I am only small fry in this discussion, but I am interested to know how this music copyright situation applies in my case, as the consequences can be as damaging to me as any professional. I am a retired person who likes to keep his creative juices flowing by making my own amateur videos, with no intention of ever distributing, or selling them. Let’s suppose I have an idea of making a musical video based on a commercially released vocal CD. I believe I have a right to make an audio copy of that song for my own use. Now, suppose I put that recording on the soundtrack of a video and build scenes around it – still for my own personal satisfaction. Can I legally do that? If so, am I also permitted to show this video to friends? Taking it a step further, am I allowed to showe it to a club (say a car club, sports club, or even a video club where members show their home made videos). In short, how far can I go as an amateur hobbyist with this single copy, not for sale video without provoking the wrath of the record companies and their lawyers?

You can do this for your own use, you can display it on one copy for family/friends/whatever, and you'll be within legal right. But the moment you make a second copy, take out of the home environment to a club, etc, you are in illegal waters.
By certain facts in the law, the compulsory license granted you to listen to the song, and the right to make a copy of the song for personal usage, is limited to you. There are no sync rights given in the compulsory license, that's a whole separate area. But, if you wish to cut to copyrighted music, make a baby-grows-up video of your kids, whatever, and it's a one copy, hobby deal, no money changing hands, no public access, no more than your personal famililial use, it's not a crime that will be prosecuted. It's a gray area, but one that for the moment, the law is overlooking and permitting to take place, as it should allow and permit to take place. Microsoft temporarily ran afoul of this when they started syncing various kaleidoscope images to copyrighted music, but it's a personal use thing, as long as you aren't displaying the music and images in a public place, unless you have an ASCAP or BMI license, and the images aren't tied to any particular copyrighted song.

Thank you SPOT. Your explanation makes me feel much more comfortable.

How about this scenario? A client bought a CD of the music and wanted a video slide show created from their still pictures. Would that violate the copyright for a single copy, even if they were paying someone else to put them together? Where does the line get drawn? What about if they rented an editing facility and did it themselves? Or even an edit facility with an editor but called the shots?

JBJones

I'll toss in one more thing that I mentioned above in my post - oft time there are allowances made for "Student" or "Festival" use. You mention a "what if" in the terms of showing it in public at a bar or club that allows home made videos to be shown. In itself this sound sort of "grey" in that this does not sound like a student film shown in a class nor does it sound like they are festivals. However if it is somehthing like monthly film maker meetings - sort of a networking type of deal - than it *may* fall under something like "student" use. Beyond that, it *may* also be argued that these are private gatherings no different than having a party and putting on a CD to listen to. As long as it is for free and it is some sort of networking/monthly film maker meeting. However If admission is being charged for these "home made video" screenings and if they are being advertised than you for sure have clear cut legal issues.

The mention of "festivals" does raise another couple of steps in my situation. I belong to a couple of video maker clubs, each of which have three or four competitions each year. There is an annual fee to belong to these clubs, but no fee to enter the competitions, and certainly no money prizes. Would these club meetings be considered public meetings? Then these clubs hold regional, and national competition meetings, attended by many people. These meetngs could be classed as amateur film festivals. What would be the situation there?

Gets very grey. Doesn't it?

I'll answer 2 questions in one post. Yes, a club meeting is considered 'public' and unless it's a gathering of STUDENTS actually in an accredited school, and the display/audio presentation is part of an educational endeavor, then it's illegal.
To answer jbjones question, you are in violation of the law anytime you sync music to picture for anything but your own personal, private use. If you are doing it as a 'professional' and charging someone to sync their pictures to a CD they bought, pray you don't get caught. You are in violation of not just one, but several copyright laws. There are all kinds of discussions about this subject, but unless it falls into:
Fair Use categories (specific educational, NPO's, limited government, commentary, editorial, and a few other VERY specific uses)
or has a SYNC license in addition to a Master Use License, you are most likely in violation of at least 2 copyright laws.
If you didn't create it, you need a license, in writing. There are so many precedents, it's nuts.

You know all the wording you see at the front of a video, the FBI warning, the Stockholm/Interpol laws, etc about the rented/purchased movie being for home use, etc? Those same laws apply to audio as well. It's just that copyright laws and notices don't require that they be printed on the CD, cassette, or LP cover. Whether you agree or disagree with the law, and I admit I disagree with many of the laws, but believe fervently in following them, understand that the recording industry is making a business/revenue stream going after pirates, copyright violators, and derivative works. I attended a gathering in SFO 2 weeks ago where the entire week was dedicated to training lawyers on copyright laws, how to sue, how to spot/identify lucrative targets, how to identify quantity and proposed punitive damages in addition to demonstrating actual damages in very real scenarios. Bette Midler's lawsuit against Ford opened a whole new world in training just on copyright of format, let alone actual works.
Be careful out there.

