"You mean that they want to hold the couple's video hostage for duplications?"

This is the norm among wedding photographers and has been forever. It's natural that videographers would do the same.

The reason is that wedding photographers want to make some money from reprints.

The alternative is the customer pays more up front to retain the rights. Of course this makes the photographer appear more expensive than the competition. Hence the advertised rates are based on the cheaper method.

OK, gang... here's where I lost it when racking my brains about what to do about using copyrighted music in wedding videos... I was told that I was breaking the law in the same degree by videotaping the couple dancing! That's right. You know why??? Because I was RECORDING THE COPYRIGHTED SONG THE DJ WAS PLAYING ON MY CAMERA MICROPHONE!!! I was, in reality, making an illegal copy of the copyrighted music.

I have no idea if this is accurate, but it did open my eyes. Either you use copyrighted music and are able to enjoy your craft as a wedding videographer, or you don't and you become a wedding photographer. NO COUPLE I've spoken with wants royalty-free music. NONE.

Anyone out there who knows more about Zoom?

vegasbaby - recording the couple dancing

What you were told is absolutely right. In fact it's more illegal than simply copying the CD he was playing because not only do you not have the rights to record the music, you also don't have the rights to sync it to something else (your video).

A further example is recording, with the performers' permission, a visiting dignitary whilst the local school band is playing a piece of music not yet out of copyright.

Bacjk to the wedding. Think about it. Make this legal and the next step is to say "Hey, I'll get a better sound if I record the music direct from the DJ's mixer". Following on from that you might think - "The video's pretty naff, I'll release a soundtrack"

Yes, it's infuriating. Yes, it seems really stupid. But no, there isn't a simple answer or it would have been implemented years ago. Or more likely the drafts would have bneen drawn up years ago and various parties would be arguing the details until forever.

"You mean that they want to hold the couple's video hostage for duplications?"

But why do videographers want to sell re-prints? I don't know about you, but most projects I do contain a LOT of duplicates already. I'm doing a wedding in a few weeks & the buyers are perfectly happy with ~5 copies @ each additional copy for $15. That's even having them get the original (miniDV's) material. Why? I made my $$ and unless they want another 10 copies it's just a pain in my butt to run off one copy every once in a while & archive everything in case they want me to do something else with it. And it's a pain to run off many copies because it sucks up so much time burning, printing, etc. I'd rather do the job, give it to them & be done. What happens if I say I'll hold on to the originals for a year & then there's an accident & everything is lost? Then I'm SOL & I'm in breach of contract. Not worth the hassle imho.

I also find it weird that many people on this forum who complain it's hard to get permission to use copyrighted material hold their copyrighted material away from the people who already paid for it. The common argument with music is I paid for the CD, why pay again to dance to it, & put it on video tape? Why should we be hired to record/edit their wedding video & then deny them the rights to use their event any way they want? (I know, to make more $$, but that's the same argument the music industry uses & not many people here are happy with that).

But why do videographers want to sell re-prints?

For the same reason you are charging $15 for additional copies. You've got what, maybe $1 or $2 invested in materials so you're making a tidy $70 on 5 copies. Some folks charge much more than $15 for a DVD copy in a situation like this - throw in some upscale packaging and you could easily ask $30.

but that's the same argument the music industry uses & not many people here are happy with that)

I don't think that paying is the issue. I'll bet most everyone would be fine with paying for the rights to use music for syncing, it's just that there's no mechanism by which we can do that, so consequently, we're either forced with breaking the law or turning away business.

FWIW, here's how we do it:

- We include plenty of copies (10+) with each wedding
- Each additional copy after the fact is $25 incl tax and priority mail shipping (custom case, printed dvd, blah blah)
- Our standard contract says we both own copyright; customer can make copies w/ sharpie marker writing and plain jewel case if they want, and I can use the footage as I want for marketing & demos.

This subject has been beaten to death , and beyond.
Bottom line is ,, I don't see how anyone can make a living as a wedding video dude without breaking copyright laws. I know I would want my wedding to be viewed to havin my baby or some other timeless classic . just the way it is,,

Well, according to at least some entertainment lawyers knowledgeable about copyright laws and Fair Use, some of these actions are not actually violations. Personally I'd like to see fewer people turning down work due to misinformation about what is or isn't legal. Not to mention helping to clear the consciences of those who are doing it anyway!

seanmccoy,

Would you care to unpack your post a little? What part is misinformation and what part is legal? Who are these entertainment lawyers?
Thanks,

j razz

""You mean that they want to hold the couple's video hostage for duplications?"

This is the norm among wedding photographers and has been forever. It's natural that videographers would do the same.

