No, it doesn't make sense....
I'm Celine Dion, and I don't want to worry about you using the song I wrote for my daughter in a porn video.
That's the issue. Publishing companies are trusted by artists to know when and when not to license the use of a song.

And yet when it comes to audio recordings, in the USA once a song is published to the general public, then ANYONE who wants to may record their own version of it and pay a standard flat fee for the rights. The reason being that in the USA once the song is released the exclusive right to peform it is lost. Only when we get to video does it become entangled back into control.

They're unrelated to a great extent.
Bruce Springsteen singing "Born in the USA" is very different than John Smith singing "Born in the USA. " One has a demonstrable commercial value, the other doesn't.
If you want to hire John Smith to do a version of the Born in the USA and put that in your movie, you can do it much easier than using Springsteen's master. But it won't carry the impact, which is why everyone wants the original. The artist still controls the *master* even if he can't control the bar band doing a cover. If songs were available to videographers via iTunes, there would still be a lot of paperwork/licensing agreements that would have to spell out where/how it can be used, and even then, that doesn't work correctly all the time.
Artbeats has a very clear license agreement that says their footage may not be used in adult content. Yet RealSex used some of their work anyway. And got busted for it, but the point is, HBO produced a show without reading the terms of the license. If HBO doesn't look, why would the average event, doc, or wedding editor pay attention?

I can't understand why they wouldn't go to an Itunes style format, where maybe one would pay $5.00 per song to download for use in a small project, and then $1.00 for each song on each copy.

As I said in an earlier post, I think Apple is the likely company to push for something like this, because it could be a big boost to iTunes. Imagine, as a music artist, getting all that incremental revenue from the corporate and events markets? However, Spot's points about handling restrictions (against using with porn, etc.) is a sticky one. While some artists may initially balk at "selling out," if the money is there, most will eventually do it. I think this will be especially true as the music industry continues to radically morph. As an indication of where things are headed, "American Idol," drew 2x the audience of last night's Grammys.

Mister Spotted Eagle! I assumed it would be understood that this would be for short runs (under 1000 or so) of limited-interest subject matter, such as community events, WEDDINGS (Very limited interest), dance recitals, student films, etc. Larger contracts would still be negotiated. I guess I should never ASS U ME. Most of us who indulge in the occasional wedding video aren't invited to the consumation, anyway. Of course there are going to be people who misuse it, but at least this way the people who want to follow the letter of the law could do so. Of course it is naive to think every producer would follow the rules, but think of it in these terms: Itunes, Wal-mart, the new Napster, Yahoo, and others have sold millions of songs legally, when the people who buy these songs could have perused Grokster, KaZaa, Aries, etc. and gotten them for free.

Read the story of Pandora's Box. This is what artists, publishers, and labels alike are all worried about. Doesn't matter if it's for one copy or one million. More legal hassles, more copyright hassles, more control hassles, and more cheapening of the content all for very little return.

Just out of curiosity, howzabout everyone who's ever put a creative work complete with media that they created complete with registered bar codes, scoring, paid actors/actresses/talent on it, spent at least 50k producing the product, and it exists on store shelves across the world, raise their hand.