Well, luckily I've been on the overly cautious side with clients. I was just hoping maybe I had misunderstood things and could be a little more relaxed. I've had a few clients turn away when I said it would cost extra to track down the copyrights for a song and possibly they would end up paying extra per copy if more than five or so copies were wanted.

JBJones

I was wondering about this situation:

You're a wedding videographer and you contract to shoot the rehearsal, prewed, wedding and reception. At the reception you tape the toasts and the dinner and then the D.J. starts playing popular copyrighted music. Are you really supposed to quit taping or obtain a sync license for every song?

I've followed this topic on many different forums and have heard that this is the case from a few sources. I really can't believe that their copyrights take precedence over your right to tape an event. Maybe it's the D.J.'s responsibility to be sure that their rights aren't infringed. I don't want to be nitpicky, but the law is. SPOT, do you know how the law covers this situation?

1. I'm not a lawyer, so don't accept this as legal advice. I've merely spent a fortune, and not a small one, over the years defending and offending both sides of this issue.
2. The law is pretty clear on ancillary music. If the music is a featured part of your video, in other words, an important part of the sync work, then you are breaking the law using that audio from the DJ. If it happens to be part of a shot, and is video not cut to the audio, and for instance, you have 10 seconds of "I Will Always Love You" and then you cut to another shot, another song, and say....12 seconds of that song, etc, then you are not using the song as a basis for your media, and should be alright as far as a sync license. BUT! You are NOT covered by a master use license, and here is where having a membership in ASCAP or BMI is a good thing, because no matter how much of the song you are or are not using, there are still 2 licenses required for video work, and you *might* be escaping the necessity of one license, but there is no way to skirt both. This is how a television station for instance, can send a news crew to the mall and have them filming a bunch of teens, while music from the mall, record store, or boombox is playing, and no one gets hurt. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, plus Fair Use apply in their situation. In almost no situation can any videographer working as a hired professional fall back on the Fair Use clauses.
You are always better off taking the tack of "I didn't create it, I need a license" in your work, but this particular question has been prosecuted and won on both sides of the question in the past. I don't know where that magic understanding and permissibility lies;I do know that if you take "I will always love you" and it's from the DJ over your vid cam mic and you cut to it as a tempo map and you get caught....get out your checkbook, because it's gonna get expensive. You'd be better off finding a 'soundalike' tune of the song in a royalty free library or using ACID to compose your own. It used to be that this was something the labels and publishers weren't really going after, because it's considered a small market. However, now that they are aggressively pursuing copyright issues, they are having to go after ALL copyright infringements in order to prove their case, and set the precedents and standards. A large wedding company in Vegas was recently nailed on this issue; there was a fair to-do about it at WEVA.

Just had to reply with a Thank You for your thoughtful answer.

It really boggles my mind and makes me angry that their copyright seems so more important under the law than my right to shoot video. I don't use copyrighted music in my videos, both because it's not legal and because I feel that it is wrong, they created it and should control/profit from it's use. I have a keyboard, guitar, and ACID. I'm not a musician but I can meet my needs.

I don't agree with the legal notion that I can't shoot the couples first dance in its entirety just because they're dancing to a copyrighted music. If their copyright is so important then they should make the D.J. turn it off if there's any idea that it's being recorded. It's their duty to protect themselves if it's so important and their license with the D.J. ought to make it clear that it's their responsibility to prevent copying. (I really wonder how many of the D.J.'s are paying royalties?)

Your description of a TV station shooting kids at the mall and the fact that background music from a music store is a concern tells you that maybe things are skewed too far in protecting their rights at the expense of others. It's as if you should pay for the smell emanating from a restaurant, perfume store, or flower shop and stop breathing if you don't.

The central part of my shooting the first dance for example is the couple not the music. If it were the music then you'd have the notion of deciding whether to shoot on the basis of what the music was. Gee, that's a bad song, I'm not going to shoot the first dance. I'd shoot it if there were just people standing around humming or playing kazoos.

I really think that the recording industry needs to get some common sense here. I understand that they want to protect their property interest but on the other hand they don't own the world (or do they?) and I don't think everybody should have to get a lawyer to make sure it's not an infringement if there's two notes of their music playing while your shooting video. Everybody pays a little slice to them due to the advertising costs that are added to every product, whether you listen to the radio or not. A parallel would be the Cable and Satellite TV services raising their rates due to the increased costs of sports programming. That's fine but they don't give you the opotion of dropping that portion of the package and paying less. You pay more even if you never watch it. Let them put all their music and sports on a pay for play basis and see what their revenues are then.

At some point maybe enough people will get tired of the attitude and the law will change in ways that they won't like, as it did for the telemarketing industry.(Given that the final results on that one aren't in yet.)

