I’ve had an absolute blast adding images and logos.
I apparently listen to a lot of 80’s punk that have no images.
Sadly, I haven’t been paying attention to who owns the rights. I’ll change tact there.
(Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!)
I find it hard to believe some of the posts I have read herein.
I have made some contributions to the Art Director program and have done so willingly and gladly knowing it should help everyone.
I don’t find it a chore or consider myself being used in any way shape or form.
I just wish I had a little more time to dedicate towards it.
I think it’s quite simple, if you don’t like the idea then just don’t partake, there are plenty who are doing so your contribution will not be missed.
I can’t quite tell if there are some here who think that I ought not contribute my labor voluntarily.
I get the intent of “Roon should err more on the side of watching out for content creators proactively”, even if I personally think that Roon is on the right side of the intent of the law as currently written. But I do not get the source of “Roon should not crowd source from anyone, even if I have no obligation or expectation to participate”.
Just to build on that. Roon is opening a wide door to copyright infringement that it’s members may unknowingly walk through. Roon knows this of course, but is ok with it. The community may not fully understand the legal trap set here. Internally, Roon appears to act proactively to support copyrights, but appears to take a restorative approach with community members. This unfortunately places it’s members in legal jeopardy. For the benefit of everyone, I hope Roon loudly flags copyright law at the front of their program that requests others to provide them images. In creating a “corpus” of music, I would like this community to support all artists not just musicians.
I agree. It is completely ridiculous for the expensive subscription based service to require its customers to improve it. There are so many gaps and poor photos. For example that of Sir Simon Rattle is at least 30 years out of date. He will have a PA and publisher who can do this sort of thing for him as will all celebrities.
Thus you just end up with the system stuffed full of marketing The latest and greatest and little for the more obscure way information is more helpful.
There are endless debates on forums around the ethics of Spotify/Tidal/Qobuz paying artists 0.001p per stream yet people here are more than happy to upload photographers work without any recognition, credit or payment.
I guess because it’s ‘just a photo’ they found on the internet the origin of it and effort that went into producing that image can be disregarded.