Those of you that have your hands raised, how would you feel about some one whose level of professionalism isn't known, and likely is not anywhere near your level of skill, cutting your film up and using it where ever they want for whatever purpose they wish to promote, and it doesn't offer a strong marketing benefit to you. In fact, it might well offer a negative marketing benefit. Can't forget the revenue; they're also going to pay you $5.00 for the privilege of using your media which you have no control over, and they *might* pay you $1.00 mechanical royalty.
Then, you've got someone taking a cut of that 5.00 per say....5 minutes of media ($1.00 per minute?) so they can oversee the protocol of the licensing agreements whether it's for one copy or 100. And you have that same person, or someone associated with that person, checking to see that the licenses are observed by the replicator. Wait...theydon't HAVE a replicator, because the editor is doing them as desktop duplicates. So, someone gets to trust that the editor only churned out the dozen copies he paid $12.00 for. So there is no replicator's manifest that shows exactly how many copies were actually made. (This is one reason why you can't burn copy protection for DVDs on your DVD burner, btw)
Then, after you've cut that $5.00 per song into a few pieces for the publisher, label, artist, and any actor/actress shares, you get to keep whatever is left. Given the $5.00 figure being used in this thread, you get to keep maybe .50. Is it worth .50 to you? If you have a hit song on the radio, surely. But then that hit becomes diluted, because every event/wedding/whatever editor has used it to death and it no longer has value to the big screen. What if you DON'T have a hit song? You might sell say...1000 licenses per year IF you're exceptionally lucky. So, 5K in revenue, you get to keep maybe $500.00 when it's all split. For $500.00, the average creative gets to pay for an attorney to write the license, have their creative work farmed out to whomever wants to use it for whatever purpose. And you as the creative, got to spend thousands of $$ developing the media, promoting it/marketing it so it has any market value at all (which makes editors want to use it) and you basically lose money from step one.
Does that sound like an incentive for anyone to want to give up control of a song (or video) ?

Not to me.

Just for giggles, why don't more folks scream, bitch, and rage that they can't use Spielberg, Carpenter, Cameron, Soderberg's video in their projects?
As a musician, I'd LOVE to create a music video to sell at concerts to a few dozen fans at 25.00 each, using my musical creation, but using video clips from the greats. I mean....Spotted Eagle music with Darth Vader battling Obiwan....that would be an amazing combination, and people would buy it at all the shows.
It's *exactly* the same scenario as videographers that shoot their own video, but want music from the big names in their vids. You think for one second, that Spielberg, Carpenter, Cameron, Soderberg would be willing to let you use 3 minute clips of their videos for $5.00 license, and $1.00 per use? Or $500.00 per license, and $10.00 per use.
Not on your life.

I see both sides of the argument, but the recording industry side is much more pragmatic and well thought out. They're waiting for a business plan that makes sense. To my knowledge, no one has ever presented one. For the most part, the video users that want the music, haven't a clue about what it *truly* costs to bring media (good or bad) to market. Even at $500.00 per year plus compulsories, it wouldn't make $$ enough to make it worthwhile at this point. And even were it legal, folks would *still* be stealing it because the excuse then would be "it's too expensive."

I'll shut up now, because really try to not get drawn into these discussions. It's pointless, kinda like yelling at the weather.

"But then that hit becomes diluted, because every event/wedding/whatever editor has used it to death and it no longer has value to the big screen."

Not trying to be argumentative, but radio does this much faster. In the meantime, people who want to do the right thing won't be able to and people who "steal" will continue to make a living, but I don't need to tell you that.

"how would you feel about some one whose level of professionalism isn't known, and likely is not anywhere near your level of skill, cutting your film up"

Didn't Sergei Eisenstien cut his teeth by chopping up "Intolerance?"
Sorry, I guess that's a little off topic. ; )

Rant taken.
Corey

"I'm Celine Dion, . .. . "

Well, there you have it!

. . and yes having my worked "used" without perms, cents and pence is wrong. I wouldn't "allow" someone access to my TV and steal it? Why should anybody think that doing this with a person's musical creation is any different?

It is "misconception" over wallet/budget.

The misconception arises because music is experienced/heard impregnating the air at every corner and building and shopping mall and club and pub and there "appears" to be no place that is free from this. Why should placing it on a piece of video for resale be any different? Well we all the answer to that. Or at least we should. It is different. What I "believe" to be free is a zillion miles away from actually being free - in law! But more crucially it is somebody's creation - I aint talking about the artistic merit of it - but it IS somebody's creation and as such it is owned by them.

