Copyright issues with skating music?

[andromache]

Fine I deleted that part of the post that everyone thinks is so immature of it.

I never intended to make any fights here.

I feel like I've made more damage of myself than good here. And that people think I'm stupid and hate me so much and never want to associate with me ever again.

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate response to disagreement on a discussion forum where people tend to disagree.

 

[cheerknithanson]

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate response to disagreement on a discussion forum where people tend to disagree.

It was the way people were talking to me that made me feel like I've done more damage to myself.
I feel like everyone wants me banned.

 

[sabinfire]

I don't know what your profession is, but would you be willing to provide professional services for free to anyone and everyone who offers only respect in exchange?

It's not really a direct comparison -- a musician releasing their music for sale and a figure skater performing to it doesn't require the musician(s) to get up and perform a service when that skater begins skating.

As mentioned by Sam, theoretically this could actually help promote the musicians and result in increased sales.

But to answer your question quite literally, I would (and did) choose a lucrative field where I could likely earn a good living, and reserved my other interests (music, video editing, etc.) as hobbies that I give away for free now. The barriers to enter those fields profitably are just too extreme for me.

 

[cheerknithanson]

It's not really a direct comparison -- a musician releasing their music for sale and a figure skater performing to it doesn't require the musician(s) to get up and perform a service when that skater begins skating.

As mentioned by Sam, theoretically this could actually help promote the musicians and result in increased sales.

But to answer your question quite literally, I would (and did) choose a lucrative field where I could likely earn a good living, and reserved my other interests (music, video editing, etc.) as hobbies that I give away for free now. The barriers to enter those fields profitably are just too extreme for me.

Thank you thank you thank you. Exactly! I wanted to say it but feared that more people will come out against me. Also comparing music career to a medical career is not exactly the best comparison due to differences in training and legal use of it.

 

[ice coverage]

deleted

 

[andromache]

It's not really a direct comparison -- a musician releasing their music for sale and a figure skater performing to it doesn't require the musician(s) to get up and perform a service when that skater begins skating.

As mentioned by Sam, theoretically this could actually help promote the musicians and result in increased sales.

But to answer your question quite literally, I would (and did) choose a lucrative field where I could likely earn a good living, and reserved my other interests (music, video editing, etc.) as hobbies that I give away for free now. The barriers to enter those fields profitably are just too extreme for me.

Free exposure is something to consider, but I think perhaps artists (I'm not an artist of any sort, but I'm guessing) want to make some sort of money when someone else is capitalizing on their work. Skaters, by skating to someone's music, aren't making themselves a ton of money but they are using that music to shape their public image and perhaps earn some profit. I imagine the fee that the federation/show promoters/whoever is paying is not that enormous, in relation to the size of the benefit that they/the skater is receiving from the music.

On the other hand, films and commercials also give musical artists a ton of exposure, but they probably have to pay way more for the music they want to use because they have the potential to make enormous profits based on it.

 

[Krunchii]

^Yeah commercials or commercialized videos do have to pay a fee or royalty or something, I can't remember, I work at a media company and I believe for a video for a news site they had to scrap a track that was the background music and use a generic one that is free to use because they couldn't obtain proper permission without paying a bunch of money.

Fine I deleted that part of the post that everyone thinks is so immature of it.

I never intended to make any fights here.

I feel like I've made more damage of myself than good here. And that people think I'm stupid and hate me so much and never want to associate with me ever again.

People are not being mean to you because they hate you. They are telling you you're wrong, it is not bad to be wrong, we can't possibly know everything and have all the "right" opinions in the world, nobody does. People telling you you're wrong is not an attack, you're basically throwing a tantrum here. golden411, Sam and papagena have given you very nice replies, I don't know how you got people want you to be banned or think you're stupid and hate you.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

A musician's work product is her/his music.

I don't think anyone is a five-year-old for wanting to retain control over usage of her/his own work product.

I don't know what your profession is, but would you be willing to provide professional services for free to anyone and everyone who offers only respect in exchange?

That's why I said "all good points" when referencing your post. Of course I think someone should get paid for their efforts. I was simply offering the counter point that I don't necessarily think it's in the artists best interest to refuse music to figure skaters to perform to publicly unless they morally object or if in some extremely rare instance said performance somehow harmed the artist or the buisinesses associated with him. It's not that I'm arguing against you or anyone for that matter but instead offering a view I don't think is being represented. This benefits the artist far more than it will harm them.

 

[ice coverage]

It's not really a direct comparison -- a musician releasing their music for sale and a figure skater performing to it doesn't require the musician(s) to get up and perform a service when that skater begins skating.