The reason is that wedding photographers want to make some money from reprints."

This is an ancient paradigm from the days that making prints required a photo lab and darkroom experience. For videographers the generation loss in VHS tape copies provided value in holding the master tape.

Today most people know how absurdly easy it is to make copies, so charging $25 or more for another copy (print or disc, the same principal applies) is tantamount to extortion and practically begs the client to make their own copies.

Those days of being the reproduction wizard are over, so get used to it. Price your product appropriately and don't sweat the copies.

Which brings us back to the original problem, and the solution of making the project a 'work for hire'.

Would you care to unpack your post a little? What part is misinformation and what part is legal? Who are these entertainment lawyers?
Thanks,

j razz

I stated my basic premise in my earlier post, but at least two other posters also mentioned lawyers sharing the opinion that the use of music in this context can fall under Fair Use. Of course it wouldn't be prudent to name any attorneys here as these have been off-the-record disussions.

Tonight I spent a good deal of time studying the Fair Use and Audio Home Recording Acts, as well as reading info on several websites, blogs and newsgroups. Turns out I was understating earlier when I called the issue "murky". Though new to me, this has apparently been a hotly debated topic for years now, and the laws are ambiguous enough to make all but the most obvious cases open to interpretation. Though I would stop short of an outright claim that it is legal for event videographers to use copyrighted materials in these essentially not-for-profit works, I do find it interesting that, in spite of the aggressive way the RIAA is currently pursuing copyright violators, I couldn't find one mention of a case of a wedding videographer (or newlyweds) being taken to court. Ethical issues aside, I think the music industry would be going after this practice if it felt it was being hurt by it (one of the conditions of the Fair Use Act)---and if it felt it had legal ground to stand on.

I do weddings (hence the name). If I personally add music to the video, I use royalty free. If its played at the church or reception, I have no control over it and record it at my own risk, and use it at the quality it is recorded. If its a musican or group, I get their permission to record (can't do much about lyrics approval) . If I do a separate highlight video, I'll replace with royalty free music. Most of the time, and because I've shot short clips during the reception, I'll record over the clips with royalty free music, with the clips synced to the RF music. My contract says I use RF music. As for a couple of lawyers saying they THINK it falls under FAIR USE, remember thats why there are lawyers, and why two lawyers are at a trial, and you can bet that the OTHER lawyer is not going to be in much of an agreement with his adversary. As you see just from this forum, not everyone agrees with the interpretation of fair use. When I can, I'll contact a recording artist, and pay to use their music, and our contract requires and states that they own the complete rights to enter into the syncing license contract. OT: (sorta) Heres a thought. Though we're not WEVA, why not drop a line into this forum indicating who you have contracted with and might be interested in allowing use of their music. I'll start: Artist: Chris Curtis, SONG (I've used): The Best of Our Lives, email: chriscurtismusic.com (sorry, forgot how to hyperlink that address.)
I used the song in a photo montage. Worked great. Some of his songs were used by the Learning Channel, the Discovery Channel, and the Trimark movie, The Break.

HappyFriar:
"I also find it weird that many people on this forum .... hold their copyrighted material away from the people who already paid for it."

No-one's holding anyone to ransom. Whether the client owns the copyright or not is a matter of fact. It's in the agreement.

You clearly work on what others here are referring to as a "Work for Hire" basis - ie you do all the work for a fee but the end product and the rights to it are owned by the client.

If, by some stroke of fortune, one of your wedding videos happens to become a money spinner (for example someone in the video goes on to become a major celebrity and, because of the quality of your work, extracts are used in a best-selling feature film) you will get nothing. Quite possibly not even any recognition.

I'm sure that's a risk you're prepared to take and if I was in the business, I'd take the same approach. Like you, I like a nice tidy "Job Done - End Of Story" approach. Others, however, will have their reasons for wishing to retain copyright. So long as this is clear when negotiating with a client, what's the problem?

Anybody who's been reading this Board for more than a few months knows that every now and then a thread like this gets started and grows to maybe 100 responses.

Copyright is caught in a bizarre tangle right now. I can guarantee you that the "law" is broken millions of times a year. At the same time, there are very few prosecutions. I thus conclude that everyone realizes that it is absurd and impossible to enforce a literal interpretation of the current set of laws.

Getting back to the initial post about the use of music in a highlight compilation--have you known of someone getting prosecuted for a similar infraction? I didn't think so. I would probably be happy to give the client what they want, given the circumstances. It would be a nice gesture, however, to insist on using only music purchased by the client.

