Slashdot Mirror
Stock Music Artists Aren't Always Happy About How Their Music Is Used (wired.com)
mirandakatz writes: If you're a stock music composer, you sign over the rights to whatever music you put up on a variety of hosting sites. That can get complicated -- especially when your music winds up being used to soundtrack hate speech. At Backchannel, Pippa Biddle dives into the knotty world of stock music, writing that stock music is 'a quick way for a talented musician to make a small buck. But there's a hidden cost: You lose control over where your work ends up. In hundreds, if not thousands, of cases, a tune becomes the backing track to hate speech or violent videos. Often such use violates the license the buyer agrees to when purchasing the track. But nobody reads the licenses -- and, more importantly, no one enforces them.'
Nobody has clearly defined what hate speech actually means. In practice, it is taken to mean anything that conservatives say.
If you don't want to lose control, don't put your music in a place you don't control.
Stock photographs also get used for things the photographer (or model) didn't anticipate and may not approve of. Are you a programmer? Guess what, a neo-nazi may be using your software to organize their mailing list. If your are an architect or builder, you may find that building you created is now a porno store, or an abortion clinic, or an NRA office. If you create something, you have little to no control over who uses it and for what once you sell it.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The whole point of stock music and photos is so they can basically be used as a neutral commodity. Same goes for fonts. Nazis (or whatever you fear) might use your fonts, too.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Some of the open-source software I wrote caries a modified BSD-license. There is a separate item banning any and all usage by persons owning a Che Guevara T-shirt or any other paraphernalia praising or otherwise glorifying the Communist mass-murderer.
As long as no one is forced to sign away their rights, there is nothing to see here.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This raises a point to open-source style licenses for content, i.e. Creative Commons. Though there are restrictions to prevent using it for commercial purposes, AFAIK there's nothing against using a CC licensed song for, say, a promotional video for clubbing seals and eating babies.
Comboman made a good point above though, this can be translated into any situation - if you're a builder, your building may be used for 'bad things'. If you're an open source programmer, your code may be used for 'bad things'. You can't have total freedom along with restrictions based on your opinions or viewpoints.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Often such use violates the license the buyer agrees to when purchasing the track. But nobody reads the licenses -- and, more importantly, no one enforces them
This right here, from TFS. It has nothing at all to do with small artists releasing rights on a stock website. It's no different if they use a no-name composer from AudioJungle or whoever the RIAA is trying to push this week. It violates the copyright. If you don't want your work illegally used used in a way you don't like, don't make it available.