Those who do Weddings.....

(46 posts)
  • Started 7 years ago by push-play
  • Latest reply from WISKINITA

No tags yet.


  1. SteveMann
    Member

    luke409 Wrote:

    Some people claim it is "fair use," but most professionals in video production know that seldom holds up.


    When you say "... that seldom holds up" you imply that this issue has been tested in court. Therein is the challenge - show us an example of any wedding videographer ever been taken to court over unlicensed music in a wedding video.

    Steve
    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. luke409
    Member

    When I first posted here a couple days ago, I was responding to the very first question in this thread, which was:

    "I want to know if it's ok to use copyrighted music for your clients."

    There is only one proper answer to that -- it is a violation of copyright laws to use copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder.

    If you are a professional, in my opinion, you recognize that reality. It is the law of the land, and in another post, I have provided links to that law.

    To get that permission, a fee often must be paid to license the material. In motion pictures (multimedia, video and film), there is a second fee for synchronization rights.

    Remember, I have already stated I am not a lawyer, just a seasoned professional writer, publisher, producer and videographer who has had to deal with these issues during my 30 plus years of professional experience. If you think I'm in error, I'd appreciate seeing some links so I could learn too.

    Now we come to the second part of the question which could be stated this way....

    Are there loopholes?

    My answer to that is, no, not really. Some person wrote a song (in this case) and they are entitled to be paid for their talent, skill and effort, and we have a mechanism to make that payment in our copyright laws. Why should another professional, in this case a wedding videographer, be entitled to make money off the musical artist without paying for it? The music adds emotional impact to the video, and the artist is entitled to payment for their important contribution to your work.

    One common loophole people seek to use, which I mentioned previously, was "fair use." Those who clicked on my link to the law itself realize that it is not an entitlement to use someone else's copyright material without permission, but a possible defense if you get sued by the copyright holder.

    There have been other loopholes described on this site, and they seem pretty lame to me. I certainly don't want to quote anyone else's post for fear they might think I am making a personal attack on their ethics... I am not... I am just trying to answer the original question based on my experience. Be clear... we are discussing professional standards here, and it would be wrong for anyone to take personal umbrage from what is said in that regard.

    Here are the general categories of other loopholes I have seen or heard at different places, and they are not valid in my experience:

    1. The "I know a lawyer who says..." loophole. First -- second-hand legal information is always suspect. Second, here is a well-known rule of thumb for people in any business: "Advice you get from a lawyer for free is worth exactly what you paid for it." They disclaim even when you pay! Third, “permission" from a lawyer doesn't count because they are not the one who have to pay damages if you lose a law suit. Fourth, there is a lot of case law on copyright infringement, and you could check it out for yourself. I know I have.

    2. "The law doesn't apply to me, I'm just a wedding videographer" loophole. The implication here is that since you are creating a custom, short-run product, you are exempt from the laws of the land. The fact is, as professionals, we pay for all the components of a production including the camera, lights, sound, tape ... and... intellectual property rights of others, regardless of whether the production is large or small. Size of the production is not a determining factor when it comes to getting legal permission to use other people's property in our work.

    It's a slippery slope... if people don't think copyright laws apply in business, then income tax laws must be questionable too. People are always looking for loopholes when it comes to that weekend income, and think the law doesn't apply to them in that area too. If anyone thinks that wedding videos are exempt from the intellectual property right laws, I suggest they send copies of your work to the artist's lawyer and see what happens. Personally, I don't think a test case just for wedding videographers is needed... the law is clear and it does not say wedding photographers are exempt from it.

    3. The "It's not stealing if you don't get caught...." loophole. If you put unlicensed music on a web site or in a multimedia presentation, film or video, and it gets noticed by the copyright holder, you're going to get sued, or a 'cease and desist" order at the very least. There are copyright notices everywhere, an FBI warning on videos, and the RIAA is suing college students and moms.... we know it is against the law, and that the law applies to all creative work. On that basis, I would suggest it is illegal, unethical and unprofessional to use unlicensed intellectual property on the assumption that it's okay as long as you don't get caught. "Not getting caught" is the hope of every criminal out there.

    A positive approach to the issue

    For newbieÂ’s out there who do not want to get sucked down the black hole of trying to find some loophole to keep from getting permission from a copyright holder as legally required/and or paying a license fee, I suggest you follow these professional steps:

    1. Be ethical from the beginning. Here is the notice I have on my web site, so people know I am a professional and will not break the law or compromise my integrity:

    "LEGAL COMPLIANCE: Our video productions must adhere to state and federal laws, including copyright laws. We are unable to use any material in a video which may infringe upon copyright holders. Covered under these laws are copyrighted music, artwork, images of certain celebrities and various kinds of broadcasts. We'll work with you to ensure that your video production is in compliance with these laws."

