I've only run into this once where I did a wedding for a firend and the bride's sister was singing to karaoke. I recorded it as it was part of the reception. I was paid $200 by my friends and distributed 6 DVD's to family members.

I think there are two streams going on here. On the one hand there are dishonest people who will say buy DvdXCopy and then rent videos and copy them. This makes the companies that distribute and create the media justifiably upset.

On the other hand I think their is an over-reaction on their part to, at least legally, make it impossible to ever use their media for any purpose.

In the end I think it's kind of like the IRS. If you owe 200,000 and they know you have resources your file goes to the top of the pile. If you owe 4,000 and your ability to pay is limited your file goes to the bottom of the pile. I have a feeling that what I did puts me at the bottom of the pile. If, however, I had a web site and was trying to sell thousands of copies of a DVD that used music I didn't have rights to, I would probably get a Cease and Desist or worse.

Since I'm not in the business of filming weddings it's not a concern to me at the moment but I can see how this poses a real dilemma if you think you have to tell the bride and groom, "Sorry, can't film the reception unless it's your own original music or you've purchased the rights to the music you want to use!" Uh, huh . . .

Personally, I don't think any arrests are going to be made for a wedding that had copyrighted music playing in the background which gets distributed to close relatives. It would be nice if all that was required in these cases was an aknowlegement of the artists involved in the credits.

The normal train of thought for this (it isn't right or leagal by the way) Is that they are just taping a wedding and making a couple videos or DVD's for the couple so they aren't really mass distributing it or anything like that so most of them "get away" with it. Some of them have the couples sign a contract stating that they are not liable if any legal action arises from the use of copyright material, which really doesn't protect them from anything.

Personally, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories but if I did.....

It could be argued that the current state of affairs regarding the use of copyrighted material in other works is intentionally being held back. After all, let's say some currently unknown body sits down and decides that a fair price for the use of such material should be $5 per track, per copy. Joe Video does the decent thing and buys the rights to copy four tracks for each of three DVD's of a wedding That's $60.

Now, someone has to be paid to administer the system, collect the funds, obtain written permission from the artists etc. etc. Let's say the amount going to the hard-working artist is 50% - $30 in this example.

So far so good, but, let's compare that with what we have today, which basically means no-one is allowed to do it, at all, period. Now those with interest in the material know it's going on, but for the most part can let it slide. Joe Video gets to be incredibly successful and opens a national chain of wedding videographers and starts doing the whole thing texas style. The copyright holders can invoke the giant copyright machine and sue the snot out of JV productions, with little cost and no overhead and make the same amount of money in damages that it would take hundreds if not thousands of single license applications to achieve.

End of conspiracy theory.

It's probably quite easy to don the blinkers and pretend this isn't an issue for anyone trying to earn a crust immortalizing a happy couples special day, provided that you don't get too good at it. I, for one, never expected to see the day where I would become afraid of my own potential success though.

I'm aware of the alternatives, non-copyrighted material, "rolling your own" etc but the fact remains that certain elements are crucial to the acceptability of the finished product to the average consumer. Not having their "special song" being danced to in the video is, I believe, only one such element.

In my particular case, I've been creating concert video's for charity. The school receives all funds above the cost of blank media as a contribution to the school art department. That goes to buying more equipment, fixing up the broken stuff, and generally trying to further the arts in school. As I can't obtain a sync license for the music used, I guess I can't do that anymore either (at least, without looking over my shoulder for the approaching lawyers).

Or am I missing something?

I think it all comes down to money. If the record companies charged a fee they could not charge enough to cover there expenses and remain acceptable to the Public. So rather than allow people to use music legally they would rather it was illegal. So that they could in the future, IF it became Profitable. They STILL hold onto those rights.

I agree with what you and Mark said--I think it comes down to money. Take an even more prevolent example, that of taping a dance recital. I've taped several of them, and only three numbers out of a hundred or more didn't dance to copyrighted music.

