There's got to be a price for just about any song. So why is attaining a license for a popular song so seemingly clandestine and unattainable

No, there's not. A current big hit of right now is worth far, far more than a big hit of 1977, and the value of that song right now could be significantly devalued by being used in the strategically wrong piece of work. Some songs only hold their value or increase. A great example of this is "Bad to the Bone" by George Thorogood and the Destroyers or similar. It is still one of the most heavily licensed songs in the film and commercial television world.
Added to the difference in value which cannot be unilaterally applied across the board, is that some songs will have had union musicians on the gig vs a self-incorporated band, which means that guild/union fees have to be added to the license fee. You may be paying those fees directly to AFM or if it gets weird, SAG or AFTRA on top of it all. There is no way to manage that process easily.

Then there are the artists that specify what sorts of visual works their works may be synchronized to. My publishing agreement specifically spells out that my music may not be sync'd to adult-oriented content, and may not be sync'd to religious content without my prior written consent. There are simply some causes I will not allow my work to be used for, but in a very wide sense, I allow the publisher to make those decisions for me. There are bands that have specified that their works may not be used for political purposes...it can vary.

It would be nice to say that a song recorded between XXX day and XXX day in a given year has specific value, and part of that value is the number of SoundScan sales, but....What if you've got a monster hit on radio, and another guy has a monster hit on MP3.com or CDBaby, which one is worth more? They'll both scan about the same. Obviously, the radio song is gonna have more commercial value. I'm sure there is some Bayesian estimation algorithm that could figure it all out at that level, but it's not been written to my knowledge.
Then the number of replications, target audience has to be taken into consideration.
Sync, mechanicals, master, videogram, new media licenses all must be taken into consideration as well.
Then there are artists like Led Zepplin and the Beatles that never wanted their works licensed at all. But eventually they lost control of their works, and both artists' works have been licensed out, albeit at a huge cost to them. Led Zepplin led the charge against downloadable music, which is why you still cannot purchase their music (legally) online.

Were it easy to assign value to a specific song, then licensing would become easy. But...there are a lot of parameters that make it not easy, and not likely to ever become easy. It's not like an automobile that carries an MSRP.
As far as royalty free resources:
here is a large collection of resources, including Magnatune.

From my limited understanding...

A- The labels make their money on big sales. Many small sales aren't that profitable for them.

Popular songs are worth millions of dollars in potential (big) sales. I don't believe small sales would be as profitable, since you would need a ridiculous high # of sales.

B- Customers suck up their time negotiating the price for songs. This costs them money in terms of labour, so they have to pay for this. They also have to pay their legal staff in writing contracts. Small sales may be barely worth doing.

Some producers try to reduce negotiation by including a "most favored nations" clause. Every rights owner gets paid the said price for their song. The problem with this is some rights owner will ask significantly more than everyone else. In this situation, it usually ends up that their song isn't used.

2- You can try getting the rights to a popular song if it's not for profit (including indie films)- it doesn't hurt to try. (From what I've heard, not sure if this is true) Sometimes people are nice and will do this. It is good form to offer to pay some token fee, like $50-200.

James Lardner wrote a book called Hollywood, the Japanese and the VCR Wars which I always thought should have been called “Beyond Greed: How Hollywood Tried to make the VCR illegal.” And of course they nearly did. The book also tells how they were then dragged kicking and screaming into another lake of money in video sales and rentals.

Hollywood still wants to go back to the 1950’s when 35mm film, and vinyl records were the only means of distribution. They can't do in reality so they want to do it legally. It’s called the DMCA: in return for their unwavering political support, Clinton gave Hollywood their legal wish list.

Farss points out “that doing the right thing is more expensive than doing the wrong thing.” Right, Hollywood is so blinded by its own greed that they work against themselves. Anybody can see that a friendly guy that makes it easy to buy (e.g.) coffee at $5 a pound is going to make way more money that an officious creep that sells it for $100. Not Hollywood. How hard could it be to set up a website that would let people use copyright music for a fee? No one here complains about paying. Spot/DSE and GlennChan point out the problem of pricing and small sales. But I wonder, what's the use of making a product if you can't figure out what to charge? Small sales: Wrigley’s makes millions selling gum at 50c a pack.