    2. Charge enough to cover your costs and make a profit. Make sure you include all your costs, including the costs of intellectual property rights licenses. Yes, wedding photography is highly competitive... fees are far too low in my opinion. But, of course, people can afford to work cheap if they are using bootleg materials, not reporting income and the unusual things you see in business. If you cannot cover your costs and make a profit, then maybe another more lucrative form of videography might be better for you.

    3. Use royalty free music. There is an enormous amount of inexpensive music out there that you can purchase once at very reasonable costs and use it legally over and over again without additional payments. I personally use http://www.cssmusic.com a lot, but I notice Google yields 8.5 million hits when you type in "royalty free music" so there are lots of choices to keep legal. Yes, I know the bride and groom always want "their song" on the video --just tell them upfront that it comes with a price, because you won't "steal" it off a CD.

    4. Last, but not least... Get permission from the copyright holder!!! I know, too simple, but there you have it. You get that permission by contacting the copyright holder's publishing, usually ASCAP or BMI. Submit your request to them in writing. Sometimes it takes a while to hear back, so you can't do it at the last minute. They may grant rights for free, or they may charge a fee. It is possible they may even ignore your request. But by requesting a license you can be assured you have taken the correct legal steps and have acted professionally.
    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. SteveMann
    Member

    You state the "Letter of the Law" and your interpretation of it quite well. But it is an interpretation.

    I tend to believe the IP lawyer that I was having lunch with who says that he thinks it's defensible to put music from a bride's CD on her wedding video under Fair Use.

    And this is coming from a lawyer whose job is to pursue copyright and patent cases for copyright and patent owners.

    The fact is that it will not be settled until one of three things happen:

    1) Congress changes the Copyright Law to explicitly allow such use under "Fair Use". This is the most unlikely, but you never know.

    2) The Record Industry finally discovers that there's a segment of consumers who *want* to give them money and they develop a system similar to the one in Austrailia.

    3) A Wedding Videographer is sued for using unlicensed music in a wedding video. This is also unlikely for the reasons stated before, but a decision, while not binding on all jurisdictions, would offer some clarity on which way a judge would lean on the issue.

    Until one of these things happens, the correct reply to the original question (is it legal...) is: "Probably not".

    To this date, no one knows of any Wedding Videographer in the US who has been sued by a copyright owner over the unlicensed use of their property in a wedding video.
    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. Video-maniac
    Member

    This thread is amazing!

    Here's a thought and possible solution:

    For the most part IÂ’m a person that hates politics and red tape. One of the biggest reasons (IMO) that vid guys donÂ’t bother to get the OK to use copywrited material is because itÂ’s a major hassle and it takes too long.

    Am I right?

    What if there was a centralized website geared for videographers where you could just click on a song, fill in a little bit of info, pay a nominal fee via a CC and in return you get some kind of legal doc saying that you paid for the right to use that music and be done with it? This site would need to be simple and fast. It also probably would have to be set up and overseen buy whoever does this stuff now with the intension that the music will be used for low volume production runs. Maybe they could set up a simple price structure based on what youÂ’re using the music for and how may copies youÂ’re planning to make. Then everyone would be happy and it would be legal and it wonÂ’t be a big hassle!

    YeahÂ… NoÂ… Maybe???

    RAM
    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. SteveMann
    Member

    Video-maniac Wrote:

    For the most part IÂ’m a person that hates politics and red tape. One of the biggest reasons (IMO) that vid guys donÂ’t bother to get the OK to use copywrited material is because itÂ’s a major hassle and it takes too long.

    Am I right?

    What if there was a centralized website geared for videographers where you could just click on a song, fill in a little bit of info, pay a nominal fee via a CC and in return you get some kind of legal doc saying that you paid for the right to use that music and be done with it?


    On the former - it's not the hassle or the time involved that is the problem. The record industry does not want to bother with any licensing deal for less than five-figures. In other words, unless you are willing to pay $10-20,000 for a one-time license, they don't want you at their doorstep. This is a result of extremly complex copyright laws in this country. Mechanical and preformance rights are easy to administer because there's only one entity involved - the copyright owner. That's why a DJ or venue can pay a small annual fee for a blanket license.

    On the latter - there is something like this in Austrailia, but it, too, has critics because the number of songs available is somewhat limited. The problem, at least in the US, is that as soon as the music is put into a video (more specifically a "motion picture product"), then you get into synchronization license. Synch licensing dates way back to when the orchestras were being put out of business with the introduction of the"talkies". Movie producers were using any recorded music they wanted in their movies, and the orchestras were getting zip. Synch rights were added to the copyright laws by Congress to make sure the orchestra got their peice of the movie profits. (The word "synchronization", by the way, comes from the use of records synchronized with the movies in the early days of "talkies".) Since then, strong unions and long extinct trade practices have expanded the list of people who are entitled to sync license fees. Now you have a whole lot of people who expect to be paid when the music is used in a movie or a video. Which is the main reason that synch licensing is so darned expensive and difficult.

