Leaderboard

Have you seen this?   vimeo.com/blog/post:626   Essentially Copyright Match works like on YouTube where commercial music is matched to a database and flagged automatically. On YouTube the video is not removed, instead a link to buy the music or advertising is added under the player.   On Vimeo the match results in the user being marched off to an 'appeals process' where he must prove he has the valid license for the sound track in use, or that the video consitites 'fair use'. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes fair use.   Personally as an artist who likes to mix my cinematography with the best possible music, I see this as severely limiting my artistic freedom. I also see my personal work on Vimeo as purely artistic and not in any way 'for profit'. They are part of EOSHD's editorial but a completely separate entity to any part of the blog which makes money such as the Shooter's Guides and I don't run any advertising.   This decision by Vimeo means I will seriously have to consider removing 90% of my artistic work from Vimeo and placing it only on my local hard drive offline.   Copyright issues on the internet are universally dealt with by DMCA takedown notices and where money is involved, for example where someone is blatantly making money off the back of somebody's else's music in their commercial wedding videos, the issues is dealt with through the legal system.   I don't see why Vimeo need to get involved at all.   I also don't like how a company seemingly has the final say in what artistic expression I am allowed to make.   Also for those who use The Music Bed, the problem doesn't go away. Vimeo will still Copyright Match tracks on there. All music, at the end of the day, is copyright material. So everyone whether they have a license or not will have to go through the appeals process and risk the appeals people at Vimeo disagreeing.   Say goodbye to your Vimeo portfolio? Personally I am seriously considering moving out to YouTube or an alternative site. I didn't sign up to this shit!

I know Andrew. But that is not an excuse for copyright infringement. Make another edit with another score for your promo work, if you must... If a person is unable to do their business without copyright infringement, there is something terribly wrong with that business imo. Btw, you mentioned I should research fair use, maybe, I'm not an expert. But I think you should do the same.. the Wiki you link to is exactly where I got that quote from, I'm pretty sure the way you use (copyrighted) music on your video's would not classify as fair use. Also see Pablo's reply. And: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Anyway, I don't like copyright laws either, but I respect them when creating my own stuff and uploading it to the public. And even though I agree with a lot of the arguments, I don't think justifies to just do as you like.

Cameras are tools. Like any craftsman/woman, you should have a range of tools, Some tools are better at doing things than others. Going out to a job with just one spanner doesn't always cut it. I keep an old Vidicon tube camera at hand just for special use. It has a dreamy unreal look which is hard to do in post. I pump its output (remember BNC?) into an old DV walkman deck. I also keep my old Super8 gear although film processing is getting harder to do.

Not really. The moment you allow the possibility of a tip or any kind of retribution, it is commercial use regardless of how much you earn. Just like if you were selling the song in a store and managed to sell 0 copies. In addition, Fair Use belongs to American legislation, so it may apply to lawsuits generated in the US or by American artists -even if the infringement happens in Europe-, but if you use Kraftwerk music in your video and publish it in Germany, Fair Use would not apply. Having said that, I agree that the system and legislation needs re-thinking to make sense in our age, not because it is "blocking artists" -that is never a reason, come on!- but because the business model is obsolete. If you could license a Coldplay song for 50$ nobody would complain. The key is switching from a thousand 3K$ operations to a million 50$ operations, just like you used to buy VHS movies for 40$ and now you can download/stream them for 5$. It's all about moving on (mentality-wise) to a market with a customer base of 800 million users. Now you can easily buy footage from American companies or music from Australia, something unthinkable in the tape & mail model...

What is classed as fair use of copyright material varies in different jurisdictions but generally extends to reporting news, parody or academic study. It does not involve taking somebody else's work & using it to enhance & improve yours.

My bet is on the EF to MFT Speedbooster.

Just some test footage for now...I'm shooting a 3 min. short next Sat to test skintones, DR, + 96fps:

This was my first time with the Pocket cam & it was probably too soon to use it, having only had it a couple of weeks. This is an extended sequence from a doc i'm making about the band, so there are shots in there that won't be in the final cut - just thought it was a shame to loose some of them & others i'll be glad to see the back of. NB. The original venue for the shoot was an old dance studio, which had lots of mirrors & tons of light - my heart sunk when they changed venue the morning of the shoot...

peaking water proof which brand mic?? canon duel AF built in ND filters (like canon has done the past few years) can we get the 10 inch screen from the ursa also?