My heroes are those geeky teenagers that break open Hollywood’s Machiavellian copy-protection schemes the day after they’re released. So outraged did this make Hollywood that Clinton made it illegal to even identify their websites.

I don’t make my living at video editing; I'm just a serious amateur. I’ve never taken a cent for any video ive made. I take the DMCA as seriously as I do Plan 9 From Outer Space. You guys that do, don’t owe Hollywood anything. You should be writing here about how to beat them, not wringing your hands over the “morality” of doing so. I loved JohnMeyers story of how the NSA beat them by declaring the video top secret. Nobody else can do that but there must be other ways. There are websites where you can report copyright infringers? NEVER report them, even if they are your competitors. OTOH, bomb this site with fantasy reports of infringers. People here have experience in DMCA stuff: share your info so people can get a feeling for how Hollywood operates.

Start taking steps toward forming an organization that will stand behind its members legally and financially, then proceed to ignore the most egregious copyright rules (not the reasonable ones, like pirating), then stand behind the guy that Hollywood decides to go after. It's like a denial of service attack: they got the money, but you got the numbers. How many people can they go after? (At this point, we play The Strawbs, “Part of the Union”, substituting “Hollywood” for “the company”, “the factory” and “the government”.)

Sorry, but the DMCA is such an outrageous sellout to Hollywood. It allows Britney Spears to fly around in her Gulfstream (while her life goes down the tubes) while you honest people who work for a living just get screwed.

First, none of this thread has anything at all to do with DCMA. Second, you apparently don't get how the industry works, and will *always* work in terms of how recordings are valued.
DMCA doesn't specifically protect Brittany Spears, or anyone else in the music industry, it predominantly protects the software industry. Few CDs are copy protected.
But you've probably got lots of hacked software too, so that's a moot point too, right?
Your heroes are those that force or unlock doors so theives can walk in.
Wow, great heroes to have. I'll revere Ken Lay first, thanks.
DCMA, BTW, has always been seen as a stop-gap. It has little to do with the entertainment industry other than DVDs, but most folks just don't get that. Most DVD copy-protection schemes didn't even exist as an idea when the DMCA was drafted.

You don't find it amusing that you'd like to imitate the words of a tightly controlled copyrighted bit of music? Cronk and Wakeman are both copyright activists.
You might as well refer to Tom Waits, who recently won his copyright/soundalike lawsuit against Frito-Lay corporation.
Even though he's a huge folk hero, he's filed more copyright violations than any single artist in the past 2 years, and won all of them to date. Not only has he sued for illegal use of his masters, but has successfully sued for look-alikes and sound-alikes, due to his very unique look and sound.
He's my hero of the day.

[edited for typo]