Now, I did investigate what it would take to get a sync license and mechanically reproduce the music legally for a limited number of copies of the video that would be sold to parents. The short answer was that I could not obtain a license to use the music since the number of copies sold was too low.

So what does that boil down to? It means that in the strict letter of the law NOBODY could EVER legally videotape a dance recital. Even if you didn't sync the music to an actual CD recording or take a feed of the mixer board, just capturing it with a shotgun microphone would be a violation. Yet how many dance studios have their recitals filmed? How many professional companies (ones with business licenses anyway) would offer the service to the studio if asked, and sell the videos to parents/families? It happens all the time, and will continue to do so.

My personal opinion is that the revenue generated from a small production like a dance recital is insignificant enough that (at present) the legal costs of the licensing paperwork for doing it would easily outweigh the money the music company would make, or make the cost so prohibitive to the videographer that it would be impossible to make money from the production.

It comes down to money. Did the RIAA spend countless dollars going after Kazaa because it was *morally* wrong to download copyrighted music? No, it's because the industry was losing a lot of money because of it. The music industry isn't losing a significant amount of money off of small productions like weddings and dance recitals, and since no inexpensive and easy way of licensing copyrighted material currently exists, I think it will continue to stay under the radar for quite some time.

-Brent

Somebody could make an awful lot of money if they took the time an energy to negotiate with the rightsowners for licenses for the more popular songs used at weddings. They could then provide a music library to wedding videographers, charging, an appropriate fee for the use of the recordings.

For recordings that could not be licensed, they could hire musicians to perform them.

Just a thought.

Travis
Travis Voice Services
www.Announcing.biz

--

>and since no inexpensive and easy way of licensing copyrighted material currently exists, I think it will continue to stay under the radar for quite some time.

So I wonder how we could go about changing that.

I really should go look this up again so please excuse me if the details aren't quite right but when I first got Vegas+DVD, I was anxious to find out how I could use the Dolby Digital logo in my artwork. It turns out that for runs under 500 copies, you can just go ahead and use it. Another tier kicked in after that where Dolby Labs charged a fee. Large production runs require the finished article to be sent to Dobly Labs for approval (they do have a reputation to protect after all). I like that!

Legally, there is no question. No license? Can't do it! Simple as that. But morally, I think things are a bit more complicated than that. I don't see it as reasonable to deny the sale of a license because the production run is too small, then proecute the offender for not having a license! There is no difference to the copyright holder whether short runs are illegal or free - they ain't making money from it either way. So, if Fair Use was to be extended to cover this, everyone would be happy right?

I'm sure the music industry has looked at this at least a little bit before deciding it's not cost effective to implement a licensing scheme. Then again, I hear that Hollywood and the music industry have determined that all consumers are thieves so perhaps they never even looked at it seriously.

Of COURSE the music industry has, and is STILL looking at means of licensing. I'm on the NARAS board for my area, this is discussed ALL the time. NARAS hired me to write the article you see on the Sundance site.
When someone comes up with a model that allows artists to maintain control of their music, generate revenue without a lot of front end costs, publishing companies to receive revenues...then there will be a mechanism to do this.
BTW, for those that keep blaming the record companies, this has nothing to do with them. It's a publishing issue. Most record companies also have publishing arms. Many musicians, myself included, don't use the publishing arms of the record company they are signed with. I'm signed with Virgin. I don't use any of their publishing arms. I have a third party publisher. When you buy a record of my music and use it on a music video, it's not the record company's rights being violated. It's mine and the publishers. Has nothing to do with the "Big bad record companies" that everyone keeps talking about.
And for the comments that "I think it's about money..." OF COURSE IT IS! Isn't everything?

You could do this.

All the songs (like CD title songs) you use in your wedding video, you order a copy online at like imusic.com (or whatever service)

If you deliver 6 copies - you order/download 6 seperate transactions for the song - matching the order#s up with DVD case

sure its not techinically "legal" but it is fair - and don't think you would have to worry about "the man" coming down on you for doing that - and if they did, they would really come off like A-holes for coming down on a small time wedding video guy making his best effort to be honest about it.

