Those who do Weddings…..

Viewing 40 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #46402
      Avatarpush-play
      Participant

      For those of you who do weddings I want to know if it’s ok to use copyrighted music for your clients. The reason I ask that is because I heard that as long as it’s for the client personally it’s ok to use. I have also visited different websites that have demos from weddings created and they use copyrited music on their sites. Lot’s them also let the client choose their own music. Is it ok to use this on websites and client projects?

    • #191198
      AvatarVideoman
      Participant

      In Australia it is NOT OK to use copyright music what so ever – regardless what it is used for or how long the music excerpt is.

      I am going out on a limb here and say that the states would be the same.
      Oz seems to follow a lot of USA copyright laws so If you want to use copyright music you have to get permission from the music body in your state. We have APRA, Amcos and Aria. You have to let them know the name of the song(s), the artist and the recording company. Then you have to pay a fee for each song. Public domain and royalty free sounds better every day doesn’t it?

    • #191199
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      my philosophy is, if they sue, what are they gonna get? i’m broke anyway. i use whatever music i want to for the weddings i do.

    • #191200
      AvatarSFChuck
      Participant

      If some were to shoot his/her own wedding and put copyrighted music under it FOR HIS/HER OWN USE, that’s OK. For someone in the business of shooting wedding videos for sale, the matter of copyright clearance is an issue.

      The reality, however, is that the probability of getting caught is slim.

      There are companies that are in the business of providing “buyout” music specifically for commercial videographers to use in post production. The prices range from fairly reasonable to…well…way beyond that.

      This should not be construed as legal advice. Consult with your attorney.

    • #191201
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      who has an attorney? why would you need one to shoot weddings?

    • #191202
      AvatarSFChuck
      Participant

      My comment concerned my statement that the probablility of getting caught was slim. But I didn’t want someone to construe that as legal advice.

      If they are seeking legal advice on copyright law or any other topic, they should consult with their attorney and not rely on anything posted on these forums.

    • #191203
      AvatarVideoman
      Participant

      If you get caught – chances are ?????
      You’re broke – they don’t care. Say goodbye to what assest you own or what percentage of assets you own
      Say goodbye to your computer and video stuff – that’ll be the first to go.

      Copyright is such a darn pain, that’s why I use public domain and royalty free music.. I use smart sound too. Music is a little expensive for my liking.
      Aussie dollar makes it dearer to purchase, but still worth it.

    • #191204
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      i have no assets……i have a computer but it’s not paid for, my equipments not paid for, my car isn’t paid for……..if you’re going to take chances, you might as well do it while you’re young and broke!

    • #191205
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      The “Hold Harmless” clause is a thin protection that is most successful in intimidating the client. The fact is, as a videographer, you are expected to know better and if you if you were sued by the RIAA, the “hold-harmless” paper would likely be nonadmissible because the client cannot be reasonably expected to understand the meaning of “rights to use” copyrighted works.

      To the best of my knowledge, no videographer has ever been sued for adding music from a client’s CD to their wedding video. There have been quite a few “cease and desist” letters sent to those videographers stupid enough to put popular music on their websites’ demo videos.

      I don’t think that the RIAA is ready to test the water over this. It is perfectly legal for a bride to add music from a CD that she bought to any of her videos. If the videographer only acts as her employee to do this for her, then where’s the violation?

      Steve (Not a Lawyer)

    • #191206
      AvatarVideoman
      Participant

      Look,
      I honestly believe the “Big Boys” are really after those out there that are Pirating music cd dvd etc. If they were to go for every Tom Dick and Harry who used some music for a “Hobby” video or a one off video productionmn ( how many DVD’s ??) of a wedding they would sueing just about the whole world. Then they would clog up the court system for decades- perhaps centuries on copyright infingement and leave no time for the serious crimes that require judical expediency.

      If in doubt purchase a permit.
      If your game do without, keep your mouth shut and suffer the wraith if caught.

    • #191207
      Avatari43Productions
      Participant

      If you’re dumb enough to use copyrighted music without permission, you deserve to get caught and sued for thousands of dollars.

      using music for personal stuff (i.e. little video of junior playing with new toy) probably not a problem…still a little on the hazy side, but overall not too bad.

      using newest hits from Country Music Superstar Toby Keith during memorable moment when lovesick couple says “I Do” at the alter and kisses…then selling the video to said lovesick couple and their family and friends…definitely and totally illegal.

      it’s never worth the risk.

    • #191208
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      “.then selling the video to said lovesick couple and their family and friends…definitely and totally illegal.”

      Would it be illegal for the bride or her husband to add the music to their DVD themselves? No.

      Re-use of a music CD on other forms for personal use has been accepted by various courts as legitimate “fair use”. In fact, there are services that, for a fee, will transfer your CD collection to your iPOD. Some of their websites are linked from the record label’s sites, so they must be OK with the practice.

      What the record companies don’t want to test is that the wedding videographer is probably doing a work for hire. (Those who disagree, start a new thread and we can discuss that issue). As a work for hire, if the couple provides their music CD and pays you to add it to their wedding video, then they, the employer, are responsible for copyrights. Not the videographer / editor.

      Steve

    • #191209
      AvatarEndeavor
      Participant

      And just to be sure, I have a clause in my contract that states that the client not only is responsible to provide the music, but also that they have acquired the necessary rights to the music and any other matrerial in the production.

    • #191210
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      “And just to be sure, I have a clause in my contract that states that the client not only is responsible to provide the music, but also that they have acquired the necessary rights to the music and any other matrerial in the production.”

      It doesn’t let you off the hook. At best the clause may make the client reconsider using the music in the video, but you are considered the professional in this transaction and you know better (about copyright issues). At worst, it is an admission that you do understand the copyright issues.

      If the bride brings you an Enya CD, you know damn well that they don’t have licenses to sync the music to their wedding video. You can’t pass your responsibility to their lack of knowledge. If the RIAA wants to make a case, this defense will last all of five minutes.

      Steve Mann

    • #191211
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      compusolver Wrote:

      No argument – if you’re talking about the videographer using the resulting video to promote his business, but the client does have the right to make copies for personal use, of music they’ve purchased. Providing the service to put that music on their wedding DVD – in my opinion – would be defensible.

      The Client Does.

      That’s the operative word here, and I suspect why the record industry really isn’t going after wedding videographers. It’s also a very strong argument for the wedding videographers to change their business paradigm, which I have discussed before. If the videographer is clearly doing a “work for hire” job for the bride, then the employer (bride) is responsible for copyrights. The videographer is just an employee.

      Steve Mann

    • #191212
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      OK, here is a topic that may help all of us.
      I am not going to try to explain the law. I will not be saying that it is OK to use music without permission. I will not be trying to justify using music or anything else illegally. I will not be saying that anyone is right or that anyone is wrong. Let’s JUST CHAT about real evidence to prove these points. With that being said…

      Some of you say: “it’s OK to use music in your videos as long as you don’t get caught. And that the chances of getting caught are very slim.

      Some of you say: “Don’t do it” I know the law, and it’s not OK to do this. If you get caught, you will be in big trouble”

      Now let’s do something different. Let’s just talk about the “FACTS”.

      Will anyone here please post any “articles”, “web links”, “reference materials”, “court public records”, etc. that demonstrate that wedding videographers got sued or in trouble because of the use of regular music on their video presentations?

      If this is true, let’s DEMONSTRATE that this is really true, by posting facts of real life situations in the business. Things that “really” happened to a videographer and lets prove this point.

      Again, let’s not talk about the law anymore. That has been covered here many many times, and we will all be repeating ourselves over and over again. Let’s more on to FACTS and EVIDENCE.

      Who has any evidence, articles, web links, etc that demonstrate this fact?
      PLEASE share these with us.

    • #191213
      AvatarEndeavor
      Participant

      Wether or not anybody ever got sued for it does not indicate wether it’s legal or not. So if you want “evidence”, go read the law. I’m sure you won’t understand it any more than the lawyers don’t.

    • #191214
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      Endeavor Wrote:

      Wether or not anybody ever got sued for it does not indicate wether it’s legal or not. So if you want “evidence”, go read the law. I’m sure you won’t understand it any more than the lawyers don’t.

      No one knows anyone who has been sued by the record industry for putting unlicensed music in a wedding video, let alone any first-hand experience. There have been a few wedding videographers who received C&D letters for the use of unlicensed material on their website. (Stupid)

      As I’ve said before – the whole issue is one that the RIAA is not likely to pursue because a judgement against them is not something they want to risk. According to an IP lawyer that I talked to (unofficially, off the record, at a party…), putting a bride’s music CD on her wedding video has some defensable angles, and the RIAA probably doesn’t want to test them. They go after the defensless ones, the 12-year old kids, the 83-year old grannie and one dead woman. They go after the biggest scare – not unlike the schoolyard bullies who pick on the weakest kids. Suing a 12-year old kid strikes fear into millions of middle-school kids that download illegally. Suing a wedding videographer might scare a few dozen or even a few hundred videographers into finding legal music. Just not enough effect for the potential downside. Besides, they just might pick a videographer who would put up a good fight.

      On a side note, there’s a few artists who are tired of the RIAA actions, and one in Canada has sued the RIAA. A couple of others have flat out said to the RIAA – “You don’t represent me!”. Among them, Janis Ian (she has a very well written essay on her web site about the RIAA suits) and Country Joe who says he made more money on one concert tour than all his record sales combined.

      The RIAA really pissed off the artists about a year ago when they got a Senator to insert one line into a copyright markup bill that would have defined all works created by the artists as the label’s property by defining anyone under label contract as doing work for hire. Fortunately, that was defeated.

      Steve

    • #191215
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Endeavor Wrote:

      Wether or not anybody ever got sued for it does not indicate wether it’s legal or not. So if you want “evidence”, go read the law. I’m sure you won’t understand it any more than the lawyers don’t.

      Endeavor, like I said, we have talked about the law enough here. My comments was to talk about evidence and the reality of the situation. I am not saying it’s right or wrong, that’s not the issue with my comment.

      Do you have any example cases, evidence, and/or actual facts that you could share with us? Please do. We are ready to read any posts you may have.

    • #191216
      AvatarEndeavor
      Participant

      Do you have any example cases, evidence, and/or actual facts that you could share with us?

      Nope! That was kind of my point. Until a judge rules in a case (which may or may not happen), there is kind of a grey area so all we can do is try to respect other peoples works.

    • #191217
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      No one knows anyone who has been sued by the record industry for putting unlicensed music in a wedding video, let alone any first-hand experience. There have been a few wedding videographers who received C&D letters for the use of unlicensed material on their website. (Stupid)

      As I’ve said before – the whole issue is one that the RIAA is not likely to pursue because a judgement against them is not something they want to risk. According to an IP lawyer that I talked to (unofficially, off the record, at a party…), putting a bride’s music CD on her wedding video has some defensable angles, and the RIAA probably doesn’t want to test them. They go after the defensless ones, the 12-year old kids, the 83-year old grannie and one dead woman. They go after the biggest scare – not unlike the schoolyard bullies who pick on the weakest kids. Suing a 12-year old kid strikes fear into millions of middle-school kids that download illegally. Suing a wedding videographer might scare a few dozen or even a few hundred videographers into finding legal music. Just not enough effect for the potential downside. Besides, they just might pick a videographer who would put up a good fight.

      On a side note, there’s a few artists who are tired of the RIAA actions, and one in Canada has sued the RIAA. A couple of others have flat out said to the RIAA – “You don’t represent me!”. Among them, Janis Ian (she has a very well written essay on her web site about the RIAA suits) and Country Joe who says he made more money on one concert tour than all his record sales combined.

      Steve

      SteveMann, thanks for sharing your comments. Now we are getting somewhere with this discussion.
      Anyone else? Any cases or experiences that you can share with us?

    • #191218
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Got to say I’m a little surprised by the quality of advice offered here about using copyright music.

      While I’m not a lawyer, I am experienced enough in media production to know that it requires 2 licenses… one for the rights to use the music, the other is for the rights to synchronize the music to images.

      They are 2 distinct licenses, and if you’re going to do it right, you need both. That’s why “you can use the bride and grooms original music CD” is bogus… even they don’t have the proper rights (synchronization rights) to set that music to the moving images on the DVD you do for them.

      The choice is still simple, however. You can purchase rights or you can steal. It is true that RIAA probably won’t come after you, but you will still be a thief whether they do or not. If you can live with that, you got it made.

    • #191219
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Way to go Hank!

      Look everyone… while discussing this particular topic on this forum can be very stimulating… (IMO) we’re just making a mountain out of a mole hill. We are talking about using music in a little wedding video of which what maybe youll make 3 to 6 copies of and then you present these to the newlyweds as a memento of their special day. Were not talking about broadcasted syndicated sit-coms or reality shows here.

      What, I listen to the radio and tape a song that was played over the airwaves so I can listen to it when ever I want <OR> I “buy” a CD and use one of those songs and now Im a thief? As was mentioned earlier this is such a gray area that no one even bothers wasting time dealing with it. Im reading this whole post and the bottom line is that there is no bottom line. Theres just a GRAY line. It is fun to read through however. πŸ˜€

      RAM

    • #191220
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      I agree with Hank and RAM. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that any of us have heard of and it is NOT ENFORCED for what we can all clearly see here. Not even ONE SINGLE PERSON has provided one single evidence or proof.

      You can explain the law until you are blue in the face, but that is not going to change things. The only thing that will change this is for the big guys to go after videographers (or others like wedding DVD producers, etc.) using regular music on their videos and/or DVD’s. And for what we can all see, that’s never going to happen.

