I want to put a picture show together and send out as demos. I wanted to use the thumbnails posted on some stock picture websites and use them will this cause me any probs?

also sound track that I use for this pic show, does it have to be right managed or since its only a demo and going to small photography houses and this sort, will not hold me liable.???

First off, it's not exactly clear exactly what your project is. Secondly, the royalty free pics on websites are only royalty-free if you purchase a license. The same goes for music. While it is unlikely that you will run into legal problems with a small distribution, it is unprofessional and a bad habit to start.

Look for photos and music with a Creative Commons license that would permit the use you require. flickr.com has photos, many of which are CC licensed.
http://flickr.com/creativecommons/

Here is a collection of more sites using CC:
http://creativecommons.org/image/

For audio check out some of the sites listed on this page:
http://creativecommons.org/audio/

Using CC-licensed work is perfect for your purposes. Its legal and ethical. Just be sure to use work that is licensed for public domain or non-commercial use.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that you can't be help liable for something that you are not making money on. I've seen many indie film makers use well known commercial songs in trailers, just not in the actual movie itself. But, unless there is a lawyer reading this, everyone is probably just guessing.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that you can't be help liable for something that you are not making money on.

Actually, you can. Here's the official statement from the FBI concerning matters such as these:

"Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ipr/

Very true... certainly whenever you hear about a teenager being hauled to court by the RIAA it is for them distributing material that they are making no money on.

Moved here from the PC EDiting forum. See our extensive five-part Copyright FAQ by Douglas Spotted Eagle for more guidance on this topic, located at:

http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/business/copyrightfaq1.php

Yeah, it's also illegal to jaywalk, download music, download movies, download software, rip the damn tag off of your mattress. Yet, this is still stuff that thousands upon thousands of people are doing everyday of their lives. Let's be realistic, for every kid you here about being dragged into court over some little stuff, there are thousands more doing the same thing not being bothered. I bet that everyone saying that this is going to get you thrown in jail have risked there own freedom a few times getting that song off of the internet that they like so much. I'm not in here for a moral debate or to debate the law. In my opinion, if this guy used these pictures he would be just fine and nothing will ever come of it. He would win the lottery or get struck by lightning before getting dragged into court over using these pics.

Excuse me, but you're not here to "debate the law"? Uh, you DO realize that "being held liabel" is a statement of LEGALITY, meaning the LAW, dont you? LOL! The original poster asked about being held liable, you then responded with "I'm pretty sure that you can't be held liable", and now that you were corrected, you come in here proclaiming you're not here to "debate the law"?

The LAW is precisely what this discussion is about! :-) And the LAW is that what he proposed is illegal and he can be held liable for it.

------------

And as an aside, it's my opinion (but just that, an OPINION) that just because you can "get away with" something illegal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, and that just because "people do it everyday" doesn't make it right.

2¢

Actually, I'm pretty sure that you can't be help liable for something that you are not making money on. I've seen many indie film makers use well known commercial songs in trailers, just not in the actual movie itself. But, unless there is a lawyer reading this, everyone is probably just guessing.
Absolutely and completely wrong!

Copyright infringement liability results from making unauthorized copies, unauthorized derivative works and engaging in unauthorized distribution and/or public performance.

There is no, "I didn't make money" defense to copyrignt infringement.

I'm a lawyer and I'm not guessing. ;)

Yeah, it's also illegal to jaywalk, download music, download movies, download software, rip the damn tag off of your mattress. Yet, this is still stuff that thousands upon thousands of people are doing everyday of their lives. Let's be realistic, for every kid you here about being dragged into court over some little stuff, there are thousands more doing the same thing not being bothered. I bet that everyone saying that this is going to get you thrown in jail have risked there own freedom a few times getting that song off of the internet that they like so much.

Well, since copyright infringement is generally a civil matter (unless you run a high profile pirating ring) your freedom isn't what's at stake if you are found to violate the law--your wallet, however, is. We're not talking about downloading a song to check it out for personal use as he plans to use it to represent his business. As I already pointed out, there is a ton of material available online that is free to use and I can't think of a real compelling argument to ignore this creative work. One other place I forgot to mention for open audio is music section of archive.org. Not everything is cleared for commercial use, but you will be able to find plenty of good stuff. I also want to mention magnatune.com. They offer low rates for film and commercial licensing. Magnatune is a netlabel which has some great tracks available. be sure to check out their flexible licensing program.

