Next you will be telling us piccaso, van gough and constable didnt have any right to sell their work as they were not their own subject.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 61 to 90 of 134
Thread
-
-
gll,
I think at least one of them did a self portrait, so, just maybe, he was allowed.
Cheers,
George
Oh, the shame!! And I consider myself a pretty good proofreader. -
Hi george.
All this talk about piccaso, van gough and constable but you know when you get right down to it I'll bet it's all about the Monet.
btw) I think the original poster's question was answered immediately by BJ_M with the little word "no".
cheers -
I might as well jump in as well....
Technically there is no practical way to stop copying completely - as someone pointed out earlier, Hollywood would be using it if there were. By putting it onto DVD you are limiting potential copiers to people who have a DVD burner, which I know is growing but is a small percentage of the population at the moment.
IMO a poor quality copy reflects on the person who did the copying, not what's on the tape.If in doubt, Google it. -
Originally Posted by monstermash
No one is saying that Piccaso, Van Gough or anyone else cannot sell their work. But once sold, if the new owner wants to burn it, copy it or bury it in the ground is of no concern to the painter. He's been paid for his work. The only illegal thing that can now be done is to copy, say, a Picasso, and claim it is an original.
Digital media is of course totally different, because (for all practical purposes) perfect copies can be made. But don't drag in Old Masters out of context to support your argument. -
monster, I agreed with you earlier, if people are making copies and passing them off as urs, then by all means, go sue them.
I would think a better use of ur law suit money would be better used with a shrink and ur conspiracy theories.
What I do for a living, well I could tell you, but I;d have to -----
Nobody quote me, as this text is all mine and copyrighted. -
gll,
By gum, I think you've got it, it is the Mon-eh.
Would that be close to the French pronunciation? At least in print?
Tried to put the smiley after the first line, after I typed the second. Did you know that doesn't work? Damn, I learn something new every day.
Cheers,
George -
KBeee,
You say if someone burn, burys or copies a picasso then no problem if they own it.
I agree with you, but if they then pass on the copy as a picasso then its a problem. I again agree with you.
This is my point, Ive spent several years choosing discs carefully, choosing tapes carefully and getting an allround package developed for said media, if someone comes along and copies a video Ive produced for them onto cheap media with no printing, boxes, sleeve or insert then its not representative of my work. As Ive already stated this has already happened to me, albeit with VHS, but it did happen, and caused a lot of grief at the time.
I say it again, I dont mind people copying the work Ive produced for them, but dont pass it off as mine.
The problem with this is someone tight enough to try to save very little will probably not tell whoever recieves the video. Invariably it would be passed on as the product I distribute and is not what the recipient would get if they were one of my customers.
Whatever the law says and I believe it is on the side of the producer, I dont want to be heavy handed about copyright or duplication as I have a good rappore with all of my customers, I put a note on all media that duplication is not allowed without the consent of my company (nothing about not being able to do it) just ask for my consent.This may be a bit vauge but what do I put as an alternative? -
Opinions and Facts
Dont confuse opinions with the facts. For the facts, read Vitalis' post. For opinion read Smurf, and Jaxboss (ps. This is not IM - you can spell out 'your').
The Fact is: The videographer holds the copyright unless specifically contracted away. The subjects (or clients) do *NOT* have any claim.
Is this your business or mine?
How I choose to act on this, is my business and you thinking that I should do this or that, to fit *YOUR* ethical viewpoints, is a load of arrogant bullshit. What I do know is that I am within my rights.
Now, the last point is: The risk of wholesale, commercial unauthorized duplications of my product is negligable, however this does not mean that I wish to waive my rights altogether. I do not charge a lot for video production and am certainly willing to negotiate transfer of copyright for an equally small free (DONT accuse me of being greedy when you dont know the facts, Smurf). I certainly dont want to find my animations appearing on other peoples wedding videos (THIS IS WHY I COPYRIGHT MY WORK - ITS NOT TO STOP CASUAL, LOWLEVEL COPYING).
