http://www.digitalproducer.com/2004/02_feb/features/02_09/copyright_caveats.htm

Thanks

Having now read the article, rather than comments about it, the copyright law in the US is the same as everywhere else ... thankfully

I was worried for a moment then ;-)

I am amazed about the general lack of knowledge on this subject though...

And in that thread, you showed the RIGHT way to do this, by asking permission of the publisher and label. However, I'll be shocked if the label gets back with you.

This seems to be degenerating into a discussion of whether the concept of copyright is a good idea or not - not my intention when I started the thread.

Spot - you mention that you disgreed with the idea that it could cost $100 and upwards just for an attorney to even look at a sync license application. You mention your own desire to have access to works other than your own when working with video. You agree that it's all about the money. Then here you are saying it's all about control. So it's all about the money and all about the control. I'm not going to get into a debate as to how unfair it may seem for those talented enough to be able to exercise such a level of control is, compared with how the rest of the world works (meaning if you build something today, you get paid today and it's all over with).

The fact remains, however, that the illegal status of all this does not change the reality that you simply do not have the level of control you wish for. If one of your tracks ends up on somone's wedding video and you weren't asked, chances are you'd never know it. So how does keeping it illegal help you? From what I've seen so far, legal status doesn't bear much of a deterrent factor.

Your argument that this only becomes an issue for you when your work is used in video is also a little difficult for me to grasp. Undertandably, you don't want people making porn movies to your work. But what about all those ssleazy joints in the inner cities, playing your music to entertain the, erm, guests? On moral grounds, doesn't that strike the same chord (no pun intended)?

I'm not trying to trip you up here, really, I'm not. If it was just a money issue, the question must be asked "why hasn't this been resolved already?" After all, a web site taking online applications by credit card, linked to a database of music publishers and a flat fee would result in a nice, steady revenue stream wouldn't it.

If you bring control into the mix though (npi), the whole landscape changes. And, perhaps inevitably, questions concerning whether or not such a level of control is, in of itself, fair becomes the context in which the debate continues. I'm not going there.

The issue of control doesn't seem to be that difficult of an issue to surmount either. I don't recall offhand which music site similar Magnatune I as reading, but in their FAQ and terms of use it was expressly forbidden to use their music in adult videos. If a service such as been discussed were to be available, it would be easy enough for an artist to assign what their music could be used for and what it couldn't.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

> After all, a web site taking online applications by credit card, linked to a database of music publishers and a flat fee would result in a nice, steady revenue stream wouldn't it.

That was my idea exactly. Automate the process and make money from the volume of transactions.

> If a service such as been discussed were to be available, it would be easy enough for an artist to assign what their music could be used for and what it couldn't.

Yea, we have programs like WeBlocker and CyberPatrol that use active content filtering to keep objectionable web sites from our children’s PC’s. We just need a MusicPatrol system to do the same filtering to requests for sync licenses. I mean, you’re gonna ask these people a set of questions and make your judgment base on their answers. Why not just automate the control process. Have them answer a questionnaire that is matched against your preference profile and give them an answer on-line, take their credit card and be done with it. I think its technically feasible to automate the whole process including sync rights.

~jr

Ah, but this subject makes my head hurt. My husband and I are both strong supporters of protected intellectual property rights, since we want our own to be protected we believe that it's only fair to exchange the favor. I didn't have the luxury of starting with Spot's excellent article, so it took me a long time, and tremendous head-aches to get to the bottom line, it can't be done.

That said, I thought that playing our own version of a popular song and then synching it to a video was just as much in violation as ripping the original, I mean it's recognizably such and such popular song isn't it?

If not, if **all** I have to do is get my husband to play the song I want, how do we go about paying the publishing company? And for that matter, finding the publishing company? This is probably all very easy for those of you in the trade, but to me its not, and it makes my head hurt!

Take two examples. First, "What a wonderful world". According to library of congress, it was originally copyright in 1967 and published by Range Road Music. It's been covered many times since then, most recently by Sarah Brightman. The Harem CD credits the publishers Warner Chappel and Abilene Music. In mpa.org, I can't find Range Road Music, and Abilene Music doesn't have a (listed) website, but when I go to Warner Chappel, it lists 4 publishers, none of which is them. So how would I find the publishing company to pay them, and how much would they charge?

