Karaoke Forums

Just a quickie. Where do I stand over using pictures that are on the net? I was thinking of adding pictures of the actual artists as back ground to the songs instead of the usual plain black or whatever. Are these copywrited?

As with all media they are copyrighted.

Best solution might be YOU go out and shoot some pics that might be applicable to the theme of the song and then display YOUR OWN ORIGINAL COPYRIGHTED PHOTOS IN THE BACKGROUND. Make it your own photo show.

However you may also with this be delving into requirements for MECHANICAL LISCENSING as you would be ALTERING THE ORIGINAL VIDEO BACKGROUND OF THE CDG.

So in reality I think I'd just pass up the whole project and not open yourself up for ANY LIABILITIES that deal with INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

_________________
"You know that I sing the Blues and I do not suffer fools. When I'm on that silver mic, it's gonna cut ya, just like a knife"-The SWINGCAT

photo's are public domain as long as they don't represent a product or have a company name or have a copyright logo oh yeah and a likeness to a copyrighted character.....

use common sense also - a picture of mickey mouse is owned by disney you can't use it.

but anything else is far game! whatever that leave's.

_________________
It's all good!

Liking that answer! I was thinking of adding a photo of the actual artist, or something that might appertain to that song, into the back ground of the song. So I would be ok to do this you think?

Sorry mightywiz, but that's just not true.

Copyright notices are no longer required in the US, so you should never assume that lack of a notice means a photo isn’t protected by copyright.

Unless the photograph was dedicated to public domain by the original owner or the copyright has expired, then photos are not to be considered public domain.

If the photograph was published before 1989, it needed a copyright notice. If it was published without one, it went into the public domain unless the copyright owner fixed the problem within a certain time.

Copyright doesn’t last forever. Once a work’s copyright has expired the work enters the public domain, where everyone can use it freely. To know when a work’s copyright expires, you must know when it was published.

You can’t know how long a work’s copyright will last if you don’t know when, or if, it was published. The length of its copyright protection will depend on which law was in effect at the time — the 1909 Act or the 1976 Act.

Under the 1909 Act copyright duration was measured from the date of publication, not the date of creation. The US copyright term for works published between January 1, 1924, and December 31, 1977, is 95 years from the date of publication.

Under the 1976 Copyright Act (current one) For the works of individuals, the term is the author’s life plus 70 years after his or her death. If the work is a joint work, term is measured by the last surviving author’s life plus 70 years.

For corporate works (works for hire), or anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term is 95 years from the date of publication, or 120 years from the date of creation — whichever expires first.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

These picture are copyrighted the second the photographer took them, BUT, practically speaking, you will receive a cease and desist letter long (months, even years) before you are sued (even assuming the original artist finds out at all).

Just check out YouTube. People post copywrited material on there ALL THE TIME. NFL plays, movie clips, copywrited music. The mode of operations is for the major corporations who give a crap to send a formal cease and disist request to YouTube to pass on to the offender - Take the material in question down within XX days of the letter = no consequences, defy their request and they might start thinking about a more strongly worded letter. YouTube just deletes these videos as a violation of the TOS, notifies the offender, and that's the end of it.

So, take that for what it's worth. There might be a slight ethical issue here or profiting off someone else's work, so make your own judgement on that, but the chances of there being any consequences to using these pictures in your $150.00 a night show is virtually ZERO.

This isn't SoundChoice we're talking about!

_________________
C Mc
KJ, FL

I say use whatever you want until someone tells you to stop using it. I really think that Disney has better things to do than track down some KJ for using a picture of Mickey Mouse during someone's karaoke version of Tony Basil's song. MICKEY.

Use whatever you want until told not to:=PIRACY.

Photos NO DIFFERENT THAN MUSIC.

And MCKY I'm VERY SURPRISED you would suggest doing that!

SO............again.............go shoot YOUR OWN COPYRIGHTED FOTOS and use them.

But again as soon as you start changing the original video background images on the screen.....then you start entering into the realm of needing mechanical/video liscensing as that is COPYRIGHTED and TRADEMARK PROTECTED Intelletual property.

_________________
"You know that I sing the Blues and I do not suffer fools. When I'm on that silver mic, it's gonna cut ya, just like a knife"-The SWINGCAT

That is almost entirely FALSE!

