So true. I have gotten into protracted discussions and time wasting back and forths to prove and re-prove the licenses are valid, up to date, and paid for. All because their database tracking is … not what it should be.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. It has more to do with, how does an artist know what you’ve licensed and what your users have uploaded unlicensed.
Now: You pay to license photo ABC
Later: A Roon user downloads the exact same photo (ABC) from the internet (unlicensed) and uploads it to Roon. You then no longer have to license this photo because you got it for free. You terminate your licensing agreement.
This is a one photo example, but expand it to tens of thousands. I understand licensing agreements aren’t per-photo at this scale, but let’s not be foolish. If Roon can get rid of photo licensing costs, that’s a big win and less of a liability for the lifetime subscribers who no longer pay.
I don’t think the argument is with crowd sourcing - it’s with the appearance that Roon Labs is not respecting copyright upfront in the Art Director process.
This is untrue. You still have to license it.
What makes you think we could do that? Nothing about the current system or anything we have planned goes down this path.
yes, metadata in general - easily edited and uploaded would probably be a wet dream for many on this forum - plus would solve soooo many problems
You guys will pay licensing for all user uploaded photos? To who?
Well, I know for a fact that the image used for Kurt Cobain (heard of him?) isn’t licensed for you to do so, as I took the photograph, and it is not one that is licensed by an agency as far as I know.
But any photographer with well known images will tell you there are so many cracks in the dike that eventually you run out of fingers and give up. In this particular case, because it’s Roon and my favorite pic of Kurt I let it ride. But somebody else might not be so forgiving. It could be awful for you.
You say Wikipedia, etc but a lot of those are shadily sourced. Even Getty recently was selling some Nirvana images of mine that were listed by another photographer. I’ve given up on the web for the most part, esp now with Instagram screen shots considered photo content to fill stories. As long as I’m credited I guess it’s exposure to the good players that come along.
A copyright is a man-made governmental decree, a “law”. Those laws also have rules about enforcement. We adhere to and respect those laws.
There seems to be a lot of people talking about copyright here with little understanding of how the law works.
No, we will take down anything that was not licensed to us. When you upload, you are telling us you know the copyright.
I looked at my Roon, I see a photo of Kurt Cobain:
This photo is licensed to us via a fee we pay to TiVo. You can see the image on one of their properties as well: Kurt Cobain Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & More | AllMusic
If you never licensed it to them, you should send us a DMCA takedown, and we will forward that over to TiVo and verify the merits of your takedown request. I don’t actually know if you own that photo or are just a random person on the internet making bold claims. This is not a personal attack on you. I’m demonstrating that the procedures of a DMCA takedown are made to protect all parties involved. We PAY for that image. If you aren’t seeing some of that money, then we are both being scammed.
That is the right spirit. BTW great pic!!!
This is just gross feeling Danny.
Er, really? You think that Roon users realise this? I venture to say that the majority certainly do not. Is it even spelled out in the Art Director pages?
Any chance you want to work for free, and just accept exposure as payment?
It’s been stated in the launch materials, and there is a FAQ about this in the UI.
That FAQ used to be at a link called “Help” but is now called “Tips” because no one read it when it said “Help”.
I will add some additional text there, and well as on the upload page.
Like I said, lots of cracks in the wall… they acquired somebody (who acquired somebody) which they then thinks gave them the right to use the image because it was published by so and so eons ago. Once I started getting checks in pennies from Getty, etc I gave up on the whole stock thing.This bulk stuff is rarely lucrative for the photographer and I’m just too busy and don’t like the stress to be a litigious type, but others are built differently.
Yup - I’ve now seen the copyright question in the FAQ. Thanks for this, but I still think that only a few people will bother to RTFM…
Putting text upfront on the Upload page removes the excuse from the uploaders. Good move.
This is a strawman argument you are attacking. No one is suggesting stealing copyrighted content.
I’ll put it on the upload page too.
While I agree that this system is a mess, overhauling the entire system is out of scope for this project. There is a mechanism for dealing with these types of issues. I suggest people use them. In your Kurt Cobain situation, I am paying TiVo every month to use that image. If that’s not right, I can do something about it, but I have to work within the system. I have a contract with TiVo that says they own the right to license that image. If that’s not correct, I’ve explained the legal way to deal with this. That mechanism is built to protect the photographer as well as licensees.
It’s my understanding that “online platforms are expected to put in place reasonable measures to prevent copyright infringements, including technological tools”. That’s a direct quote from an EU court ruling.
I mignt not be a lawyer but you migt get some push back on the idea that telling the user “hey we expect you to do the right thing” is a reasonable measure.
What is the right way for me to capture @Jeffrey_Moore’s photos while disallowing someone random from uploading @Jeffrey_Moore’s photos?
The legal system that exists today resolves this issue. Maybe it is less than ideal from a procedural point of view, but it does resolve it.
I know it feels gross to you @ComputerAudiophile, but that’s the system we live within. Revamping that system is out of scope for me.
Danny, you have a quarter million images behind your paywall. You expect a photographer to go through these looking for violations, then work with everyone involved to stop the copyright violation? You know this isn’t going to happen. We just read Charles say he has given up.
If you guys said your new AI also scans for copyrighted imaged to make sure you’re licensed to show them, I think everyone would be cool.
You aren’t trying to violate someone’s copyright, but you willfully receive the benefits of copyright violations.
Since I work in „music“ you would be amazed how much work I actually do for free. This is part of the way of life.
I guess it is all a matter of perspective - artists that do not want their work on Roon can easily get it taken down. Roon is hardly a big player
But it seems you are more into having an argument…