A simple solution for your copyright woes is to buy suitable wedding type music from Music 2 Hues and Fresh. M2H has at least one disc specifucally for weddings and sevetal of the Romantic genre. Fresh has a few romantic discs and, I think, a couple of classic compilations, possibly including the Bridal march. In my life I have done about four weddings, all for friends, and for the last two made it clear up front that I would not under any circumstances re-record anything I don't hold a license for. Sure, they are a tad disappointed not being able to include "Endless Love" or whatever but I am not risking being sued because in Canada there is no minimum fine for one's first convicion of copyright violation.

Peter

You really nailed it right on the head.

The whole purpose of copyrights is to protect royalty rights, e.g., money.

If you put a Liz Phair song on a wedding video, ASCAP is not going to sue you. It will cost them more money to file a claim than what they could rightfully claim in damages from you.

This doesn't mean its not a copyright violation; but you have a much better chance of finding Osama Bin Laden in your closet than being sued over such a thing.

-nate-

For the post regarding "isn't there someone who can put together a system that sells a license and provides adequate compensation to the artists" (I'm paraphrasing here), check out Magnatune.com. They have about 100 artists and the organizer sells licenses with 50% of the proceeds passed to the artists. You can preview the music beforehand.

from their site:

"Music licensing with Magnatune is 100% automated and on-line, with no tedious negotiating. In a few minutes, you'll have a CD-Quality WAV file of the music you need, and a valid legal agreement for your project.

Whether you're making a radio ad, a video for your company, flash presentation, video game, or something else, Magnatune makes the music licensing process easy, inexpensive, fair and fast.

And remember, by licensing music through Magnatune you're doing a good deed, because all our artists receive 50% of the license fee"

> Now, I did investigate what it would take to get a sync license and mechanically reproduce the music legally for a limited number of copies of the video that would be sold to parents. The short answer was that I could not obtain a license to use the music since the number of copies sold was too low.

This sounds like the heart of the problem to me. We need a law that declares that if a publisher determines that your use of their music is too small to warrant a license, then they have just given up that license to you. (i.e, they have given up their right to prosecute you as well because you are too small to prosecute) It must be fair for all and not favor big productions. I would bet you could take them to court on discrimination charges. They are limiting your ability to compete in business purely on the size of your company productions.

Perhaps the copyright laws should delineate between private copies (i.e., copies for hire like wedding videos) and public copies (i.e., copies for general sale) and add a number limit such that any number of copies below that limit for a private work does not require a sync license, and only require that you legally own a copy of the music for each copy you make. This seems to allow the wedding video scenario to be legal.

> And for the comments that "I think it's about money..." OF COURSE IT IS! Isn't everything?

Spot, I think you’ll agree that one thing is not always about money, and that’s making a derivative work (i.e., sync rights) using your music for a cause that you don’t agree with. If someone was to make a video of a topic you disagree with, perhaps promotion of the deforestation of the rain forests, or promoting destruction of animals for human profit, and set the video to your music, you would want the right to say “no way, not my music”. So its not always about money when it comes to sync rights because a derivative work is involved. So some of it is about money and some of it is about retaining creative control.

~jr

Let me get some clarification...

I understand that if I edit a song into a wedding production, it can be considered a violation.

But, If I am recording the couple dancing... or anyone for that matter and the DJ plays the music in the back ground, is that still violatiing the law. I don't thing it is...

Opinions?

Thanks

FWIW, I think that you can contact the Harry Fox Agency and for a fee of $40.00 ~ 50.00 you can get permission to use a popular commercial song and make and sell / distribute up to 500 copies.