Spot/DSE says “none of this thread has anything at all to do with DMCA.” This thread discusses copyrighted music. The DMCA is the latest applicable law to all digitally encoded media. How do you get your music? On wax cylinders?
I “apparently don't get how …recordings are valued.” Anything is valued according to its price on the open market. That's Economics 101. But Hollywood doesn’t like the laws of economics and wishes they would go away. They nearly lost the billions they made on the video market through their own stupidity. That’s fine with me but the problem is their psychopathic greed hurts other people, like me. If you don’t care, that's your business. Suppose they had won in their assault against the Betamax? All it would have taken is one changed vote in the Supreme Court. Then would we have the high quality camcorders that make indies possible (and makes Vegas saleable)? Not to mention the ordinary people that now can easily record their lives on video. If you think Clinton's gift to his Hollywood acolytes has no effect on common people and is only out to get Bad Guys, you’re wrong. Ironic: it was Sony who fought Hollywood, not for any overriding moral principle, but for their own good. And in so doing they won a victory for all of us.
“The DMCA doesn’t …protect Britney Spears.” It tries to, but the music industry missed the boat on copy protection. But (ignoring Steve Jobs) they’re climbing back in with their copy-protection schemes for downloaded music: more nightmares for honest people. More laughter from the hackers. And less money for Britney and all of them, because people will be driven back to file-shared mp3’s.
"Few CDs are copyright protected." Virtually all CDs are copyright protected. You may mean they're not copy protected.
“The DMCA predominantly protects the software industry.” Music and DVDs are software. Anyway, the DMCA protects all digital media. Maybe you mean computer application programs (not music and movies.) Well it seems software developers don’t much want it because they have given up on draconian protection schemes that only make problems for their customers. Microsoft is an exception because it still has a virtual monopoly.
I “probably [have] lots of hacked software.” Do I? Really? Tell me, do I beat my wife, too? You apparently consider someone who would use copyrighted music without permission to be on the same level as a child molester.
My heroes are thieves? Ken Lay is morally superior to hackers? Consider this: I buy a DVD player in Texas to give as a gift in Mexico. Of course it doesn’t work there because Mexico is a different “region”. It doesn’t help the stand-alone DVD player, but the hackers beat this Hollywood idiocy as regards the DVD player in my computer (and yours too). If this is thievery, we could use more of it. (BTW, more irony: the DVD player plays pirate movies fine; but we can't rent Hollywood movies from the local video store. Another BTW: pirate movies are of such dreadful quality they are unwatchable. The superb quality of genuine DVDs is their real copy protection.)
“DCMA, BTW, has always been seen as a stop-gap.” Stop gap? What does that mean? That its going to get even worse? We ain’t seen nothin’ yet?
You say the “DMCA … has little to do with the entertainment industry other than DVDs. “ In other words, the DMCA applies to DVDs. But it doesn’t apply to CDs? That's strange. Then you say “Most DVD copy-protection schemes didn't even exist as an idea when the DMCA was drafted.” More irrelevance: So what? They sure exist now.
“You [i.e., me] don't find it amusing that you'd like to imitate the words of a tightly controlled copyrighted bit of music? Cronk and Wakeman are both copyright activists.” I guess by “imitate” you mean “modify”. And perhaps you mean “embarrassing” or “ironic” for “amusing.” Whatever you mean, the answer to your question is no. Maybe my point was poorly made; or was debatable; or the feeble attempt at humor fell flat. But whether Cronk and Wakeman are activists, communists or ham sandwiches is completely irrelevant to what I was trying to do. Or does even suggesting modifying a song mean copyright violation?
“You might as well refer to Tom Waits…” Okay, I will. Waits court victory created yet another thing that can be copyrighted: voice patterns or something like that. Great! Another possible (albeit unlikely) mine field for video makers. He’s your hero of the day? A poster called Serena said in another thread on copyright that “a particular rhythm can be claimed under copyright if it is unique to a piece.” Guess a studio that nailed an indie who used Acid to make his own music but in so doing copied a “rhythm” would be your super-hero.
You have a rather iconoclastic view of the value of copyright for this group.
* I WITHDRAW the following bracketed comment, with apologies to Spot/DSE:* [You are an expert on Vegas but I wonder if you MAKE videos.]
Few people here are helped by the copyright laws, digital or otherwise. Read the posts. They’re all willing to pay to use copyright material if there was a rational way to do it. The entertainment industry has a valuable product that people are willing to pay for, but, historically, they have always been so wrapped up in their greed, so afraid they’ll sell some “right”, obsessed with the possibility that someone might copy ANYTHING they do (voice patterns now) that they become impotent as businessmen. Their worst enemy is themselves—not the indies—or the hackers.

How many commercial works have you produced?

The thread is about licensing.
The chuckle is appreciated, however. :-)

How do you two feel about indemnity clauses?

