as an artist who writes and sell music in my younger days, i now am standing in the middle as to copyright infringement. we all know how angry and rightly so, protective, we get when we find someone ripping off our photographs OR concept.
now , as i look through youtube and other public threads, i see people using music bites to publicize their own wares.
as a recording engineer in the 80s, i was told 4 bars is legal, after i questioned how some advertiser can ripoff smoke on the water intro. at that time, it was an exception . nowadays with rap music and video games, i hear all my favourite riffs being used as i lived in an apartment building with walls as thin as cardboard.
i hear mahavishnu orchestra, deep purple, jeff beck, king crimson,etc.. mindnumbing riffs repeatedly all day. i went downstairs to check out why this is so.
the neighbour's mother said her son is playing video games.
ah so ! i wonder if these companies and artists of the other fields are actually paying royalties to use them. if not, i can see why the public at large , ie. commonfolks , think it's okay to use our images for their own sites too.
it's an industry thing, isn't it?  oh, so i can't use your stock photos? but the video games can rip off "20st century schzoid man", "catfood", "willie the pimp", "mars",etc..
if one is wrong, the other is not right.  we should look more to changing copyright infringement as awhole. not just with our self interest as photographers. and myself , like many of you i discovered lately, who are musicians too.
what do you think? fire away....

It will be interesting to see how Coldplay get on, they are being sued over this.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvB9Pj9Znsw" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvB9Pj9Znsw</a>

Tan, music is different from photos and I don't disagree with you. I'll stick with photo issues. Roll Over Bethoven ELO using Bethoven's 5th as the opening lines.

Making a painting or drawing from a photo, say a cover of National Geographic is not considered a derivative work. However if someone does and abstract using segments of other photos, like the guy who used feet from shoe ads, it appears that the collage is a new work. I think that stinks, but that's the court system. I've seen people who call themselves artists, doing drawing and paintings from the cover of Time. I call it imitation and copying.

This one is interesting, the artist is using photos as his source material. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2008887655_apartistalabama.html

"Daniel Moore, the football artist in a legal battle with the University of Alabama over trademark law, is taking orders for a new painting � "The Blowout," depicting the Tide's 36-0 rout of Auburn last November.

Moore, whose depictions of celebrated moments in Alabama football history have become collectors' items, was sued four years ago by the university, which claimed trademark law violations and sought payment of licensing fees.

Moore and his publishing company, New Art Life Inc., filed a countersuit, accusing the university of damaging his business. His attorneys contend his work captures historic events and is speech protected by the Constitution."   

There have been successful suits against people who have re-shot a well known photo, same style, lighting and positioning of the models. (in one case a polka dot dress) Copying is not legal when it comes too close to the original.

This one is pretty well known. Rodgers vs Koons puppy sculpture made from Rodgers photo on a postcard. Koons likes to push the limits of reproduction of other words, as derivatives.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/19/nyregion/a-picture-a-sculpture-and-a-lawsuit.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

While there are many "loopholes" in music, there are less in photography.

Sometimes we see complaints here about copying concepts. I made what I thought was an original shot back when I got the first 100mm macro lens. I posted it here and someone linked me to about a half dozen other similar photos, already up on stock sites. Of course mine is the best!  I don't think someone could claim anything for "couple walking on the beach" "business handshake" "lady on headset at computer" or many other everyday events. Copying the original is illegal, shooting the same concept would be hard, if not impossible, to prosecute.