Imitation is the highest form of flattery?

Was bored at work last night so I began to do a little phono cartridge research. I knew AT had come out with some new MC cartridges. I also wanted to remind my self of the specs of the AT F7. It was then I saw some images of the cart and decided to take a look.

Two images on two different sites of my turntable. The bottom picture is making me wonder how much my ad photography might be worth. Oh well I put it out there.

Here is the AR thread where I first posted the image that is now being used elsewhere.

http://forums.audioreview.com/analog...ers-35585.html

Oh wow I can imagine you thinking, "Boy that photo looks awfully familiar!" haha. Which sites are using it?

JM, is the F7 a high or low compliance cartridge? How would you characterize the general tone of the cartridge-warm, neutral or bright?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackraven

JM, is the F7 a high or low compliance cartridge? How would you characterize the general tone of the cartridge-warm, neutral or bright?

---

A moving coil cartridge is always on the low compliance side of life. AT suggests 2 gram tracking force. I find the cartridge neutral but not colorless as the OM20 can become. You will need a phono preamp with good sensitivity and gain of 60db or more.

I find the sound of MC cartridges to sound more solid than MM cartridges. That may be due to the higher tracking forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

A moving coil cartridge is always on the low compliance side of life. AT suggests 2 gram tracking force. I find the cartridge neutral but not colorless as the OM20 can become. You will need a phono preamp with good sensitivity and gain of 60db or more.

I find the sound of MC cartridges to sound more solid than MM cartridges. That may be due to the higher tracking forces.

---

I'm a little confused. The only MC cartridge that I've heard was a Sumiko Blackbird and it was called a "high output" MC cartridge as there was also a "low output" version available. Is output and compliance two different things? I only got back into vinyl a couple of years ago and a lot of the terminology is new to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack in Wilmington

I'm a little confused. The only MC cartridge that I've heard was a Sumiko Blackbird and it was called a "high output" MC cartridge as there was also a "low output" version available. Is output and compliance two different things? I only got back into vinyl a couple of years ago and a lot of the terminology is new to me.

---

Think of compliance as a suspension. A low compliance cart will have a stiffer suspension and need a heavier arm. A high compliance cart will have a softer suspension and need a lighter arm to perform best.

Output in moving coil cartridges are determined by how many turns of wire and power of the magnet. A low output MC will have fewer turns of wire and therefore can only generate a smaller signal. Having less wire creates a lower mass generating system said to trace the grooves better with maximum information retrieval. The more turns of wire in a high output MC add mass to the generating system. More mass can reduce amount of information retrieved.

Compliance/suspesion is the springs and struts of the cartridge and the output is the horsepower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

Think of compliance as a suspension. A low compliance cart will have a stiffer suspension and need a heavier arm. A high compliance cart will have a softer suspension and need a lighter arm to perform best.

Output in moving coil cartridges are determined by how many turns of wire and power of the magnet. A low output MC will have fewer turns of wire and therefore can only generate a smaller signal. Having less wire creates a lower mass generating system said to trace the grooves better with maximum information retrieval. The more turns of wire in a high output MC add mass to the generating system. More mass can reduce amount of information retrieved.

Compliance/suspesion is the springs and struts of the cartridge and the output is the horsepower.

---

Thanks JM. More info is always good. Something more to consider when making a new purchase.

Thanks JM.

I have read that if your Tone Arm has good dampening that you can get by with a lower compliance cartridge on a light arm. I am not sure it that is true or not.

I took a careful look at those photos and unless their supposed photographer can demonstrate how those photos came from his Camera I'd be thinking about requesting some money out of that one. (I know it may not be worth the fuss, but arguably you are entitled to being paid for an image you originally photographed when it is clearly being used for commercial purposes). It seems to me some cases have already been won in this regard (my memory is not flawless, so I admit to talking a little through my hat here).

If the photo was posted to a discussion forum and you said something like "hey this is my turntable" and it got taken from there they should have been contacting you about using the image for advertising purposes. Arguably worth at least a couple of phonecalls. Especially if you have the original image sitting on your system somewhere.

Have fun!

Hope this link is acceptable.

Copyright Fair Use and How it Works for Online Images Social Media Examiner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryissa

I took a careful look at those photos and unless their supposed photographer can demonstrate how those photos came from his Camera I'd be thinking about requesting some money out of that one. (I know it may not be worth the fuss, but arguably you are entitled to being paid for an image you originally photographed when it is clearly being used for commercial purposes). It seems to me some cases have already been won in this regard (my memory is not flawless, so I admit to talking a little through my hat here).