There is no such thing in a production environment.
A couple years ago, a guy who had no real clue wrote in a major industry magazine, "Have the wedding couple bring in their own CD's and then have them sign that you're not responsible if they get sued."
An IP attorney responded with;
"1. You're demonstrating you know it's illegal to use their CDs for making wedding videos.
2. You're hired to make the master, you have control over the content, you made the decision to illegally use the music.
3. You created not only the master, but you created the duplicates too, all with full knowledge that such action is unlawful. In the eyes of a court, the editor in this situation would fall under much greater scrutiny than the bride or groom."

There is really good, intelligent discussion on this very issue in the 4EverGroup forums, the VideoUniversityWedding forums, and similar forums, and it doesn't include the rhetoric you'll continually find here. I suspect it's because at least the majority of the posters there are working professionals that understand that they want their works protected, just as the working pro's and serious amateurs here want their work protected.

This is a response to Spot/DSE, 3/5/2007:

“The thread is about licensing.” Hey, we agree about something.

”How many commercial works have you produced? “
Let’s see—well, over the years—as a sideline of course—a number of weddings, one 50th anniversary, the quincineras are ENDLESS.—then a lot of times I just lent the guy a camcorder and edited and DVDed (or VHSed) whatever he took…well i’d say…about a hundred commercial works. (b) OTOH, “pay me what you can”-and he gives me US$10; another guy tunes my truck (but he puts in USED spark plugs [he says he cleaned them and they're as good as new)]—another guy, $300! Alright, eh?—but then he says he meant 300 PESOS—well at the Lozano's quincinera, they paid me well in beer (fortunately the camera had Steadyshot and then I ran the file through Dynapel’s Steadyhand [twice] so I don’t think anyone suspected I was bombed)…and Ricardo says he’s going to pay me as soon as he gets his guinalda, but I’m still waiting…so if you count in the cost of the blank DVDs and value my time at about 25c an hour, I guess I'm in the hole to about $35.67. So I guess the answer to your question is zero commercial works, or even less. Now tell me what either answer (a) or (b) has to do with our discussion about the societal value of the current laws of copyright (or licensing, if you prefer).

To put an end to this exchange (in a forum that is almost always informative and faultlessly civil) I would only say this: you (and many others: Led Zeppelin, Britney Spears, Bill Gates, your hero Ted Waits) have a certain opinion of the worth of current copyright law; and other people (like me, Annie Jenkins, Peter Leibowitz and the world-renowned Joe Smith) have theirs. Make your arguments, but you might consider whether your argument is really advanced when you make ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you.

And, sadly, *I* didn’t get any chuckles out of this. :>(

dsf,
Do you mind sharing what you do for a living?

I'm not asking this to bust your chops, and before you dismiss me as a "Spot brown-noser" (and there are certainly those here), I can accept SOME of what you're saying but not all. I've done a lot of what you do as far as video work for free, but over the past few years, I decided to put a bit more money into equipment (to the angst of my wife) and do some paying jobs. It paid my equipment off, and I have fun. But once I found out that you can get in a bit of trouble putting copyrighted work into paid jobs, I decided not to do that (somewhat to be ethical and somewhat because I didn't feel like getting blasted with a legal bill. About 2 weeks back, I lost a $5,000 job to another local videographer because he didn't give a rat's a** about following that rule. Now, I'm not poor, but not rich; I'm comfortable financially at my REAL day job, and video work is a fun, side hobby for me. But still, $5k is a HUGE job for someone at my level. I don't regret that I stuck with what I believe to be true, but that was a few upgrades in equipment money for me.

Now, I ask you: what do you do for a living?