Doing work for hire doesn't mean you giveup your moral rights unless you specifically waive them, at least not under recent amendments to the copyright act here which I think was to bring them into line with the USA.
The reverse side to this is if you employ work for hire you need to be careful about the rights of whom you've hired.

Bob.

Australia's FTA with the USA means that in most respects there are no differences between us on copyright protection. The most recent changes were effective from January 2007. In the context of this thread I was interested to read a legal article that explains allowances for private copying. Namely that the new provisions include exceptions to copyright infringement that reflect common uses of copyright protected content. These exceptions came into effect on Dec 11 2006 and include time-shifting (recording TV programs to view at another time), Space-shifting (copy a sound recording owned by the an individual solely for private and domestic use) and format-shifting (copying solely for domestic use of material owned by the individual into another format). Format-shifting is hedged with "certain limited types of content" and "certain other formats".
In our discussions here we have generally said that private copying (backup, copies to be destroyed by children, copies for the car, etc) were not permitted although we all do it. I wonder whether using on a wedding video copyright music from media owned by the client would creep in under "format shifting" where the DVD is clearly for domestic and private use by the owners of the copyrighted media. This would seem reasonable use. Bob?

EDIT: if this does offer a rabbit hole out of the problem, probably not if producer claims copyright of the DVD.

I don't think it offers a rabbit hole, this change was to cover situations such as you mentioned, where private individuals are shifting their material that they already have a licence to use, such as copying a CD to a cassette to play in the car. Before the change you mentioned even doing that was stricly a breach of copyright even though APRA had said they'd never persue anyone for it. Now it's legal.
Doing this for a 3rd party as part of a business we still need to pay a mechanical licence and it's really a pittance, around $100 / annum but I'm still waiting for APRA to email me the fee for this financial year. I think the fee is based on what the copyright owner would get per track after you take out all the costs, that makes perfect sense, we create the extra copy at no cost to the owner, the owner gets the same 'profit' as if he'd done it himself.
Syncing clients music to an event video, well as we know down here that's another licence. In the USA, I don't know how two way the FTA is going to make things, it's supposed to be bilateral. Maybe there a rabbit hole for us to edit American wedding videos?

Bob.

Yes, down that rabbit hole one is likely to come face to face with a ferret. http://www.amcos.com.au/music-users/making_records/weddings_and_other_domestic_videos.aspwedding & dometic videos[/link]

Reading the licence, it refers to "Setting a sound recording of music to a visual image "
... which sounds like doing an introductory or other montage, where you are actually ADDING music to your soundtrack.

This is fair enough, and the Aussie system makes it quite cheap to cover your liability in this respect.

What to me is quite different is during the reception if a DJ plays recorded music to which the couple and guests dance, and whilst recording the event you cannot help recording the music along with the vision. If there are any copyright issues here, I would have thought that they're down to the DJ.

Peter, to quote:
"The licences permit music that is played at the event to be captured in the production. They also permit synchronising and dubbing from commercial recordings in post production."

The DJ is covered under the venues APRA licence plus I think they have their own licence to cover the compilations they create.

Bob.

As a former radio DJ, I always get to chatting with DJs at events, discussing what's hot, what's not in music at events, that kind of thing. After a while I'll generally bring up something like "so, how do you handle ASCAP and BMI license issues" and I always get the same "Huh, what are you talking about . . . what's that?" response.

So, I conclude that there is a much vaster group out there that blatently ignore all of the rules, as their sole business is making money off of the music they are playing. So, when a wedding videog records the couple dancing, I guess they are just "collecting evidence".

Seriously though, wouldn't the music playing in the background be considered more like "incidental" music? How could that be considered "syncing music to video"? It's an integral part of the video being recorded. You are not seperately adding audio to the video.

Any other comments regarding this? I admit it's vastly confusing, and probably will remain so as long as there is no clear-cut way of allowing "small potatoes" to pay a fair fee to cover all of this.

And remember, going by the strictest "interpretation" of the laws, it's technically illegal to record your kid singing "Happy Birthday" as that is a copyrighted song and I guess you are "syncing music to a video."

It's like some of the very confusing tax laws.

"Seriously though, wouldn't the music playing in the background be considered more like "incidental" music? How could that be considered "syncing music to video"? It's an integral part of the video being recorded. You are not seperately adding audio to the video.

Any other comments regarding this?"

In the UK even those who record the first dance and then overdub royalty free music are technically breaking the law.

From the IAC (Institute of Amateur Cinematographers) website

"6. It is an offence:

* To make a recording of Copyright music, even if that recording is not played back"

I can just imagine it...Yes, M'lud, I was recording with the mic unpluged.