Again, I don't think you're likely to get caught but why not take the opportunity to explore openlicensed creative works. If you happen to know any local bands, ask them if you can use some of their music. Maybe it's just me, but when i see other people use work that is not theirs to use, I see it as a creative crutch. YMMV.

I want to put a picture show together and send out as demos. I wanted to use the thumbnails posted on some stock picture websites and use them will this cause me any probs?

Absent a license, using someone else's protected expression by copying, preparing a derivative work, distributing or publicly performing violates the rights reserved to a copyright owner and results in infringement liability (assuming no applicable defense, e.g. fair use).

also sound track that I use for this pic show, does it have to be right managed or since its only a demo and going to small photography houses and this sort, will not hold me liable.???

See above. Unfortunately, I can't give legal advice to non-clients, so I can't address your specific situation. However, please see my response in this thread to the poster who thinks that, "I didn't make money from it" obviates copyright infringement liability.

Yeah, it's also illegal to jaywalk, download music, download movies, download software, rip the damn tag off of your mattress. Yet, this is still stuff that thousands upon thousands of people are doing everyday of their lives.


Right on brother, tell it like it is! I'm totally with you. Fight the power I say!

Um.. while we are at it, can you tell me when you will be out of the house, cause I could use a new computer, maybe some new CDs, and probably some of your mom's jewelry. Do you have a videocamera too? I know you won't mind if I help myself, since you have no problem with stealing someone elses stuff, right?


PS, please leave all your cash on your desk. Thanks!

I bet that everyone saying that this is going to get you thrown in jail have risked there own freedom a few times getting that song off of the internet that they like so much... In my opinion, if this guy used these pictures he would be just fine and nothing will ever come of it.
Jesse, it seems that you're missing a big differentiation here. Downloading material from the web is one thing. But uploading that same material -- in other words, redistributing it -- is the real issue. The two are not the same. You can't draw a parallel between downloading a piece of media, and then uploading it under your own name. That process of redistribution is where the real offense lies. Just because you can download it does NOT mean you can upload it somewhere else. That's a critical concept to understand.

Obviously you people are having a hard time understanding what I am saying. First of all, I am not telling him to use the pictures, I am saying that chances are he will not get in trouble if he did use the pictures. Besides, stealing solid real life property like computers and jewelry is one thing. "Stealing" a picture is something else. I understand that people make there money from these photos, I fully realize this. But, if this person was not planning on buying the photos anyway than the photographer is not losing anything. That person still has their picture after it is "stolen" so nothing is acutally lost. If this person has the money and was planning on buying the pictures and decided to take them for free anyway, than I can see where that would be more of a problem. But, this person was not looking to spend any money. Maybe they are on a tight budget and it was an option of paying rent for a month or buying these stock photos. But, they still need this demo to get a business going, to in turn make money. You never know someone elses circumstances. Maybe everything is black and white in the dvinfo world, but that is not real life. Remember that not everyone has the same "right and wrong" meter as you. Some of us can see that not every situation is the same. There are grey areas in life.

Jesse,

The problem is associating the theft of property with "gray areas."

This is not a personal attack either, but you will find that greys areas become filled with color as one ages and matures. It is just a simple fact of life. We have another thread on using copyrighted material, and I'll link to it. We are trying to find a way to make it easier to get and use copyrighted material. Perhaps you can add to that discussion.

Oh, and I'm an ex-cop from California.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=47520

Mike

Yeah, it's also illegal to jaywalk, download music, download movies, download software, rip the damn tag off of your mattress. Yet, this is still stuff that thousands upon thousands of people are doing everyday of their lives. Let's be realistic, for every kid you here about being dragged into court over some little stuff, there are thousands more doing the same thing not being bothered. I bet that everyone saying that this is going to get you thrown in jail have risked there own freedom a few times getting that song off of the internet that they like so much. I'm not in here for a moral debate or to debate the law. In my opinion, if this guy used these pictures he would be just fine and nothing will ever come of it. He would win the lottery or get struck by lightning before getting dragged into court over using these pics.

You're overlooking something vital. If he was using the pictures in his own personal production to be viewed only by his immediate friends in his own home you're probably right. While technically illegal, who's going to know? (Though there's at least one case I'm aware of where a couple were showing their wedding video at a party and one of the guests turned out to be a copyright attorney working for the very company that owned the rights to the musc the videographer had used illegally - guess the result? You never know who will see it when you go public!) But the question was posted regarding using these images in a demo reel. That kind of says that it's going to be circulated to lots of people, probably lots of people in the industry. The odds are really good that someone is going to blow the whistle. Even if not, just from a practical standpoint would YOU hire someone to entrust with your intellectual property who has already clearly demonstrated in their job application that they're a scofflaw when it comes to respecting other people's copyright?

