March 5 2003

WEVA OFFICIAL POSITION ON
COPYRIGHT ISSUE

Wedding videographers CAN clear music. Copyrighted material can be officially
cleared and "legally" used (by obtaining written permission) for wedding
productions. It is generally a tedious and laborious process because it must
be done on case-by-case, song-by-song basis, as here in the US there is no
music publishers "clearing house" that is able to grant "blanket recording
rights." ASCAP and BMI do not have the authority to grant recording rights.

WEVA International takes the position that it is up to each individual
wedding videographer (or their clients, per their contract terms) to secure
any permits that may be necessary for material used in a wedding video.
Regarding the music publishers: it is up to them, and not WEVA, to determine
what is of concern to them and their interests. They, of course, are fully
capable of speaking for themselves and initiating action on their behalf to
protect their own interests. Wedding videos containing copyrighted
(non-cleared) music have been produced for more than 20 years. The music
industry is obviously aware of this situation. Presently, we are not aware of
any litigation involving the use of music on a wedding video.

The 1976 Copyright Act (US Code, Title 17-Copyrights), is the governing
instrument for copyright protection. It discusses the matter of
"infringement" in great detail --what is (and is NOT) infringement and
establishes the remedies for infringements. Unfortunately, there is no
section or amendment specifically pertaining to "wedding videography."
Consequently, a definitive resolution in this area is ultimately subject to
Congressional review and judicial evaluation.

If infringement is occurring with respect to wedding videography it may be of
very minor concern to copyright holders (akin to going 22 mph in a 20 mph
zone) and not considered to be a case of substantial "wrongdoing" or an
"actionable" offense.

On the other hand, there are many who believe that certain provisions of the
Act may mean that music used for individual "home use," as opposed to use for
commercial distribution, does not constitute infringement. For example,
Section 107 (paragraph 1) of the Copyright Act says "...the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified...is not an infringement of
copyright." The Act states that several factors are used to determine "fair
use." One is "the purpose and character of the use," another factor cited is
"the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work" (Section 107 paragraph 2). Other related matters may come
into play here as well, specifically the "Betamax decision" of the late of ‘‘
70s which "legalized" taping of copyrighted works for home use.

In light of these and other factors, once again, it would be wrong for WEVA
to automatically assume that wedding videographers are "violators" or even
that the music industry is upset by this matter.

In short, WEVA International believes that all of us should comply with the
copyright law and further assumes that its members agree. WEVA also
recognizes that the law is not as clear in this area as it should be, and it
is not clear how concepts such as "fair use" will apply to wedding
videography. We hope that the law will be clarified by Congress and the
courts in the future and we will continue our efforts to achieve such
clarification.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to toss in some things I have said before but for the sake of some of the new posters and what not - short (?) comments.

From experiance it is 100% possible to get the needed items for small productions. While I have never delt with a wedding video's music clearance I have delt with no budget productions and delt with major, minor and indy labels as well as artists. It *is* possible but in the long run it is time consuming for both yourself and the lables.

Bottom line is time is money and in many cases larger labels don't have the time to deal with all the paperwork for 5 - 20 copies of a wedding video - that is sad for the artists, but true. When I was dealing with post for a childrens instruction video many years ago I allowed myself several months for just dealing with music. I don't remember which label is was, it might have been Universal, but my contact got pissed off after a while because it was taking too much time. I fired back that I had been patient for 2 months and was getting down to the wire and needed things moving along on their end, it wasn't me taking too much time it was them. They also told me in the future it would be in everyones best intrest to hire a music co-ordinator and/or clearance house because they were in the business of getting things done faster. Points to consider here - they make sense becuse, like anyone wanting to get a "major deal", the A&R people won't accept someone just calling them up and saying "here is my music, listen to it" thusly why should labels allow just anyone to call up and get the needed items for use in their projects? Another point is, like any industry, bigger clents get served faster....and the reverse of that is also true...bigger artists get served faster, new artsists that the label is really trying to push get pushed more to bigger clients oft times as bait ("hey I will give you that hit song you want if you feature songs from this artist.."), a big studio film directed by Terentino is going to get more attention that a small wedding video in Idaho.

The old saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has it selling points here. I may not agree with all of them mind you but if I go out an buy a CD and than sell myself as a DJ that will play that music legally I need to get needed paperwork in place for that. However I know a few party/wedding DJ's who do just that - go out and buy CD's and than sell themselves as having/playing the latest hits without ever paying any sort of royalites...and they think nothing of it. But these are not people who are doing only the DJ gig full time either - so maybe, in all sincerity they do not know the law. Would that hold up in a court? I doubt it. Now many wedding videographers are "pros" and this is a hot topic - the music thing. Unless you are a weekend warrior you must have a working knowledge of these things so I doubt many could claim ignorance.