Actually, I've decided to probably skip the second example, it was going to be Toby Keith's Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue. It lists Tokeko Tunes/BMI or Tokeko Tunes/Big Yellow Dog as the publisher, of which I can only find BMI, and they of course don't do synch licenses.

Playing devils advocate, can we define synch license in the current day and age of internet media? For example, Higher Octave and others do "music" cards. A user selects an image, composes a written message and picks the music to accompany the image and message. Now, this isn't radio, there's a visual image that goes with it. It seems that BMI, ASCAP, HFA, and all are starting to get into licensing for music cards, and for background music on an internet site. Internet site? Well, there's images on an internet site.

So, suppose some *er adult content web site decide to actually go through with the license fees and reporting requirements to have one of Spot's tunes playing on their site. This apparently isn't currently defined as a synch license, but it certainly does contradict the theory of artist control.

Frankly, from what I saw about the license fees for the "new internet media", I think that BMI, ASCAP, HFA, etc need to get their heads on straight. For cryin out load, HFA takes you through this long convoluted online license application, asking all sorts of personal information and THEY DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO USE SECURE SOCKETS.

This thread started about event videos, specifically delivered on DVD. But, as times are changing and more people are getting high speed internet access, that bride and groom are going to be asking for a short (< 5 min) montage of the best of the wedding DVD to post on a website and share with friends and family. And, they'll want music to go along with it. I think it was Spot who pointed out the famous saying that audio is 70% of the visual experience. We've been trained to expect it, and the world that is out there creating videos right now expects it, and for the most part, includes whatever music they want in their online videos. It's folks like us that care, that don't want to be another napster. I've even stumbled across a few individual video oriented websites that encourage their users to use Microsoft Movie Maker or muvee to add music to their videos or photo slideshows.

My husband and I are software developers, and we used to write and distribute small software programs. We figure that we've probably been paid for 1 out of a 100 users. So, to Spot and the other musicians, please take the next in spirit. I think that as upseting as Napster et al was to the music industry, the end result was a good thing. Now, if I want to buy digital tunes to load on my Compact IPac, I can log onto walmart or amazon, or several other places and buy them for .99 or so. Heck, for .99 I rather pay the money than spend the time ripping. In the days of napster, someone who wanted digital music, and didn't have the ability to rip their own, did without or used napster. The music industry certainly believes that most people used napster. I don't know, so I don't have an opinion.

I do however, believe that **most** people want to do the decent, respectable and honest thing. Provided that doing so doesn't cost the first born or is too difficult. I suspect that the growth of the internet video and moving images relavation is going to be spawning a new riff in the music industry. I don't want to be a napster, but on the other hand, I don't much care for telling people "No, I can't use your favorite tune, or telling the local high school band, no I can't create an internet video of you playing the theme song to the pirates of the caribbean" knowing that if they call the next person on the list, that person is likely to say, "sure, why not?"

Um, I think I'll go off now and treat my aching head to a fine glass of wine setting in front of a nice music DVD!

Dianne

> I don't want to be a napster, but on the other hand, ...

Actually I used Napster as a success story. Napster is now a legitimate business and you can download tunes for $.99 or whole albums for $9.99. This IS what you what. A way to easily get a license to use music for a specified purpose that is approved by the copyright owners.

> I don't much care for telling people "No, I can't use your favorite tune, or telling the local high school band, no I can't create an internet video of you playing the theme song to the pirates of the caribbean" knowing that if they call the next person on the list, that person is likely to say, "sure, why not?"

I agree and perhaps we need to take a more radical approach. The artist would be nothing with its public. So lets educate the public on which artists are dead-beats for sync rights. The artist promotes their songs that people fall in love with and want on their wedding video and then the artist (through the publisher) says no you can’t. So we should educate the public on what artists refuse sync rights to schools and wedding videographers so that the buying public can decide what music to listen to and buy based on whether or not that artists will let them use their music in a wedding video or perform at their local church or school function. Let’s not make the videographer the “bad guy”. Boycott the artists and send a clear message that if you are going to infuse your music into my life, you must allow me to use it as I document my life’s memories. (for a fee of course) ;)

(I know it’s the publisher who has the control, but it’s the artist who makes the music in question. They need to have better control over publishing because it’s their own audience that gets hurt in the end!)

