OT Music use

willlisub wrote on 8/30/2009, 10:14 AM

I'm a totally confused adult.

For the last 2 years, I have been watching more and more videos getting posted on the internet using music from popular and not so popular artists. Some of the videos (especially weddings) are starting to look like independent films and are not being done for free.

I know that every forum has numerous posts on music/video/sync copyright and as far a legalities go, it's pretty much a slam dunk here in the USA that other than for your own personal use at home, you don't have a leg to stand on if you use copyrighted music that isn't royalty free. I you get sued, you lose, you probably pay. (I'm not even 100% sure on the personal use front).

I'm seeing more and more video's on the internet that are professionally produced set to copyrighted music from popular artists and other not so popular artists.

Add this You Tube's business model and I am the most confused person on earth. Many production companies (usually owned and by the older generation) will not use anything but royalty free music for their work. Yet, the competitors do and I hate to say this, but some of the better stuff I”m seeing lately for the family /wedding based work seems to use music that isn't copyright free. Not to say I haven't viewed works that I like that uses royalty free music, but I'm in awe of some of the work I'm seeing today that is using copyrighted music. Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing in 99.99% of the cases they don't have permission.

So my question is this, for the family/wedding based videos that are being produced by production companies, (and shown on the internet) are people being sued? Are they getting cease and desist letters and are they settling with some payment? Some companies have numbers productions being shown so I doubt that they are being contacted.

Let me phrase the question this way, “How the “heck” (substituted for an f bomb) are people accomplishing this”? It's all over the place and it's not a level playing field for those who follow the letter of copyright in music for the family/wedding production work.

I don't expect a consensus of opinion here, but maybe I've been sleeping and there is some new law that exempts family/wedding videos from copyright. Ya, right. Dream on.

Signed.....

frustrated, dazed and confused.

Comments

fordie wrote on 8/30/2009, 10:44 AM

Here in the UK its perfectly ok to use popular chart music etc for your wedding video as long as you purchase a PRS mcps licence etc.
However those licences do not cover broadcast which would include placing it on your web site.
Therefore to do so runs the risk of being sued, or more likely being asked to take it down.
The question is are you as a business owner prepared to take the risk.
I dont know of anyone being sued but I personally wouldnt chance it.
You are correct it isnt a fair playing field.
There was an interesting thread on DVinfo net where a chap was threatend with legal action by a composer for using his music.
It was eventually resolved by means of a small payment.
Im not sure larger record companies would be so obliging..at least by being within the law we can sleep easy.

thread is here...
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/wedding-event-videography-techniques/238798-music-license-trouble-stupid-me.html

its worth a read.
cheers john

Former user wrote on 8/30/2009, 11:32 AM

Just like someone driving 70mph in a 50mph zone -- they are breaking the law, and they might get caught. But, sure as heck, if it was me, I would caught.

So, they are the ones taking the risk. I can't stop them. But, I can stop myself -- so that's what I do.

Jim

willlisub wrote on 8/30/2009, 2:41 PM

fordie

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/wedding-event-videography-techniques/238798-music-license-trouble-stupid-me.html

Long read and most excellent.

musicvid10 wrote on 8/30/2009, 5:56 PM

The answer to this lengthy question is simple as pie.

Ask first. The worst they can do is say is no.

RalphM wrote on 8/30/2009, 6:59 PM

Another reason why I don't do weddings...

JackW wrote on 8/30/2009, 9:22 PM

Here's a slightly different take on this. We don't do wedding video but we shoot plays throughout the year. It is the job of the play's producer, not the videographer, to obtain permission to have a show videotaped. Many copyright holders -- Disney, for example -- give permission for taping, editing and distributing (selling) DVDs to cast and crew in exchange for a small fee.

Permission to use this material on the web or in any form of public broadcast is specifically denied.

Where the problem occurs is this: Johnny takes home his DVD, shows it to the family. Dad says "This is great. Lets put it on You Tube so all the folks who missed the show can see Johnny singing and dancing." Now the producer's contract with the copyright holder has been violated, through no fault of his own.

Fortunately, the problem is the producer's and not ours. On the advice of our attorney our contract specifically exempts us from liability should material turn up on the web, and we insist on having a copy of the producer's contract with the copyright holder before we conclude the contract.

Since we work closely with the theatre community, we scan You Tube fairly often and alert the producers of shows we tape to any appearance of show clips on the web. To date, offending clips have been taken down immediately.

Wedding videographers are increasingly encountering a somewhat similar situation. For years, in violation of copyright, they have used music in their wedding videos. Until the advent of web video no one outside the immediate family ever saw these videos and copyright holders were none the wiser.