Jesse,

If I understand you correctly, it is okay to create a copy of the professional photograph and use it in a demo reel, without actually paying money to acquire it. IN other words, using the picture has REAL, TANGIBLE , MEASURABLE value to you... it is needed to get work in order to make more money... and that's okay. That's what you are saying, right?

So it would be okay for me to make perfect copies of REAL MONEY, to pay my rent. It's not like I'm TAKING any money away from the bank. I'm not breaking into someones account and diminishing their bankroll. All of the govt's money is completely untouched... and besides, I need it to pay my rent. Where's the harm in that? Heck, I even spent good money on the ink, paper and engraving tools...

Jesse, we're not being contrary. This is a board full of people who make their living creating and selling intellectual and artistic properties. Intellectual property IS 'real' property. Patents, copyrights, trademarks, tradenames, licenses... these 'ideas' have REAL, TANGIBLE, MEASURABLE value... they are bought and sold and increase and decrease in value just the same as a piece of paper called stocks and bonds, or tangible real estate.

Theft is theft. Sure, we understand that there might be mitigating circumstances in any crime. And the law takes those into account during the trial and prosecution. But it's the judge/jury that gets to decide if your situation is mitigated by other details, not you.

We understand that you are addressing the 'likelyhood' of getting caught. That's something everyone does when pushing eight miles per hour over the speed limit. Yeah, you're right.... probably everyone here has 'broken the law a little bit'. Nobody's a saint.

But what I object to, is the notion that it's somehow "okay" to take someone else's work and use it for yourself. It's not okay. It's a crime. It's a crime that's especially offensive to those who make their living dealing in IP. So don't expect to get flowers and candy from a board of professionals when you advocate the ease and acceptance of theft of their work.

In fair disclosure... I'm married to a copyright/trademark attorney. She'll say the exact things that Paul Tauger says. (Paul is VERY generous of his time and comments on this board, we're gratefull whenever he jumps in.) I can also state, with CERTAINTY, that companies do read boards just like this one, looking for test cases to prosecute. 'Nuff said.

One more comment. It is possible to USE the copyright images on a 'trial' basis. Many of the Royalty Free sites, offer low-rez or watermarked versions of their pix and footage. You are ENCOURAGED to download and use these while cutting together your footage, to see how it fits in. Show it to the client, or test audience. Get feedback. THEN pay for and download the Hi-Rez or UNwatermarked version for use in the final cut.

These sights really do make it easy to work with them on staying 'legal' with the least ammount of monetary commitment.

...
. "Stealing" a picture is something else. I understand that people make there money from these photos, I fully realize this. But, if this person was not planning on buying the photos anyway than the photographer is not losing anything. That person still has their picture after it is "stolen" so nothing is acutally lost. If this person has the money and was planning on buying the pictures and decided to take them for free anyway, than I can see where that would be more of a problem. ...
.

Sorry, the "I only stole it because I couldn't afford to buy it" argument just doesn't cut it. It doesn't justify using pictures and music any more than it justifies "borrowing" a BMW.

Download the pictures for your own pleasure, by all means. Here in Canada the Supreme Court ruled not too long ago that even music DOWNLOADS and the possession of copyright songs that had been illegally posted on file sharing networks didn't violate the law - it was the uploads and the persons doing the posting that violated copyright but not the downloaders. But to actually USE the images and music to one's benefit and gain, such as in a demo reel, crosses a major line in the sand. I'll be the first to admit I haven't personally purchased every single piece of software I've installed on my home PC to familiarize myself with over the years and I've had access through my clients to borrow a wide range of products. But as soon as I began to actually use them productively in my work, I've bought legal copies, even when I already possessed a fully-functional borrowed copy, except when my work was legally covered by a client's site license. We are producers of intellectual property ourselves and it just seems fundamental that the very first rule we must follow to claim any legitimacy to our own work is to scrupulously respect the intellectual and creative rights of others. If we exploit others it gives the world blanket permission to exploit us when it can get away with it and that's just not the sort of world I want to live in.

Jesse, for your own benefit I am locking this thread. Just about everything you're stating while trying to support your position is so far out in left field that it's actually crossed the foul line. Now I can't change the way you think, but for the benefit of others who may not be clear on this topic, I'm going to dismantle your arguments here step by step.