I use music created and supplied by a Royalty free house - I feel they make great stuff, I use it. I hear the music and sometimes "cut" my video with THAT music in mind! It is a great way to get to MY level of expression. Videographers need the music as much as the visuals.

Here in lies the problem: How do we obtain affordable or "free for use", instantly variable, creative, attractive, appropriate and memorable music which IS free/affordable to use and simple to apply to video? I can't "play" a keyboard, my fingers turn into sausages. Plus my abilities to hear and then express an idea musically - well I'm just in awe at those "gifted" - now THRE'S the word - gifted and talented people how can. No, my creativity lies within being "selective" with the music I do use ( I do dabble in ACID ) and am also selective with my video takes. Would that I could afford a musical person to "create" a work for me, for a sequence? Wow! But that is sometime off. LOL .. Though, ironically, I have a feeling it would be the legal fees that would cost the money!

Grazie

I see both sides of the argument, but the recording industry side is much more pragmatic and well thought out. They're waiting for a business plan that makes sense.

Why don't they just treat it the same way they treated those wonderful K-Tel collections? And the way they treat radio/bars. It's not rocket science.

Paid per physical copy sold, guesstimated for theater/download/television. (And it doesn't even have to be a "guess" these days...everyone keeps track, anyway.)

So what if there are images being played along with the music? They can still deny permission to people they don't want using it. But there's no reason to expect more than a token fee up front for those they give the go-ahead to.

They're tangling themselves up unneccessarily because Ooooooo, there's a film involved.

DSE,
your music with R2D2? Now there's an image I'm really having trouble with.

As I think I mentioned some time ago I helped out on a Tropfest entry and the one thing that really made this entry work was the music. Yes they had someone compose and record the piece, done for the same price I charged, nix.

No offence to anyone here but I can't think of anything that'd cheapen most works more than using any of the kind of music that we're talking about even if you could get the rights to it. There's a huge oversupply of very capable composers, musicians and recording facilities. Maybe they're not quite as good as the big names but they're not far off it and they'll gladly donate their time for nothing more than a credit and maybe their name on the deed. If your production makes money they get a bit and if it flops no one's seriously out of pcket.

Corporate and event stuff is a bit different and I think that's an area that could use some attention, hard to know how an equitable solution can come about, as DSE says it's a minefield and don't for a moment think we're alone in this. Just been watching the 48th Grammies and one of the winners thanks their legal team for making the song happen, not the recording engineers, the legal team!

There's another aspect to all this though. I think the industry itself has a bit to answer for, music is now so cheap and so ubiquitous that it's almost impossible to escape it. No longer do we spend hours looking through albums in music shops. Instead now we don't buy music we buy a recharge card for our iPods along with our petrol and milk. The perfomers no longer have a face, they're just machines that turn out a product, just like the cows that made the milk. Worse still every hi tech gizmo plays music, yuck. I find it increasingly difficult to enjoy music, it used to be an almost religious experience for me to make the time to sit down and soak up an album. Now I make a conscious effort to avoid music just so it holds that special place in my life.
Bob.

kinda like yelling at the weather

You mean this doesn't work???????

I just got a solicitation for a bid on a regional colorguard competition and they sent me an example of the regional and national DVDs. The regional one was OK and the National one was literally produced like it was for ESPN. The production was incredible and the performances were in a huge stadium, but when the performances started the performances sucked ass because they would start with a caption on the bottom "alternate soundtrack due to copyright" You couldn't even tell if the performance was goos because they would put some crappy RF music under it and it is all about timing.....

If a huge national production can't afford to put the actual performance audio in then how is a much smaller company going to afford it. The recording industry is a POS for going this long without a viable solution to remove the unnecessary guilt they place upon event videographers. The only redeeming thing is that I have never heard of an event videographer getting sued by the RIAA, so at least the guilt is the only thing Event videographers have to deal with.

Not a myth:

De Minimis use

This is not directed at you DSE, I just had to hit the reply to post.