A mechanical license would not be needed to superimpose images while playing a karaoke song in a show. Since it is not being recorded and distributed a mechanical license could not be issued. In addition since the display is a layer of images - the original is unchanged. I run background images all of the time. The software I use makes this very easy to do without changing the original. It also allows me to cut out the silence at the beginning and end of every song and consequently those slides are never played. Also no need for any special license for that.

The display of photos would not be much different than playing music videos (which many KJs and DJs and Vjs do) the venu's licensing should take care of that if they are properly licensed for such things (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC).

Although I do not recommend the practice or claim to be giving legal advice, the practicality of the legalities of the issue is it is not much different than what anyone is doing now with karaoke. You can be sued by anyone for any reason. And every karaoke song you play is subject to lawsuit if the original artist, writer, or publisher should object and decide to sue.

It's easy to ride that high horse after you've been certified by a manufacturer, but if you step off that horse and read your certification papers you will notice that they do not indemnify you from lawsuit by the owners of the music. They only promise not to tell on you or sue you themselves.

The purpose of the cease and desist letter is to let you know they don't approve and want you to discontinue. I think shooting pictures of your own is a great idea, but I don't think you have to worry about getting sued any more than you worry about getting sued over playing songs from your gem set. Just don't record or televise or broadcast your shows on the net and you should be able to sleep at night.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

So am I, since I didn't....

_________________
[color=#ffff55]Mickey J.[/color]
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

I can't see how my use of the the images would offend the original artist. If anything it would benefit them as their image would be on the screen as the song was performed ,so anyone watching woud (might) think, ooooo that's who sang that one, I've always wondered, I think I'll go and buy the CD / download off itunes. Everyones a winner !

So why the original questions?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

I am a serious photographer and I have looked in to the copyright part of the photos. The photos are copyrighted as soon as the picture is taken. The person who took the picture is the owner of the picture and has the copyright. However, just because they took the picture, doesn't make it easy for them to claim ownership in the court. That's why they have to be registered copyright with the US Patent and Trademark agency. It costs like $270 per submission, which can be tens of thousands of images on a CD or a DVD sent in. Once it's been given then registered copyright, then the own can sue anyone using the image without permission.

If the owner wins the suit, the offender not only has to pay the damage, they are on the hook for the lawyer's fee. Typically the person will send out a cease and decease letter with a deadline to take it down. It can be days, weeks or months, depends on the photographer's urgency. I know the likelihood of anyone catching you using it is remote. However, as a photographer, I respect the artist's right to their own work, whether it's a photo, a song or a painting.

If you find something you really like on the web, you may want to just ask the photographer if you can use the image for non-profit ways, i.e. you don't sell it but just to display at your gig. More often than not, they will be thrilled to do that as long as you cite the photographer on the image. However, if the photographer has the image on the photo stock sites, then they are not likely to give you permission as you are required to buy the image from these sites to use. These image sites give you perpetual, license fee free use for the photo. They are not that expensive, like $2-3 for smaller images to as much as $250 for a big files.

Like most people on here encourage to buy songs from reputable sources to support the industry, I would highly recommend that you use these stock photo sites to get your images for your use. You would feel much better about it.

_________________

Seize the day and SING!!!

Topher, that is a bit of misconception that most people are free to post the copyrighted material. The reason why so many of these "copyrighted" material is not taken down by YouTube is that they have deal in place with movie studios, NFL and other organization. They are paying them excess of $200 million a year to have right for people to post these material on YouTube so others can enjoy them. I have seen many videos get taken down because those are not part of that deal or the organization who created it doesn't have deal with YouTube. So people who posts those video are not offending any laws or agreement, even if they don't know it as they post them.

_________________

Seize the day and SING!!!

Suprised it takes someone like me to come up with the answer that should end the conversation.


When in doubt, leave it out.


Want to use it and sleep at night, contact Mickey and ask him for permission.

_________________
KingBing Entertainment C'mon Up! I have a song for you!!! [font=MS Sans Serif][/font]

You can search for license free photos & find tons of images for almost anything. Not to hard and you don't have to worry about them being owned by anyone else.