David Grisman suing Youtube!

[Jay Funk Dawg]

My insights on this come from a talk that I attended in Halifax the day before I left to move to Toronto (3-4 years ago now).

Fingerstyle Don Ross was talking about his music and how he estimated that he lost about $80,000 a year on pirated music. Yes on one side he was happy for the exposure, but on the other he didn't like the poor quality of tracks that were getting out there... and because his demographic might say buy only one of his CDs, the wide-spread availability of his material available online for free squeezed him.

His data was based on his CD sales over the course of his 20+ career, and how things had changed over time, when the whole Napster thing happened.

Musicians should be able to do is control how their music is dissemenated. I for one am happy that my band's video has been played 1,200 times on youtube, almost a thousand plays on myspace, but those were all my choices to have them available.

[guigsy]

how do you feel about illegal use of artwork?

[secondtube]

this is an answer i can't wait for!

[Jay Funk Dawg]

Basically I can only say that artists need to protect themselves from unauthorised use of their art. I will admit to using pictures of Frontier town & Evolve that guigys did on myspace.com; do I am guilty of using other peoples art, i borrow images to post on websites all the time, and although I think there is a grey area on the web, and hopefully that is what will get cleared up with this lawsuit.

I really can't believe that people are being hard on Grisman for suing youtube... it's the USA!!! they sue over almost anything!!

[bouche]

What's he trying to stop exactly? That's what I want to know. A video someone digitized and uploaded from an old VHS they taped of him on Letterman with Garcia?

Crappy handheld vids of him playing in concert? Or just professional dvd rips that he created. Are there any of those?

What freaking videos are affecting his income? Let's see a list David.

[guigsy]

why is there a grey area on the web? because clicking is easier than breaking into the artists home?

there is obviously perceived value for you, when you're trying to promote - why should the creator not be compensated, regardless of the medium?

[bouche]

why is there a grey area on the web? because clicking is easier than breaking into the artists home?

there is obviously perceived value for you, when you're trying to promote - why should the creator not be compensated, regardless of the medium?

You should at very least be contacted for permission so you can suggest either listed credit with a link to your gallery, or compensation.

I used a couple of photos from someone's bonnaroo Flickr gallery last year for an article we put together and I emailed them and asked about usage. They were fine with credit and a link.

[Jay Funk Dawg]

Digital Millennium Copyright Act; The law gives Web hosts protection from copyright lawsuits so long as they comply with requests to remove unauthorized material.

that seems like a pretty large grey area... you can use other people's work on the net until they request to remove... but what if they don't know that their art is being used?

My hands are tied, I work on cmtf as a volunteer, but if you like i will remove your photos from both sites. As for Evolve, I though we had an agreement to pay for your photos if they get printed in magazines, unfortunately they have not been printed... yet!

www.myspace.com/evolvefestival

www.myspace.com/cometogethermusicfestival

[Booche]

::puts feet up on desk and waits::

[guigsy]

why so defensive, jaydawg? the question was, if there's value for you, why do you not feel compensation is warranted?

the point isnt about having to ask for things to be removed. its about ethical conduct in the first place. you've mentioned my name, as well as having "borrowed" other artists works - so my argument here isnt necessarily about ME... i havent even mentioned that you stole my shit. you did.

i just expect different things from someone so hell-bent on *community* and *vibe* and *supporting the scene*. *the scene*, if you wish there to be one, isnt just musicians and promoters.

truthfully, not having been paid for a frontier town shot used to help promote CTMF isnt going to break the bank and cause me to miss rent - so to that end, at this point, i dont care.

[edit]

Edited May 17, 2007 by Guest
irrelevant.

[guigsy]

As for Evolve, I though we had an agreement to pay for your photos if they get printed in magazines, unfortunately they have not been printed... yet!

ps: not that im going to get into business dealings publicly, but that wasnt the agreement. if you chose to not do anything with the photos i provided, thats not my fault.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

whack-a-mole!

[StoneMtn]

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is American. To my knowledge there is no Canadian equivalent.

[Jay Funk Dawg]

The point isnt about having to ask for things to be removed. its about ethical conduct in the first place. you've mentioned my name, as well as having "borrowed" other artists works - so my argument here isnt necessarily about ME... i havent even mentioned that you stole my sh!t. you did.

well that's the law we're discussing, Youtube a major international website is fine with removing content upon a cease and decease.

You are obviously upset about me using your photos, and I am taking your criticisms to heart. A lot of what I do to promote the scene isn't to my own personal benefit, I do it because I feel this scene needs to document itself. I am sorry if I have lifted your images to promote events & stories I have written.

[guigsy]

if i was that upset, i'd have been asking you to remove my photos for a long while now. and you know that i never have.

i was simply asking where you stand, because your actions and statements werent jiving with me.