If the photo was posted to a discussion forum and you said something like "hey this is my turntable" and it got taken from there they should have been contacting you about using the image for advertising purposes. Arguably worth at least a couple of phonecalls. Especially if you have the original image sitting on your system somewhere.

Have fun!

---

Ryissa, a hearty "cease and desist" to you. The images in this thread are clearly not being used for commercial purposes.

People link to advertisers' photographs all the time in their forum posts, and unless they do so for advertising purposes of their own or to make slanderous comments, the poster is highly unlikely to get into any trouble. Gee gosh, I wonder if Google has paid for a every Image or Video they link to when you 'google' a subject? Maybe you could elucidate that point for us.

Using standard webpage tools, a web author can prevent the normal 'Save image', 'Copy image URL', etc. The vast majority do not do so for the simple reason that putting stuff on the Web is about publicity and if their photos are linked elsewhere, so much the better.

JohnMichael, with a twist of ironic humor, was wondering whether the original advertiser ought to pay him for publicising their images. (This was joke, not a serious suggestion.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Ryissa, a hearty "cease and desist" to you. The images in this thread are clearly not being used for commercial purposes.

People link to advertisers' photographs all the time in their forum posts, and unless they do so for advertising purposes of their own or to make slanderous comments, the poster is highly unlikely to get into any trouble. Gee gosh, I wonder if Google has paid for a every Image or Video they link to when you 'google' a subject? Maybe you could elucidate that point for us.

Using standard webpage tools, a web author can prevent the normal 'Save image', 'Copy image URL', etc. The vast majority do not do so for the simple reason that putting stuff on the Web is about publicity and if their photos are linked elsewhere, so much the better.

JohnMichael, with a twist of ironic humor, was wondering whether the original advertiser ought to pay him for publicising their images. (This was joke, not a serious suggestion.)

---

Wow you know what I was thinking. No I was shocked and annoyed to see someone using my photograph to improve their sales. If you are going to profit from selling a product either hire your own photographer or at least ask permission to use an image.

jack, the ONLY way to get familiar with MC carts is to get one or more and listen to them and contrast what you heard with MMs. usually, the MCs are more agile due to lower moving mass in the generator system. magnets being heavier than coils.

Of course with the ADC carts along with the Ortofon OM and 2M series you have fixed coils and fixed magnets. The magnetism is induced into the cantilever which then moves between the coils and generates the voltage. Induced magnet cartridges have low moving mass. Moving iron cartridges replace the magnet on the cantilever with an additional piece of metal so not as low mass as the induced magnet cartridges.

i would love to try some of the ortofons and nobody needs to hype ADC XLMs to me, they were my favorite cart, now i have a couiple fo grace f9s, an E and an L.

still, MCs have taken over in my favorites department. i have been listening to my F9E and atML150 for over a year. i will be voyaging back to land soon.

I have never heard a Grace cartridge but have heard about them. Soundsmith is making a limited edition run of Grace 9 styli. Maybe it is time to shop for a Grace 9 body and purchase a Soundsmith stylus.

I remember when you could buy an ADC XLM MK II for $29 at a local audio store. How I wish I had held on to many of my past cartridges.

The link I posted explains the difference quite clearly between a harmless link or fair re-use of an image versus using an image for commercial purposes.

The image was clearly borrowed and then Used in an advertisement. Big difference between THAT and say me "borrowing" the image on my blog and saying "wish I owned this".

Cease and disist what exactly? Suggesting someone look at getting fairly compensated for commercial use of their own work? And then post a link that demonstrates they have a case. Seriously?

Pretty innocuous stuff to get accused of being a troll over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryissa

The link I posted explains the difference quite clearly between a harmless link or fair re-use of an image versus using an image for commercial purposes.

The image was clearly borrowed and then Used in an advertisement. Big difference between THAT and say me "borrowing" the image on my blog and saying "wish I owned this".

Cease and disist what exactly? Suggesting someone look at getting fairly compensated for commercial use of their own work? And then post a link that demonstrates they have a case. Seriously?

Pretty innocuous stuff to get accused of being a troll over.

---

Am I missing something? It seems to me that you seem to be saying that JohnMichael is using the linked photos as advertising. IS that, in fact, what you're saying? It's not the case; where did you get such a notion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Am I missing something? It seems to me that you seem to be saying that JohnMichael is using the linked photos as advertising. IS that, in fact, what you're saying? It's not the case; where did you get such a notion?