Other options would be to contact ASCAP or BMI

Peace,
Johnny Philko
http://www.JohnnyPhilko.org

I am not a lawyer, but I believe if its just part of a song you are OK. But if you record the wedding couple dancing to the complete rendition of “You are the wind beneath my wings” then you are in trouble. While the DJ needs a license to play the music live, you need a license to reproduce it in its entirety in a video that you are selling. So I believe technically you need to secure the rights to redistribute that song in your production. That’s why the copyright laws need to be changed or blanket licenses need to be made available to event videographers just like DJ’s have. If a law is impossible to comply with, it needs to changed.

~jr

I've decided that allowing you to use my car is too expensive for me because of the wear and tear, and devaluation of the car. Therefore, the new law says I have to give you my keys.....See, the law views copyright as a tangible property. And NO law will ever be passed forcing me to give you my tangible property.
Tadpole, your point is completely off-base, because buying the 6 copies of a song from one place or another doesn't grant you sync license to use them. Please, guys, understand that a sync license is a totally different animal. You get NO sync license when you buy a tune on a CD or on iTunes or anywhere else. Only the publisher can grant you a sync license. Not the record company, not the producer, not even the artist.
Regarding magnatune, I think at that level, it's a rip off. I get 85% of the money in my sync licenses from my publisher. They charge a 15% admin fee. I grant them an additional 10% for placement in films of XXX value such as Hidalgo or Samurai. So, Magnatune pays 50%....Artist would be better off with a real publisher.

You are reading Spot's responses to this aren't ya?

BMI, ASCAP, the actual artist - they cannot grant the permission required. Only the publisher can do that.

10 seconds of a song through a microphone at the reception has the same legal status as resampling the entire song from CD - it's currently illegal. (So based on the idea that you might as well be hung for sheep as for a lamb.....)

Question for Spot: How does this work regarding public performances for DJ's? Couldn't we simply adopt a similar scheme?

For clarity, I don't want free access to your car keys - I want an opportunity to ask to borrow the car. I'll pay for gas and anything you think I need to contribute to wear and tear. I'll even have a sticker in the window saying "This is Spot's car".

[edit\I just took a bath and had a think about all this (I do my best thinking in the tub, must have a couple of Greek genes or something).

The analogy with the car is somewhat flawed. A closer analogy would, I think, be that Spot's publisher is a large car rental agency. They will rent cars to anyone, ONLY if they take a minimum of 500 cars in one go. I, on the other hand, have been walking all day and I want to drive to a hotel. The publisher says "Sorry - you need to rent at least 500 cars, it's not worth the paperwork to rent out just one car". I'm preprared to pay to rent the car. So, either I walk to the hotel, or steal a car (outside in the lot, I notice that all the car doors are open and they all have the keys in 'em) There are no taxi's that will get me where I need to be.

There is a horse, but it's dead (I have no musical talent)[/edit]

I beleve DJ's work uder the whole radio station like payment scheme. On the other hand most clubs are already under that so when a DJ spins music at a club the music he plays falls uder the whole agreeemnt the club has. Somewhere in the past it was brought up about bands who play cover tunes and how that works out in clubs. I mentioned an old club where they wanted bands to only play original songs because they did *not* have an agreement with ASCAP/BMI. My point is that not every club has an agreement, but most live music clubs do.

One thing that always ends up being left out of these threads is the "other side" so to speak. Publishing is probably the most common thread with all of it because one would be stupid to not have it...because the real money is in publishing. But - An artist does have permission to grant someone rights to use their song. A record label does have a right to grant permission to someone the rights to use their recording of that song. Pretty much everything else is publishing and you don't always need permission from the publisher to use it, you just need to pay them. And please before anyone comments - just re-read that because it does follow a progression.

I feel I will need to clarify all of that so before I have to do it, I will do it. (??) So - if I go to Spot or the band Johnny Philko and hire them to create some music for a film I may want to do it as a 'work for hire' and in doing so I may state that I will control the publishing on this piece. It means that I would be the person to say who gets what - in reguards to publishing. I may do it under my own name or I may opt to allow someone else to do it. Now that piece of music may end up on a soundtrack. You would not ask me for permission to play or use that recording unless it was on my label. Follow me so far? Now the artist on all of this has no say because it was work for hire meaning that I paid them to do it for me. (To be fair - I normally do not ask for exclusive rights, I normally say non-exclusive...this is because I am not in the business of screwing over people. On the other hand I am also not in the business of paying someone hundreds of thousands of dollars for music. Not that I wouldn't, just that I don't - and that is the trade off. Get your music in a project and keep your rights, put it on your CD, make a video and promote - whatever) So in this case "The artist has no say" would apply.