The ONLY reason this subject keeps coming up is because somebody wants somebody elses permission to break the copyright laws. Everyone understands fair use, it has been around since book publishing became a business. But people just want to know that they aren't the only ones violating the copyright laws and think if they ask the question enough, somebody will say "sure, no problem, use whatever you want"

Until the digital revolution of music and video starts to settle, this will be a problem for media producers. Large corporations (which I won't mention by name but they create a refreshing softdrink) use copyrighted music for a lot of their inhouse presentations. I am sure they are not paying the thousands of dollars for licenses for their $5000 video presentation. This is not considered fair use, but it is done.

You have to let your conscience be your guide and know that if you are using copyrighted music in "for sell" video productions, you are playing the odds. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

Dave T2

The ONLY reason this subject keeps coming up is because somebody wants somebody else's permission to break the copyright laws.

Actually, I get exactly the opposite impression. I think most of these posts are from people (like the person that started this thread) who are aware of the law, want to do the right thing, and are asking where the heck they can go to get a license. They know that performance licenses are easily available and affordable, so it seems almost beyond comprehension that sync licenses are not.

I think it does a disservice to all these posters to strongly suggest that they are looking for permission to break the copyright law. Go back and re-read the original post that started this thread. There is not even a hint of what you describe in how that post is worded.

Okay, I concede that this thread is one of the more forthright as far as "how I can stay legal and please my clients" type of thread. But on this forum, and many others, the subject comes up often and when people answer based on experience or knowledge, there are responses that try to legitimize the synching of music to video without licenses.

I apologize to those are honestly trying to make their way through the muck and remain creative/productive. But as the laws stand now, I think we are all just stuck.

Dave T2

>>>Just out of curiosity, howzabout everyone who's ever put a creative work complete with media that they created complete with registered bar codes, scoring, paid actors/actresses/talent on it, spent at least 50k producing the product, and it exists on store shelves across the world, raise their hand.

[SNIP]
<<<

Ok - I'll bite. And here is the thing - I highly doubt that any piece of media made in the last, say, 20 years, has not been copied by at least one person. If not in whole for sure in part. And I know it goes back a lot further than that but really the main issues right now are based around new technology that either was not around or not as easly available. I always love to cite Metalica as a prime example of what "good" file sharing can do for an artist but before metalica was who they are right now they too were nobodys. Do you think that at that stage in ther lives if they had gone out and said "Tape swapping should be stopped now!" it owuld have gotten any sort of notice ont he scale it did when Lars went out and griped about Napster? No.

And what does this have to do with seeling your music for a few bucks to be in a limited run or a wedding video? As I see it a lot. As has been said by myself and others over and over again there are LOTS of talented artists out there who would LOVE to have their music put in some production. Thanks to the internet there is for sure a way to find this talent. Aside from this thanks to the internet many of these artists are now colaborating in a way they never could have before.

So toss film into the mix now - what is the bargining chip? yeah a lot of acts out there may not do it for nothing. Many would. many would do it for money. Others would do it for publicity. But who is making these choices? In many, many cases it is not the artists. To me that is part of the issue I have, and in 100% honesty I also know I am not the norm by any means. Most people like it when the artists stay out of the decisions making. Recent case in point Kelly Clarkson. She fought tooth and nail to get at least some creative contril back and she did. It isn't any wonder there might be bad blood between those in the American idol camp and her. But it is a two way street - American Idol pretty mich takes aways everyhting you have and controls it. Fuller has first signing rights to anyone, winner or not or good deal or not. If anyone read the Time piece Clarkson she sums up the movie "From Justin To Kelly" pretty well and in the same breath shows, IMO, how messed up the industry is. She says "Two words: Contractually obligated". Last month all the talk was about how Clarkson had dissed AI by refusing to let them use any of her songs on the show and after her Grammy win the other night the talk is how she again dissed them by not thanking them.