[Jay Funk Dawg]

Guigsy,

I allow photography at my events if I am granted access to photos for online purposes and that they also check with the band. If I had hired a photographer before an event then it would be a different story. I realize that I should be more careful with using other people's photos on message boards.

Any photographer who understands the nature of the internet will watermark their photos or present their images so that other people cannot link or download them.

As for slandering me for using your photos in my stories, I take very much offence to your remarks You have a right to protect your work... please keep in mind that it is also my work that you have documented.

~

The argument I am trying to pitch is that Grisman, and other artists should have the right to sue and protect their assets. There should be no shame in protecting your rights. Grisman is also a business man, he probably employs a hell of a lot of people and I'm sure that he and his lawyers have researched their claim and have a valid argument. Let the law figure it out... that's democracy.

[balogna pogna]

Grisman is a great player but to be honest he seems so money hungry that I avoid buying his stuff and bothering with most of his projects altogether.

I mean look at how many albums (and a movie) he has put out since Jerry's death.

(I just read up a few posts and realized we aren't talking about Grisman anymore...sorry)

[guigsy]

i believe i asked a philosophical question, and you brought specific things up.

the rest we'll take offline.

[Hux]

Maybe he's got a kid to put through college.

Reminds me of that old saying...you don't need a miracle - you need $42.50!

[Esau.]

Any photographer who understands the nature of the internet will watermark their photos or present their images so that other people cannot link or download them.

So, if they don't watermark or disallow the download option then their pictures are up for grabs without as much as getting prior permission or giving credit? I'm not attacking ya here Jay and I mean nothing personal but your above comment seems sorta bullshit to me.

Same could be said for Grisman then, he understands the internet or his lawyers do at least. Perhaps he should disallow taping (both audio and video) at his concerts, ban trading online (like ABB) and use DRM or something to the like to make sure his CDs and DVDs cannot be copied and shared online.

Aside from hiring people to screen and approve what gets uploaded (they don't), Youtube does try to stay on top of that shit best they can and I can attest that Youtube doesn't waste time to remove videos that the artist or copywrite holder doesn't want on there. I personally think Grisman is taken it a bit to far with a lawsuit. (In my opinion anyway)

Again, nothing personal Jay

[SmoothedShredder]

Jay, you seem to be arguing for both sides, and then getting defensive when someone argues one of the sides. It's also getting a bit 'personal' considering the topic is about Grisman, and for what I know, I, nor anyone else on the board have a 1 degree relation to the guy...

And in terms of the democracy, that's exactly what we are doing. We have the right to make a personal judgement!

If you can hustle someone to pay for your art... all the power to you,

But if your art is duplicated and mass produced, I don't think there is anything inherent in the mass production that you have a right to 'a piece' of. But once again, if you can convince someone to pay, Respect.

I just think something like this will go on to further hurt the Dawgs bottom line, as opposed to helping it, which I think is what he ultimately wants to accomplish.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Guest

[bouche]

I just started watermarking my photos. It's a pain in the ASS though. I was at a kevin breit/harry manx show recently and one of my photos (one that has been displayed in our kitchen for a few years) was on the promo material for that show!

Someone else had been getting the credit for the image. It was verbal credit though. I was introduced to this guy that takes photos of the sisters all the time in TO, and it was mentioned that they used his photo for these little printouts. When we saw them, sharon pointed out to me that it was the photo from our kitchen!

Anyway, if I had a watermark on there, it would have probably been used but with nice credit to this site so people may come here, see the community, and maybe join in.

I see a photo on that CTMF myspace page that I 'think' I took, but I know I organized it and took photos of the group, but I'm in that so I either setup my camera for a auto shot, or someone else took it (guigsy?). So who really gets credit for an image that was setup by a group effort with many people taking photos?

Man, photography credit is very confusing. I just think that basic credit (name and website link) for web use should be standard. But if people are making money in a gallery of other peoples photos (hello porn sites!) there is a serious problem.

I've got a full on flickr gallery with a Creative Commons License attached to it which is where everyone should start.

I also discovered one of my moe.down photos of marco benevento on their site and I sent an email asking for credit a link back here. He obliged and maybe someone came by here because of that.

Still, I think that Grisman is being a knob on the Youtube issue. It's totally different. It's not a photo of an artist by an anonymous photographer. people are learning about the artist in that instance and not the person who shot the video.

I would think the people who shot the video should have some rights of ownership like photographers do.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I was introduced to this guy that takes photos of the sisters all the time in TO, and it was mentioned that they used his photo for these little printouts. When we saw them, sharon pointed out to me that it was the photo from our kitchen!

That's hilarious !

Gets me thinking, though - maybe, instead of all the tedium of watermarks, the trick is to get fingers and thumbs back into pictures, so people could go by the fingerprints.

[bouche]

Yeah, I could put a smudge of my thumb on the lenses!

[Booche]

It's a shame they cant watermark studio cds.