Now - if you like a song on the new live Shakira CD and you want to use it Shakira could say "Sure" but unless she owns the recording of that song the best she could say "sure" to would be for her to come over and record a version of it just for you. (And who wouldn't want Shakira hanging out at there place to record? I would pay just to have her come over and play PS2 with me) Now that doesn't mean that you have now made a 'work for hire', it just means you now have a new mechanical recording of the song you like with Shakira singing it. Publishing would still have to be delt with and in this case the label would as well because it isn't the norm to re-record a current song by the same artist for someone else. Moving on - Now say that Shakira and the label both tell you to take a hike because you want to put "Underneath your Cloths" on a video for your parents 50th anniversy and they can't make money from it. No worries really - just go out and have the neighbors sons band play while Aunt Minnie sings and record a version of the song and use that on the video. Now all you have to deal with the the publishing on it. ..this is done all the time...back to the whole cover band discussion. For better or for worse an artist doesn't have too much say in who can do covers of their songs. I highly doubt Shakira spoke with Angus Young to get permission to do "Back in Black" in concert any more than Human Drama or The Wallflowers spoke with David Bowie before they did "Heros" and likewise they didn't have to get permission from the publisher either in order to do it or record it.

"But what about sync licenses?" Well...follow what I have been saying - publishing is the thread really. 1> You can't afford the real artist to do the music 2> You can't afford the actual recording so what is left? To do it a version yourself. And you want to put your version in afilm. And than you want to put it on a soundtrack. Publishing. And from the start I have said you would still have to deal with that. Doing a cover tune you don't need to get permission but you do have to pay the piper so to speak. When a high school marching band plays music the school has paid publishing on that music - and that most of the time includes public performance. High school plays - same thing. The issues we always discuss seem to come under these types of things - "I want to video tape my kids musical, you mean I can't?" To me that isn't the real issue - it is going from just taping it for you, to selling that tape at a local fund raiser that is the real issue. If the juinor class did "Mamma Mia" and sold videos of it after they woud not be selling the play as much as they would be selling the music of ABBA. There is a good reason why most schools end up doing plays and musicals that are 'old' - the publishing/performance rights on current stuff is way too expensive. Having said that I highly doubt that too many courts would hear a case where a band shows up and played their own music but didn't pay themselves publishing. Putting said show on film/video/CD and selling said performance - back to publishing again. So it falls back to what I first said - yes an artist can give permission. It they own their publishing they can deal with that as well. Do they have their own label? Well hey - there you go. The artists can give it to you all. But it doesn't always happen that way.

Music cue sheets are there for a reason when it comes to film and TV. Radio stations do playlists for a reason as well. This aids in tracking music. One could argue that if you are in the business of creating Video yearbooks, wedding videos, video family albums and (yes they exist) funeral videos/memorial videos than you could just try to pay monthly the same way clubs, radio stations, tv stations and other public venues do. Every time you use music you track it, put it on a play list and send it off with your check to ASCAP and/or BMI if you are in the US. Could this be done? Sure it could - but it isn't the norm. And it also doesn't fall into that whole fair use/promotion/publicity vibe either. Airplay on a radio station and in clubs equals sales. Music beds under news storys can be looked at in a few ways - from news to promotion. My opinion is that if all the schools, wedding videographers, those who are married and so on all start lobbying their congressmen we might see some notice about it - the concept being that for years and years people will look at this video and remember that moment as captured/presented on the tape and chances are they will go out and buy, maybe even re-buy, the tapes/cds that music is on. So like radio ariplay having a song played at a wedding and being left on a video may not have the huge market share but it is longer lasting for sure. I would almost look at it as promotion - same as having a party and tossing on the new Courtney Love CD...at some point someone is either going to say "Hey this rocks? Who is this?" or "Good lord that singer can't sing. Who is this?".

