So the RIAA is suing wedding photographers...

[chionos]

This is actually entirely fair, I think. These persons are using copyrighted works to actually make a product that they profit from. It only makes sense that they should be paying royalties for it.

Perhaps. However, the RIAA doesn't sue and ask for royalties. The RIAA's suehappy even if they're sometimes justified in making claims. I am quite surprised that the photographer would so blatantly use the music in this way though, especially an established one with someone like Romo. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense really.

So you're saying you agree, right? The photographer was a retard for using copyrighted materials in his own for-profit works. I can be lenient when it comes to non-profit use, but this is everything but non-profit.

Yeah, I agree that the photographer/videographer did something incredibly moronic and he should have known better, and basically set himself up to be sued. I was just pointing out that the RIAA's attacks are almost always overinflated, so even when they do have a valid complaint, they overdo the claim and still look like greedy fools. Also, while in this particular case the photographer should have known better, being a veteran in the business, and so deserves to have to deal with what he's dealing with, nevertheless it shouldn't be a situation for him to have to worry about simply because it's a ridiculous requirement in the first place to not be able to have a song pop up in the background that's copyright protected. It's the law, certainly, I don't argue that, I just think it's a poor way of understanding copyright infringement and a weak point in copyright law. I will hedge a bit by saying I'm not sure (can't find info on it) whether the photographer charged anyone (like romo+wife) for the video or if he just made it and put it up online. If the former's the case then I retract most of what I've said, that deserves anything and everything that the RIAA would want to throw at the guy. But making slideshows with music in the background just for fun means the RIAA is just being douchebaggish. To further hedge, I guess it would also depend on whether the video going viral meant anyone was able to make profit through advertising. So it gets a little more in depth when ya start to ask, did Youtube make any profit from this? etc. *generalizing now* Eventually things are going to have to change. One side's going to have to give way, and it's more than likely not going to be very pleasurable a transition.