As mentioned by Sam, theoretically this could actually help promote the musicians and result in increased sales.

But to answer your question quite literally, I would (and did) choose a lucrative field where I could likely earn a good living, and reserved my other interests (music, video editing, etc.) as hobbies that I give away for free now. The barriers to enter those fields profitably are just too extreme for me.

My question above should have referred to giving away professional services and/or work product. The music is work product.

Interesting choice that you have made -- to give away the fruits of your hobbies (for which I am grateful). But they are not the fruits of your profession.

Will try to stop posting in this thread now.

I am increasingly disturbed by the overall implication (not from you, sabinfire) that anyone who wants to earn legitimate income is greedy.

 

[w_darling]

the question of exactly how skaters get permission to use music had never crossed my mind before, so this was a very cool and enlightening thread.

um, since the discussion has moved onto the question of "exposure" and other assumed positives of providing "free" professional work, i thought i'd add my two cents? i have several friends who are visual artists. of course, the business model of the art world is very different from the musical world, but artists have been grappling with that issue for some time now, especially since the Internet makes it so easy to share and distribute artwork, whether with or without financial recompense. many artists oppose "working for exposure" on principle (or are at least very, very wary of it) because they think that it does contribute to a culture that devalues their work (there's even a joke about "dying from exposure"). if you google the phrase "working for exposure" you can probably find quite a few articles about it. i think even the New York Times ran a piece by Tim Kreider encouraging young creative artists not to work for free. yes, creative artists do sometimes choose to provide free content (for example, many artists have blogs on which to showcase some of their work for fun), but that's a different situation from entering a contractual business relationship with another party.

i guess it's not an issue that a lot of people outside of the art world think about -- so i hope it doesn't sound like i'm attacking anyone? i don't know, i'm always a little worried about posting online because i'm not sure how it'll come across. i just thought that this perspective might be useful to consider, too.

 

[sabinfire]

^Yeah commercials or commercialized videos do have to pay a fee or royalty or something, I can't remember, I work at a media company and I believe for a video for a news site they had to scrap a track that was the background music and use a generic one that is free to use because they couldn't obtain proper permission without paying a bunch of money.

This happens a lot. A band refuses to "sell out" or a company just decides it's not worth the royalty money for the song, so they hire a one-off generic studio creation that's slightly different, such as:

McDonald's Commercial 2011

is actually:

Phoenix - Lisztomania

Or...

Volkswagen ad

is actually:

Beach House - Take Care


Why Do Ad Agencies Keep Ripping Off Indie Music?

Perhaps figure skater's should begin doing the same?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

the question of exactly how skaters get permission to use music had never crossed my mind before, so this was a very cool and enlightening thread.

um, since the discussion has moved onto the question of "exposure" and other assumed positives of providing "free" professional work, i thought i'd add my two cents? i have several friends who are visual artists. of course, the business model of the art world is very different from the musical world, but artists have been grappling with that issue for some time now, especially since the Internet makes it so easy to share and distribute artwork, whether with or without financial recompense. many artists oppose "working for exposure" on principle (or are at least very, very wary of it) because they think that it does contribute to a culture that devalues their work (there's even a joke about "dying from exposure"). if you google the phrase "working for exposure" you can probably find quite a few articles about it. i think even the New York Times ran a piece by Tim Kreider encouraging young creative artists not to work for free. yes, creative artists do sometimes choose to provide free content (for example, many artists have blogs on which to showcase some of their work for fun), but that's a different situation from entering a contractual business relationship with another party.

i guess it's not an issue that a lot of people outside of the art world think about -- so i hope it doesn't sound like i'm attacking anyone? i don't know, i'm always a little worried about posting online because i'm not sure how it'll come across. i just thought that this perspective might be useful to consider, too.

Yes. I've been in many discussions with friends and fellow artists about working for exposure actually devaluing people's work as a whole. It's a very good point to consider and is relevant to the topic at hand. I still think any artist would benefit more by this particular type of exposure but in the end I would respect their decision either way. Thanks for adding to the discussion. :thumbsup:

 

[Krunchii]

This happens a lot. A band refuses to "sell out" or a company just decides it's not worth the royalty money for the song, so they hire a one-off generic studio creation that's slightly different, such as:

McDonald's Commercial 2011

is actually:

Phoenix - Lisztomania

Or...

Volkswagen ad

is actually:

Beach House - Take Care


Why Do Ad Agencies Keep Ripping Off Indie Music?

Perhaps figure skater's should begin doing the same?