Hypothetical Example: Footage
While shooting a wedding video, I spot a UFO. I then proceed to video this extra terrestrial vessel at great length. Under the current regimen, I have ownership of all of this footage. The contracting wedding party does not have ownership and *MAY*NOT* sell this footage to news outlets without my permission (lets say a shot of aforesaid UFO behind the wedding couple).
Of course this is a forced and outlandish (pun intended) example could be a more mundane air crash, car wreck, etc, etc, but the principle holds. The videographer holds the copyright.
Hypothetical Example: Animation
For each wedding video, I include animations that I have created (either from my collection or new as directed by the couple). I have animations of a couple waltzing on a wedding cake, or tumbling wedding rings or a chapel or ... You get the picture. Now, this is my work, and I have the copyright on it. I would certainly be very upset if these animations get used by some other videographer for another wedding video without permission. I am sure that if you have done any 3D animation, that you will appreciate the time and effort that goes into this work.
Conclusion
I am sure that reasonable people can understand that I retain copyright not to batter wedding couples about copying or to nickle and dime them for duplication. Its to stop *theft* of my material. -
you get my sympathy monstermash,im an englishman in thailand filming dive videos and it winds me up when i get a one sale in a day cos the rest of the group are gonna copy the vcd/dvd thats ordered.one advantage is a i can lie with a straight face so if anyone asks then yes,my discs are copy protected and ya'll have to order more,hahaha
-
monstermash, get a grip. Nobody is going to waste their time running around town and passing off copied videos as being urs. You just arent that important.
triphop, UR right in the fact that if someone signs a contract stipulating that the videographer will have all rights to said video. The same same is true if someone signs a contract that everytime they fart I then get a nickle. If the contract also states that they cannot fart in any other area besides my front yard, then I have a right to sue them if they fart elsewhere. Breech of contract.
My point is that any contract signed is a legal agreement. I just dont see anyone having a wedding would sign such a lame contract. Heck, why not throw in the stipulation on that farting thing too.
By the way, it's funny how you mentioned that I shouldnt use the slang UR, yet in that very same sentance you use the term IM. Isnt that a tad bit hypocritical? I'll answer that. YES it is hypocritical, but I dont care really.
Ur going to get ur response in ur way as ur tendency to act on ur impulse will eventually give way to ur lack of ur understanding of the "UR" phenonema. -
j@xxb0$$,
3Ng1i$h 1@Ngu@g3 i$ @ b3@u+iPhu1 +hiNg bu+ i+ g3+z pr3++y 1@M3 \/\/h3N \/\/3 +ry +0 m@/<3 0ur$31v3$ 100/< $uP3r 31i+3 by m3$$iNg \/\/i+h $P311iNgz. iN ph@c+ i+ g3+z pr3++y 1@M3 @Ph+3r $0M3 +iM3.
r3g@rdz,
+riP
(See - I can be super L33t too!! - where do we draw the line?! ) -
triphop,
You are straying WAY far off the subject. Here, I'll show you:
Hypothetical Example: Footage
While shooting a wedding video, I spot a UFO. I then proceed to video this extra terrestrial vessel at great length.
Hypothetical Example: Animation
For each wedding video, I include animations that I have created (either from my collection or new as directed by the couple).
Get off it already. No one is stealing here. Do your job, then move on. Stop trying to micro-manage. That "tarnishing my rep" thing is another (twisted) matter altogether. -
Originally Posted by Supreme2k
Hypothetical Example: Animation
For each wedding video, I include animations that I have created (either from my collection or new as directed by the couple).
Get off it already. No one is stealing here. Do your job, then move on. Stop trying to micro-manage. That "tarnishing my rep" thing is another (twisted) matter altogether.
The only thing that needs to be "gotten over" is your OPINION that I forfeited my copyright to the video production. Look, its a simple matter. If I do a corporate training or marketing video, a birthday video or a wedding video - the principle is the same. The videographer retains copyright. I cannot say this any clearer for you to understand. -
The videographer does not retain copyright. Only IF stipulated in the contract! Who on earth would hire a guy to film their wedding and give that videographer all the rights to the wedding? That is just crazy.