~jr

<<I do however, believe that **most** people want to do the decent, respectable and honest thing.>>
No, they don't. It took lawsuits galore to get the use rate of Kazaa and Morpheus to go down and now the use rate exceeds what it did prior to the lawsuits. The next wave is coming soon. Regarding videographers, no, they don't either. Just look at the justifications here in this and dozens of other threads that seem to rear head every 45 days. Each one of them devolves into a "I'm not gonna get caught" "I'm too small to be prosecuted" "They make too much money anyway" "I'm screwing the record company not the artist" "The artist would probably let me use it anyhow" "I'll lose business if I don't do it" "The law is stupid and so it's OK for me to break it" "It's too damn difficult so I'll take my chances." It's not constructive excepting one single post where the videographer went to the publisher and writer and asked about a song. They gave permission, the owner of the master recording hasn't yet. But he went and did the right thing. And if they say "no" then he'll abide by that instead of stealing it anyway. My God, just listen to half of you! Justifying theft. In any of these statements, subsitute the word "song" with Vegas. Substitute "label or artist" with Sony. Steal Vegas from Sony. They make it too hard to buy extra use copies, so I'm gonna use one from Kazaa or whereever.

Most folks apparently think the artist or publisher or whomever owes them something. Like hell they do! The artist sells you a product. You decide that product is wonderful and part of the soundtrack of your life. But the artist only sold you the right to LISTEN to the product, not go out and make a derivitave of it that could well devalue it in certain circumstances. Led Zepplin is famous for saying that they don't want the impact of their music watered down by being synched to low end video. I get letters every week from someone who has had a great experience in their life listening to my music. That makes me proud. But if they used my music to make a video of that great experience and sold it for profit, I'd be very angry.

Hmmmm.....The opening of MI2 was shot in my backyard, so was The Last Crusade, ConAir, Independence Day, Young Guns, City Slickers to name but a few. The cinematography is amazing. I could never afford to shoot anything that elaborate or cool, assuming I have the talent to do so. Why don't I just take sections of those movies and use them in my video projects? I mean...Spielberg wouldn't mind, would he? He'd probably allow me to use it, right? He owes me that right anyway since I live here, watched them film it, I pay the taxes to support the system that allowed him to come here anyway.
Would YOU ever do a commercial project containing Hollywood-owned video? Of course not.
So....what's the difference? Of course it's hard to get permission to use a top notch artist recording that cost (usually) at minimum 50K to record. Just like it would be expensive to get rights to use Spielberg's work. If you wanna use video from a small, PBS project, you probably can get permission fairly easily. Just like if you wanna use a cover version of a big song, permission is easy to get. There are tiers in this business. You don't get to do uncompressed HD unless you pony up the price. You want to do uncompressed HD because it's the best. Well...same goes for using the music. You want the best, pony up the cost. If you can't, then don't steal it.
It's easy to justify. But it's still theft. If you wanna steal to support your wedding video or event video business, fine. But be able to admit you are a thief, and deal with it. Don't justify it. There are lots of things I want in this world but can't have because I can't afford them. I wish I had a Honda Rune..but can't justify the 28K that they cost. I want a new Boxx uncompressed HD system. I want Sting to play on my new record. I can't afford these things. Maybe I should go steal them? After all, Honda makes too much profit, Boxx would give me the system if they understood who I really am in the market, and Sting, well....he's a musician. He'd understand me sampling him and putting him in my project, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe the new definition of honesty and integrity should be "I could justify it in the end, even though it was technically illegal/wrong/immoral/deceitful/whatever.
BTW, I went to a church service last night where they'd illegally used a Europe song, "Final Countdown" in a youth video presentation. When I casually commented to the minister about it, he responded with, "Well, since it's for the youth and God, I'm sure they'd let us use it." Ahh...now it's OK for God to steal too. Maybe THAT'S the right justification.

For those that use the "I won't get caught" theory....If you are in a store while the owner is in the restroom, so you won't get caught stealing a candy bar, is it really stealing? Even if you are really, really hungry? Or if you take that candy bar out on the street and sell it? Is it theft?
Maybe I'm just an old fart raised in the wrong time where taking something without permission was considered stealing. I know that I sure get a headache reading these threads. It makes me lose faith in humanity.

All right, well as much as we would like to comply with the expectations that the law has for us. Its not that easy.

I want to revisit the fact that a person can not film an event, and actually leave any PA or DJ music legally on their recording.