Because, I think it makes a difference when I produce something for sh**s and giggles and when it involves money. And perhaps that's why Spot asked how many commercial works you've produced. I think I'd be even more pissed off if a BUNCH of someones were stealing my paychecks from my pocket (even if they were big) and from my kids getting ahead. It's easy for us little guys to say: f**k the big guys; they don't need the money. Sounds good, I guess, and I understand the sentiment when guys are putting up million dollar McMansions near my Cape. But why do you care about Britney's money anyways? Forget about the crazy girl. I don't listen to popular music, I don't care much for mainstream film, etc. Let Justin Timberlake make millions; I could care less. I wouldn't use his music on my soundtrack if he paid me (well, maybe if he paid me). Give me a local story or musician and I'm happy. They're just glad I come to their show; they BEG me to use their music for free. Forget about copyrighted music, film, etc. Just let it go... move on. But we act like we're being edgy anarchists when we decrypt a DVD; "I burned a copy of "The Departed" today; that's one for the cause... FIGHT THE POWER." I'm not sure that that's fighting the Man. We're not 15 anymore and bitching about our mean teachers here. If you want to make a copy of a CD/DVD as a backup, you won't get a complaint from me. Couldn't care less. But if you're going to make money off of something I made, I have a problem with that. As you probably would, if you're being honest, if someone was taking money from your business, which is....?

You don't seem to understand that copyright and licencing are two very different issues.

Yes, most (but not all) artists produce works in the hope that you will buy copies for your own enjoyment. This might be music, paintings or still photograhs. Copyright laws, DRM etc come into play here. Yes perhaps there's a valid argument over how much one aspect trips up the desire of the artists to earn a buck.

Licencing as being discussed here is about the artists assigning a right to you to use THEIR work in YOUR work. You are creating a NEW work. They very much have the right to not want anyone to do that. You're assuming very wrongly that all artists would be more than happy to sell you the right to use their music, still images or written words in your work, to repurpose it. You are very, very wrong in this assumption.

Spot explained in great detail WHY artists might not want to licence their works for use in the works of others. Even for those that do it can be a minefield of issues.

In your case very likely your use of their music might be quite benign, but how would any artist be certain of what you would do with their music if they issued you a licence, who will police your compliance with their requests as to it's use and at what cost and who will bear that cost.

This is a totally different set of issues to whether or not I can tape a concert off air to watch at home or copy a CD to a cassette or rip to mp3 to play in my car or give to my grandma. That's just about money, nothing more really. Licencing goes to artistic control and that involves way more than money.

Bob.

When you've created at least one commercial work that is available on the shelves of the non-local Best Buy, BlockBuster, or other national chain, when you've registered at least one copyright, and when you've found your face, name, or creative works such as software, music, videos, or books plastered on Ebay copied by a pirate, then maybe you and I will be able to see this with some level of parity.

Creative endeavors aren't a "sideline" for my employees or myself, creative energy is a means of living. Our income depends solely on my ability, or my partners ability to generate creative works as products. Until you've been in the position of your primary income and that of your employees riding on the protections that copyright offers, you'll just never "get it." It's easy to steal music and not realize that you're enjoying life on the fruits of someone else' labors. It's easy to use pirated software and dismiss the fact that in all likelihood, someone's hours have been cut back as a result of rampant piracy. It's easy to dismiss the lifetime of experience, thousands of hours of work, education, and dollars invested in creating a product simply because it's a challenge to understand the costs involved with creating works that mainstreamers want to have as part of their work, play, or other facet of their lives. But the truth of it is, whether you feel pirates do or don't affect the incomes of people that work in the music, video, software, or other creative industries; it does affect them. Morally, emotionally, and financially. We're not a big group like Sony, Virgin, Microsoft, Adobe, or other monstrous corporation. We're 5 people plus contractors that work very hard, just like you do.
It's challenging to go to work each day and create something, knowing there are people out there that live to steal for their own gain, and yet those same people don't see themselves as dishonest. It's frustrating to read words from someone like yourself expressing an opinion that is uninformed, inexperienced, and volatile towards those that would protect what they've worked to create so that others might find life just a little easier, a little better, perhaps slightly more bearable. Certainly there are compensations, but that's not the point of this discussion.
On the music side, just because music is the soundtrack of our lives doesn't mean we're entitled to enjoy our lives at someone else' expense. I enjoy going to concerts and live plays, or movies at the theatre, but I don't feel I'm entitled to walk into the theatre or concert hall without paying for the experience.
The discussion shouldn't be so much about copyright law as it should be about the Pandora's Box that the law helps to avoid being opened, from my point of view. The world is changing, but the door forcing artists to starve shouldn't be jammed open, and with digital media, once it's open...cannot be closed again. We all know that.