My God man, think about it. Yea, there may be a few people that do that, but I bet you as the videographer wont get much bussines at all, as most sane people wouldnt sign such a contract. -
Bzzzzzt!!! Incorrect. Thanks for playing....
The correct answer is: The copyright belongs with the videographer unless contracted away. Similarly for photographers, musicians, authors and artists. The copyright remains with the original creator unless there is contract that stipulates that the ownership of the creative products goes to another party. This is usually the case when you are employed - your employer owns your creative output.
When you get a job, you will notice that you sign an employment document to this effect. Since you have not done so, you are either unemployed or work in an environment where your work is not considered copyrightable. Flipping burgers or valet parking attendant work, for instance, is not copyrightable. -
Originally Posted by triphop
Originally Posted by triphop
Originally Posted by triphop
Say I have someone build me a fence. They use their own tools, lumber and hardware. Once they are done, they retain no ownership of my fence, UNLESS that is what is in the contract I signed. Same principle as the photographer/videographer.
Originally Posted by triphop -
Originally Posted by Supreme2k
-
Originally Posted by Supreme2k
-
Originally Posted by Supreme2k
Look, while the discussion has been fun and lighthearted here, its quite obvious that you are out of your depth and confusing OPINION for FACT. There is a difference. Its important not to confuse the two. You could get into trouble if you do. Like: Believing that smoking a bowl should be legal, but not not understanding that it is illegal. FACT and OPINION. -
Fire your lawyer(liar) before you get sued.
em·ploy·ee also em·ploy·e ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-ploi, m-, mploi-)
n.
A person who works for another in return for financial or other compensation
As far as FACT/OPINION goes, I have yet to come face-to-face with anyone in this thread to show me their credentials, nor have I seen any literature to backup your claims (a copy of your standard contract, perhaps?)
There is only opinion on message boards (except for moderators ) -
Originally Posted by jaxxboss
jaxxboss, I'm sorry but you are quite wrong on this point. The artist/creator of the content always has copyright. As I stated before, unless it is stated in the contract that the copyright is given to the client, the videographer owns the copyright.
It is ALWAYS implicit that the creator of the content owns the copyright.
The clients / subjects in the video own the copyright to their IMAGE unless otherwise stated in the contract... which means that the videographer cannot, e.g., sell the video content of the wedding (with someone's in it) to anyone without their consent. This is a completely different thing to owning the copyright to the video itself.
Who on earth would hire a guy to film their wedding and give that videographer all the rights to the wedding? That is just crazy.
I don't know if you've ever done anything for weddings, but this is really a very common practice. Wedding photographers are the same. Unless you pay them bucketloads of money, they won't give you the negatives either.
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence -
Originally Posted by Supreme2k
Finding a UFO or plane crash would mean you've left the event you've been paid for. At that point, you made a conscious decision to quit shooting the video for hire as you promised. If you were doing your job, you'd be finding way to make sure a UFO or other junk was not in the picture of this so-called professional video you're working so hard to make.
Leave the UFO and plane crashes for us journalists. You keep playing the role of wedding video photographer and DO YOUR JOB when that is why you were hired. You're not hired to photograph the UFO or a personal striptease in the bathroom. Both are 100% UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!
Wedding photographers are work-for-hire "employees". Your are overstretching your authority otherwise. Again, it's the whole unethical weasel thing. It can be done both ways, and legally unfortunately. Any worthwhile and honest wedding photographer will consider it work-for-hire, mainly so they do not have to keep an archive of footage. That stuff can become expensive and space-stealing to maintain.
If by some crazy reason, EVEN IF THE GROOM/BRIDE demanded you shoot the UFO, that is still YOUR UFO FOOTAGE because you did not contract out to shoot that event. You're there for Brad and Mary to get hitched. Not for E.T. to land. The understood arrangement was to shoot the wedding (that part of the video is still his). Let me repeat, YOUR UFO FOOTAGE, but HIS WEDDING FOOTAGE.