Let me use an example if I understand this correctly ( I may not). Lets say on September 11, 2001 someone was standing out side taping the terrorist attack and a car drives by with the music up very loud. You here a popular song and it is recorded to tape. Now this tape is distributed to the networks and it is fair to say that big 3 would pay money for the tape.

Am I understanding that if the tape was played in its original recording, that a copyright law has been broken. We don't force... we don't ask for the music to be played... its part of the live event... its the way it was.

This would be no different then when weddings are filmed, graduations, etc.

I clearly understand that if we produce a piece of video and add the music inpost production into it, we need need permission.

Set me straight,

Chad

Buy acid

write your own romantic music

sync it to your heart's content

end of story

The next time someone in your family marries, hire a videographer. Don't ask him/her to include music, they'll do that anyway. Try to pick videographers that are as well known as you can. Communicate this to as many friends so we can organize a nice co-ordinated effort. After you get the DVD/Tape/Whatever media, contact an attorney and sue them. Make a nice big public display of it all. Those people in the business with a conscience will promptly drop out - some of those thinking about entering it will simply give up like I am, and find something else to do. That only leaves the real sleazoids behind and they'll be easy to round up.

Or, have a big expose on "Shame on You". Start with the line "Think your wedding video is legal --Think Again!". All of those customers with a conscience will stop having video's done. The rest are sleaze bags and deserve jail anyway.

Done right - you could shut down an entire industry pretty quickly. End of problem!

I agree with you on this though Spot - I too am losing my faith in humanity.

Although I have been as guilty as anyone here, in the past, I have to agree with Spot on this one.

Like it or not, the law is what it is. We all know this. Using copyrighted music without permission in the videos we make--for any reason--is breaking the law. It is stealing, period.

While working on a documentary, the actor Clark Gable was mentioned (his involvement in this particular history was prior to his becoming a star). I wanted to use a shot, about 5 or 6 seconds, from Gone With the Wind where Rhett is first introduced. He's standing at the foot of the grand staircase looking up the stairs with his broad smile as the camera trucks towards him.

I contacted the legal department at Turner Pictures. They were more than happy to grant me permission to use the clip. All I had to do was pay them $7,000. My whole budget wasn't even a fraction of that! Needless to say, I didn't use the shot.

Did I think they were being unreasonable? Yes. Did I think they were being greedy? Yes. Do you think they cared what I thought? No.

Like Spot said, that's just one of the facts of life. If you want to play with the Big Boys, you'll have to have the bank account to get you into the game.

J--

No, in this you are incorrect. The 9/11 event is a news story, and ancillary music is covered under Fair use. A wedding with a DJ is a different story. And frankly, the issue of shooting an event where there is music playing, so long as the music is not clean into the camera (wired to a mix console) and it's ambient, and the video has not been edited to the music but rather the music is incidental, it would probably come under De Minimus, because removing the music would devalue the conversation or dialog taking place. Even if say....25 copies were created of the wedding or event, it would probably still fall under this umbrella. But it's still illegal. The problem isn't so much the ancillary music. The problem is the guy that goes and buys a Whitney Houston CD, rips it, and then uses "I Will Always Love You" as the underscore of the video. A Vegas user here on the forums recently sent me a tape to see if I could figure out why his system was having a problem. The tape is a TOTALLY illegal project, where he's duplicating 100 copies containing 11 ripped songs, video cut in time to the music. It's very good work. Too bad it's illegal. He could have accomplished the same effect using stock music, cover copies, or music from ACID or Sonic Fire Pro.

>>>Let me use an example if I understand this correctly ( I may not). Lets say on September 11, 2001 someone was standing out side taping the terrorist attack and a car drives by with the music up very loud. You here a popular song and it is recorded to tape. Now this tape is distributed to the networks and it is fair to say that big 3 would pay money for the tape.<<<

That part is fine, remember what you said here - "a car drives by".

>>>Am I understanding that if the tape was played in its original recording, that a copyright law has been broken.<<<

No it hasn't. Spot covers this in his article and has talked about this in several threads. And what you mention is even less of what he has discussed because in your scneario a car drives by with music on, so said music would not be on the track for any longer than a few seconds.

I will even go a bit further in what you have said - if you brought that tape to the networks and they aired it chances are you would never hear the natural sound because you would have some comintator blabbing over it. I know people who shot video on September 11 and many of them had their footage aired on the networks and none of them were paid money. CNN ran one guys footage over and over and over again because it showed the 2nd plane. CNN has never paid him "over and over and over" again and CNN never ran the natural audio.

