There are a lot of threads about this.

The basic answer is NO. It is not legal to sync copyrighted music to video for any purpose without permission from the copyright owners.

Dave T2

I purchased royalty free music online (from a public domain music library) and I thereby have a license to use that music anyway I like, public or private.
Sounds like that might be the way for you to go.

If you're selling the video you made to your client then it's illegal, even if they brought you the music. Now the question comes will you get caught for it....probably not. But ya never know, these people could secretly be working for the RIAA or ASCAP or BMI...it's a long shot but you never know :)
______________________________________
Is there a form that can be filled out, disclaimer?

Yeah, there are lots of them out there, but it won't do much for you in court. Lots of people try to use these but it gives you a false sense of security. If it ever got to the point where you went to court over this the judge would get a nice laugh at your disclaimer and probably throw it away.
________________________
How can I make this process legal?

Legally licence the music for use in your video.

If it ever got to the point where you went to court over this the judge would get a nice laugh at your disclaimer and probably throw it away.
No, the judge would look at it, see that you tried to dodge the legal aspects, and nail you for it.

Yeah...that too :)

It really depends on which country you live in. If the video is of the clients event (wedding etc) and the video is only for distribution to the participants in the event AND the client owns legit copies of the music then you may be able to purchase a blanket licence from bodies such as APRA. Cost is quite reasonable, you can buy an annual or per event licence.
This is for Australia, I think most of Europe has similar arrangements, one day perhaps the US will catch up with the rest of the world.

As to a liability waiver, well this advice is worth what you've paid for it. In the end I suspect what it would come down to is would it be a reasonable expectation on your part that the client did own the copyright. Heaven forbid, I've been caught out on this. Pretty much the equivalent of Sony asking me to sync their music to a video and then discovering that their rights didn't cover use in a DVD, only had rights for VHS. In my case the client has more laywers on retainers than I've had hot dinners, in this case I think it'd be reasonable for me to assume they / I were in the clear. Of course I still ask and I keep records.

Bob.

If you live in the US...Autoplex99, you're making a wrong assumption that "music belongs to the customer" unless you're talking about his kids in his garage knocking out some ORIGINAL piece or something like that. Even if the customer gives you a rendition of the nitwit and moronic "song" called Happy Birthday, nearly everyone has sung many times, even that is protected under copyright.

Current copyright laws are tilted way in the favor of the "artist", something like a elephant sitting on one side of a scale and some ant on the other. So-called "fair-use" is a very iffy thing better left to ATTORNEYS that specialize in entertainment law.

To " purchase" (actually license) music is far more difficult and unfriendly then it could or should be. Then again you got to keep in mind the dimwits that run and infest the music industry... like suing kids and other stuff to further line their pockets.

Current property laws are tilted way in the favor of the "homeowner", (instead of the homeless) something like a elephant sitting on one side of a scale and some ant on the other.
(hint-that's why we refer to it as "Intellectual Property")
It's nice to know that when I die, I get to determine who gets my home that I've worked hard to pay for.
Kinda the same with Intellectual Property.

To " purchase" (actually license) music is far more difficult and unfriendly then it could or should be.
*That* is actually true.
BTW, if your customer gives you a copy of the melody of Happy Birthday without the lyrics, feel free to use it. Tell em' I said so.
Fair Use in our industry doesn't need a copyright attorney. It's cut and dried.

Here we go again. Has it been 90 days already?

Spot if you could once and for all stop trying to play attorney I wouldn't need to remind you that you are playing attorney.

Hint: law isn't cut and dried That's why we have courts, judges, attorneys, trials and juries.

Way back when, over 15 years ago when I was auditor for a major trust fund I was what is commonly called a "professional witness" seeing the inside of many courtrooms in both the state and federal systems. There are good attoneys, good judges, good law, bad law but absoultely no such thing as cut and dried. Anything can happen and frequenly does. Just ask O. J. Simpson.

Sorry to break it to you Billyboy, but Fair Use doesn't often make it to court. Find me 5 completed cases from 2003. Because it's fairly clean at this point. It's been tried too many times on both sides. There is a lot of case law on this one.