There's also the issue of honest videographers and others who would wish to pay for the music but as earlier posters in this thread have stated, it's almost impossible for you to get them to take your money. So the result for a wedding videographer is to pass on the music entirely, they get no $'s. Just use the music, they get no $'s, or try to get the permission, you go nuts and get no $'s.

Again SPOT, I in no way dispute that what you're saying is correct just that I don't like it and hope it will change.

All,
At the risk of being redundant, this thread is like taking a Master's course on this subject. Many thanks to all posters...again!
Aloha,
Randy

My guess is that one of the most flagrant violations of copyrights is the wedding video maker. I doubt if many of them pay the thousands of dollars necessary to legally use "The Wedding Song" , :"Butterfly Kisses:", etc. that people sing at the wedding in the wedding video that they make. However, these producers even though making only one copy have made an indlelible record of their crime which they have sold for a profit. It will be only a matter of time until the lawyers go after them also. It seems that under the Sony Bono legislation, encouraged by Disney, that copyrights are almost eternal; You have to pick a song over 100 years old to avoid copyrights; and even then the arrangement may be copyrighted. I would be very careful of what music I included in any dvd or video. I think there is a 3 second rule in that you can use up to 3 seconds without royalties, but I"ve never seen that one in writing. Remember, even the words from Martin Luther King's speech "I have a Dream" and "Happy Birthday" are copyrighted. So if you sing "Happy Birthday" at your chlild's party, you could legally be sued. Not what you want to hear, but the way it is. The string is more what can I get away with; will the officer give me a speeding ticket if I'm 3 miles over the speed limit or wait until I'm 10 miles over it. Once you get by the officer you are generally safe from prosecution; but leave a video trail and ....
One more example, a local church in my city was buying about 5 copies of the choir music and xeroxing enough for the other 8 or so members [from a low cost choir music magazine, commonly used by churches]. They received a very stern warning; were forced to pay for additional copies for the past 5 years (APROX. $15000); and were told that in the future they had better buy enough copies so that each choir member could have their own.
Like I said previously, trying to do the right thing is difficult. Once I wanted to use a Rankin Bass song and finally traced the rights to Warner Brothers. It takes some investigative work.

Since i don't sell my films, or show them in public places...I use whatever material I want. I try to put together loops and stuff within acid, but sometimes I use actual songs from CD's that I've bought. After all, my films are for personal use, and so are my cd's, therefore I don't see any harm.

Even though I'm on the same side you are and think some more consumer rights legislation is in order; keep in mind that there are some 50000 plus persons being or marked to be prosecuted in the music sharing controversy. It sure takes the fun out of making videos and raisen' kids--having to buy sheet music of "Happy Birthday" for all your kids birthday participants, lest one of the kids be the child of an ASCAP or other employee. Some fair practice definitions would be nice but Bono closed most of the loopholes.
I think this link gives more info
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/s505.pdf
on the Sony Bono changes. Currently I think you are safe using copyrighted songs in home videos; but note that the Bono legislation was actually retroactive in extending existing copyrights and there are a lot of consumer advocate groups working on the problem--even Google came under fire at one time, but search engines survived the attack since they are so valuable.

The 3 second myth is just that; a myth. There are certain rules that allow up to 10% of a copyrighted work to be used for Fair Use purposes, but nothing for the general public. Like everything else in the video world, there are a LOT of myths that stem from somewhere, but aren't true. Like mailing yourself a tape to create a copyright, known as a "poor man's copyright." This is a total myth. Even the LOC, the copyright clearinghouse, will tell you this.
Guys, copyright isn't that hard to understand, and isn't that difficult to learn once you get the concept of a copyright being a protection for whomever created ANYTHING that is artistic in nature. And it protects you, too. They can make our lives exceptionally difficult, but in my view, so do speeding laws. And other laws. I wish it weren't so difficult, but back in the days of merry old England, copyright became a big deal, but no one ever anticipated Joe Schmo would be able to extract audio and use it in his own video. They were concerned with Joseph Schmoseph passing Shakespeare's works as his own. Then Baldwin screwed it up for things here in the US at the turn of the 20th century. Then came everything else, right up to the DMCA, which by it's very existence, goes against the Copyright Act and Amendments of various years. It will take 3-6 years before it's ever sorted out. In the meantime, I have to side with artists and movie houses on this. Protect the copyright at all costs, because once that genie is outta the bottle, there is no putting her back in.

SPOT, you make an interesting comment that some are forgetting. The copyright protects us as well. How would you feel if you did a great video or graphic and found out people were selling it as part of their video wedding packages. The would irk me. It goes both ways.