But I digress - is it worth 50 cents to "give up control of a song (or video) ?" Spot asks. Again - depends on who one looks at it. I look at it as unless you maintain as much control over what you do you already have given up control of it. And th eother side is when a person has the DIY idea and acts on it they tend to find out how much effort it really takes and would gladdly take the 50 cents just to not deal with all the BS. But you hit a certian level and you can start to demand things to a bit more control and maybe a bit more pice of the pie.

What I would like to see is the artists be able to get that "piece of the pie" out of the gate. Instead of some fat cat lawyer or high priced agent calling the shots I would love to see a bit more "consulting" going on where someone could go in and have easy access to someones music for 25.00 if need be but also maintain that higher priced calling card. SAG has a price tier in place and it works very nicely and, really, it leaves a lot up to the members. Certianly any of them can choose to ask for whatver rate they want to but nothitng says they can not turn around a work for the minimum rate. And when all is said and done most of the time it is the the actors names that sell the product over the soundtrack.

Now I know the whole "porn" thing to tossed around a lot. And I can understand this however it is another case of not all people want to placed on the same playing field. Remember Kelly Clarkson wa sin a soft core gay porno before she won AI. And guitarist Ty Longly was an adult actor when he wasn't playing music. The mention about Artbeats and the HBO series kind of cause me to giggle because I in no way consider "Real Sex" to be porno. Borderline stuff at times to be sure but they have had some stories on there that are really intereting and frankly I think this is where people can start to argue anything. Could Artbeats, or Spot for that matter, turn around if someone did a new version of "The Tin Drum" and argue it was kiddie porn? How about a remake of "Last House on the Left" or "I Spit on your Grave" ? Now aren't we getting into the whole area about who is really calling the shots? Who is to say "Land of the Dead" is any better than, say, "Deep Throat"? To many both films are porno films. To others vionce is bad, sex is good. Some people might consider a documentary about megans law a film about cild porn and some might consider a film such as "The Accused" as porn. The orginal "Emmanuel" was shocking and X rated when it first came out - by todays standards I am not so sure it would have gotten an "R" even...I have seen far more sexual films rated "R".

So again - what is the real issue here? Spots poses a very good question and makes it seem like it is all about money. And at face value it is. Been there, done that - been there, fought that. But to me it goes deeper because I have never met anyone who has said "I just don't care". Most musicians I know want to make music and are open to anything, even if it is for free, as long as it is fun and they can do it. Oh sure you have a person like Gene Simmons who has stated he does Kiss only for the money but you also look at what that band is - it is much more than their so called music. It is turley an industry and for sure at that level they damn well better control it and keep tight reigns over it otherwise, as Spot has said many times, the value of it would go down. Oh..back to money again.

What is a good model? I dunno - my question was not answered so I guess it is that no one has read any schools paperwork or sat with the lawyers. But my thought was, like the church agreement, that why not have the same rules apply for claases and such? The schools jazz band goes out and plays for their parents. Someone shoots video and they are allowed to sell it using the same guidlines. Same goes for a dance recital, the senior graduation and maybe even the "video yearbook" that might be only sold to the senior class. Look at this another way - say the assumption is that between 100 - 600 copies a video yearbook might be sold. How would that translate into a songs "single sales" Lets say an album come sout ans seels 5,000 copies. Chances are the artists is dropped. So to me the lable no longer cares. WHy do they still care to maintan the need to seel licenines for things such as we are talking about? So ok - take any song off that CD and toss it onto this Video yearbook. Maybe this CD suddenly sells 500 more copies. Maybe you, the label, makes this CD vailable to all schools across the US at a price for use in school productions. maybe now that 5,000 units sold becomes 10 - 15,000 more units sold.