Nope, I'm not an attorney never played one. Never claimed to be one.
I do have a lot of experience in this particular arena on both sides.
Are all things clean and easy? Nope.
Copyright law isn't a homicide case. It's a lot more complex, but also a lot less so. But you already know that, you just like to push buttons. That's fine, except in doing so, you muddy what are very clear waters in this particular instance.

Autoplex, if you have a yen for wanting to understand this subject in depth, you can pick up the " Understanding Copyrights DVD" It has a fairly deep section on Fair Use, and goes into the four tests of Fair Use. It's done by an IP attorney. It also contains all copyright laws, copyright forms, release forms for location, actor, minor, music, Work For Hire, and other important contracts, agreements, releases, and legal forms.

Thanks for all the information. I will check out the book. But royality free music looks like the
way to go.

The digital revolution in the video business is creating a niche I call Micro-Publishing of digital content. John Doe can now pay me a couple of hundred dollars to have me make him a music video of his photos/home movies. News Flash, they don't want royalty free music. They want music that means something to them. They give me an original cd that they bought or I buy it for them. Typically 2 DVDs are distributed. At most maybe 6 duplicates.

There is no way in the US for me to buy a license for 2 or three "popular" songs for a 2 DVD distribution. I would love to be able to pay $10-$20 per song per project to be legal but I can't and still give the cleint what they want. Some here would say what the client wants is illegal and I am abetting this. Well let's be honest, the music industry should be freekin thrilled anyone is buying music at all. So John Doe buys a CD. He "feels" he owns it. Obviously he doesn't, but hey he paid for it and wants to use it as he wants, including as a soundtrack to a freeking home movie. So the music industry wants us to be legal but yet they don't offer us realistic options to do so, like a personal use sync licence.

I am not a pirate. I write/perform music. I create/produce video. I design/build websites and graphics. I create copyrighted material. I believe until the music industry gives the market viable licencing options then this topic of copyright infringment in video work will continue to come up for discussion every 90 days. I mean for god sake the music industry only started selling on itunes last year or the year before?

This micro publisher is just waiting for the music industry to catch up. The only encouraging sign I see at the moment is the Creative Commons (cc) movement. Let's hope this common sense approach becomes a roadmap for the industry. I doubt it, but wouldn't it be nice.

jh

Creative Commons is a geat thing, I wish it would catch on, but with all the big money involved, and the fact that artists choose (usually) to not control or administer their publishing, it won't work.
It'll be a while til the whole thing explodes so we can have sync licenses at a relatively small level. There are groups working on it from both inside and outside. Everyone is obviously scared, for good reason. Napster woke a sleeping giant, and in some ways it's a very good, but rude awakening.

> Some here would say what the client wants is illegal and I am abetting this

Actually, what the client wants is perfectly legal if he did it himself! The irony in this is that if you showed the client how to use the software it is totally legal for him to use a CD of music he bought in his own home movie as long as he only plans to show it in his own home. It’s only when YOU get involved as a 3rd party that it becomes illegal. In the end, the exact same DVD is produced and consumed in the exact same way. It’s also seems strange that if that exact same home movie that the client made himself was to be played at the church social or Boy Scout meeting, it becomes illegal again because now it’s a public performance.

I have to agree with Spot that the particular topic of Fair Use is pretty cut and dried. What people don’t understand is that it’s the “Use” part that makes it legal or illegal not the actual IP itself. It’s like alcohol. I can drink a bottle of beer in my home and its perfectly legal. If I bring that same open bottle of beer in my car, it is now illegal (at least in my state its illegal to have an open bottle of alcohol in your car regardless of whether you are drinking it or not).