I am saying that chances are he will not get in trouble if he did use the pictures.Sorry, no, actually the chances are very high that he will get into trouble, especially if he resides in the same country as the source of those images. More attention is being paid now to intellectual property theft, and within the USA it's not as difficult to go after IP thieves as it used to be. It's more expensive to pursue them if they're in a different country, but more nations are cooperating together in tracking down and prosecuting IP thieves. Images on sites can be tracked fairly easily these days... often they are electronically watermarked, and putting a pirated image on the front page of a website for the whole world to see is just like waving a big red flag, asking to get busted.

Besides, stealing solid real life property like computers and jewelry is one thing. "Stealing" a picture is something else.No, it is not something else. Stealing is stealing, period. Stealing intellectual property is just as much of a crime as stealing physical property, because whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, intellectual property *is* real property. The theft of intellectual property is just as morally bankrupt as any other kind of theft, too. In your case this is a fundamental misunderstanding of extreme proportion, which to me is quite concerning.

I understand that people make there money from these photos, I fully realize this. But, if this person was not planning on buying the photos anyway than the photographer is not losing anything. That person still has their picture after it is "stolen" so nothing is acutally lost.Dead wrong. You are absolutely, fundamentally incorrect. First of all, stealing something that you weren't planning to buy is just as wrong as stealing something that you were planning to buy. The type of criminal who steals what they weren't planning to buy is known as an opportunist, and unfortunately this is by far the most common type of criminal in the world.

Second, what the victim loses by having their intellectual property copied by someone else is its uniqueness. It has been clearly established by law that the creator of a work of intellectual property has the right to choose who else can have it and who cannot. The owner assigns those rights through a process called licensing. When intellectual property is copied without permission, it loses its uniqueness and therefore its value. So obviously yes, they are indeed losing something.

If this person has the money and was planning on buying the pictures and decided to take them for free anyway, than I can see where that would be more of a problem. But, this person was not looking to spend any money.The last time I checked, stealing something just because you don't feel like paying for it is still very much a crime. You are confusing the intent with the act. The intent does not matter in this case. Only the act matters. Intention may or may not become a factor in the lawsuit or the trial which follows, but that's a defense after the fact, not a justification for it. Sort of like the "fair use" argument, which itself is only a defense in an infringement case, and not a license to infringe.

Maybe they are on a tight budget and it was an option of paying rent for a month or buying these stock photos.Sorry, not a logical argument. You are confusing necessity with desire. These are skewed priorities. Any perceived desire to "buy stock photos" does not equate to the necessity to pay the rent, or feed children, or pay the electric bill.

But, they still need this demo to get a business going, to in turn make money.A person who is too short on money to buy a stock photo should never attempt to start their own business. Starting a business is a risky venture with a very high failure rate. If they can't afford to pay for something simple like stock photos to put on their web site, then they should most definitely not be attempting to start a business. They should instead seek out gainful employment somewhere until they're earned enough to start a business or can qualify for a small business loan from their bank.

You never know someone elses circumstances. Maybe everything is black and white in the dvinfo world, but that is not real life.DV Info Net is what real life should be. Thank you.

Our goal at DV Info Net is to present the best possible advice and solutions to the technical matters of digital media creation and their associated business aspects. To that end, our best possible advice is do not steal other people's work. If there is a grey area in that statement, then that is your problem, and not mine. As the final arbiter of what transpires on this message board, it is a clear-cut case of black and white to me and therefore is presented as such, with absolute permanence and finality.

Remember that not everyone has the same "right and wrong" meter as you. Some of us can see that not every situation is the same.The fact that not everyone has the same "right and wrong" meter is the very reason why we have laws, attorneys, civil courts, and a criminal justice system, which constitutes a "right and wrong" meter for society as a whole. Although it may vary slightly depending on which city, state or nation you're in, that social "right or wrong" meter says that intellectual property theft is still against the law pretty much everywhere you go.

There are grey areas in life.There are no grey areas in this particular matter, though. The theft of intellectual property by the act of uploading it to your own site is very clearly the wrong thing to do. DV Info Net is a practical community of digital media content creators who regularly generate intellectual property, the majority of whom do it professionally and for a living, so you will find absolutely no sympathy for your side of the argument here.

I'm glad I could step into this thread and lock it before some of our more colorful and tempermental members joined in to really let you have it. You certainly got off easy; I just hope you learned something here. Either way, case closed.