4 ms·

The way a piece of music is supposed to be experienced is not the same as the way a building is supposed to be experienced. Seeing the picture of a building is

by tmtvl 2y ago

The way a piece of music is supposed to be experienced is not the same as the way a building is supposed to be experienced. Seeing the picture of a building is not the same as seeing the actual building. Hearing a piece of music is the same as hearing the piece of music.

skyyler 2y ago
>Seeing the picture of a building is not the same as seeing the actual building. Sure, I agree with this. >Hearing a piece of music is the same as hearing the piece of music. Gonna disagree there; in the same way that looking at a picture of something isn't the same as looking at something, hearing a recording of a performance is not the same as being present for the performance. The Treachery of Images, as Magritte called it.
Aloisius 2y ago
Eh. Copyright doesn't care how something is meant to be experienced. In the US though, architecture copyrights don't protect against people photographing building exteriors. That said, if your building was covered in a mural or some artistic façade that you held the copyright to, then one can assert copyright against people posting videos of the building on YouTube. Of course, there's exemptions for various forms of fair use like critique.
freedomben 2y ago
> Hearing a piece of music is the same as hearing the piece of music. This is way overly reductionist. Hearing a few notes of a piece of music in the background with crappy quality is not the same as hearing the full ucompressed piece with top of the line equipment. It is remarkably analogous to seeing a picture of building.
ssl-3 2y ago
The way a piece of music is supposed to be experienced is very dissimilar to having it be incidentally audible in the background of a video about something else entirely that happens to include some of the sounds of the street on which it was filmed.

4 ms·

The way a piece of music is supposed to be experienced is not the same as the way a building is supposed to be experienced. Seeing the picture of a building is

by tmtvl 2y ago

skyyler 2y ago
>Seeing the picture of a building is not the same as seeing the actual building. Sure, I agree with this. >Hearing a piece of music is the same as hearing the piece of music. Gonna disagree there; in the same way that looking at a picture of something isn't the same as looking at something, hearing a recording of a performance is not the same as being present for the performance. The Treachery of Images, as Magritte called it.
Aloisius 2y ago
Eh. Copyright doesn't care how something is meant to be experienced. In the US though, architecture copyrights don't protect against people photographing building exteriors. That said, if your building was covered in a mural or some artistic façade that you held the copyright to, then one can assert copyright against people posting videos of the building on YouTube. Of course, there's exemptions for various forms of fair use like critique.
freedomben 2y ago
> Hearing a piece of music is the same as hearing the piece of music. This is way overly reductionist. Hearing a few notes of a piece of music in the background with crappy quality is not the same as hearing the full ucompressed piece with top of the line equipment. It is remarkably analogous to seeing a picture of building.
ssl-3 2y ago
The way a piece of music is supposed to be experienced is very dissimilar to having it be incidentally audible in the background of a video about something else entirely that happens to include some of the sounds of the street on which it was filmed.