Copyright can of worms.

dvdude wrote on 3/20/2004, 8:02 AM

Having read Spot's excellent article on copyright at the Sundance site, I'm in the same dilemma I'm sure many event videographers eventually find themselves in.

Let's take weddings.

Until Spot's article, I was under the (incorrect) assumption that fair use covered the copyright issue provided that the music in whatever form was owned by the couple. I did several Google searches to find out what other videographers do in this area and found that the overwhelming majority seem to be under the same impression - even advertizing the fact that they'll take CD's, MP3's etc and edit them in to the final production.

So - either they're all as blissfully ignorant as I was, or there's a practical way to acquire permission from the copyright owners to specifically allow such use that I'm not awere of.

I hasten to add that I'm currently not a professional in the field at this point, but would really like to get into the business at some point in the future.

I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing there was a mechanism by which we could pay a fee and be done with the whole thing - I understand the importance of intellectual property rights and would have no problem building such fees into any pricing schedule I implement iin the future, should my skill level actually progress sufficiently to make professional video a viable option for me. I simply can't find such a mechanism at this point.

I just don't see how, on the one hand, the copyright holders can claim financial damage from such use and, at the same time, claim it to be not worth administering a system to allow us to license and pay for this use.

For now, my camera's will have to gather dust......

Back to post

Comments

Maestro wrote on 3/22/2004, 12:21 PM

jwall,

I see your point, but the second a piece of creative work goes public, the artist is going to lose some creative control. What about a painter who creates a beautiful painting? If someone comes along, buys it, and hangs it in a strip club, what can the artist say?

ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC grant broadcast rights to a variety of different industries ranging from radio to bars to dance studios. I saw a dance competition where there was a group of NINE year olds in skin-tight black leather shorts shaking their butts at the audience to some copyrighted music. They weren't disqualified, and if the artist was there watching this and objected, what could he/she say? Nothing. Those broadcast rights were legally covered.

In dance, choreographers basically create a visual interpretation of an artist's music and showcase it. Is that the same as setting copyrighted music to the accompaniment of images? What if the dancer(s) look terrible? What if the choreography is overtly sexual, or just plain poor? Right now, ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC say it's okay.

My guess in the future is that some division of ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC will be formed that allows a company to pay a fee for a maximum number of copies of video to be distributed/sold that include music in their catalogs. Ah yes, nice and simple.

jetdv wrote on 3/22/2004, 12:45 PM

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.

Been doing weddings for 4 years using royalty free music wherever I need to add music. Never been a problem with any of my customers - especially once we explain why.

cyanide149 wrote on 3/22/2004, 1:00 PM

It's not just money- it's greed. Imagine if Ford wanted to sell you a car, then charged you every time you drove it. You could then turn around and sell the car, then the next owner would have to pay to drive it. If the bride and groom prove that they paid for the music, I feel they should have a right to "use" it as they feel fit- as long as they're not gaining financially.

filmy wrote on 3/22/2004, 1:06 PM

>>>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.<<<

Not missing it all. I think you didn't understand what I mean with "Artist first". Under what I am talking about it would be the artitst who 1>Wrote the music 2>Performed it that would be the first in line to be contacted, not the last. So say I hear something the Spot did and just love it. And now I want to use that piece of music in a film, or lets say I am getting married and want to play it and I know that it will be videotaped. So I contact Spot and explain to him what I am doing and, in the case of a film/video, send him a copy of the scene, or the entire film, I want to use the music for. Spot looks at it and says "This is awesome! I would love to have my music in here." So Spot sets up a price on his end and sends that off to you and maybe CC's it off to whoever else in the chain. Now the label can still tell you they don't want to give you that piece of music becuase the price you can pay is not high enough. So maybe Spot can record a version for you that the label does not own the mechanical recording of. Now next is the whole sync license issue - Spot has said he would love to have it used and he has set the price - the publisher, in theory, is 'working' for Spot so they say "Well it is ok with the person who wrote it and who performed than it has to be ok with us."

So now what did you say I was not seeing? Spot would have seen the actual scene, he may have also been provided a working copy of the film and maybe even a copy of the script. So how is it now an issue when he has seen "the accompaniment of images"? I would feel that in the past this is somewhat how Spot has worked when scoring music for a film, so why not allow the same for existing music? I feel that is a much much better way to do it than what goes on now overall.

>>>So buy Acid and make your own music. <<<

I have said that, I even said it yesterday right here in this thread. But not everyone can do it - nor wants to do it. And that puts us back into the topic we are talking about now.