The problem, as has been stated, is that people want the music of their lives to accompany the pictures of their lives and the people who make the music should be ecstatic that they have touched their fan’s lives in such a meaningful way. Instead, they want to sue them for it. It just doesn’t make any sense at all. Each year I have to explain to an 8th grade class why they can’t have Vitamin C’s Graduation Song on their graduation video and I try and explain it to them, but it simply doesn’t make any sense to them at all. They are sure Vitamin C wouldn’t mind. ;-)

Do you have any idea how boring a graduation video becomes with buy-out music? It’s like watching a use car commercial. Last year the students said to me, “please don’t use that elevator music you used last year in our video”. I have no other option. Spot always says that audio is 70% of video. I am doomed to giving them a 30% graduation video. :(

I tell the kids to send a letter or email to their favorite artist and tell them that they suck for not letting them use their song in their video. Perhaps hearing fans complain will wake them up to what’s going on. Unfortunately, 20 years from now, they will play their graduation video and it will still sound like a used car commercial. The damage is already done.

~jr

>>>I have to explain to an 8th grade class why they can’t have Vitamin C’s Graduation Song on their graduation video and I try and explain it to them, but it simply doesn’t make any sense to them at all. They are sure Vitamin C wouldn’t mind. ;-)<<<

They would be correct. Last time I spoke with Colleen she was stoked that so many kids wanted to use that song, and she knew it was being used all over the place for graduations and graduation videos. She actually got asked to perform the song at more than a few graduations. However she has no control over what the label might do. So in this case the 8th grade class is actually correct in their statement that Vitamin C wouldn't mind.

Sorry to sort of change the course of this and not that it'll make one iota of difference, no matter what any of us here think but here goes anyway.
SPOT raised an interesting point, the right to pass on property as part of an estate. It's a fair enough idea, just because my labors are intellectual rather than physical should make no difference, maybe I don't own a house to leave to my offspring but I should none the less be able to leave them the rights to my music or novels or paintings.
However as has been mentioned in this kind of discussion before both this right and several other aspects of the industry do leave a bit of a hole. Whole libraries of music can and do end up in the hands of those who have no commercial interest in them whatsoever. I kind of find that a shame, they are the work of someone, someone whose not going to be heard or seen for a very long time, if ever. I doubt if this was ever their intention and it'd be a pretty tricky thing to define in a will or a contract.
However in this country we do have a tradition that sort of applies here and one to some extent is still enshrined in our law. It's intention is perhaps slightly different but still pretty applicable. Put crudely it says "use it or loose it" aka squatters rights. How this came about was to stop people acquiring the rights to vast tracts of land and making no use of them, it gives those who could make use of the land the right to do so.
Now much the same applies even to property today, sure I can leave my house, my car etc to my offspring, spouse or whoever. But there is a public rent on most of that, be it land taxes, council rates, state taxes or county taxes. Leave that property idle for long enough and the state or whoever will seize it to recover the unpaid taxes. Other countries also impose death duties, although thankfully not here.
So where am I going with all this. Well pretty simple really. I think at least some of the angst over this topic could be solved fairly simply, make copyright something that has to be renewed, even for a small fee, I'm not suggesting anything like a tax, just the bare minimum to cover administration. At least this way if the 'owner' no longer had any interest in it it'd become public domain. Now maybe this is a dumb idea, maybe there's some huge downside, I can't see it.

And one final thing, why is it when someone asks about this everyone seems to highlight want you can't do?
Now I don't frequent the same circles as musicians but so far I've certainly found plenty who'd be more than willing to bash out their own composition for me for gratis. I'd imagine the average school music teacher has got a few notes or two they'd love to have recorded for your video and I ain't rocket science to make a passable recording these days, they'd probably even throw in the school choir for some vocals if you asked nicely.

Bob.

One more time for the clueless....

The "music" industry (ie the LABELS, not all the "artists", but some) always were, remain and probably always will remain run by a bunch of no account, greedy, none caring money grubbing a-holes that couldn't care less about the consumer and only give a damn about fattening their bottom line. Any industry that would sue kids over the "loss" of a few dollars is you enemy, not your friend. I haven't and won't buy any music from any performer under any conditions anymore ever. Period. My own little protest. End of story. Or is it? Notice how sales are going down?

I don't see the problem being the copyright itself, or even the "owner". What I see is that far too many people have their hands in the money pool. Even if the person who created whatever it is that is being used says "Use it" we still would see managers, lables, publishers and probably hoards of others all climbing over each other saying they still needed their cut.