Now, brides post their wedding videos on the web, wedding videographers are creating "trailers" to advertise their productions on line, and copyright holders, quite rightly in my view, are ticked off about the abuse of their work.

It's unfortunate that the U.S. doesn't have a mechanism that allow video producers quick and easy access to licensing of copyright material. It is often extremely difficult to find out who owns the various rights involved and, once found, rights may be so prohibitively expensive that the small-time producer can't afford them.

Australia and others have the right idea with their one-time license fee. Wish we had something similar here.

Jack

Brad C. wrote on 8/30/2009, 10:41 PM

Are you saying that music makes or breaks these fantastic family/wedding videos that you've been seeing lately? So if they used some of your liscenced or copyright free stuff.....they would somehow become not so good?

Rules are rules and we are suppose to follow them. Some do, some don't. Do you follow the speed limit all the time? I doubt it. And if you do, to you complain like this if you get passed on the highway by somebody? I guess some people are just willing to take the risk in using whatever music they want.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/31/2009, 5:59 AM

i'd say yes, if a specific song wasn't used for a specific wedding video, it wouldn't turn out as good. It wouldn't "fit".

This is the way I see it: up until the internet, everybody still used music illegally: for making their own home movies, dances, weddings, etc. You legally can't use "your wedding song" w/o permission, you legally can't make a home movie with copyrighted music w/o permission (you need at least sync rights), etc. The music industry KNEW this was going on but didn't care because it generated great interest & revenue. IE I didn't by the song me & my wife danced to until I needed it for our wedding, I just turned the radio station when it came on. ;) One time Nintendo even held a national music video contest where you made a video wit Mario Paint.

But then "it's my right" college kids (me included @ the time. ;( ) decided that they should be able to have anything they wanted @ any time and thus started sharing music like it's air. Then the dung hit the fan & everybody who was just doing hobby/small stuff got screwed over. :/

musicvid10 wrote on 8/31/2009, 7:42 AM

JackW,

"Many copyright holders -- Disney, for example -- give permission for taping, editing and distributing (selling) DVDs to cast and crew in exchange for a small fee."

That is simply incorrect, and I urge you to check the source of your information before acting on it (or sharing it).

The production rights for most of the Disney musicals that are available for amateur production in the US are controlled and administered by Music Theatre International, not Disney, and MTI does not grant "permission for taping, editing and distributing (selling) DVDs," only personal, non-commercial taping licenses for home use, and only for a very limited number of shows, including a few in their Disney Jr. series.
Video licenses allow you to make non-commercial (home-use only) video recording of your production for your archives. A video license also allows you to authorize other participants in your production (cast, crew, families) to make recordings for their personal non-commercial use. (mtishows.com)
The one "possible" exception I know of may be Cinderella, which is not a Dsney production, but the property of Rodgers and Hammerstein Theatre Organization. R&H occasionally grants (for a price) video taping and duplication rights for certain shows, and I don't know if Cinderella is eligible for that or not. There are a few others, such as Samuel French Co. which owns the rights to the musical version of Peter Pan, but afaik they do not grant video production rights. By the way, not many know that R&H was recently bought out by a conglomerate. http://www.rnh.com/news_detail.asp?newsid=N_000401&div=home&pagesource=index.asp&s=1

If you are sure of your information, would you kindly guide me to the page at Disney for licensing amateur theater production rights to their musicals and plays, as well as obtaining commercial video production and distribution rights? In my thirty plus years as a producer in the live music and community theater business, I must confess I have never heard of this.

jmpatrick wrote on 8/31/2009, 8:37 AM

Is it legal for DJ's to play songs at weddings, parties, etc.? How many DJ's play music from any physical medium anymore? Last couple weddings I went to the DJ had a laptop...

xberk wrote on 8/31/2009, 9:06 AM

Ok .. Spot had originally posted this video and I remembered it when this discussion came up.

For those who haven't seen it, the video was made in collaboration with Stanford Law School to show Fair Use law. It's not boring.

Derm wrote on 8/31/2009, 9:13 AM

In Ireland, the venues where weddings, discos etc are held, pay a fee to the Irish music rights organisation who are part of a greater body worldwide that collect payment in a similar fashion

TheHappyFriar wrote on 8/31/2009, 10:43 AM

in USA dj's/etc. need to pay a fee to use their music legally.

Butch Moore wrote on 8/31/2009, 12:32 PM

In the US, unless the DJ is the promoter/venue owner, fees to BMI/ASCAP etc. are usually collected from the venue as a blanket performance license. Of course, there's always exceptions.

Here's what ASCAP has to say:

12. Aren't musicians, entertainers and DJ's responsible for obtaining permission for music they perform?

Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business.

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

DJs ARE required to have licensed music, such as original CD's, etc.