Keep in mind these threads always start off as one thing and as more people get involved they branch off. On the one hand you can state the law and on the other you can bring up all the 'what if's' - which is what Spot and I do - he says the law and I say the 'what if..' Both of us base what we say on what we have gone through both on the film side, and on the music side. Both us agree that certian things could be better as much as they could be worse. But even so, many of these threads end up all over the place with Spot and I seemingly on opposite sides of the fence...but I don't believe we really are. For me I always try and go to the artists first, than I branch off and go to the labels and publishers. Thus far I have not run into issues doing it that way, although I have seen a few pissed off managers and agents along the way because the artist wanted something they didn't. In one case I had a band love the idea of a video and sign off on it - only to have their manager freak out and demand the video not be used. The band in turn talked it over and said "We are going to do it" and gave us their demo of the song we wanted because the manager had produced (paid for) the album thusly 'owned' the mechanical recording. In this case there was not anything the manager or the label could do because what we had the band 100% controled.

But again - this isn't the way things are 'normally' done in this industry. It is also why you can find artists who have no clue that their music is used in films and videos until the check comes....if it comes.

jwall wrote on 3/22/2004, 1:13 PM

There are some glaring differences between a car and a piece of music or video. For one, you cannot get Ford cars free just because your friend bought one. Intellectual rights are different from material rights. It's a hairy discussion, but to make it simple, the only thing you own when you buy a CD is the plastic and metal that make up the CD. You do not own the music. You do not acquire the rights to play the music when and where you want, you acquire a limited license that lets you use the music for personal endeavors. Comparing this to buying a car is asinine.

jwall wrote on 3/22/2004, 1:20 PM

Filmy...You're absolutely correct. I guess I missed your point. That would definitely be an ideal situation. I am sure the big shots in Hollywood and their lawyers undertake an almost identical process when they use music in thier films. As far as contacting the publisher, you are probably the exception. I'm not sure what you use your camera for, but I bet only one in 5,000 event videographers would attempt to contact the publisher or the artist before synching video to music.

I've read multiple threads where people have expressed willingness to pay a flat fee, even a high one, in order to sync music. Why not use that fee to buy Acid and a keyboard, take some classes, and start composing your own soundtracks. Yeah, it's not for everyone, and it's not as easy, but it will probably lead to better quality videos anyway.

MUTTLEY wrote on 3/22/2004, 1:29 PM

I'm taking the easy way out by copy/pasting a post I made on another forum, but in my defense I'm only doing this because I'm simultaneously passionate and lazy ... and it just seems like a waste of time to retype it all:

Okay, first off I don't do wedding videos. Any video that I've done that included music was with the consent of the artist ( i.e. The Fairy Tree Project vid I'm working on at the moment with Patrice Pike which uses a bunch of her songs ).

Having seen this topic going round the boards, I am finally caving and posting an opinion ( God forgive me ). I am not married, if I do get married I'm sure I'll tape it, and if I make " us " a vid, I'm sure it will have music which I may or may not have the rights to. Couples have their songs, sentimental and profound. If I were just Joe Shmoe getting married I'm certain I would want certain songs in the video of my wedding. I would also have no problem with paying for those songs. As a producer I probably would add a couples requested song, or songs, as long as they had store bought copies they could provide. To me, like it or not, the artist did make money on the sale of the CD. Its for their own personal use. I suppose you could just put a mark on the video saying " Start CD Now " and they could play it on they're stereo while watching the video, how silly is that ? To me its the same damn thing. This isn't some movie they're going to be selling, its a document of their vows. I'm sure I would have handled this hypothetical situation much the same way before the days of Napster. I, as a producer, would not be making any more or less money no matter what music was used. It isn't like I'd be going " Sure you can have Unchained Melody but that's going to cost ya " and throwing the extra change in my pocket. Sorry any who disagree, its just one mans humble opinion and I mean no disrespect. Again, I don't do wedding videos, so its a non-issue. But the topic still does perturb me none the less, I say let them have they're memories.

while I'm sure those who do weddings can make a living doing it, I doubt many are getting rich. The law is the law, you are correct. Thankfully its not a situation that I will ever be in considering the type of work I do. I only know that I wouldn't want some generic porno sounding music in my wedding video and I can sympathize with the clients in that situation, if not the producers, who feel the same. Unlike Napster, I don't see that artist suffer great financial damage if in the wedding video the couple is dancing to " their song " on the dance floor, nor do I think that a producer should have to cut out the sound in that situation in order to comply with copyright laws. It just seems like overkill to me. On a side note, does someone own the copyright to the " Wedding March " ? Wow, what a concept. Now THAT guy would be loosing out on some serious cash !

Am I the only one who made a " mixed tape " for a girlfriend in their younger days ? Is this to un-similar ? Again, I think that if the couple bought the CD than at least the artist got paid on that level. If its for personal and not commercial use, I myself wouldn't have a problem with it ( if I were a musician ), and I think that my analogy of the producer putting in the " Start CD now " was fairly accurate, it would just be a silly and pointless workaround.