    Until the laws change or someone is finally sued and a court precedent is established, it remains unclear if fair use applies to wedding videos or not. The argument can go either way as there are valid and compelling arguments and precedents supporting both sides.

    By the way, the term "copyrighted material" is a non-sequitor because all materials are copyrighted, even some in the public domain still carries a copyright. Even when you receive license (permission) to use the material, it's still copyrighted. Buyout and needle-drop music is permissible but still copyrighted. The correct term is licensed material (or unlicensed material, depending if you have the license to use it or not).

    Steve Mann
    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. Video-maniac
    Member

    SteveMann Wrote:

    Until the laws change or someone is finally sued and a court precedent is established, it remains unclear if fair use applies to wedding videos or not. The argument can go either way as there are valid and compelling arguments and precedents supporting both sides.


    Wow! 8-O

    So if I understand you correctly, I go ahead and use a licensed song in my video. I know itÂ’s wrong. The License holder is furious of course because I used (stole X-D ) this song BUT... they arenÂ’t going to do anything because itÂ’s a big hassle for them to come after little OL' me. On the other hand IÂ’m willing to pay because I want to make just 3 DVDÂ’s for a wedding couple but the license holder doesnÂ’t want to even talk to me unless it involves 5 figures.

    When you really think about itÂ… itÂ’s a no win scenario. ItÂ’s almost ridiculous! After going through this whole thread, IÂ’m starting to think that I have to agree with you. Something needs to pop before anything will change. Until that happenes... nothing will happen. Life goes on...

    RAM

    p.s. I will say one thing, I sure learned a lot on this thread.
    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. SteveMann
    Member

    Video-maniac Wrote:

    The License holder is furious of course because I used (stole X-D ) this song BUT...


    The ultimate irony here is that some artists have said that they are flattered to be so honored in a wedding video, but that their label controls all licensing.
    Posted 6 years ago #
  8. Endeavor
    Member

    Seems to me that some people posting in here are just looking for an argument. You're not going to convince anyone of anything so go ahead and do things your way and let's just leave it alone. If you want to prosecute people, go become a lawyer.
    Posted 6 years ago #
  9. multimediabill
    Member

    The buttom line is...

    A law is only a law, when it is "enforced". Otherwise, it's just WORDS with empty hopes and "no meaning" subject to different interpretations by different people.

    If there is a law out there that prohibits video or dvd producers from using music in their wedding or other client videos and presentations, then we are not seeing it and it's not being enforced.

    Again, we are not talking about how some people interpret the law, but about the REALITY of what's happening. THE FACTS. It can't get any simpler than that.
    Posted 6 years ago #
  10. macsrule10
    Member

    the law is the law evem if you dont get caught. there is music that you can get for cheap and use forever go that route
    Posted 6 years ago #
  11. multimediabill
    Member

    macsrule10

    A law is only a law, WHEN IT IS "enforced". Otherwise, it's just WORDS with empty hopes and "no meaning" subject to different interpretations by different people.
    Posted 6 years ago #
  12. svhs
    Member

    Out with the spammer!
    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. dnathan
    Member

    I have always held a strong conviction of not owning copied media -- until I sought copyright permissions on a video I produced. Expect to wait six months, then expect to pay an insane amount for the song. One receptionist told me that they might not answer my request at all because they have so many requests.

    I don't have that conviction anymore.
    Posted 5 years ago #
  14. kkmac
    Member

    If a bride gives me a cd with a song to include in her wedding DVD, and I give the cd back when the work is complete, without retaining a copy of the cd, how is that stealing? Because she paid me to put it on her disc. She didn't buy or rent the song from me. I didn't provide the copy. She paid me the labor cost to do it. Are the disagree-ers saying that she has to be the one to do the work for it to be legal?

    Does the DJ who played the songs at the wedding have the right to play the songs publically?

    I think the law may protect copyright owners from such use but being a copyright owners of various content myself, I'm not about to sue some guy 1500 miles away because he used something I own in a small handful of DVDs. What am I to gain? Honestly, not enough to make the lawsuit worthwhile.

    I'm not reselling anyones copyrighted content for personnal gain. I'm using what someone else legally bought for THEIR personnal use. THATS IT!! If some of you are too scared to work like this, so be it. As for me, if a customer wants it, the customer gets it! It's no more illegal than recording a song played on the radio. Turn me in. I bet nothing happens.
    Posted 5 years ago #
  15. compusolver
    Member

    Does the DJ who played the songs at the wedding have the right to play the songs publically?