You do not have to shoot the extra UFO stuff any more than you have to serve him beer. You are neither his "beer bitch" nor his "video bitch". Neither of those things was pre-arranged as work you signed up to do.
All this takes is honesty and common sense.
Virtualis, you make a good point, but it's still the option of the videographer to choose how he wants to run his business. The cowardly way is to try to extort money and otherwise deprive the client from his memories. The honest way is to give them what they paid for and make it a work-for-hire, just make sure you collected a fair and decent amount upfront. There are plenty that do both methods. In fact, I'd venture to say only those with brick-n-mortar do the "copyright hiding" method, while those that freelance are works-for-hire believers. The brick-n-mortar places are normally the same ones that charge a zillion dollars for kids school pictures, and often the videographers are just as bad as the school photographers, if not the same person.
I'd love to see a case like this on one of those tv court shows !!!
What some of you law-bangers don't understand is that law does not matter. What is fair and just is what matters. Laws can and have been changed. Courts can overturn laws or re-interpret them at will. Every case has a loser, even ones that appeared to have so-called "rock solid" cases. You've seen the DeCSS cases, right? Then point taken. I'm no lawyer, but I can read and use common sense and judgment. Can you?
FYI, the last sentence is rhetoric, not directed at anybody..Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Lordsmurf, I agree that that is the way it SHOULD be, but unfortunately it isn't.
Any worthwhile and honest wedding photographer will consider it work-for-hire, mainly so they do not have to keep an archive of footage. That stuff can become expensive and space-stealing to maintain.
My solution for this is to not have a videographer ( ) and luckily for me, one of the junior doctors in Sydney is a semi-professional photographer who specialise in weddings (for other doctors apparently)...
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence -
Originally Posted by vitualis
In my area... actually in my whole state.. the majority of what I see and people I know use the work-for-hire method. If not because it is more honest, but because it is easier and cheaper (for the one doing the shooting) in the end.
It's unfortunate that you're surrounded by these kinds of people that want to deprive of both money and memories. That's essentially the effect this work ethic has on the customer.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
-
WTM CD Protect v1.61
http://www.webtoolmaster.com/wtmcdprotect/
WTM CD Protect is a tool which adds a copy protection to your CDs.
Tested on Nero, CloneCD, Alcohol...)
Originally Posted by icebergx -
vitualis, sorry but it is not the law. It is the standard, which is not to be confused with legality. Again, if a contract is signed then yes, the person shooting the film will retain copyright(which I have said all along) Case law on this is quite clear, with no contract, then ownership is 9/10 of the law. When you purchase the video you then have ownership as well. Fair use doctrine is important here in that this is MY wedding.
Do not confuse this with the fact that the videographer having ownership of said video and he can sell it on ebay. I however can also do the same.
One more thing. The videographer must comply with sections 407 and 408 of the Copyright law among others. I dont think too many of them actualy do this.
And yes, this thread is getting out of hand.
Ron Paul Allen Whitiker
Esquire -
Easy peezy solution. In fact you already solutionified yourself. by including a nice jewel case with nice printed labels, your work is identifiable. Most of the customers will just burn copies with felt marker and check felt on it. they won't confuse it with yours because you include nice packaging.
Similar Threads
-
Problem copying DVDs to hard drive (previously copied from videos)
By avz10 in forum RestorationReplies: 4Last Post: 2nd Mar 2010, 23:54 -
Problem Playing Copied DVD+R DL DVDs from CSS Protected Original
By bpbenda in forum DVD RippingReplies: 10Last Post: 24th Sep 2009, 10:04 -
Problem Playing Copied DVD+R DL DVDs from CSS Protected Original
By bpbenda in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 1Last Post: 23rd Sep 2009, 14:42 -
why cant i play the mini dvds that i copied on to my P.C's hardrive?
By boomblaszy in forum DVD & Blu-ray WritersReplies: 4Last Post: 21st Jul 2007, 12:22 -
Copied dvds wont play on my PC
By Rgalan in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 10Last Post: 21st May 2007, 17:34