A Little Light Painting
Pretty cool, huh? The photo is by fellow Strobist reader W. Brandon Voges, who shoots with Bruton Stroube Studios in St. Louis, MO.
Hit the jump to see a video of how it was done (shooting and post work) and a link to one of the coolest photographer website designs I have seen in a while.
__________________________
So, yeah, there's a little bit of Photoshop involved. (Ya think?) But this is just some fun stuff.
It makes me want to get the the white paint out and nuke the whole living room. Except, well, I am not exactly in charge of the painting decisions at my house.
:: Brouton Stroube Studios ::
__________
New to Strobist, or lighting? Start here.
Now shipping, in DVD box set or download: Lighting in Layers
Connect: Discussion Threads | Reader Photos | Twitter
Posted at 2:08 AM.
45 Comments:
WOW!
Chapeau!
I have the same question that came up on the other video. Did they get the rights to the music from Jamiroquai? I doubt it...
That is a very interesting and inspiring video indeed.
I may need to use a friends trampoline. Ha ha
That is too funny! I just looked at this via another website 3 seconds ago! Again, Mr Hobby was quicker. Great video, too.
yeah, this is just way cool!
great shot, great video, cool idea - awesome
That is officially awesome!
Freaking awesome! :)
KUDOS!
I bought this book pretty much after I read about it on John Harrington's site.
Fantastic read, I couldn't put it down.
Go read it.
Wooooow! I like the shot and the behind the scenes movie shows they've had a lot of fun :) Amazing result
Uh oh,
Did everyone just wake up and crash their servers by any chance?
Awesome photo and video tho. Muchos inspiring.
Did we slashdot *cough* strobist his website already?
"Service Unavailable"
Linky Broken?
Yay, we killed the website.
:-)
Way cool video tho!!
the link doesn't work but the picture is super cool
Another awesome video...
By a great photographer...
With copyright-protected music in it?
Mr. Hobby... bubaloo... you're killin' me. Everything about your site ROCKS - except this one thing that rears its head every week or so. Your site is big league now, and is a major influence on thousands of struggling photographers. We've got to start respecting our fellow artists, whether they are visual or not.
(At the very least, you're not allowed to complain about somebody using your photo without your permission, and then post videos that include unlicensed music.)
Seriously, I'm really not trying to be a knob, here. But as a producer, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em.
Complaints about music licensing should probably be addressed to the maker(s) of the video, as neither the host (YouTube) nor the linker (Strobist) are responsible for the violations you're imagining.
Mr. Hobby would know which of his photos have been licensed for use, and whether a particular use infringed, and so is allowed to complain about misuse.
While that's true, linking to them here implies a sort of tacit approval.
Perhaps most people making these videos don't care whether or not they're posted here, but it would still send a strong message if DH refused to link to videos with blatant copytight violations.
Obviously, things can fall through the cracks, and it's not DH's job to thoroughly research the licensing agreements of each and every thing he links to, but these last few have had clear and obvious violations...
Crediting the musicians isn't the same as getting licensing: some emerging photographers might be happy to have their work used like this with just a credit, but most of us need to get paid for usage like this.
What can I say? Very awesome! This video left me breathless...
two things:
1) JS isn't imagining anything. If you use music without paying for it you are stealing it.
2) As for who to complain to ... while it is true that legal responsibility lies with the creator of the infringing work, that doesn't change the fact that if you promote work that infringes on copyright it makes it very hard to feel much sympathy for you when you suffer the same fate. You either care about intellectual property rights or you don't.
Okay, everyone take a breath, please.
1. The video has already been published on YouTube. The uploader clicked the box on uploading unlicensed content. I am linking to a video that has been published by someone else, on YouTube, the world's largest video upload site.
2. People can and do license music (and/or get permission) for their vids every day. There are many groups, for example, who like the exposure. It is not in my ability to investigate the licensing of all background music in every video I embed from YouTube. That responsibility falls to the publisher of the video.
3. This particular video has already been on Gizmodo, DIGG, etc. -- with over 50,000 views. If they are being sneaky, the musicians will probably find out. But once it has been published, the responsibility remains with the publisher.
4. This site reports on interesting lighting info available throughout the web. As such, if something is already out there and accessible by the general public, it may be linked to from here.
5. As for the instance referred to above with my photo, of me, which was used without my knowledge for an ad, I pretty much did exactly the same thing as I am doing to the video -- I referred people to it.
If you have an issue with the use of music in a YouTube video, please take it up with the publisher and/or content owner (via the comments on YouTube) if you would like to investigate the circumstances.
If I personally publish a video (as opposed to link/embed another person's video) and you are concerned about the music, feel free ask me about it. I will be happy to disclose the music right situation if it has not already been disclosed in the video itself.
