JoshMonie

The suits are stupid on the part of labels, because things like lipdubs and so on don't harm revenue, they're free advertising.
 
A person a who re-appropriates a song over some test film is advertising the song, not stealing it. It affect no revenue virtual or otherwise.
 
No one watches that video instead of putting a song on their ipod or music library.
 
Counting "lost" revenue is straight up bulshit. Not every theif of digital, infinitely copyable goods is a potential purchaser, not every person who watched the video would buy the song. It's a moronic way to measure losses. You can't lose what doesn't exist.
 
The YouTube plan was far better, adding a purchase link, and allows videos to sell the original, turning it into revenue generating free advertising.
 
Using an arbitration bot to delete video will send a lot of users packing.
 
It is literally finding everyone guilty until proven innocent, and is a spineless move.

I think this is crazy because sometimes I hear a catchy tune on a video and then go buy that tune, so they get free marketing and a sale out of it.
 
Dont the suits realise this happens a lot, as I see many asking uncredited work what music was used in the feedback comments and this is invaluable for smaller artists needing airplay.
 
The notion that vimeo or youtube can be used as some kinda jukebox is silly.
 
For me as long as you give credit and play by fair use (use short passages, snippets not whole works and put the original artist in a good light) I think it should be allowed.

A low contrast look is not superior. You can make the GH4 and 5D raw look as flat as a pancake if you want to. Question is what is the benefit? If your monitor had a low contrast look you'd return it to the shop! I don't know why people think a flat look is superior. For grading raw has no look. It isn't flat. It is raw data straight off the sensor that describes colours, whites and blacks. Why compress all that into the mids and get grey? I blame stuff like CineStyle for the confusion.

i don't think it looks like 'video'.  but it certainly doesnt look like film either.  The look pretty much gave me a feeling of moving still images, stylised in a fashion suitable for the current sportswear marketing style.  This look will be coming from the lenses, in combination with the full frame image area - both of which are the stable diet of still photographers working on this type of material for big brands the world over.  Set the same equipment up for video work and when done superbly like this, with a really nice lighting style i think it works really nice for this type of promo.  
 
The fact that this looks as technically good as if it had been shot on Alexa (thanks to the amazing raw hack), but using a non cinema camera and lenses other than cookes or zeiss cinema lenses the obviousness of the repurposed still photography equipment will be boosted due to the rest of the production value being of a level which normally would include an alexa and cookes.