So deliver it to your clients with the music of choice for private use, and upload a version with music licensed under Creative Commons for your promotional purposes. Problem solved.

There will be no Ãœber-camera, me hopes. Never. Ever. I love to walk and work in a camera-zoo, where strange creatures lurk in light or dark. For instance I love MFT-sensor cameras to be able to attach via an adaptor almost any "big sensor" lens. I also would like to own a Phase One middle format camera for stills at times (budget wise and what my wife thinks, I won't). So instead: Lets be happy about all the strange beings, each adapting to different requisitions. No one to fit them all. Each interesting in their own way.

Don't upload to Vimeo. Just hand over the video in an SD card or USB stick and let the couple worry about the copyrights.

The Canon EOS-M is a marvelous little camera that can shoot 720 24p RAW through ML. It is a platform that can easily compete with the Sony NEX and now A series, but Canon isn't putting its weight behind it. Canon and NIkon's business is just too spread out. They're large, mostly stagnant corporations. They're now in the business of protecting their bottom-line for as long as they can. If there's one thing Panasonic's GM1 proves, there will be no single perfect camera. The kind of video you can get out of that thing, and silent-shutter stealthy shooting, is close to perfect. For what it is, I would say it IS perfect. If photography wasn't may main focus, I'd be GM1 this and GM1 that as bad as Andy! In short, I don't know what anyone could do to improve on that little camera. I've now been using the a7 for a few weeks. So far, there is nothing major I don't like about the camera and I have a long history of Sony annoyances. For small- full-frame shooting, it is close to perfect. The Blackmagic cameras are not "sadly flawed" to me when I factor in what they can do for the price. If you want professional-system RAW, at a consumer price, they are the only game in town. I bet some executives at Panasonic, Blackmagic and Sony say, "Why is Andrew always complaining about what Canon and Nikon can't do." If all you want to do is go out and shoot with the best camera available, who cares? Panasonic, Blackmagic and Sony (and a bit of Olympus and Fuji) are all on their way to building that perfect camera. Who cares about your Dad's camera company that is beginning to smell like stale farts? ;)

Nah.. Full frame sensor from the Sony A7S 4K internal codec from the Panasonic GH4 2K RAW from Blackmagic Big EVF from Fuji and their lovely X-T1 5 axis in-body stabilisation from Olympus (working for video with any lens) Cine lenses by Sigma - their 35mm F1.4 and 50mm F1.4 are that good Bundled grading / editing software from Blackmagic - Resolve 11 free Blackmagic Resolve Light Ergonomic styling by Fuji

...Or that Dual Pixel autofocus thingy that seems to work really well in video -never tried it though-.

It would be also appropriate to ask the artist who created the music to inspire your video for permission. Maybe the musician just doesn't like his music being used for any reason... BTW I have made very bad experiences with so called fair music: I sold very little cds 5-6 years ago with a fair lable and discovered later that my cd was on no. 4 of their charts (I googled the my cd and found hundreds of obviously illegal download links). However the only way for me to make some money with my music is to produce GEMA free music which my customers licenses from me and then may use as agreed!

I would offer some of mine but have decided they are copyright.   I want 1 million dollars for each one.   Sorry about that ;)

This discussion is too much about law and profit I think. There is an other interesting question: How big is the portion of the music on that new creation (the video)? I have been making music and doing some filming/video for 25 years with very little success but much fun and passion. Honestly I don't think it is as artistic to create a video with random shot in any city with any people and add some music as to create just a nice piece of music. When you want to create something really new and try to be artistic it is much more satisfying to create everything yourself (including the music) or work with musicians together. What I try to say is: In many cases the value of the music is higher than some more or less average footage. If you really like the song there is a much higher chance you'll watch the video then the other way round (in my case) We have to rate the music as art much higher and not just talk about law and money! PS I am not an artist. And I don't understand how so many people dare to call themselves artist?!

I don't see how this falls under fair use. Also, I thought fair use is an American regulation. I'm sure we don't have this in The Netherlands (we have citation rights, but using music in public videos sure doesn't comply to that). Not sure how that works in Germany though.