I'm sorry for you that you don't understand the joy and experience of owning a story from inspiration to screening, and understand that as you "parent" the process, you hope to protect what you've parented. It's not easy to do, and it's even less easy to put it into the world for others to spit on or enjoy. Criticism is significantly easier to bear than to have someone openly express it's their right to enjoy your creative energy without compensating you for it.
Even as I type this, on Ebay there are two counterfeit Spotted Eagle products.
I just find that wrong. I'm very sorry for both of us that you don't.

>>>a "Spot brown-noser"<<<

CClub, that's really rather crude, don't you agree?
I'm surprised by the hostilities aroused by copyright and licensing; probably would be a lot more reasonable and civilised if everyone were talking face to face. It would appear, from the views presented, that those who don't like any form of copyright don't have any works to protect, while those that do would like their works respected. I perceive that Spot was trying to get people to declare their hand. I'd be annoyed if I found scenes from my videos presented by other people as being their work, and especially so if they mutilated it. While you might argue that would be a form of flattery I would see it as an infringement of my artistic rights and, if it was in a commercial video, as an economic infringement. Somebody claiming my work as theirs is something that significantly annoys me. In the scientific world plagiarism gets people sacked and dishonoured, so there's a great deal of precedent for respecting the work of others (even in journalism). Of course the achievements of science are based on the accumulation of many people's efforts and quotation with attribution is normal, so I might be persuaded by reasonable argument that entertainment copyright now seems to be denying even quotation with attribution. But I suspect that's incorrect, for it's common for feature films to make reference to earlier famous works, bits of business that remind us of the original, or the genre identified with that.
I guess this thread is more about audio works than about visual and I don't see too much to make a fuss about. You can buy music at a very reasonable price (e.g. Vzone and Twisted Tracks) for non-theatrical release, create it in Acid or Cinescore. Even less trouble if you're a musician. Music is important in a film, greatly enhancing the visuals and not to be taken lightly, but I want it to be subservient. A reference to something well known can be effective, but only for a bar or two (only one bar identifies Beethoven's 5th); popular music can be a distraction rather than a help.

EDIT: Spot has added the further important issue of identity theft. Once you have a brand or name that attracts buyers (or just a bank account!) crooks can use that for their profit. They might be selling their own music, or a collage of works, or noise, but it's the name that they're misappropriating. Just like those guys from Nigeria that want your bank details.

Serena,
You know, it can come off as a crude term, and it didn't come off well as I read it back. But if you read it in the context of my whole posting, I think you misinterpreted my meaning. Over the past year, I've actually changed my direction on things and primarily line up with what you are saying, despite my very limited perspective and not having produced anything major. It's just that some people here line up behind anything Spot says without argument; not even sure he would want that. How boring these discussions would be. Where I live, "brown-noser" means a**-kisser, kissing-up, teacher's pet, etc. I wasn't trying to be hostile at all... "crude" perhaps, but not hostile. Just trying to indicate ("crudely") that I wasn't jumping on a Vegas Forum expert's bandwagon.

"How do you two feel about indemnity clauses?"

What Spot said.

You are the expert and the indemnity clause proves that you know more about copyright than the client. This makes you an even better target for the lawsuits because your indemnity clause is an admission that you know that using copyrighted material without clearance is illegal.