I know they do this for YouTube too, a lot of monetized YouTube channels will use "music box" versions of popular songs without lyrics or songs that are remixed differently in their background so they don't have to deal with copyright on their channel because the companies don't want them using their music. I know a poplar make up guru named Michelle Phan had a lawsuit related to using music without the permission of those who owned it, the artist said they were okay with it but the company owns the music so they were suing her. I don't know the outcome of the lawsuit but its another ones of those I am using your work for financial gain but I'm giving you exposure. Who wins or loses in this situation?

 

[Interspectator]

the question of exactly how skaters get permission to use music had never crossed my mind before, so this was a very cool and enlightening thread.

um, since the discussion has moved onto the question of "exposure" and other assumed positives of providing "free" professional work, i thought i'd add my two cents? i have several friends who are visual artists. of course, the business model of the art world is very different from the musical world, but artists have been grappling with that issue for some time now, especially since the Internet makes it so easy to share and distribute artwork, whether with or without financial recompense. many artists oppose "working for exposure" on principle (or are at least very, very wary of it) because they think that it does contribute to a culture that devalues their work (there's even a joke about "dying from exposure"). if you google the phrase "working for exposure" you can probably find quite a few articles about it. i think even the New York Times ran a piece by Tim Kreider encouraging young creative artists not to work for free. yes, creative artists do sometimes choose to provide free content (for example, many artists have blogs on which to showcase some of their work for fun), but that's a different situation from entering a contractual business relationship with another party.

i guess it's not an issue that a lot of people outside of the art world think about -- so i hope it doesn't sound like i'm attacking anyone? i don't know, i'm always a little worried about posting online because i'm not sure how it'll come across. i just thought that this perspective might be useful to consider, too.

You are absolutely right about 'exposure' in visual arts not being a particularly good reason to let people persuade you to work for free. I wouldn't make commissioned artwork for anyone "just for exposure." It takes hours and hours so much training to make a professional illustration or a piece of music. That's my personal principles and some people think differently. I would, however, make non-comissioned illustrations for personal enjoyment, post it online, and woud not mind if it's re-blogged or re-purposed in a non-profit way and not care if it leads to more exposure or not.

If you need to make your living off of it, you need to make money. But I also understand that if something is posted online, and if it is any good at all, someone will want to share it, use it and worst case scenario, profit from it without asking permission. It's a bit of a grey area there.

Though with figure skatings love for Warhorses, it's not like they are promoting some indie musician no one knows about. To a top-level musician, exposure is going to mean even less...since they are already famous and in fact, they are lending their fame to the skater skating their music rather than the other way around. (big exception in Japan where Yuzu, Mao and Daisuke make musicians famous domestically by skating collaborations in shows).

 

[karne]

I am increasingly disturbed by the overall implication (not from you, sabinfire) that anyone who wants to earn legitimate income is greedy.

I am also disturbed by this implication.

In journalism, one of the many problems is a lack of jobs, especially for young, fresh-out-of-school journalists. This problem is compounded by the issue of internships. Should a journalist be glad to be working for nothing, though their work may sometimes be published in a small, out of the way corner of a newspaper? And while a paper rotates through interns, they then do not hire full-time journalists. Should they all be glad just for exposure, and think not of their rumbling stomach?

Or, perhaps, another thought. Let's say Timothy Dolensky composes another of his beautiful pieces, and posts it on Youtube - perhaps he skates to it, perhaps not. Someone takes the music and puts it with a video, a performance, a mini-movie that they then monetise and start making money off. Should Timothy just be grateful for the exposure? Is it acting like a five year old who won't share his toys if he wishes to exert his copyright and make it so that he is the one making money from this thing that he has lovingly crafted with time and effort?

 

[Rissa]

What is an 'album', and where do you buy it?

Another word a CD of new songs by one artist.(I hope this is what you were asking)

Back to the topic though: we're living in an era when just straight-up selling of the music doesn't necessarily pay the bills. Streaming is a way to get revenue, so I do understand somewhat blocking certain youtube streams. Skating videos fall victim to it because the process is automatic. I don't think skating videos in any way threaten an official video of a song because the people who like it will go to the official version anyway since cut and quality of skating videos inferior. I don't think artists themselves would complain about that extra exposure unless they felt negatively about skater/skating/performance/Youtube in general.

 

[gkelly]

I don't necessarily think it's in the artists best interest to refuse music to figure skaters to perform to publicly unless they morally object or if in some extremely rare instance said performance somehow harmed the artist or the buisinesses associated with him.

Primarily it's the posting of videos using their music that artists or their lawyers have refused to allow.
And of course most youtube posts are technically not legal anyway, so it seems pretty disingenuous to complain about rightsholders interfering with you doing something that you have no legal right to do anyway.

