> The copyright protects us as well

SPOT’s explanation of how things are (like it or not) is very enlightening. I’m a musician and I must agree that, in addition to not wanting to have my original work stolen or repackaged and sold without paying royalties, I would be pretty upset if someone synced my music to a video of images that portrayed something I didn’t agree with (i.e., pro smoking video with teens smoking cigarettes, which I oppose). However, if those same teens wanted to sync pictures of their graduation to my music because I’m their favorite artist (in my wildest dreams of course) I would like that. So there needs to be an easy way ask for permission and to control the use a copyrighted work. I don’t think that exists today based on previous posts.

Perhaps the burden should fall on the copyright holder to make an effort to allow the legal use of their copyrighted work and if they cannot prove that they have a public mechanism for collecting royalties from the smallest of users, then they cannot prosecute those users for not paying those royalties. i.e., if they will only deal with big companies, then they can only take legal action against big companies for which they’ve set up a way to do business with.

I think that would be fairer to everyone. Then the law is not fuzzy at all. Perhaps there should be a registry for this service so people will know where to go. If there is no registered way to pay, there is no basis for a lawsuit. (I know I am trivializing this but my point is it needs to be simplified somehow)

~jr

I am starting a small wedding videography business part time. I am planning to use royalty-free music for all of photo montages, etc... From reading earlier posts in this thread I understand that I am obligated to purchase a synchronization license for music that is sung during the wedding (for instance, "The Wedding Song"). My question is for wedding videographers out there. Who among you has obtained a synchronization license for music sung during the wedding and how much did it cost? Thanks.

harveyc - read my post further up in this thread, which points to another thread in which I did this.

Hey, we could just keep this thread going 'round and 'round!

- David

ps, this forum really is a tremendous resource. Thank you SPOT, JohnnyRoy, BillyBoy and all the many many others who teach me something everytime I log on. ( SPOT, still love the dvd training set! )

I think you missed my point, because my point is exactly yours. I don't want people using my music work, or me using other's music work, and I don't want people using my video work, any more than you would want them using your graphic or video work. It does go both ways. Which is why I keep saying, "if you didn't create it, you need a license."

I think we can sum it up by saying the copyright laws need a major overall to get up to speed. The reality is very few artists make a boat load of money for thier work. The record companies do. And they're the ones now crying foul after they have raped the artists and public decade after decade.

Like with so many laws Congress passes it is often the innocent and those wishing to conform with the law no matter how goffy it is that are either punished or hog-tied for trying to comply.

What's needed is some SIMPLE means where someone wishing to use another's work can obtain rights to it through a simple process. Now the process is looney tunes at best.

I mean come on, its totally absurd that whoever wrote the little ditty "Happy Birthday" that probably gets sung upwards of a billion times a year could legally be entitled to royalties now and 200 years from now which seems to be what some suggest.

> I mean come on, its totally absurd that whoever wrote the little ditty "Happy Birthday" that probably gets sung upwards of a billion times a year could legally be entitled to royalties now and 200 years from now which seems to be what some suggest.

What is even sadder is that when you go to a major restaurant chain (i.e., TGI Friday’s, Appleby’s. etc.) and it’s your child’s birthday and they bring out the desert and sing some loony happy birthday song that you never heard of before and your child looks at you and says, “Daddy, why didn’t they sing the regular Happy Birthday song?” and you have to explain to your 6 year old about copyright infringement which is basically telling them that its against the law to sing that song we taught you.

But you gotta respect it like a 1st amendment right. You may not always agree with its usage but it would be very, very, dangerous to not uphold it for everyone.

Perhaps its time to write a new happy birthday song and make it royalty free. Sort of the Linux of birthday songs. ;-)

~jr

I hope you weren't saying that I missed your point. That wasn't what I meant. I was just trying to emphasize the point. I used the phrase YOU as a generic all encompassing term.

Dave T2

Actually, Applebys, Chili's, and the like are stupid when they sing their own version, expressing that it's a result of the song being copyrighted til 2030. That's BS. All major restaurant chains pay ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, thus allowing them to hold a public performance of a copyrighted work without additional fees, licensing, etc. It's only if a film were being shot at Appleby's or Chili's.
But you're right, it's tough to explain to a 6 year old that the people are singing it weird because of copyright, but then again, I just tell the kids that the restaurant has their own version and they like to sing it.

