Author Topic: The Clichéd Stock Photo Song... (Read 4430 times)

mattdixon · « **on:** May 27, 2013, 18:23 »

<a href="http://youtu.be/0PMgMYuGVWc" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://youtu.be/0PMgMYuGVWc</a>

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2013, 18:28 »

Good laugh .... they could have paid for the licenses, though......

JPSDK · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2013, 18:32 »

they have a point.

But so what, there is also pop music.
The whole world is built on cliches.

gostwyck · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2013, 18:46 »

<shudders>

I'll tell you what ... there was considerably more skill and creativity required to make the (stolen) images used in the video ... than was demonstrated in the composition, music and lyrics of the video itself.

I thought it was juvenile, unfunny and generally feeble. I hope they get taken to task for the use of unlicensed images.

mattdixon · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2013, 18:58 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 27, 2013, 18:46

I'll tell you what ... there was considerably more skill and creativity required to make the (stolen) images used in the video ... than was demonstrated in the composition, music and lyrics of the video itself.

He should have used stock music and royalty free lyrics.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** May 27, 2013, 19:03 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 27, 2013, 18:46

<shudders>

I'll tell you what ... there was considerably more skill and creativity required to make the (stolen) images used in the video ... than was demonstrated in the composition, music and lyrics of the video itself.

I thought it was juvenile, unfunny and generally feeble. I hope they get taken to task for the use of unlicensed images.

Parody is generally OK.
Maybe it was SS's marketing division showing a GSOH.

JPSDK · « **Reply #6 on:** May 27, 2013, 19:13 »

or stocksys marketing division

gostwyck · « **Reply #7 on:** May 27, 2013, 19:15 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 27, 2013, 19:03

Quote from: gostwyck on May 27, 2013, 18:46
<shudders>

I'll tell you what ... there was considerably more skill and creativity required to make the (stolen) images used in the video ... than was demonstrated in the composition, music and lyrics of the video itself.

I thought it was juvenile, unfunny and generally feeble. I hope they get taken to task for the use of unlicensed images.
Parody is generally OK.
Maybe it was SS's marketing division showing a GSOH.

Parody is good when it's clever and funny. That feeble offering was neither. It seems somewhat unlikely that SS had anything to do with it being as some of the images were IS exclusive.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 27, 2013, 19:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 27, 2013, 19:15

Quote from: ShadySue on May 27, 2013, 19:03
Quote from: gostwyck on May 27, 2013, 18:46
<shudders>

I'll tell you what ... there was considerably more skill and creativity required to make the (stolen) images used in the video ... than was demonstrated in the composition, music and lyrics of the video itself.

I thought it was juvenile, unfunny and generally feeble. I hope they get taken to task for the use of unlicensed images.
Parody is generally OK.
Maybe it was SS's marketing division showing a GSOH.

Parody is good when it's clever and funny. That feeble offering was neither. It seems somewhat unlikely that SS had anything to do with it being as some of the images were IS exclusive.

Masterfile as well

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** May 27, 2013, 19:30 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 27, 2013, 19:15

Quote from: ShadySue on May 27, 2013, 19:03
Quote from: gostwyck on May 27, 2013, 18:46
<shudders>

I'll tell you what ... there was considerably more skill and creativity required to make the (stolen) images used in the video ... than was demonstrated in the composition, music and lyrics of the video itself.

I thought it was juvenile, unfunny and generally feeble. I hope they get taken to task for the use of unlicensed images.
Parody is generally OK.
Maybe it was SS's marketing division showing a GSOH.

Parody is good when it's clever and funny. That feeble offering was neither. It seems somewhat unlikely that SS had anything to do with it being as some of the images were IS exclusive.

I doubt if the law judges the quality of parody. Odd, I only noticed the SS w/m.

stockastic · « **Reply #10 on:** May 27, 2013, 19:43 »

I'm laughing right now.

"Dude in suit... zany fruit..."

Loved it.

gostwyck · « **Reply #11 on:** May 27, 2013, 19:48 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 27, 2013, 19:30

Odd, I only noticed the SS w/m.

That's what happens when you're an IS exclusive. No ability to see the bigger picture.

Imagenomad · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2013, 02:45 »

So a musical piece using unlicensed images?

That's stock and stole, baby.

*runs off, sniggering*

rubyroo · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2013, 03:01 »

Does this actually count as parody?

Surely the use of Billy Joel's song is parody (or an attempt at parody, given that it's not even funny). I can't see how putting up images to deride them is any form of imitation for comic effect. It's just derogatory use isn't it?

JPSDK · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2013, 03:16 »

You guys focus too much on the photographic aspect.
The song is aimed at lazy designers.
Who whack stock in on empty pages.

Thats what we are, we stockphotographers. We produce the photos they "whack in on empty pages".
So of course we are producing chliches.
And nothing wrong with that. There is money in it.