At this point someone goes "Hey, this school thing is good business" so other artists start wanting to be a part of it and other labels climb on board. maybe some brainiac sitting behind a desk gets the idea that targeted CD's be put together for this use to various outlets - schools (including high schools, drama clubs, choirs and such as well as dance shools), wedding production companies and even indy film makers. Some other brainiac sits there and says there are already comps out there targeted with titles such as "Todays hot rock" and "Music for lovers". Bells go off, marketing plans put in motion...hey...why not?

And to answer this:
As a musician, I'd LOVE to create a music video to sell at concerts to a few dozen fans at 25.00 each, using my musical creation, but using video clips from the greats. I mean....Spotted Eagle music with Darth Vader battling Obiwan....that would be an amazing combination, and people would buy it at all the shows.

I say this - cross promotion. MTV and other outlets. Gotta have that music video. Maybe you can not go out and just use their fottage and cut it to unrealted music that easyly but than again look at things like the MTV music awards...Fair Use? Or just allowed because of what it is? How about these liltte psuedo doc that just cut together footage from other films of a certian genre? Fair use? But let me take it one step further - 100% true story. Lions Gate picks up a film and puts it out. However Lions Gate doesn't bother to read any of the legal stuff. They remix the film, add some new sounds and don't bother to tell anyone. Now Lions Gate authors a DVD, pulls elements off the film for menus and such. Home user pops in the film, sees the DVD menu and hears music and sees shorts clips from the film. Hits play and "hears" the film....sounds like crap. Weird sounds. home user balms filmmaker. Musician sees film and thratens to sue Lions Gate because their music is heard under DVD menu and no such agreenet was ever made. Lionms Gate legal says "We have the film for distribution, we can do what we want to any part of it. The DVD is considered part of the production, which is what we are distributing." (There is no "end" to this because Lions Gate has way more money than the musician and an in house legal team which the musician does not haveso it sits in limbo...not the film, that is out there making money for Lions Gate here and in Canada...but the musician is waiting for those royaltie checks to come in...um...yeah)

Is it worth the 50 cents?

"Not a myth:

De Minimis use:"

Using a whole song is never de minimis. Using more than a couple notes is rarely de minimis.

I have talked to an IP lawyer about this very issue. Though not on the record, not binding, not as client /attorney - just idle chat between parents of kids at the same school. His take is that the use of a bride's CD on her wedding video is entirely defensible as fair use. He added that just getting the question before a judge would cost the videographer at least "twenty grand". (He is a $400 per hour lawyer who represents companies who own patents and copyrights).

If anyone ever does get sued, I know an IP lawyer......

Were it one copy of the bridal video, this is potentially true. However, it's rarely one copy of the video, it's multiples, and *that* is where the indefensible position comes from. Even though it's technically defensible under Fair Use and technically defensible under minimal use, five, ten, 25 copies are not.
Between what Stanford U has had to say on the subject, and having talked ad nauseum to more than just one IP attorney both on and off the clock, I'd follow their lead.
Regarding the cost, he's absolutely right. That's why we dropped our lawsuit against the putz that registered my name and other domain names related to our business and redirected them to his business, who was recently caught out using copyrighted video taken from a third party.

It's just too damn expensive to get in front of a judge if their attorney wants to play a stall game. I believe a lot of people bank on that. Car manufacturers do. Remember the Fort Pinto gas tank debacle? Ford knew it would eventually kill someone, but they weighed the cost of recall against the cost of a lawsuit. The cost of a lawsuit was cheaper.
However, when the day comes that a label decides to go after wedding/event folks instead of high school video yearbooks...the label can easily afford the 20k and them some. That's just the getting there, not the prosecution of the entire case.

The main reason I would never consider being a wedding videographer is I know that the day is comming when the fan is hit. I tell you that will be a sad day and a lot of videographers are going to be in trouble and very outraged.

Part of my secret Goth side hopes that day takes on a life of its own and becomes a crisis for the music industry so that it ends up back firing on them.

Lest we forget that recently some record labels started going after individuals downloading songs for free. Pretty soon someone is going to be used to set an example.

Dave T2