I don't use Acid but many many people do..why? Because you can get pros to help score your music at a fraction of the cost. Maybe Spot isn't there playing flute for you nor is Mick Fleetwood sitting there laying down the drum tracks while Rudy Sarzo keeps the low end groove going but chances are you couldn't really afford them anyway. So here you have a chance to mix n match styles and musicians and use them over and over and over again with no headaches. You don't need to worry about so many huge musical egos (JOKE!!) (Well, ok all except Spot - his ego is just out of control! It is always the drummer and flute players I tell you!) (Ok - not really, drummers are just...well they bang on things with sticks for a living, need I say more) (Ok...enough musician jokes...really) in one room, you just get their loop CD's and create. Cheaper in the long run and you get top notch musicans to help you out.

But you don't want to create music yourself - you really really want to use "Highway to Hell" on that wedding video but you can't afford it. Well, I am sure you will be able to find some local band willing to play it for you. If you want to record it and have them sign off on it all you have to do is play the publishing. Face it - you probably are not going to get the recording and artist you want, but too many people just forget about all the "sound a like" options...or just cover tune band options. ('Kids Bop' anyone?)

> See, the law views copyright as a tangible property

I see what you’re saying. It’s like a duplicating house that only accepts orders of greater than 1000 units because of their cost of tooling. The guy that can’t afford to place a 1000 item order gets left out. One problem though, is that copyrights are not as tangible as the car in your example. While I’m using your car you cannot. But copyrights can be using by everyone in the world simultaneously and it cost you almost nothing for me to use them.

If I understand the spirit in which you intended your example, its that your cost of doing business was too large to warrant a request so small, and I agree that doesn’t give me the right to steal it. Point well taken. So in effect you’re saying that paperwork (the only cost I can see) is too costly for the publisher to deal with small requests, but it sure would be nice if there were a minimal fee that could cover those requests that are too costly to track otherwise.

This is similar to when a company realizes it cost $50 to process an expense account. It no longer makes sense to ask an employee to submit an expense account for a $25 dinner since it will cost the company more to process it than its worth. So what do they do? They determine that anything less than $50 comes out of petty cash and they handle petty cash requests in a more efficient manner. (perhaps batch process by department monthly).

The solution then is to reduce the cost of doing business for publishers. What is needed is a clearinghouse that would license works to smaller businesses (i.e., private works with limited quantity and non-public distribution) for a flat rate. Spot, do you think that this would work, or am I missing something?

Let’s face it, people are using these works right now in every wedding video in the country and no one is getting paid for it. If someone says no to a bride because they have scruples, the bride just goes to the next vedographer who will use the music she wants. It’s the Napster of the wedding industry. So how did they solve the Napster problem? Offer a flat fee service so at least the artists and publishers make some money from it.

~jr

Can someone please post the URL to this article?

Thanks,

From the Harry Fox Agency site:
"The Harry Fox Agency, Inc discontinued synchronization license services in June 2002."

They suggest you visit, for example, ASCAP's site. From their site:
"ASCAP offers two types of license agreements for commercial radio stations.

The Blanket License is intended for stations that broadcast music frequently. The annual fee is a percentage of the station's annual revenues and is billed monthly. The rate for 1996 through 2000 is 1.615% for stations that have annual gross revenue over $150,000 or a minimum of 1% of adjusted gross income. For stations that bill less than $150,000 there is a flat fee schedule:

< 50,000 [cost] $450

50,001 - 75,000 [cost] $800

75,001 - 100,000 [cost] $1,150

100,001 - 125,000 [cost] $1,450

125,001 - 150,000 [cost] $1,800

Why not do something like this for "low budget producers"?

J--