...at least it is not us, that produce the empty pages at first....

rubyroo · « **Reply #15 on:** May 28, 2013, 03:41 »

I wouldn't assume they were lazy. I'd assume they were on a tight budget.

etienjones · « **Reply #16 on:** May 28, 2013, 05:30 »

"Nothing finer for a bad Designer" and a "token Asian Chick". . . a lot of funny lyrics, sure made me laugh.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** May 28, 2013, 06:00 »

Quote from: rubyroo on May 28, 2013, 03:01

Does this actually count as parody?
Surely the use of Billy Joel's song is parody (or an attempt at parody, given that it's not even funny). I can't see how putting up images to deride them is any form of imitation for comic effect. It's just derogatory use isn't it?

I actually thought it was pretty funny, but accept that's wholly subjective.
Is it any different in legal terms from the literal versions of pop videos, which use the original videos, but with new literal lyrics to the original tune. (I've just discovered them, being way behind the times, and find lots of them very funny too, as I've never understood the relevance of most pop videos.)
I guess the LVs might have permission to use the orginal videos.

rubyroo · « **Reply #18 on:** May 28, 2013, 06:21 »

Well... maybe I'm being a bit inconsistent here, because I find the Nickleback Instagram parody so hilarious I nearly fell of my chair laughing when I saw it a few months ago, and of course that's derogatory, but (IMO) so well done I'd excuse them anything.

I shall have to go on a retreat and contemplate my inner strangeness.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** May 28, 2013, 06:29 »

Quote from: rubyroo on May 28, 2013, 06:21

Well... maybe I'm being a bit inconsistent here, because I find the Nickleback Instagram parody so hilarious I nearly fell of my chair laughing when I saw it a few months ago, and of course that's derogatory, but (IMO) so well done I'd excuse them anything.

I shall have to go on a retreat and contemplate my inner strangeness.

I guess I'm so used to e.g. HIGNFY and Mock the Week, going back to WeekEnding, this sort of material seems perfectly normal to me.
And don't worry about your inner strangeness, it's perfectly normal to be internally inconsistent. For example, if I see a magazine cover with a perfect young woman with whitened eyes and teeth, perfect skin etc, I know that mag isn't for me; but if I see a cover with a woman looking remotely like me I think, "What makes her a model?" (though I'm more likely to flick through, therefore consider buying, the mag).
BTW, to be clear, I'm only saying I don't think this use is illegal; I'm not saying anything about the morality of using watermarked images, esp if the makers are making money from their video.

rubyroo · « **Reply #20 on:** May 28, 2013, 06:43 »

Hmmm... well I love HIGNFY, but get a bit tired of Mock The Week, so there again I'm wondering what is it that's the difference? I think perhaps it depends on the smugness of delivery. Whereas on HIGNFY I always feel the regular participants are also happy to self-deprecate, with Mock The Week I sense a sort of smugness in the participants - so it comes across (to me) as nastier.

Probably a similar thing here... whereas in this 'parody' the creators are just shoving things in front of you to take the p*ss out of them and knock them down, in the Nickleback parody they actually put themselves up there to be judged too.

Yeah... I think that's it.

The other issue you mention probably warrants more thought than I can give it right now, but I do wonder if we have everything the wrong way around. I mean, why shouldn't anyone be a model? Surely people have been visually 'trained' to believe that there is some sort of collective view that one type of look is more attractive than another. I always think of Sophia Loren, and how she was told she wouldn't make it unless she had surgery to reduce her nose. She refused, and is considered one of the most beautiful women that ever lived. Perhaps she'd have looked more 'bland' if she'd had a standard nose job.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** May 28, 2013, 07:15 »

Quote from: rubyroo on May 28, 2013, 06:43

The other issue you mention probably warrants more thought than I can give it right now, but I do wonder if we have everything the wrong way around. I mean, why shouldn't anyone be a model? Surely people have been visually 'trained' to believe that there is some sort of collective view that one type of look is more attractive than another. I always think of Sophia Loren, and how she was told she wouldn't make it unless she had surgery to reduce her nose. She refused, and is considered one of the most beautiful women that ever lived. Perhaps she'd have looked more 'bland' if she'd had a standard nose job.

I couldn't agree more. We're totally indoctinated into what makes beauty, whether it's a face or a photo, from the very minute a mother says to her toddler: "Look at that lovely flower/nasty weed" with little regard for their place in the ecosystem.

rubyroo · « **Reply #22 on:** May 28, 2013, 07:23 »

I think we have to de-indoctrinate ourselves. Next time you find yourself asking 'What makes her a model?' just think... 'Hey, she looks a bit like me' instead. No need for a secondary thought.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The Clichéd Stock Photo Song... (Read 4430 times)

mattdixon

BaldricksTrousers

JPSDK

gostwyck

mattdixon

ShadySue

JPSDK

gostwyck

luissantos84

ShadySue

stockastic

gostwyck

Imagenomad

rubyroo

JPSDK

rubyroo

etienjones

ShadySue

rubyroo

ShadySue

rubyroo

ShadySue

rubyroo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors