Inspired by a different thread, I checked how many artists pictures were missing in my library - it was more than a thousand portraits missing. Therefore constantly getting these annoying grey bubbles.
Some have put a lot of work in their collections adding hundreds of pictures manually. I have slowly begun to do so myself - but it is a slightly overwhelming task.
I wonder would there not be a possibility to do this in a combined effort - instead of everybody fixing this for themselves? Best would be if Roon could offer a way of synchronizing the pictures that users have uploaded - or maybe a way to upload to the Roonies or something like that.
Many have put endless hours into this and it would be great if many or all could profut of this. Also when I start adding the pictures - I am sure all Roon users would proft.
This. The current situation is likely a bit shakey (despite Roon’s metadata provider claiming fair use).
Encouraging people to upload pictures they found for missing artists would, sorry to say, conceivably be a bit akin to encouraging people to upload albums they find missing on a streaming service.
The fix (which was suggested the last time copyright and pictures of artists was brought up) is probably for RoonLabs to strike a deal with a photography-specific metadata provider (Getty Images comes to mind), but that probably won’t come cheap. It also won’t fix the infinite stupidity of turning credits into a low-density picture-heavy page, for the simple reason that the odds of a metadata provider having a portrait of, to take a random example Phil Green, mixing engineer for the New Kids on The Block’s Step By Step, are slim-to-none.
Roon should send an email to all bands to take pictures where they all fit in the round picture frames. Tjey can put it on their FB site and call it their Roon Picture
Agreed entirely, but just like sharing your carefully curated collection of New Kids on The Block bootlegs, it conceivably isn’t legal in all jurisdictions.
as for copyright - I am definitely no expert - but very many of the artists have an wikipedia article with a picture in it - this should be without copyright problems.
It would just be a shame, if all the work that some users put into this, were to be waisted. Sharing is caring
Maybe the Roonies also come up with an idea - especially now that Roon is relying a lot more on these artist pictures, with the new magazine style and the credits the way they are in 1.8
PS: So many of the artists missing in my library are long dead and past copyright claims.
Over time I’ve gradually filed in all the missing artists pics for my library because I hate empty circles…
Using pics in credits vs just text has set me back massively on this front and as you point out there will never be pics provided for most listed in credits and many are so obscure I would never take the time to do it for my own collection (and many will be impossible to find anyway) … I wish 1.8 would just go back to text or text with an small pic next to the text if it exists but not if it doesn’t.
It’s a strange regression, and also a rather inconsistent one in a really puzzling way, since you get access to the “classic” text view in slideshow mode. It’s one of the things that makes me feel a little bit like the “we released in a rush because someone leaked a release date” line may let through a bit more self-indulgence than the execs would like…
a picture is better than no picture in my book. Ihave more than a thousand classical artists missing pics - I am sure obtaining these should not really bring up the copyright police - just any shot would do.
Copyright problems would most likely occur on big current artists etc.
It is the usual problem - classical music in this “new” media of streaming and tagging. Many simply are dots.
On top of their universally recognised artistic merit, they’re actually a good case study for metadata issues - big band at one point, with essentially zero organic fandom for some unexplainable reason, so you don’t get the holes you’d expect for one-hit wonders, but you also don’t get much else.
Of course, and we all agree on fair use and everything.
The thing is that Roon is a company, not an open source project, and as such can’t really afford what might happen if a photo agency decided to go nuclear (the problem likely wouldn’t come from the musicians, but from reps for the photographers whose work was used without license). The rules aren’t really the same for them as they are for individual users (and that’s a good thing).
A decent low res pic, even if live is better than nothing.
A decent high res pic is better then a decent low res pic.
A great pic is better than decent high res pic.
An iconic pic is better than a great pic.
I’d take anything on this list but of course wish everything was the bottom item.
Hmmm… Hard for me to imagine Roon putting up a folder for users to dump in because they are very cautious on copyright and this could easily fall in the camp of contributory infringement …
Having said that, unlike album art where labels proactively enforce their right, photo copyright ownership is usually scattered over millions of picture takers so the risk of any claim by the owner is very small… But, many good pics will be in Getty Images and they could enforce their rights but in my experience they have a very soft touch (unlike label) and work pretty constructively.
I would love to see Roon do a deal with Getty and I do not think it would be very expensive on an an annual basis because the number of Roon users is frankly very small in the scheme of things… this could provide a number of great photos per artist that would liven up the now playing screen and fill in most of the empty circles and Roon could allow Roon users to vote, heart or thumbs up on which they think is the best one that would display by default…