My understanding, for the US at least, is that all use in competition -- whether by elite skaters at Olympics or by tots at a small local event -- is covered by blanket contracts between the rinks and ASCAP and BMI.

And have any musicians ever refused to allow skaters to perform to it publicly?

Doris offered one example. I don't know of any others offhand.

For commercial shows, e.g., tours or TV specials, highlighting the skaters performing to the music, I believe the producers need to pay for specific music rights. This would be the same as for any other use of music in a performance on stage or screen.

If the musician charges too high a fee, it might not be feasible for the show to use that selection, which is different than the artist not allowing it to be used at all.

Sometimes musicians do refuse to license their music to performance/public use that they disagree with. But are there any examples of this with skating shows?


It's not that I'm arguing against you or anyone for that matter but instead offering a view I don't think is being represented. This benefits the artist far more than it will harm them.[/QUOTE]

Back to the topic though: we're living in an era when just straight-up selling of the music doesn't necessarily pay the bills. Streaming is a way to get revenue, so I do understand somewhat blocking certain youtube streams. Skating videos fall victim to it because the process is automatic. I don't think skating videos in any way threaten an official video of a song because the people who like it will go to the official version anyway since cut and quality of skating videos inferior. I don't think artists themselves would complain about that extra exposure unless they felt negatively about skater/skating/performance/Youtube in general.

Legal rights holders often will enforce the exclusivity of their rights in all situations, whether a given unauthorized example is likely to harm their business or not. If they let some people get away with using the music illegally, then they would have a harder time in court against someone who illegally used the music in ways that did demonstrably hurt their business.

 

[sabinfire]

Though with figure skatings love for Warhorses, it's not like they are promoting some indie musician no one knows about. To a top-level musician, exposure is going to mean even less...since they are already famous and in fact, they are lending their fame to the skater skating their music rather than the other way around. (big exception in Japan where Yuzu, Mao and Daisuke make musicians famous domestically by skating collaborations in shows).

I think you'd be surprised with how many new/young fans of figure skating are not entirely familiar with music that many of us would consider famous and ubiquitous.

Another word a CD of new songs by one artist.(I hope this is what you wrre asking)

Not so much an 'ask', just an observation on the disappearance of the album. The new trend is to purchase and listen to individual songs, rather than sit down and listen to a full album from beginning to end. Few albums are even constructed for this format anymore.

 

[Rissa]

I think you'd be surprised with how many new/young fans of figure skating are not entirely familiar with music that many of us would consider famous and ubiquitous.

That's definitely true. I've met middle schoolers who haven't heard The Beatles, not to mention classical music.

The fact that lyrics are permitted now opens a whole new world as far as song choices go but if it gets hampered by copyright issues, warhorses will be in no danger of being put aside.

Not so much an 'ask', just an observation on the disappearance of the album. The new trend is to purchase and listen to individual songs, rather than sit down and listen to a full album from beginning to end. Few albums are even constructed for this format anymore.

Oh, I see. True, concept albums seem to be uncommon, but albums as such aren't disappearing. All artists regularly put out albums (in the last 2 weeks 3 of my favorite artists did so I'm a happy music consumer right now ) it's just that people buy much fewer of them, switching to individual songs.

Legal rights holders often will enforce the exclusivity of their rights in all situations, whether a given unauthorized example is likely to harm their business or not. If they let some people get away with using the music illegally, then they would have a harder time in court against someone who illegally used the music in ways that did demonstrably hurt their business.

Good point, it wouldn't do to create exceptions, exemptions and precedences. Even if my inner figure skating fan insists that figure skating should be an exemption.

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

If you take a look at THIS video I made and then scroll down to the description you'll notice that I put this in that field:

Music:'Atlas Hands' - Benjamin Francis Leftwich

What was eventually added in addition to my description without any doing whatsoever from me was this:

Music

"Atlas Hands" by Benjamin Francis Leftwich (Google Play • AmazonMP3 • iTunes)

*Bolded section is all hyperlinks in which the music can be purchased*

So if a skater performs to a song and the Broadcast Company and the Arena covers the royalties for the live performance then if the skaters video goes up on YouTube and the music is credited it will create a link to Google Play, iTunes, Etc.... which in turn will help the artist. Remember that the more sales an artist can generate will only increase the record Labels interest in promoting them which is where the artists make their real money......on tour playing live shows.

I wonder if anyone has yet purchased a song because of one of my videos. FWIW all of the music for the most part that I've used for my Remix Series Videos/ Jumpamatrons is music I've purchased from iTunes and consider it as somewhat beneficial to the artists.