>> I prefermirrorless and looking to spend up to max ~800 euro for camera and lens. Not sure why the RX100 III isn't in the running here. It includes the lens and the images it produces is fantastic. Small and portable, great for travel.

If you pause the test I posted when it gets to 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 you can compare.. It also covers the reformatting of 4k 8bit to 2k 10bit myth (I'm taking it into float space actually but it's got all the overhead you need to test the theory). You won't see a noticeable difference in "workability" of the 4k after it has been reformatted to 2k HD in float space. I think a lot of the confusion is really coming from the camera companies that sometimes give you the pertinent info, and other times they leave it out while hyping things like pixel count. I've noticed they also are guilty of mixing terms, like "log" and "dynamic range" in their specs. i.e. You can't have "log" gamma in integer 8bit space, so calling your gamma profile sLog is a little confusing. Another good one, they seem to have propagated the belief that dynamic range is the "min" and "max" luma values, at least I've heard it described that way on blogs.. which would mean 0 black to 3 (which would be pure white) in a 2bit file is wide dynamic range. I got one more! They also have convinced people that low contrast is the "film look", whatever that means. This is the most confusing one. Movies don't look low contrast when projected (movies like Transformers, LOTR are over saturated and high contrast).. it's a pipeline issue only to preserve film gamma and it really requires 10bit log to equal film print density, everything else is just low contrast, so they should call it that.

I think people tend to forgot DR. We can discuss this forever, but resolution and but depth isn't everything. IMHO the most difficult thing to correct/change is DR ergo is should be the highest priority. To me that gives the nicest images and is why the A7s looks so much nicer. And that's talking from a professional point of view.

I think it might be that people can not really tell the difference but those who's job it is to look and use computer equipment to do so can.

Well, you could give us a hint... I just registered so I could ask you. I'm a long time lurker and have been reeding your blog for years (actually wanted to say "following you for years", but thought it sounded creepy). Anyway, thank you very much for this blog and all the time and work you have put into it, so anyone can get inspired. You certainly inspired me to get the same white Ikea table to go with the Dell U2711. :-)

Neither. Copyright infringement. You can agree with it or not, but it's the law. Can't blame Vimeo for enforcing it.

So true, I cannot comprehend that on a creative site people are advocating copyright theft. Some seem so entitle by them self that they think that there holiday video have to have the music that they want (some multi million dollars production) and that the 20 views from there family and friends is going to magically make a big promo for the artist. Others it is right to pillage the work of fellow artist because either way the money is not going to them but to the big corporation. So lets steal more from them so that they even get less from what they were getting. I comprehend that the implementation, like errors from a bot etc can cause problem but the copyright is something fundamental to protect the rights of artist. If your ambition is just doing some cat, holiday, family and even wedding videos, I can understand that the concept of the sweat and tears that go into the creative work is a bit abstract. But to all those that aspire to create and that the word film maker and not cat maker is appropriate, then copyright should be defended at all cost. Some people on this discussion are just lazy, if you are a genuine creator, either go out and meet and collaborate with other artist. Or take some time and go on the site that have been listed or the web and search for the music and artist and either buy or find venues of collaboration. If your work is of some value, I am sure that you will find other talented people to work with you. With the combination of digital, internet and globalisation it is harder and harder to live out of your art, so if even artist start to question the fundamentals and pillage other fellow artist work in not so long we will have on one side the big corporation producing mostly just mass market shit for only money and on the other side doctors/accountant/lawyers cat shooting film makers and all the artist will be dishwashers/cleaners, because there will be no more way to make a living out of your art.

Hello Everyone! I'm a huge fan of this forum and I'd really like what Andrew has done for the Indie Filmmaking community. Anyway, here is a video I'd like to share with you all about my trip to Yosemite with the GH4. It was raining, snowing, and sunny in one weekend so I was very fortunate to catch all of those elements in such a short span of time! As for the GH4, it was completely drenched in rain and snow and it still survived! I absolutely love this camera and I found it to be much more practical and enjoyable to shoot on than my BMCC and Pocket Cinema Camera. I can't wait to post my video review on this camera. I'll be comparing this to the 5D Mk. III Raw, BMCC, and Pocket Cinema Camera. I hope you enjoy the video as much as I enjoyed making it, and any questions and feedback is welcomed! Thanks!