Dave T2

In my opinion there is a huge need for simplification here. I appreciate someone wanting to be paid for every instance where someone else uses his musical masterpiece, but it has gotten to the point where everyone is in violation at least some of the time. Reminds me of the rule about stopping at stop signs. Legally, one is required to make a FULL AND COMPLETE STOP EVERY TIME, or they have broken the law. Tell me, just how many of you make such stops every time? None or you, right? Gosh, then maybe it's the law that's wrong here. Regardless of good intentions, it's simply unenforceable because it's too extreme. Ditto for the current copyright laws.

One option might be to throw everything out, and tell artists that they should only expect money from their "first use." After that, it's fair game. Or artists could make money the way they did in the old days--by performing in public.

A more reasonable approach might be to retain the concept of copyrights but greatly simplify the application of the law. How about this: (1) The source must be acknowledged, and (2) The project involving the use of the material must have revenues of less than $xxx.

I know I'm just spinning my wheels, here, but seriously--go back to the top of this thread and re-read the posts. To my (perhaps feeble) mind, the current situation is absurd.

A lot of good points here, and I to get heated on this issue, i do not mind paying the ferryman, but object when averyone and their dog wants a slice of the action. The person performing, the bloke who wrote it, the person who published it, the girl in the office if you want to sync it and so it goes on.

The laws should be the same as Patent law after a period about 20 years it's free.

Perhaps there should be a law that if I am forced to listen to music in Hotels, Restruants, People playing the their music loudly, etc I can am automatically get some form of compensation from the all the people involved in that production. Lets face it what other busines gets free advertising on radio and TV and gets paid for it.

Hopefully it will get easier in the Uk soon from what I hear.

Power to the people, (can I say that or is it copyright?)

Part of the problem has to do with antiquated copyright laws that never invisioned the Internet, CD's, DVD's or any modern media format for that matter. As things are now neither the producer or end user is very well served.

While not the same issue, last night on the Tonight show, an example. Jay had a guess that obviously has a few too many drinks before coming on. As Leno likes to do, he dug up some old footage of the guest doing some less than flattening work way back in the 70's on the hit TV show Golden Girls as one of many Elvis impersonators. Even if only showed briefly there are fees to be paid. What the guest blubbered out in his intoxicated state was Leno was too cheap to show the whole photo and instead showed a badly cropped edit of just the guest leaving off the other 19 impersonators because if he had shown the whole frame from the show then everyone in it would have needed to been paid for it airing if only on air for a few seconds. Normally such truth doesn't slip out on air and Jay was obviously a little ticked-off by his "guess" letting it slip.

The point is if I buy a CD almost always I buy it because of one, maybe two songs I actually want. The rest is almost always second rate, frequently garbage. So, I RARELY buy a CD because I'm not going to blow $15-25 just for the song or two I actually want. No doubt tens of millions feel the same way.

I don't know how the rest of the world is as far as the recording industry, but in the U. S. it once was the biggest band of bandits, thieves, crooks and lowlifes around ripping off artists right and left.

Many of the hits of 50's and 60's when I was growing up were written by then no-name BLACK artists. Rarely did they share in the profits. If they got anything they got thrown a few scraps while the record companies made millions on each release. So I doubt anyone is going to shead tears for the recording industry and also explains why a lot of people don't feel that bad ripping off some warez copy. Sort of a street justice thing. Not saying its right, but the recording industry gets NO sympathy from me and their recent attempt to sue the little guy will blow up in their face. You don't spit into the wind, you don't tug on Superman's cape and you don't piss-off customers. That's what the recording industry as a whole has done and why CD sales are sinking fast. Add in there isn't much new talent (my opinion) and what passes for "music" from many "artists" today (again my opinion) is pure crap.

So what really needs to happen is a whole rewrite of copyright laws so that the producer is protected, the actual artist gets a fair share for his work and most importantly that the end user doesn't feel like he's being ripped off. Because you know what? HE IS with the current system. And in case its lost on anyone... if you don't have any customers, the last one out of the room please turn off the lights.

I haven't read everything in this extremely long thread, so I apologize if this has already been covered.

Here's what I do when I'm looking for music for my pieces:

I usually work with local, young and hungry musicians rather than established commercial artists. These folks are more likely to control ALL the rights to their stuff, simplifying the task of getting permission. They're also likely to work directly with you to compose something original, cut you a break on the price, or even do it for free, if you give them a copy (or copies) of the final piece for their portfolio.

If you know some unsigned bands or musicians whose sound you like, give 'em a call and see what happens. Otherwise, I've had good luck putting up signs in music schools, music departments of your local university, etc. College or community radio stations and local clubs are also good sources for info about who's doing what kind of music in town. There's a lot of good techno bands that specialize in "ambient" music that makes ideal movie music beds.

Far better and more interesting results than using canned music libraries, which I invariably find pretty cheesy.