Damn Spot - if only I typed faster I would have posted almost the same answer before you!! Forever walking in your shadow is where I am doomed to tread. LOL.

<<<how do we go about paying the publishing company? And for that matter, finding the publishing company? >>>

When you buy the sheet music it will tell you who the publisher is. I am guessing you would also have a CD/Tape/Album with the music on it as well so that should also tell you who the publisher is. ASCAP and BMI both have searchable databases as well. Once you have the contact info you contact them and set up the payment method.

>>>I know that I sure get a headache reading these threads. It makes me lose faith in humanity.<<<

And you don't feel the same way when you turn on the news?

Spot and everyone thanks for the information. (Spot your article is great).

It is a challenge to get a grasp around the laws and the number of specifics, depending on the scenario that is taking place. The law is complex and that is unfortunate.

This is a good thread and one that will be revisited again and again. For doing independent projects I am very comfortable, and will keep it simple by using royalty free music. Its the occasional weddings or school plays that get my attention and I want to comply to the laws as best as possible.

Thanks

SPOT, the one thing you bring to this topic that few of us do is that you ARE a music artist, and therefore know firsthand what it's like to have this happen to you. I'm a software developer as well as a fledgling video producer, so I know the fear of having someone casually copy my work for the simple fact that they can. They don't respect the work that went into creating the product.

You said it yourself, it all comes down to money. For weddings, any company who insists on doing the right thing and not using copyrighted music will not be in business long. The bride/groom will insist on their copyrighted wedding song being used, the company will refuse because of copyright law, and the couple will just hire the next company in the phone book that doesn't have a problem with it. That's sad and it sucks. It sucks that the law-abiding company goes broke because the unscrupulous one gets all the business. But it's reality.

In the case I raised of dance recitals, parents could really care less what the music is their kids are dancing to. They want to see their children in the limelight. But once the choreographer chooses the song, the videographer is stuck with it. What's the solution? The music can't be licensed right now. I know. I tried. So the next thing to do is tell every parent in America that no more dance recital videos will be shot. It's just not going to happen for the same reasons mentioned above, so we need to find a way for the artist to benefit. If you think I'm content with the state of things, wrong. If you think I'm trying to justify an action, wrong. I'm lobbying for a solution.

At least the people in this thread and others like it care enough to truly see where they stand and try to understand right and wrong--and move for a change. It's the people who AREN'T here that are the Kazaa users.

(Oh no, another long one. Sorry.)

I agree with that Maestro and it is sort of the core of the thread I started the other day about "How far is too far". On the whole music side I tend to use Spot a lot in what I say here because he is one of the people here who can spek out for himself on the topic. I mean he can say "Well this is how I did that" where as a lot can toss out "Well if I want to use a Britney song - she won't care", but as far as I know she isn't posting here. So I just toss out "Spot won't care!" and let him respond...but I am not going to do that now because I know he cares.

Having set that up I am going to toss out something, so Lars if you are lurking aroung jump in - when the Napster thing really hit and Metallica went on the war path against it I was more than a little confused - not because the 'stealing' reason, but because Metallica was this focal point.

Metallica was just some local band out of San Francisco. They used to play Hollywood all the time and did a lot of shows with Armored Saint. When Metallica would play in LA they would open for the Saint and when Saint would play in SF Metallica would headline. Saint got a major deal and took Metallica out on the road as their support act. Now what does this have to do with anything? A lot because the reason that Metallica got so huge was *not* because they did so many shows with Armored Saint it was because they were so bootlegged. Live shows and their demos were traded all over the world - people in Russia new who they were long before Metallica had any album out and had barely played outside of Hollywood and San Fransisco. The band loved it - the even continued this when they got so huge by selling "taper" tickets to their shows. They followed the Greatful Dead's concept of letting fans come in and tape their show - not just tape them but actually tap into the sound board and/or bring in little mixing boards. And not just audio - Metallica allowed video as well. This did not hurt them and it did not prevent their concerts from being traded and 'bootlegged' all over - it made them fan friendly and more popular. So I found it like a reverse back stab to the fans when Metallica becomes this spearhead to stop filesharing because it cost them too much loss of revenue. If it was not for that "swapping" concept Metallica might still be in the garage.