I remember several years ago NBC got the nickname of "The grinch that stole Christmas" because they managed to step in and copyright the public domain film "It's a Wonderful life" thus stopping it from being aired on every other channel during the holidays. And there is part of what I see as a problem with the renewable copyright thought. Sure if the "owner" did not care anymore someone would step up and take over ownership. So what would be the point really? The public still would not have it in "their" hands.

The copyright law in the USA does allow the use of copyright protected material in a parady or critical review. However, the piece may not appear in its entirety unless its entirety is the point of the paraody of criticism. Furthermore, it would be up to a judge or a jury to decide if it is a paraody and if the entire work was the point.

What this means is that the law provides for parody, criticism and fair use based upon subjective assessments that might not go your way.

Weird Al Yankovic did the wise thing. He did paraodies of popular songs in their entirelty often imitating the music video as well. He beleived he had the right to do so without permission but he always obtained that permission. I do not know if he ever had to pay for the use, but having permission made certain that the issue would not get decided by a judge.

When an entertaining movie uses a brief line from a song, the movie is not using the song under fair use becuase the song and the movie both exist primarily to entertain. However, if a news documentary uses a brief portion of a song it can be considered fair use.

There are countless examples. Nonetheless in the US each and every instance of alleged fair use is always subject to a determiniation if the copyright owner wishes to challange the assertion of fair use.

Fair use is often unfair becuase it is somewhat arbitrary and you are on your own. If you do it for a living or do it often - get permission.

At my church we frequently use snippets from popular movies. Although using them for sermon illustrations definitely falls under fair use (IN OUR OPINION) just in case that opinion is not shared by the copyright holders we subscribe to CVLI - a licensing representative that grants blanket permission for a fee for works produced by all the artisits and distributers they represent. It makes me feel safe in case it ever came into question.

Bob, it's more or less the same here. If an artist doesn't defend on all fronts, it's very difficult for them to come back later and defend a larger suit. In other words, if a bunch of kids use the music to create web vid and the artist doesn't defend, he's got a harder time when he goes after Gnutella. It would be nice to pick and choose those battles, but if the artist nor the label defends, they have a harder time defending later on.
Filmy is right, at the end of the day, the artist gets less of the pie than his support team. On the artists side of the coin though, most of the time we're willing to give up those benefits just so we can concentrate on what we do best. Create...

Ah yes... "creating".

Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday dear Spot,
Happy birthday to you.

The problem with copyright laws is fluff like the above gets protection under current law. How absurd is that?

The problem with laws is most are written by lawyers. Shakespeare was right,

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

The trouble with bad law is most people are unware doing something totally innocent like photocopying sheet music so the two new members in some church choir can join in singing a new song is technically a violation.

What next, the bathroom police to monitor how many sheets of toilet paper you tear off to wipe your butt?

"Just Do It" is even more "fluffy" Billyboy. It took someone's thought process to create it, to put it to music, and to copyright it. No matter how stupid, mundane, fluffy, or out of sync an idea might be, it was someone's idea, and should be protected. Otherwise, what's the point in being creative if someone else could come along and swipe it? When those sisters created the lyrics to what is a public domain song, they had no idea it would become so big. None whatsoever. They took a shot and it paid off. That's the way of the world whether you like it or not. No matter what your thought process is, the moment you committ it to paper or webspace, tape or hard drive, it's copyrighted and no one can take credit for it, which means no one can profit from it but you.
there is no "technically" about copying sheet music. It's someone else' property, and when you buy the sheet music, you're buying a license to enjoy the music, but not the license to copy it. Sheet music is no different than a CD. It's a mechanical device for wont of a better term.
Toilet paper is sold as a consumable, and carries no copyright. It might be patented, it might even be trademarked, but it can't be copyrighted. But you already knew that.
Is it at all possible that you've never created anything in your life, and therefore don't understand the value of owning that creation? That would really suck, to be in this business and think so little of yourself that you wouldn't protect what you've worked hard to know, learn, and produce.
Kinda like living in a big city and not locking your doors.