      Again, we have talked about the law enough here. Let’s get to the REALITY and EVIDENCE of things. We are not arguing what is right or wrong, we are arguing how things REALLY ARE.

      And by the way, just because we are talking about the reality of things, it doesn’t mean that we agree with people using music illegally, ( if it does really matter to the folks NOT doing anything about it to start with ). We are not saying one way or another. We are just talking about how things really are. That’s all. Simple. So let’s not insult each other for no reason. Let’s talk like professionals and mature people. We are here to help and share with each other.

      luke409, if you really want to contribute to this topic and really be productive, don’t just call anyone here a thief. Put your comments into ACTION and provide us with EXAMPLES and EVIDENCE. Any “articles”, “web links”, “reference materials”, “court public records”, etc. that demonstrate that wedding videographers got sued or in trouble because of the use of regular music on their video presentations?
      Let’s see how really good you REALLY are. We will be waiting for your posts.

    • #191221
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      According to my IP lawyer friend, it’s not likely to happen because wedding videographers are a very tiny segment compared to the millions of teens and college kids that they (the RIAA) are trying to scare.

      To this date, no one knows of a single wedding videographer who has heard from the RIAA for including unlicensed works in the weding videos that they produce. Yes, there have been some “cease and desist” letters, but that was for being stupid enough to put demo videos online with unlicensed music.

      Steve

    • #191222
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Wow, quite a reaction. I didn’t mean to be controversial. I assumed most people understood these things. Hopefully, the moderator will not censor these posts as they are very legitimate perspectives, ones newbies should know about.

      As a person who has copyrighted many things, I value copyright. The term means that the owner of the copyright has the right to allow copies to be made. If someone makes a copy without permission or without paying, even one copy, then they have infringed the law. Those of us who have been ripped off, and organzations like the RIAA, sometimes refer to it as theft. Not a pretty word, but there you go.

      Some people claim it is “fair use,” but most professionals in video production know that seldom holds up. You can read the law for yourself at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107—-000-.html

      Don’t know about synchronizations liscenses? Amazing! My search for – “synchronization license” music – on Google yielded 14,400 hits. You can find good summaries at:

      http://www.signature-sound.com/11quest.html#q3
      http://desktopvideo.about.com/od/audio/a/musicrights_RO_2.htm
      http://www.gbod.org/worship/music/mechanical-license.pdf

      There is a good Producers Guide at http://www.copyrightclearinghouse.com/publications_producers_guide.php

      From my knowledge and experience, I do think it is wrong to take something that doesn’t belong to you without paying or without permission when it is required by the laws of our land. I do think the laws I have referenced apply to those who make professional videos, including wedding videos, as referenced in the sites above.

      I am truly sorry if I offended anyone. I just wanted to be a helpful contributor and share my knowledge with others.

    • #191223
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      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

    • #191224
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      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 newbies 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.

    • #191225
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      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.

    • #191226
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      This thread is amazing!

      Here’s a thought and possible solution:

      For the most part Im a person that hates politics and red tape. One of the biggest reasons (IMO) that vid guys dont bother to get the OK to use copywrited material is because its 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 youre using the music for and how may copies youre planning to make. Then everyone would be happy and it would be legal and it wont be a big hassle!

      Yeah No Maybe???

      RAM

    • #191227
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      Video-maniac Wrote:

      For the most part Im a person that hates politics and red tape. One of the biggest reasons (IMO) that vid guys dont bother to get the OK to use copywrited material is because its 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

    • #191228
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      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! 😯

      So if I understand you correctly, I go ahead and use a licensed song in my video. I know its wrong. The License holder is furious of course because I used (stole X-D ) this song BUT… they arent going to do anything because its a big hassle for them to come after little OL’ me. On the other hand Im willing to pay because I want to make just 3 DVDs for a wedding couple but the license holder doesnt want to even talk to me unless it involves 5 figures.

      When you really think about it its a no win scenario. Its almost ridiculous! After going through this whole thread, Im 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.

    • #191229
      AvatarSteveMann
      Participant

      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.

    • #191230
      AvatarEndeavor
      Participant

      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.

    • #191231
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #191232
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      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

    • #191233
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #191234
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      Out with the spammer!

    • #191235
      Avatardnathan
      Participant

      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.

    • #191236
      AvatarAnonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #191237
      AvatarWISKINITA
      Participant

      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………………………. πŸ˜• ……….)

Viewing 40 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Best Products

The best video editing plugins β€” 2021

An essential part of being a post-production specialist is knowing your tools and how to use them. But it is equally important to know when another tool will increase your ability and efficiency.
homicide-bootstrap