Along similar lines, some years ago I was a DJ at a club. I got turned onto the band Coldplay long before they were heard of here in the states, you actually couldn't by their CD here if you tried ( okay, maybe on eBay but not outside of that ). A friend of mine had sent me a couple of their MP3's ( ripped, not ones offered by the band ) and said I should check them out. I was blown away. I made a CD and started playing it at the club. I actually wrote the band, told them I was a fan and a DJ, and that I didn't know how they felt about MP3's but that I had gotten a few and was playing them at a club. I actually got a response from one of their peeps saying thanks for the email etc. and surprisingly that the band supported Napster and file sharing. Now perhaps their views have changed, I doubt it, but perhaps. I suspect that in Metallica's early and more frugal days they would supported it as well. It seems to me that many an artist that once might have been humble and thrilled merely at the fact that anyone wants to listen to them at all only gets concerned once they experience some modicum of success.

I'll humbly bow out at this point, I've had my little say and that's enough for me. Its not a debate that I expect to " win ", but one that I felt deserved a laymen's opinion.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

mark2929 wrote on 3/22/2004, 1:51 PM

I was Just wondering if this would be an acceptable way to use copyright music. For every song used in a (WEDDING) film, that song has to be sold as a CD, WITH each individual film at the same price paid for at the music shop. WITH reciepts kept, as part of the deal.. Enforcers could check that this was being done By doing random checks

Spot|DSE wrote on 3/22/2004, 1:55 PM

No. Because buying a CD only entitles you to listen to the music, not sync the music with video. Without clearances from the publisher of the song and clearances from the owner of the master of the song (the label) you cannot legally use music synced to video unless you wrote and recorded the music.

filmy wrote on 3/22/2004, 2:09 PM

>>>For every song used in a (WEDDING) film, that song has to be sold as a CD, WITH each individual film ...<<<

I am not so sure that the core of this issue is about ownership of an original CD as much as it is about putting the music found on the cd on video. Key word for me is *using*. I think as a whole most artists would not mind their music being played at a wedding but if their music was being used as the *soundtrack* to the wedding video they would mind.

This is all sort of like those Radio Shack albums you used to be able to buy - for those who don't remember or don't know they used to sell records like "Sounds of the Navy" and such. For the most part if could be argued they were really just to show off stereo sound but many people used them for sound effects sources on their home 8mm films. Now we have CD's that are pretty much the same thing - and I don't mean the buy out effects librarys, I mean the CD's you find when you walk into almost any music store. Most all of them have the usual legal stuff on them, the same as any other CD. You can't reproduce, copy, re-distrubute and so on. But seriously - how many people buy a CD of sound effects just to listen to anymore? And if you use your concept about wedding music with these Sound Effects CD's...I can't see it happening.

(Spot did it again! Once again I post in the shadow of him. )

dvdude wrote on 3/22/2004, 2:16 PM

>(Spot did it again! Once again I post in the shadow of him. )

So, what you really need is a SpotLight!

Sorry......

filmy wrote on 3/22/2004, 2:17 PM

LOL!!!

dvdude wrote on 3/22/2004, 2:37 PM

You COPIED this post from another forum? Are you insane??

What if the original poster finds out and....oh, you are the original poster.

Phew! That coulda gotten nasty....

mark2929 wrote on 3/22/2004, 3:25 PM

This is not directed at anyone here just my own frustration at my perception of Cat in the Hat laws

That is really daft what If I listen to my music with video playing or without video playing. What difference do it make whether I watch CD with video film or not. So long as I paid for it. oo I See. They want me to pay twice then. Once for the CD then again to use paid for CD With personal film. They Are missing a trick should make you pay to listen in car or different player.

OK Then I dont give up what about making a special edition CD WHAT has to be sold to each individual buyer at a greatly enhanced price hike how about Double that. Enough !

Key = THEY meaning not sure who or what Im on about !

pb wrote on 3/23/2004, 10:34 AM

Many posts ago I suggested buyout from M2H and Fresh. If you find the range offered by these two and gene michaels, Music Bakery etc. etc. too narrow, checkout First Com. First Com licenses on a "needle drop" basis BUT has hundreds of thousands of excellent selections to shoose from. You will find "almost but not quite like" versions of many popular songs, all nice and legal.

Bang your heads against the eveil copyright laws if yo wish but you really are wasting your time. If I released a music CD and found out someone was using cuts FOR COMMERCIAL GAIN without my permission I would most certainly sue jointly and severally without mercy or remorse. If a church group or high school video class wanted to use the material I would be honoured, I guess.