Sorry... I couldn't help myself. I had to know more.

Following gives some interesting specifics on the "Happy Birthday" song its history, who owns the copyright now and how it came to be illustrating how UTTERLY STUPID current copyright laws actually are.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm

that one in particular, is a demonstration of how the Copyright Office was duped. But it still is a copyrighted song, for another 25 years. But only the lyrics.
I use this song as an example when I teach the courses on copyright to students in media arts.
Beware, there is a guy out there claiming he's 'discovered' public domain on the song, but he really hasn't. It's part of an OpenLaw discussion group at Harvard or Yale, not associated/sponsored by the school in any way, and not a Court-determined finding. Just some guy spouting his 'new found' knowledge.
About as valuable as Zippy finding that you can't play unbuffered media at the same time you are playing buffered media and maintain quality of both simultaneously. :-)

Very interesting SPOT. I got to wonder now if someone is claiming copyright for such things as 'How many bottles of beer on the wall' and other such stuff.

Three of my favorite lawyer jokes:

How do you tell when a lawyer is lying?

His lips are moving.

Why does the bar association prohibit sex between lawyers and their clients?

To prevent clients from being billed twice for essentially the same service.

What word describes a lawyer who doesn’t chase ambulances?

Retired.

OK four...

A man went to a brain store to get some brain for dinner. He saw a sign remarking on the quality of professional brains offered at this particular brain store. So he asks the butcher:

"How much for Engineer brain?"

"3 dollars an ounce."

"How much for Doctor brain?"

"4 dollars an ounce."

How much for Lawyer brain?"

"100 dollars an ounce."

"100 dollars an ounce. Why is lawyer brain do expensive?"

"Do you have any idea of how many lawyers we have to kill to get an ounce of brains?"

2 more....

Why do they bury lawyers 12 feet under?
- Cause deep down they're really nice guys...

What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
- A good start....

Spot,
Does your comment that all major restaurant chains pay a ASCAP, BMI, SESAC liense mean that I could arrange to show my not for sale, single amateur copy of a video with commercial music on the soundtrack at one of these establishments without fear of legal repercussions?

Thanks for all your input. It is very enlightening.

RonR

Nope, you couldn't. Because their ASCAP dues don't cover a sync license. Sync licenses are not part of the compulsory license.

it is a funny thing this topic - My mother in law has been visiting the U.S from Sweden. She goes back tommorrow morning and her birthday is Saturday. So we took her to Ruby Tuedays for super just now. I went to the hostess and told her it was her birthday and blah blah. So out they come and I think "Hmm - they are going to sing." but no - it takes 3 people to bring out one ice cream sunday and say this: "And we hear there is a birthday girl at the table. So here is a birthday sunday - Happy birthday!! Now we are not allowed to sing to you for legal reasons but you all can sing yourselfs." ???!!! It takes 3 people for this? LOL!! Anyhow I chimed in and said "Yeah it is a hot topic on the internet right now." But I got to thinking - First, as the latest Vanessa Carlton song played from the speakers, we are told we can perfrom this song because they can't. Now correct me if I am wrong - a public performance in a public place by anyone is still a public performance in a public place. Stupid.

Now the next thing(s) - Around the bar area this resturant, as do most bars, has televisions on. Many, if not most, resturants in general have this - McDonalds has this and I would not consdier them a "resturant". Ruby Tuesday, as do most, had on music - Red Hot Chili Peppers, Michelle Branch, Avril - it seemed to be the top 40 rock disk. Ok - now as DSE said they are covered already with the ASCAP/BMI fees but what about public performance of all these network feeds? If I wanted to purchase an air check from CNN or any network I could for personal use. Most have provisions for educational use or private use - chruch groups, VFW, Legion etc. However I could not show it to the general public and certianly not for a fee. So here is another copyright violation - in real time. Just because we aren't paying to watch what is on the television is a secondary issue in this case.

Which got me to thinking about - Sports bars. You know, the ones that do massive advertising for super bowl viewings and such. And wait - what about those same types of bars that have American Idol nights? Music aside - how much in fees do these places pay to Fox, NBC, CBS, ESPN and the like for these advertised, cover charged, 3 drink mininum events?

Or do they? And why not if not? (Smart people know where I am heading with this I am sure)

Food for thought.