---

Feanor I do think you are missing his points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Am I missing something? It seems to me that you seem to be saying that JohnMichael is using the linked photos as advertising. IS that, in fact, what you're saying? It's not the case; where did you get such a notion?

---

Recap for clarification:

First image was image that John Michael took on his own camera of his own turntable and then posted to a forum for the purposes of whatever discussion was going on there. I don't care why he did it, other than he wanted to show some online friends his photo (whether it was a discussion about the turntable, the cartridge, or he wanted to show off his photo skills was immaterial). It was just a random nice photo that many of us post to discussions.

Second image a third COMMERCIAL party has taken that image and minimally altered it (i.e. cropped it a little, maybe straightened it and background blurred it). But it has not been altered in any way that anyone closely looking at the photo could call significantly altered to make the original image unrecognizable.

Because the second image was used by a party unknown to John Michael for commercial purposed without so much as a "do you mind" it would fall under copyright infringement.

Between my two initial posts all I ever suggested is that John Michael look into getting some sort of compensation for the use of the image. The link I posted was a follow-up to my initial post suggesting that he do that and was merely meant to demonstrate that he had a possible legal leg to stand on.

Him posting the images / links here or any other discussion is not the issue I was pointing out. The fact that nobody paid him to take his photo and use it their advertisement was something he could look into still getting paid for.

I have no idea what he might get out of it if successful. If it's just a local retailer that used it on their website maybe not much. If it's the actual manufacturer, probably a reasonable compensation is in order from either them or their ad agency (or both).

Might not be worth the fuss and bother of him pursuing it. But looking into it and maybe at least getting a "sorry" from the third party might be nice :). It's entirely possible whoever put together the ad didn't realize they were crossing a copyright line (or maybe didn't care figuring nobody would notice).

To restate the obvious here. I was in no way saying that his post here was inappropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryissa

Recap for clarification:

First image was image that John Michael took on his own camera of his own turntable and then posted to a forum for the purposes of whatever discussion was going on there. I don't care why he did it, other than he wanted to show some online friends his photo (whether it was a discussion about the turntable, the cartridge, or he wanted to show off his photo skills was immaterial). It was just a random nice photo that many of us post to discussions.

Second image a third COMMERCIAL party has taken that image and minimally altered it (i.e. cropped it a little, maybe straightened it and background blurred it). But it has not been altered in any way that anyone closely looking at the photo could call significantly altered to make the original image unrecognizable.

Because the second image was used by a party unknown to John Michael for commercial purposed without so much as a "do you mind" it would fall under copyright infringement.

Between my two initial posts all I ever suggested is that John Michael look into getting some sort of compensation for the use of the image. The link I posted was a follow-up to my initial post suggesting that he do that and was merely meant to demonstrate that he had a possible legal leg to stand on.

Him posting the images / links here or any other discussion is not the issue I was pointing out. The fact that nobody paid him to take his photo and use it their advertisement was something he could look into still getting paid for.

I have no idea what he might get out of it if successful. If it's just a local retailer that used it on their website maybe not much. If it's the actual manufacturer, probably a reasonable compensation is in order from either them or their ad agency (or both).

Might not be worth the fuss and bother of him pursuing it. But looking into it and maybe at least getting a "sorry" from the third party might be nice :). It's entirely possible whoever put together the ad didn't realize they were crossing a copyright line (or maybe didn't care figuring nobody would notice).

To restate the obvious here. I was in no way saying that his post here was inappropriate.

---

Thanks for the clarification. I also wanted to welcome you to AudioReview.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnMichael

Thanks for the clarification. I also wanted to welcome you to AudioReview.

---

Thanks for the welcome.

I checked into the name that slapped their copyright across your photo (nice of them, eh!). Looks like they are based in Hong Kong which may be problematic in terms of getting anything out of them even apology wise.

I'd be tempted to contact the marketing arm of Audio-Technica nearest you and send them both images and the link to the thread where you posted your original photo. Mention that you realize that Dzone is only their distributer, but that you weren't sure who to contact about the matter. Outline basically what you said here and ask them to get Dzone to take the image down or contact you about compensating you for the photo as you are pretty sure Audio-Technica doesn't support copyright infringement in advertisements promoting their products. (A large company like Audio-Technica is going to want to protect it's image and how it's promoted, even by third parties).

If your like me, it's more the principle of the thing versus expecting to make money out of the deal.

And with that commentary I shall go back to my hum drum life where (to the best of my knowledge) nobody likes my photos enough other than to make them into their profile photos on occasion.

I'm inclined to listen to Ryissa's suggestions. You may not get any thing from the effort. However, were it me I'd still give it a shot.