short flick super8 enthusiasm

Post by **timdrage** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:17 pm

http://creativecommons.org/

Creative Commons is the (a?) way forward. Interesting stuff.

Bottom line: Make your own art. If you need the music in your film and you cannot get license free music or make your own, then your film is crap. Simply because ot does not tell YOUR story, but uses someone elses creation to do it for you.

I agree people should get permission for the music they use, but your statement just makes no sense: "Simply because ot does not tell YOUR story, but uses someone elses creation to do it for you. " ..you're saying that no film should ever use existing songs then!?

Just because you paid a fee or got permission doesn't make it any less 'someone else's creation'... and that's fine, because films are made of bits and pieces of different people's creativity!

Copyright laws are very strict and should be

They're also increasingly outtdated and being pushed in dangerous directions by the RIAA, MPAA and others.

An interesting book (freely downloadable of course!

on copyright, fair use and related issues is Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig - http://free-culture.org/
well worth reading.

Post by **sunrise** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:33 pm

timdrage wrote:I agree people should get permission for the music they use, but your statement just makes no sense: "Simply because ot does not tell YOUR story, but uses someone elses creation to do it for you. " ..you're saying that no film should ever use existing songs then!?

Just because you paid a fee or got permission doesn't make it any less 'someone else's creation'... and that's fine, because films are made of bits and pieces of different people's creativity!

I'm not saying that no film should use existings songs. But if you cannot do without it or cannot use another song, then your film is relying to much on the music. In other words you are not using the music to complement the pictures, you are using the pictures to complement the music.

If you are the creating artist, your film (story, visuals, dialogue etc.) should be the bearing element, NOT the soundtrack. If you on the other hand choose to make a film where the music on the soundtrack is the most important, you should be prepared to pay the fee.

michael

Post by **mattias** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:51 pm

timdrage wrote:
Copyright laws are very strict and should be
They're also increasingly outtdated and being pushed in dangerous directions by the RIAA, MPAA and others.

i agree, but again that's a different issue. the right to be the author of your own work has nothing to do with copies, file sharing, police raids, invasion of privacy or anything like that.

/matt

Post by **reflex** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:10 am

Of course I haven't payed royalties for the music. I think that as far as you use it for home movies and do not make any money or public distribution it is legal.

If you want affordable music for your films, I suggest you check out magnatune.com (their tagline is "We're a record label. But we're not evil.")

Licensing an individual track from them for inclusion in a film intended for art house distribution costs around $70. However, if you're using their music in an artistic-not-for-profit manner (as most of us are), you can license if for free under a Creative Commons agreement. The important thing is to make sure that you have a release for the music, especially if you're posting on the 'net. You never know when your film will get blogged, become a hit, and get 150,000 downloads in a month. When that happens, you definitely want to be covered legally.

Some of their stuff is quite good. All is peer reviewed. And half the money goes directly to the artist. Just remember to credit the song, artist, and label appropriately in the credits.

reflex

Post by **greenplastic79** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:33 am

.snoitaloiv ciffart rof stsirotom etic ot dewolla era sreciffo ecilop ylno yrtnuoc siht nI.

Post by **Taqi** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:41 pm

?kcuf eht tahW

Post by **ropbo** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:23 pm

I'm not quite sure but I think Steve Jobs ( Apple ) did the same thing during his keynote in San Francisco some years ago: he shot a video, edited it with iMovie, added a song he had just bought from iTunes Music Store, and published it on the Internet ...

I know it was just a demonstration but ... they got the softwares, they demonstrate how to do it ...

Post by **mattias** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:36 pm

hey plastic, i see what you're getting at, but frankly that's a really stupid way of looking at it. i'm just offering my advice, and if you want to keep breaking the law even after i told you that you are, fine.

/matt

Post by **mathis** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:35 pm

ropbo wrote:I'm not quite sure but I think Steve Jobs ( Apple ) did the same thing during his keynote in San Francisco some years ago: he shot a video, edited it with iMovie, added a song he had just bought from iTunes Music Store, and published it on the Internet ...

I know it was just a demonstration but ... they got the softwares, they demonstrate how to do it ...

You can be sure he asked for permission before.

Of course, if you do it on your own in your private environment nobody ever will be interested in your case. But the key word here is public presentation which is what actually happens when you post your film on internet.

Post by **ropbo** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:01 pm

mathis wrote:
You can be sure he asked for permission before.

Of course, if you do it on your own in your private environment nobody ever will be interested in your case. But the key word here is public presentation which is what actually happens when you post your film on internet.

Yeah, I got your point and totally agree with it.

What I meant tho was that Apple makes iMovie, iTunes and says:

"Ok, you use iMovie to edit your video, then import a song from iTunes and when everything is ready, publish it on our website"

So, you know that if you use someone else's song without authorization and publish it on the Internet for distribution, that's a copyright infringement ... but 99% of people that buy these products from Apple don't know that ... and believe me: it's pretty simple to do it. In four-five steps you have you footage on the .Mac website. There's even a website where you can browse through a bunch of videos made with iMovie/iTunes ... ( don't remember the address though )

... that's what I meant. I think Apple should mention that first ...

Well, just my two cents ...

Post by **zlacza** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:03 pm

Hey guys, you completely loose the point here. I am a scientist and have plenty of intellectual property, ALL of which incorporates knowledge from other people and organizations. Moreover, the publishers own the copyright of each of my articles, but I can patent anything I invented.

If the pharmaceutical industry can work this way, why not the music industry? In case my field would work the way the music industry works it would be like that:
1, You purchase an article and read it - same as in reality
2, You use the information form this article an embed it into your very own project, ie. use tha data, but also modify it in the process - same as in reality
3, You pay a fee to every paper you cite when you publish your own? - It would never work.

BTW if you are unable to publish your movie because of distribution rights, it means that the only two persons suffer from these laws are who were creative: you and the artist of the music. Only the labels and distributors make money on a project like this. Is this fair? Copyright laws supposed to protect the creative minds and NOT the art distribution machinery. It is a really good thing that technology is advanced so much that anybody can be creative and the music industry cannot control it too well.

Is it written in the stars that music distributors MUST be ultra-rich? Maybe in a few years music labels will be down just as the computer makers are down now, which is a good thing for the consumers - we can buy better stuff for a cheaper price (se also: new 500$ Mac).

Post by **mattias** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:20 pm

zlacza wrote:If the pharmaceutical industry can work this way, why not the music industry?

you're talking about quoting, which is an exception with many rules of its own. and it has nothing to do with pharmaceuticals.

Only the labels and distributors make money on a project like this. Is this fair? Copyright laws supposed to protect the creative minds and NOT the art distribution machinery

oh sweet jesus, that old crap again. authorship has nothing to do with money and the copyright laws, while based on authorship, was strictly designed for the making of copies and not the protection of "creative minds". you really need to do some reading.

/matt

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:32 pm

I am a scientist.....

OK, so if some other scientist used your research-stuff, articles or whatever, and took the credit for it not mentioning you, would it be OK?
Is it OK, or do you want the credit/fundings to continue on your research, based on your work?

I think it is as close to a comparison an artist and a scientist (and stealing other peoples work) can get.

Is it written in the stars that music distributors MUST be ultra-rich?

I agree with you, they are making way too much money, as are the big Hollywood companies and big actors. They make so much money doing one single movie that it would be enough for a lifetime. :?