WEVA's initiative is through zoomlicense.com. I have not browsed their site in some time; they may or may not have an easier time of getting full licenses for popular music as the rest of us.

I'd welcome a system like Australia's in a hearbeat.

Because it is all about us. And our poop don't smell either... =P

Have you opened an account with Zoom, David? I'd be curious to see how many decent songs they have.

I have, it's free to open an account (or was). The current dilema is that most of what they have - that you'd recognize - is only cleared for publishing at best. Which means you can record your own version of a song once you have their license, but if you want to use the Celine Dion recording of a song that the bride gives you the cd for...much tougher to get, and they don't have many of those that you've ever heard of.

Zoomlicense has been slow going, that's for sure.

I for one think that if a system was put in place here in the US that most wedding videogs would jump at the chance. $300 - $500 for a limited quantity, non-broadcast, etc would be promoted heavily and widely adopted.

>>>>Good point, John.

That'll take the wind out of PMast's sails.

btw, i edit all of my videos in the Cayman Islands.

=]>>>>>


No wind needed. You condone theft. Maybe one day your boat will sink because someone steals your stuff without paying for it.

I for one think that if a system was put in place here in the US that most wedding videogs would jump at the chance. $300 - $500 for a limited quantity, non-broadcast, etc would be promoted heavily and widely adopted.

Ditto to that.

..."Maybe one day your boat will sink because someone steals your stuff...."...

I hear ya. Like if someone stole my boat's hull? That would suck.

A system like that would be great. But the problem is that some people would still skirt the system like the canadian guy does. But heres an honest question for those that think what this guy is doing is ok. Should he have the right to put whatever music he wants or have the right to purchase the license to do so? Seriously, why does everyone feel entitled to use others work?

Dgates, what videos do you have available so that others can use in their own work for profit without sharing revenue?

Dgates, what videos do you have available so that others can use in their own work for profit without sharing revenue?

You can use this clip. It's one of my better videos from when I did weddings. Totally royalty-free.

Clip

..."Should he have the right to put whatever music he wants or have the right to purchase the license to do so? Seriously, why does everyone feel entitled to use others work?

So are you now saying that even if he had the rights to use the songs, he shouldn't get to pick which songs he uses? Am I hearing you right?

Yes Patrick,
I have the right to use ANY music I like in a wedding video.
That's the law in this and many countries get over it. The artists get paid, the client is happy.

I can have the bride waltz down the aisle to Smoke On The Water, straight from her Deep Purple CD, in the church and in the wedding video.

Now the BIG question is why can't you do this in the USA???

Bob.

If he has the rights to use it, then there is no problem at all. If he doesnt have the licensed rights, then he is not entitled to use any portion without written consent.

The point I am making is that nowadays, nearly every videographer feels like they should have the opportunity to license whatever music they want for their production and then get pissed off when they are told no or bitch about the high costs to license. Then these same people cut corners by using unlicensed material in a gig just to get the sale. No morals, no ethics. Just greed.

Bob, as i have said the law is the law. The law there permits it. The law here does not, hence crime is a crime. Again, my problem with this is if the artists are not compensated. You pay for the rights, many others who use music dont. Thats the problem I have is with those that cut corners and justify it because they are a small businesses and the bigger companies can afford it.

A Wedding video is essentially a private video made as a record for one person or a small group of persons. It is not for sale or public showing so why is it not like a home movie? Also no one has mentioned the economic fact that if the bride asks for particular music you use it!

And just to jump sides in the a crime is a crime thing, to imply the morality of all crimes is equal is nonsense. You can not compare a copyrighted song heard in the background of a movie that is in no way a commercial venture to wholesale pirating of DVD/CDs as happens now in many eastern countries. I find such an attitude self-righteous, and I say that even though I'm the guy everyone toots at to move over to let them pass.

Crime is a crime. No disputing it. Crimes are worse at different levels, no argument here. My belief is that theft is theft is it not regardless of who you steal from? Ok, back to your point. Just because a bride asks for it doesnt give you legal amnesty nor will it give you any leeway in a court of law. Putting someone else's copyrighted material to synch with video without permission is a clear violation of the law. Im sorry but there is no other way around it. It doesnt matter if you are a one man shop or 2M plus. Its a crime.