-DH
I just got a reply to a friendly email from Brouton Stroube saying they made a mistake and will fix it.
David,
Where did you find this? So cool.
It's interesting to see all the photoshop involved. Although I do wonder why they didn't shoot part of it in camera, like the paintball splattered on the guy's jacket, or the gun in his hand while he was jumping.
I can understand why they shot the paint on the wall and put it in later from the mess in the studio perspective - that one makes sense.
Creative minds are obviously at work.
Jacob-
the guy posted a link to this in the comments section of a David X. Tejada post from a few days back I think...
I'm so glad this made it, one of the coolest photos and behind the scenes videos i've ever seen.
I agree David, I looked up their website and it is soo cool, it really makes me wannna try to work for those guys, they seem really awesome.
Some perspective on the unlicensed music:
* no-one is watching the videos for the music.
* no lost sales result.
however the music often make the videos better, producing a happier world.
I have never heard a complaint from the labels about this, they are bothered by p2p which does cost them.
If the labels did care they could make it a LOT easier to apply for a license.
That. Was. Awesome.
Its a very cool picture but It definitely bothers me in one respect. The guy getting shot in the face not wearing a mask puts a very bad image to paintball. As a player, this kind of depiction is very troubling as it is VERY dangerous.
Oh I forgot to mention...their website is off the chain! I want to produce shots like that when I grow up!!
David, I absolutely appreciate your position on whose responsibility unlicensed content is. It is obviously whoever posted the video in the first place.
All I'm asking for is a bit of due diligence. If it was just another blog, I wouldn’t care much, but for a couple of things:
One… I expect you are making a bit of money from your site, whether you source legal art or not. You have a responsibility to look beyond “interesting lighting”, whatever the source.
More importantly, your (amazing, informative, inspirational, educational) blog is a major beacon to pros and amateurs alike; photographers who have a serious interests in the business of photography – a business that is loaded with legal and ethical hurdles, and the opportunity to make (or not make) money… in short, the very type of artists who are so easily exploited on the web.
It is because of your status and the voices that have been raised in these very comments that YouTube-posters are thinking twice about ripping-off other artists.
Let’s all be big boys and recognize what’s right and what’s wrong.
"no lost sales result" - not true. The lost sale is the royalty the composer never receives. The fact that the record company doesn't make it easy for you to get a synchronization license does not give you the right to steal the composer's work.
"no-one is watching the videos for the music" - true, but irrelevant. The music is added to enhance the video (see for yourself - watch it with the sound off) and the video is being used to promote a for-profit enterprise. The person who created the music has every right to be paid for the value their work brings to the finished product.
Here's an easy way to tell whether a synchronization license was granted or not: if the music isn't credited in the video you can be absolutely certain it's stolen because any licensing agreement (paid or pro bono) will stipulate that the artist and copyright holder be credited. There's no value in the exposure if people can't find out who made the music.
And again, no one is debating the legality of linking the video. The issue is whether one group of artists should be party to the theft of work by another group of artists. Being legally in the clear and being morally in the right are two very different things.
I appreciate your point of view, but please appreciate mine. If it is already in the largest video engine in the world, it is fair game for linking.
I basically put my mental policy into words today because of your comment stream, and your points have been made. But please respect my points, too.
You are free to not view material on YouTube if you think the music is not being used legally. You are also free to view it with the sound turned down.
But your absolute stance of "no credit = stolen -- always" would not hold true if, for instance, I laid down my own guitar track for my video, which I could choose to do.
Nor would it apply for Garage Band-produced background music, which is all over the place.
You have made your point. I would appreciate it if each video did not turn into a music cat fight. I would rather not put an anti-threadjacking clause into the comments TOS, as the various points have been made.
Or I supposed I could just turn off commenting on video posts, but I would rather not play cat-and-mouse games.
My primary responsibility on this site is to create new info about lighting, and link to relevant lighting infomation info on the web. If it is on YouTube, it is already on the web in a very big way.
The responsibility for music rights is between the videomaker, the musician and YouTube. But I am not going to pretend relevant information does not exist for the entire time the rights issues are being ironed out, which they certainly are on a daily basis with YouTube.
Thanks for understanding.
-DH
I have to completely agree with DH on this one. Well put.
Yo David - when you get up with your DVD - I can certainly offer Original tracks as your background score pro bono -
as a producer/artist and photography - I thank you for the work you do and would only be happy to help you out as well.
Damn! I tried reverse engineering it as a single shot.
Oh well, that doesn't take away from its being a great photo.
Cheers,
Charlie
Ummm...I've got a ton to learn!
That was pretty cool. I like the milk shooting out of the cup.