So aside from that - I asked a lot of people I know, musicians on majors and minors, people who had videos on MTV, people who have music in films - I asked them about Napster at that time. You know what? Only one of them got heated about the issue saying that "We work hard to make our music and these people who download it are scum!" But everyone else had the vibe of "I think it is a good thing"...yeah they could understand the fuss but they also felt the internet and file swapping was really the best way to get heard and seen. One brought up the idea of taping a radio show or downloading the same song...a good point. Radio sations were not be sue because people could tape thier signals. (How many lost album sales from people taping those "Classic Album" show where they play a full album?) One of the artists I talked to was signed *because* of her song being downloaded...matter of fact it was as song about AOL that used the now famous "Goodbye!" voice in it. Another artist had just had the best selling and most heard single in the US and his slant was that radio was now controlled by one company and without Napster there could be no new artists ever really heard. Another one had a hit single and had at least 3 songs in major films and had the same feeling - Napster was a good thing because it allowed upcoming artists to be heard and further went on to say that they used Napster to download and listen to new artists.

I say this because we can all be hard nosed and just blindly follow all the laws, good or bad. Yes there is a huge problem now with the internet and music and films being downloaded, this is for certian. But there also has to be a certian common sense about it all. My daughter, who is 5, loves to crank up her CD's and sing along with them. Probalby every single person here has done that and certianly amost every single famous singer/band started off that way, by doing covers of some sort. When I got married my wife and I sat down with out CD's and taped off songs we liked and we played that tape before the service....now by the letter of the law we broke it. Not because we made a copy of the songs, but because we played it in a public setting *and* we have that on video tape. The second my daughter decides to break out in song somewhere she has broken the law because she has not paid publishing to do a live performance of that song. Talent shows - oh my, think of the lawsuits waiting to happen.

So the ongoing question is how do we create something where the larger percent of artists are happy? It clearly is not the way it is now because on the one hand you have people blissfully happy in their musical lives while others are desperate to be heard. You have Spot who is very good at what he does and he certianly deserves to get the big bucks for his work. But on the other hand you have another artist that is equally as good and also deserves to get the big bucks but they can't because of a "blanket" concept that anything less than blah-blah is no good. In other words for Spot it isn't worth it, but another artist would not only feel it would be worth it, they would allow it for no money. I have pointed out in past posts that many of these artists never even know someone was looking to use their music because it never gets back to them. For me I am, and have been, in favor of the artist first - not artist last. And to a point this can be done - it is already in the laws to a degree. So look at the other side - we all use blanket forms when we do things. We have a 'standard' actors release form, a 'standard' work for hire form, a 'standard' property release form...and so on. The labels and the publishers and the studios all know how to best make money. A new artist doesn't always - so enter buisness's that take care of that for them, enter lawyers and enter thos ewho love to take advantage of others. It has always been this way - and that is why so many laws go around and come up later. Lots of them are hopefully put there to prevent an artist from getting ripped off. But now we have so many that it is a minefield for anyone to not do somehthing wrong. My other thread about Donald Trump is a perfect example.

I always go back to what I have always tried to do - go to the artist first. Hey Diane Warren is great - and obviously it shows because when someone here went to her, the author of the song, she was fine with it. But that is only one part of it, but to me that should be the biggest part of it. I mentioned this before but when I was watching a promo for some Disney film, I have forgotten which one, I hear a song from my friends gorup. So I zip him off an email - "Hey did you know your song is being used to promote this new Disney film?" and he had no clue. He was never asked - the group was never asked. The label knew because they issued permission for the recording. The publisher knew because they issued the sync license. So - artists first is my concept.

Filmy

One of the main arguments of Spot's paper is what you're missing here. It isn't so much being allowed license to use the music itself. It is the accompaniment of images that create the difficulty. Some people seem to think that the only losses the artist experiences are do to unpaid licensing fees. If that were the only problem, there would probably be a quick fix. Spot doesn't want his music associated with certain things, and he has the right to say what those things are. In Spot's article, he gives the example of a Jars of Clay song being associated with Mormonism, and said that could hypothetically lead to a loss of profits for Jars of Clay. This is where the major glitch lies, and where most of the damage could occur. I know you'll all say, "Well...this wedding video won't have those ramifications, as only five people will ever see it." And that could be true, but you are still stealing from the artist nonetheless.

So buy Acid and make your own music.

It's by far the simplest solution, and ends up giving a better end result anyway.