"Oh, and I'm done after 12 hours of work or so ;-)"

"So you just hand over the MiniDV tapes at the end of the day?"

If they want, but more often I dump them through a mixing board to a set top HDD/DVD recorder. Color correct and adjust audio on the fly (I can perform cuts only edits on the HDD if I goof up) and I can splice in titles if the customer wants them (more often than not they don't). You are catering to a client who "Just wants it on tape," and they are made aware , verbally and contractually, that it won't be perfect. Of course, if there are serious issues, they will be corrected to the best of my abilities in good faith (cell phone interference, etc). I have done probably 10 of these in the last year.

It seems like some of you are going to continue ignoring the fact that Bluecore Media is in Canada and continue lecturing everyone here as if Bluecore media is actually in the United States. Far be it from me to interrupt your wet dream.

Canada's Copyright Act is not as strict as the US Copyright Laws nor have they signed onto the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO) of 1996. "There have been a variety of criticisms of this treaty, including that it is overbroad (for example in its prohibition of circumvention of technical protection measures, even where such circumvention is used in the pursuit of legal and fair use rights) and that it applies a 'one size fits all' standard to all signatory countries despite widely differing stages of economic development and knowledge industry."

Within the next month Canada will decide whether to enact tougher regulations under intense pressure from the US and it's lobbyists:
A powerful coalition of U.S. software, movie and music producers is urging the Bush administration to put Canada on an infamous blacklist of intellectual property villains, alongside China, Russia and Belize.

"Canada's chronic failure to modernize its copyright regime has made it a global hub for bootleg movies, pirated software and tiny microchips that allow video-game users to bypass copyright protections, the International Intellectual Property Alliance complains in a submission to the U.S. government.

The time has come for the United States to send a stern warning to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government, which has failed to deliver on a promised overhaul of copyright laws and a policing crackdown, said the Washington-based group that represents companies such as Microsoft, Apple and Paramount Pictures................."

That said there are services such as Zoom available in both the US and Canada that maintain a synchronization license catalog and aim to expand with as many songs as they can get.
- - - -
"Why should I use ZOOM?
ZOOM allows you to legally license your synchronization uses for copyrighted music that has been cleared into the ZOOM catalog by record labels and music publishers at a cost that is less than a latte per use (between $3.50-$5.50 per song). By using ZOOM, and directing your clients to the ZOOM catalog to select their music, you and your clients have peace of mind in knowing that the copyrighted music you have used is legal and licensed for your production.

"How much copyrighted music will be cleared into ZOOM and how often will music listings be updated?
ZOOM administrators are working continuously to clear music into the ZOOM catalog with priority given to the most frequently requested songs. Each clearance requires the record label AND publisher to approve the song for this purpose (and sometimes the other copyright holders) so it can take some time. But the major labels and publishers have already begun clearing their massive libraries for ZOOM. To request priority clearance for specific songs you would like to license, Click Here.

With a Standard Videographer License, you are allowed to use the entire length of the song in one video production or photo montage, for example. The video has to be for your personal use or personal use of your clients, and can be distributed on a DVD, VHS or equivalent digital movie file. You will need to use one License Credit from your bundle for each 25 copies that are distributed."
- - - -
Now I don't know what Loi Banh has done in terms of synchronization licensing or other means to use parts of copyrighted music in his Bluecore Media wedding videos. If one of you that is accusing him of "committing crimes" has written and asked him, by all means please post his "deposition" on this H264 thread for all of us to adjudicate. Perhaps we can extradite him to the United States and try him as an "international" criminal or not try him at all and instead put him in jail at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely and take away his Habeas Corpus rights.

John

With all due respect, p@mast3rs, I think you are oversimplifying the issue. Yes, it is illegal. Period. I think you've transmitted that point many times over.

The more relevant question is why the music industry in the U.S. opts not to provide event videographer's reasonable access to their music. I don't condone IP theft, but the music industry brings on its own problems by not responding to the marketplace efficiently--or at all. Witness the whole music-sharing "scourge" of recent years. MP3 has been around for at least a decade, yet it took the RIAA, what, seven years to acknowledge the shift in music technology? Instead of adapting to a changing marketplace, they tried to stifle and sue it into submission.

