I am a musician - the rip off game

[Izzy]

I am a musician

I have bought some photographs from a local photographer.
I think I should use his photographs in a slide show for my band.
My music is sort of weak so his photographs will help offset this.
After all it appears he is better known than I am, so I am sure he won’t mind.
Did I mention we do punk porn music?
I will not give credit for the pictures to him as I just don’t have the time.
I will however let the viewers guess who the photographer is.
Best part is it only cost me a couple 4X6’s I am certainly not paying for that
Big package he presented and marketed to me.


Now why is it ok for a photographer to rip off music for his slide show and not ok for a musician to rip off the photographer in the same way?

This is sarcasm in case you missed it.

[Sime]

Don't follow, what's your point?

S

[TheDarkReaver]

Originally Posted by Sime

Don't follow, what's your point?

S

I've got to say I'm with Sime here.

I've never done this as a musician. The band I was most recently in always had permission to display photographs on our website and always credited the photographer. Perhaps you'd like to bring some specific examples of a particular party doing this, rather than just painting musicians in general with your hypothetical brush.

[Sime]

I'm both - a muso and a photog (have released a CD / have been published) ...and it works both ways, which is why I don't follow - sorry - just to clarify.

S

[AnonymousKiwi1]

I think the point Izzy's making is that (some) photographers set up their web sites/blogs with music playing in the background that they've ripped off the web.
I don't believe he's attacking musicians.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by Sime

I'm both - a muso and a photog (have released a CD / have been published) ...and it works both ways, which is why I don't follow - sorry - just to clarify.

S

I guess the point was lost

What is good for one is good for the other. Maybe we should just do away with copyright all together? Check the DMCA thread. That is what I am being told. Second thought the sarcasm here just screamed by like a jet airliner. Feel free to delete this thread as there should be no copyright.

Copyright doesn't mean anything more than a person can complain in an organized fashion.

[Sime]

Originally Posted by AnonymousKiwi1

I think the point Izzy's making is that (some) photographers set up their web sites/blogs with music playing in the background that they've ripped off the web.
I don't believe he's attacking musicians.

Izzy, is that your point? I hate www's where the music just plays... grrr

[Sime]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I guess the point was lost

What is good for one is good for the other. Maybe we should just do away with copyright all together? Check the DMCA thread. That is what I am being told.

Wouldn't doing away with © just turn it into more of a chaotic mess, though?

We just need to fix © (which will never happen whilst people put digital content on the internet) and it'll all be "alright" right...?

hehe

[TheDarkReaver]

Yeah, people on both sides can do stuff that isn't right.

[nickbedford]

I am a musician, but I'm (obviously) also a photographer. Tell them their rights (none, save a watermarked web image). Tell them if they want to use them they need to either just use the watermarked ones, or purchase them in some format.

One of our band friends takes a lot of photos for bands, but the one thing I pride myself on is not using them on the website or our own Facebook page (she puts them on her Fb) until I've asked permission. And after that, they are watermarked clearly and I give generous kudos to said photographer when distributing the link to the photos via Facebook, Twitter etc.

We both win and we're both happy about it. If we wanted non-watermarked print copies I'd happily purchase them off her.

I assume this is the opposite to kind of thing what you're talking about?