Steve Mann

Geeez, as someone who REALLY does not know how to get, for example, a rock song from the 70s legally licensed to use in a small-time video for 20 or 30 people to view, and at no great profit to the person creating the video. I tried a while back to get "permission" to use a song by a well-known band of long ago. Really, if you are not in the business, such as Spot, it's almost impossible to get it done. I sent emails, looked up web-sites with information on where to go, placed phone calls, got a couple of obscure emails from "somebody" at one of the publishing companies suggesting I go to "this other publishing company" or "maybe that one". I think it would be easier to get a college student to stand on Jupiter with no life-support than to get a &E#^ing license to use an old rock song. "just make your own", "buy some royalty-free music at this place", but the client requested a song that they all knew. NO, they did not get it, because some publisher/producer/mr. important might not get anything from a 30 year-old-song. Oh, well, it "sounded" kinda like that old song, guess we can't use that one either. If the people who are so worried about someone "using" thier material, then DON'T RELEASE the stuff to the public airways, then you'll not lose your branding! And YES, I have purchased some DigitalJuice products to use for background music, but I'm sure I'll still have to tell a lot of possible clients that I can't give them what they want because it's just not worth the risk. Final rant, I have seen some of my work appear on a local TV station, I don't know where they got it, probably from a web-site, but I felt a sense of pride, not a sense of "I need to sue them".

I just spoke with my IP Attorney about this thread. He verifies what SPOT said, that an editor who is being paid/hired/contracted by others and therefore directly profiting by the unauthorized use of someone elses copyrighted works can be held liable for damages even if a Indemnity Clause is made between the end user and the editor. If the editor has deeper pockets than the end user - watch out :-(

Jay Mitchell

>>>I felt a sense of pride, not a sense of "I need to sue them".<<<<

Fair enough! Because that's your choice, as it is everyones. But surely the principles are clear? Plagiarism is "not a good thing" and certainly not an honourable thing to do. Admittedly many school students have to have this explained, as well as some of those in the professions. Once that principle is agreed, then one can discuss "fair use". Incidentally, I guess you read the thread on sync licence for songs?

I had to turn down a job this last week. Why? Because it included the rehearsals and final presentation of Carmina Burana, by Carl Orff. Why? Because the organisations in question found previously that the professional singers did not assign rights to have their performance recorded to video. Even before I I was told this, I informed one of the "choir" that this is a potential minefield.

Pity really 'cos it would have been a marvelous piece to record and intermingle with rehearsals. Of course this IS done regularly by major networks, but at my level and with the scant resources I have at my disposal, I also said no.

Now, I have a more intimate managerial "act-out" role play using actors as the protagonists, option I'm bidding for. And again I will be making all the necessary enquiries to allow for videoing and editing. Release forms and the such.

As an aside, I have held myself back from "floating" much of my work on the Internet for the reasons Spot has most coherently explained. They are people here who have seen my work and understand my position. The Internet is wonderful - no argument here. But for creators and more to the point idea creators it is real hard to get payment for boring things like rent, mortgage repayments, food and savings from freely fluttering work around.

Unfortunately, I understand from reading the above, agreeing with SPOT somehow makes me a, in my parlance, a sycophant and "camp-follower". Please be assured that the only use I make of my nasal ORGAN, which is formidable in its length and breadth, is to allow me to sneer, retain snot and allow me to most enthusiastically blast an handkerchief! I find this last action most satisfying. Now, not appreciating fully what you may do with said facial protuberance, but the description and application to which you are implying has never been on my horizon. Maybe I should add it to my things I must do prior to my demise.

Thanks for the "Heads-Up"!

Serena, thanks for the link, I'll check it out, maybe find some help there. And, I agree, plagiarism is not a good thing, but plagiarism is when you use someone else's work and cliam it as your own original work. I don't think anyone would belive that I wrote and performed a song by Journey in the 1970s, so I'd probably not claim to have done so. Besides, I was busy writing "Hey Jude".
Thanks again.
Daryl

Daryl,
Yes, I agree that plagiarism is probably more applicable to visuals than audio; I was trying to find a principle we could all agree on as a basis for rational discussion. Even in visuals there are instances where you might wish to use a famous or historical art work to make a point, and these also need permission from whoever holds the reproduction copyright. Tourists don't need permission (where photography is allowed), but they're not going to make any money from their photographs. Context is the important issue for the commercial use of most classical works, although I guess there is the "if you're going to make money from our property then we'd like an appropriate share".

Here's another option from UMG. http://www.synchexpress.com/

Haven't delved into the details, but a guy at Harry Fox said to take a look at it.

For internet use here's ASCAP's solution http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/