Same thing here with event videographers. Instead of responding to a market opportunity and need, the music industry ignores it and forces small video creators into a near-Hobson's choice. To call this an issue of "greed" is ludicrous. I invite everyone on this board to raise a hand if you're making more than $100,000 at the small video game. I don't expect to see many hands.

This is not an issue of greed, it's an issue of viability. How does one provide a reasonable and desirable service to one's client without running afoul of the law? Right now it's nearly impossible to do so unless you have a deep-pocketed client.

Again, I'm not advocating the use of unlicensed music. And I respect and admire the artists who create beautiful music and want them justly compensated for use of their works. But the music industry itself (i.e., the big music companies), the fat cats whose energy is channeled not into creativity but into protecting their cash hordes, they are the ones more deserving of the "greed" label. I have little more than revulsion for them. For they seemingly have no interest in serving artists or music lovers or other small-time professionals who create or use their "product." Their only concern is fortifying the walls of the fortress they've erected over the decades.

Seriously, how hard would it be to create an Australian system here in the U.S.? Can anyone supply a reason for the reluctance or foot-dragging in developing one? As I said before, we all want to run a legit business. We simply need the opportunity to do so.

Seriously, how hard would it be to create an Australian system here in the U.S.? Can anyone supply a reason for the reluctance or foot-dragging in developing one?
==========
Simple,

You are a little guy. Legislation that adversely affects you is passed without media attention so you never know about it until it is too late.

John

"Same thing here with event videographers. Instead of responding to a market opportunity and need, the music industry ignores it and forces small video creators into a near-Hobson's choice. To call this an issue of "greed" is ludicrous. I invite everyone on this board to raise a hand if you're making more than $100,000 at the small video game. I don't expect to see many hands.

This is not an issue of greed, it's an issue of viability. How does one provide a reasonable and desirable service to one's client without running afoul of the law? Right now it's nearly impossible to do so unless you have a deep-pocketed client."


It is up to the copy right owners to decide to offer this market. Until that happens, it doesn't give others a right to create that market on their own without permission.

"Seriously, how hard would it be to create an Australian system here in the U.S.? Can anyone supply a reason for the reluctance or foot-dragging in developing one? As I said before, we all want to run a legit business. We simply need the opportunity to do so."

Look, they cant even sell music without the DRM wrappers, what makes you think that same draconian model will work better for editors? Surely editors have shared and posted music files. They wont do this because once they do it for one group, they will have to open it up to all groups. I dont like it any more than anyone else but it is the way it is. Just because Nickelback creates an awesome track that would complete someone's film or because the bride just has to have some Celine Dion track doesnt mean its ethical or legal for someone to use the said piece to continue making a profit. The reason I keep stating the fact of illegality is because the same people continue to justify the small video editor just trying to stay in business with some petty little theft as if it is any different than those that mass produce pirated media.

"The point I am making is that nowadays, nearly every videographer feels like they should have the opportunity to license whatever music they want for their production and then get pissed off when they are told no or bitch about the high costs to license. Then these same people cut corners by using unlicensed material in a gig just to get the sale. No morals, no ethics. Just greed."

================================================

No, I get frustrated when I'm ignored, but that's how it's setup. If you ask an industry attorney, they'll tell you (they have in the past) that the wedding video guy is too small a market to go after, and that they basically don't care. But that is NOT the same as giving permission, not by a long shot.

I've lost count of the number of times I've asked permission. Twice I've gotten it a reasonable cost. Once it was too expensive, and both I and the client passed. All the rest of the requests - ignored. It is a shame. Sure there will be those that continue to use music without licensing, but by providing the avenue of per-annual licensing, that number would go down. There is nothing to be lost on their side by providing this. But it would have to be pretty widespread. ie, make it all available, which is how I assume the Aussie's have it.

Hey, DGates,
thanks for the laughs. Getting one's hull stolen.... , and your royalty free clip...haha....... i needed a good laugh.

This licensing topic has been so heavily flogged we'll need a snowplow to push it over the cliff, and then then maybe the streetsweeper could swing by.

Scott

PS I heard of this great deal the other day.....you'll be judged by the standard you use to judge others. I've heard of only one better deal than that.