Looks like they've already changed the soundtrack - now it's by a band called Windcheater! Shall we keep arguing about it anyway . . . ?
That's just straight up awesome!
Take photoshop out of the equation and the creativity and vision needed for a shoot like this is just inspiring! Throw the handy photoshopping skills back in and the final product is likely to 'wow' plenty of potential clients!
Thanks for the share DH!
Yeah, Nice PS work. With all these big time PS composites, I am less impressed after seeing how it was put together.... I would be far more impressed if they did that as a shoot. Yeah, I know I am in the tiny minority.
I like how he was able to mesh together the creativity with his shooting skills and Photoshop skills. I find that this may be a good way for someone with a low budget and a lot of time (say, a student with access to a computer lab) to create really cool photos.
Come on guys, i really think all the nay saying is misdirected. as big as this blog has become, in the scheme of the innawebs its a hot pixel on a jumbotron at best. (not to say your plans of world domination arent slowly coming to fruition DH! )
so to come here and have a whinge about something thats clearly WAY out of this blog's scope is kinda like the grannies that argue with the cashier about the prices of supermarket items. warranted but ultimately futile
as for the music, why is it only when known music is ripped off ppl jump up and down and try to "protect" the artist? im sure jay kay isnt going to have to pass up on his next edition to his fleet of exotics cos of some clip on youtube
if youre going to stand up for the little man then you better get googling for the owners of those other 49999999 hits the video has been linked to or watched by and continuing fighting the good fight, not just taking a shot at this blog cos you just so happen to be here
ps. ill have to remember to bring my head gear to work the next time a paintballer comes flying thru it. that better not be the last of the milk either >:(
"why is it only when known music is ripped off ppl jump up and down and try to "protect" the artist"
Umm... Pez? If the music is unknown, that means I don't know it. Therefore, it's kinda hard to know if it's stolen.
BTW, when enough grannies complain to the cashier, the cashier usually ends up talking to the manager.
I know I'm in the minority here, but this does nothing for me. Anything using strobes on YouTube (or elsewhere) doesn't mean it's worth being on Strobist. This video might be interesting as a logistical exercise, and offer insight into how much compositing goes into commercial/advertising photography, but the lighting approach is lacking.
David quoted Joe McNally once, "If you want something to look interesting, don't light all of it." Blasting with light so there's not a shadow anywhere in order to make the Photoshop stitching easier leaves me cold.
David H is the publisher if he embeds the video in his website next to his ads (I see 4 ads while watching the video on his site). "as big as this blog has become" is the exact reason why David has an obligation to set a standard especially when he gets his fur standing up about someone using his picture in a magazine or stealing his content from his site {http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/02/strobist-terms-of-service.html}. By featuring a video or other content, he should do some vetting. Not to say David H. is Oprah, but she ate some crow when she realized she featured a book, A Million Little Pieces, sold as a non fiction book and well had a lot of fiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Little_Pieces. Featuring a video with Van Halen or Jamiroquai (www. sonymusic.com/artists/Jamiroquai) as background music encourages others to do the same.
Here are David H's own words in another blog entry "My first reaction (as is usually the case when confronted by someone with a differing opinion than my own) is to think how wrong they are."
Geez, people...write these posts in an email to YouTube. This fully isn't David's problem to deal with. Do you write nasty emails like this to people that send you forwarded email videos with non-licensed music? I doubt it.
Could it be that the record companies have realized that "Hey, we may be missing out on royalties, but 50,000 people are listening to a track that one of their peers thought was pretty cool"? Wait until someone gets a cease-and-desist order before getting your pants in a bunch.
Oh yeah...and cool video!
'd love to be THAT good with Photoshop - the materpieces I could create out of my mindless drivel would be superb!!
I think that DH should absolutely get the benefit of all doubts when there is any uncertainty about whether someone else has obtained synchronization rights for a video he links to and he is also quite right in saying that in many cases it is impossible for him to determine when those rights have been obtained.
However, in this case the situation is unambiguous.
A Jamoriquai song is not a home made guitar track. If a song by a major label recording artist is not credited, there is no question that the music is being stolen.
As DH states in the TOS "This blog is my entire livelihood" - part of that livelihood is earned from the ads running right next to the linked content. In other words, regardless of legal responsibility, that livelihood is enhanced by the added value of the linked content.
As such, in this specific situation profit is being made through the use of unlicensed content. It may be very murky in a thousand other situations but it's crystal clear in this one. Whether it's a million dollars or ten cents the principle remains the same. And again, I'm not making a legal argument here, I am simply asking how you can expect to have others respect your intellectual property rights when you have, even just once, turned a blind eye to a clear infringement on someone else's IP rights and have profited as a result.
Post a Comment
<< Home