    Actually, they do - they make payments to a single organization that handles most of the publishers. So do square dance callers and others who use copyrighted music for the public.

    But yeah, you're fine using the client's own (original CD) music. I don't want to get into a hassle with a client who sends me a -R (burned) CD, .mp3, etc. so I purchase it for them off of Napster, etc., so I've done everything possible to ensure the publishers get their due. Also, it eliminates the hassle of nagging the client to provide the music.
    Posted 5 years ago #
  16. WISKINITA
    Member

    look, if I can be charged 99 cents for a copy of the newest hit song to play on my cell phone, or pay one dollar per song on something like Napster then by all means, I will put that same song in my video production after I PAY for it. I like the way Hank does it. If it ain't legal, then it damn well should be!

    Include in your fee for the wedding, a charge for the music that you get from this Napster site.

    Then go to Napster or Rhapsody, etc and buy the individual songs for what, like a buck each? Heck, burn the songs on a cd for the client to also have with their dvd.

    Look at what you have done here: EACH artist gets a portion or cut from their individual songs that you bought.

    What does that matter? Well, the client may have already bought the CD with the song that they wanted on their video long ago when they first got together. BOTH of them might have that SAME cd. And you just sold it to them again - The artist should THANK YOU BY ALL MEANS! They now made two maybe three sales to ONE person for the SAME SONG. You just drove up their digital feed sales too. I don't care what anyone says here, that artist's copyrighted material just got sold twice and the artist DOES get his share.

    Now the client has their love song, the artist has his cut AGAIN, and the videographer is just a tool for bringing the two together. When you make a purchase off something like Napster, it does not say: YOU MAY ONLY USE THIS IN YOUR EARPHONES, ON A BLACK IPOD NANO AT 3AM AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS! You purchased the right (PAID the artist and distributor) a fee for a song to enjoy or use it how you see fit. You did NOT make an agreement nor does it say nor should it, that you were purchasing that song to ** LISTEN in your own 2 ears *** (That is just the way I interpret it here - zip it - you will not change my mind nor do I care to hear anyone's opinions here what so ever.)

    Another way to look at it: Videographers are stealing music for personal gain. NOPE. I do video because I like to do VIDEO. I am filming and editing and working hard compiling scenes for your wedding to make it a special memory the way YOU (the client) wants to remember it. I do not have a MUSIC fee that I profit from by stealing a song and adding a charge for that and thinking: HA HA! YES! A FREE SONG AND THUS ALL PROFIT FOR ME! TO HECK WITH THE VIDEO, THIS FREE SONG PIRATING THING IS A BLAST AND NOW I'M RICH!!! HA HA. I SHOWED THEM!!

    I am actually underpaid to be honest. We all are. I don't claim it as my own or even use it as a selling point. I just slap the song they want where they want it. That's it. NEXT STEP - getting the red eye reduction to work......stupid.....button......

    So in MY reality, this Napster thing is the answer to all of our bickering and pondering. There is a vehicle (Napster) that you can GIVE YOUR MONEY TO for the purpose of buying a song that you may already even have in your MP3 library like I do (so the Artist too gets paid - maybe even twice) to use it in any darn way you see fit. Shoot, call it for a "one time use" if you must. I guess if you buy a song, then you don't have to buy it again for another vid project but well, maybe you should have to cough up another buck. Oh well.

    Point is like you all have said, right / wrong, caught / probably not, theif, good samaritan - WHATEVER ! As Hank has suggested, and to the best of MY current knowledge, this is the best way atempt to do the right thing. If it takes six months to get back to you (from the artist) then THAT slows down commerce. And I don't think any law makers, etc. want to slow down commerce. We are paying for things, being paid, spending money, blah blah blah- monies are changing hands and THAT keeps our commerce and country in good shape and competitive. And that is a GOOD thing. Especially when everyone gets a little somethin' somethin'!

    It's like a street sign says here in Texas: Keep Texas Moving - slower drivers use right lane. You know why??? Truckers gotta get a move on, sales reps gotta make their calls, people are headed to and fro for work, etc. So in other words: DON'T SLOW DOWN OUR COMMERCE!!!

    If you have a song or something copyrighted and disagree with what I just wrote, then your music probably sucks therefore it's NOT on a site like Napster and NOBODY CARES TO USE IT ANYWAYS!!

    Thank you and please drive through! And as always, thank you for flying Southwest! (oh darn, I forgot the disclaimer to use that! where's that darn license.... i had it somewhere....ahhh...it's right...............ohhh...........ummmmm............................ :? ..........)
    Posted 5 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Supported video provider:

youtube, myvideo, funnyordie, gametrailers, collegehumor, dailymotion, glumbert, liveleak, redtube, googlevideo, sevenload, metacafe, clipfish, vimeo

Search