerned, thats both typical and outrageous.

Its a bit off topic, but it reminds me about an Australian organisation that does collect money for Visual Artists (which includes photographers). If you join them, which is FREE, if they then collect royalties on your behalf they will take just 25% - which is not bad.

viscopy.org.au

I'll quote the About section :


Viscopy is Australia and New Zealand's not-for-profit rights management organisation for the visual arts providing copyright licensing services on behalf of our members to a wide and varied customer base.

We represent approximately:

* 43% of Australian and New Zealand artists and their beneficiaries.
* 40,000 international artists and beneficiaries in Australian and New Zealand territories through reciprocal agreements with 45 visual arts rights management agencies around the world.

Currently Viscopy offers two licensing services which generated over $2 million for artists in 2009-10.
Contact Viscopy

[Longshots]

I can assure you Rob that both Canon and Nikon Australia would love the copyright act to cover "grey" imports. Unfortunately, I've never been aware of that act being used or even potentially used in this situation.


Perhaps its your turn to show us which part of the Australian copyright act would substantiate your point :th3:

[Pat Redmond]

I think the issue Sony has with Playstations isn't that modding them is a problem with the internal copyright. It is a problem because the reason behind the mod is to counteract copyright on the disks. There is no doubt that avoiding the copyright on the disks is illegal. But the actual modding of the playstations isn't illegal, as long as you don't use it for illegal purposes. Of course, there is no other reason to do it...

I don't think grey market imports are in any way illegal or immoral. In fact, I think this is something that manufacturers are going to have to look at in the short term. With such an international market, it is crazy to be able to buy a lens in Australia for $1,000 or from Singapore for $600 including shipping! I think that the only people who have a problem with this are the manufacturers, and Gerry Harvey.

[farmer_rob]

I can assure you Rob that both Canon and Nikon Australia would love the copyright act to cover "grey" imports. Unfortunately, I've never been aware of that act being used or even potentially used in this situation.


Perhaps its your turn to show us which part of the Australian copyright act would substantiate your point :th3:

Aaahhh... Hoist by my own petard :o. I can't point to specific areas, although if software is copyrightable under the Australian Act - which I believe it is - the copyright holder can then impose the licence conditions.

I am sure Canon and Nikon *Australia* would, but they don't own the copyright to the software, and I doubt they have been given exclusive rights in Australia by the owners (ie "head office"). Canon and Nikon Japan could stop the grey market very easily - just cut off sales to the distributors who advertise grey market products - but it makes no difference to head office on a) the bottom line and b) the market image if the grey market exists or not, and so I don't think "head office" cares that the Australian subsidiaries are upset. Parallel sales channels are an interesting problem for companies, because the value of the different channels is really only assessible in intangibles (such as market penetration and brand protection). This is one of the issues Harvey Norman is struggling with, because an online shopfront will really p*** off his stores (that are often franchise operations).

Pat: Sony had campaigned strongly for the introduction of anti-circumvention legislation (which was introduced around 2000). The problem Sony has is that if you mod the playstation, you can use programs sourced from other suppliers, and reduce Sony licenced revenue (from its official suppliers.) They (Sony, Microsoft et al) wi'll do whatever they can to stop you modding the box. Also, boxes such as the playstation and Xbox are way underpriced for the computing power within (e.g. US army purchased 2200 for supercomputer (http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/09/military-purchases-2200-ps3s/)), but are sold as loss-leaders to get the ongoing software revenue. There is a push in the US to try and squash the secondary market in games (as a breach of copyright), although others argue that the secondary market helps push the primary market (see here (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/11142810761.shtml))

BTW, the US government's ACTA and TPP negotiations (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110105/02301112524/son-acta-worse-meet-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement.shtml) are likely to ensure that US copyright law gets propogated to other countries such as Australia - so actions over there should be of interest.

[Longshots]

Yep good theory Rob, but as I said, what you're talking about is not copyrightable, where as software is - very different beasts.

And yes re you BTW, interestingly in another topic here recently I kept trying to explain that one of the slightly hidden aspects of the American Australian Free Trade Agreement, was that our copyright laws actually increased their coverage. The one thing I can assure you is that IMHO while we may adopt many increases to our copyright law, we are also going to have to respond to the move for something called Creative Commons - very heavily promoted by a certain Australian university and has a lot of support in the US.

The same thing of world wide markets within individual countries and individual companies such as the difference between Canon US, Canon Australia and Canon in the wholsale market are eventually going to face all of us as individuals.

[Redgum]

I don't think grey market imports are in any way illegal or immoral. In fact, I think this is something that manufacturers are going to have to look at in the short term. With such an international market, it is crazy to be able to buy a lens in Australia for $1,000 or from Singapore for $600 including shipping! I think that the only people who have a problem with this are the manufacturers, and Gerry Harvey.
I've written several pieces for SMH on grey market products. In fact the manufacturers actively promote the "grey" market (obviously because they supply the goods) and it is in their interest to provide the brioadest market possible (profit). The Nikon channel in Australia is a private company, not part of Nikon as such and in fact could quite easily change tomorrow if another company out bid them. Canon is slightly different.
In fact, if channel marketing/sales were disbanded the price of camera gear would halve overninght - but is that good or bad? It would certainly destroy the asset value of camera gear, particularly lens. Most professionals wouldn't worry because of the frequency of renewal and tax breaks but existing enthusiasts woould be crushed by certain devaluation almost immediately. "Big" cameras wouldn't matter anymore. It would be interesting to watch the volume of camera sales in Oz. Most manufacturers believe it would go down with an open market.

[farmer_rob]

Yep good theory Rob, but as I said, what you're talking about is not copyrightable, where as software is - very different beasts....

But I am talking about software - the embedded software in the camera that you might also refer to as firmware (no difference copyright wise, just technically). Your camera (any digital camera) will not work without software. This software is covered in exactly the same way as any program on your computer.

Re the BTW - I would prefer australian copyright law to be decided by australia and not america. CC could technically apply here AFAIK, since it is a license under copyright law, so we will need to deal with it. (Perhaps more of a problem for those that don't actually understand what rights they are assigning, and for commercial photographers who have another competitive problem.)