Everything is on a case by case basis so just because someone, or some industry, has never been brought to court for doing something doesn't mean it won't happen. There are many kinds of weddings and maybe Joe Brooks doesn't want "You Light Up my Life" being part of a Wiccan wedding and would sue if it came to his attention. Who would be sued is the real question. Would the Wedding production company be sued? The camera person(s)? Would the DJ who played it be sued? Would the bride or groom be sued for requesting it be played? Would everyone be liable? Clearly if it was played at the wedding than everyone there would have be a party to it although some would not have been able to do anything about it. (And remember at it's core you are only supposed to "share" your music or videos by playing them for a small circle of friends so really the way the RIAA is going after people blindly it isn't that far off base to think someday they will go after people having weddings)

Stock footage - those who deal with it already know it but those who don't take a closer look at some of it and how it is sold. A lot of it will contain disclaimers about audio tracks may not be included or certian things would need further clearance and the sale is for the footage only. I don't hear this a lot when it comes to weddings. But this is a thin line really - could you be hired to "document" a wedding and than sell the footage with the disclaimer that "you are buying the footage only"? I suspect you could if they were really only buying the footage - but this isn't the case. Most of the time the bride and groom have not hired someone to just shoot there wedding but to put together a Video/DVD....in which case it isn't really "stock footage" anymore, it is an edited production.

Documentray approach - is the music is just background music chances are it is fine. No issues really. But we go to this fine line again - for example in the Documentary Kurt and Courtney several places music is missing because the film makers could not use the music. For example in one scene Kurts sister is telling about how, when he was a child, he would come over and sing so she could record him. She puts up some really early recordings and hits play - we then here the director say in a V.O "We were not allowed to use this music so instead we are using..." beyond the obvious this wasn't really backgound music that was just playing as the interview was being done. Same could go for any wedding video showing that "first marreid couple dance" - clearly the music at that point would not be background music as it would be the main soundtrack of the video. (People always want to use "fair use" here but if I am making a documentary and I shoot a speaker - as in a cd player, pa system, tape deck or so on - than I would not buy into the argument that "Hey that Usher song was just playing as I was shooting the speaker for the end credits, what can I do about it? It is fair use so I use that for the end credits than".)

Some possible exceptions? Many church's have insurence that covers music. Beyond that the policy may allow for videotaping and limited distibution. Our church's legal stuff says the following The quantity of copies allowed should not exceed the maximum number of your "Church size" category, with the exception that the quantity of tapes duplicated per service should not exceed 15 percent of the "Church size" category. Also it is safe to videotape with the same restrictions. However it does *not* cover any sort of receptions or things that happen outside of the sanctuary and most people do not have a recption inside the actual worship area. As for selling tapes it says You may also charge up to $4.00 (U.S.) / $5.00 (CAN) each for audio tapes and CDs, and $12.00 (U.S.) / $15.00 (CAN) each for video tapes and DVDs. But there is a catch 22 to this method - one can not Rent, sell, lend, or distribute copies made under the Church Copyright License to individuals or groups outside the church, or to other churches. Of course the other thing is that while you would be doing the wedding the church would have to be the ones who did the "distribution".

The bottm line, really, in all of this is not so much what is being played but the fact that once you take that and put it to video you have entered another whole set of guidlines. If it is a band you will have at least bypassed the need for any sort of mechanicals. ..at least in reguards to the orginal version. Of course from a purely legal standpoint you now have to get the bands permission to record them. But if all you are dealing with is publishing/royalties it is a lot cheaper than trying to get the orginal.

EDIT - some spelling.

Would somthing like this work in securing rights to use a song or songs in your production if you did want to use music? I have not used it, but am curious if anybody else has or if this is even applicable to this situation.
Thanks,

j razz

Dave,

"I do NOT insert copyright protected music anywhere, and I document events - BG things, are not under my controll, an so, the audio in a dance hall, whether it's Beethoven or Backstreet, is simply there, and nothing can be done about it."

This gets a little hairy. Suppose you got hired to (yes, this is an absurd case) videotape the ushers at a concert hall (maybe the owners want to make sure they're treating the customers properly). You set up your camera in the back of the hall and record the ushers throughout the whole concert. The music from the orchestra is in the background. You didn't specifically put it there; it just occured during your documenting. Now you get orders for this tape from music lovers who just happen to like the music being performed that evening. Ostensibly they are purchasing a tape of the ushers seating and serving the audience. But what they are really doing is listening to the music in the background.

Will your claim still hold up in this instance? True, the case i outlined is a little extreme, but basically it's no different from the background music at a wedding.

I can imagine it being fine for the owners of the hall to have the recording of the ushers along with "background" music, even though it's not OK for the general public to buy copies of that same tape. The rationale being that in the first case, it's arguably not diluting the value of the music copyright holders, and in the second case it apparently is, if the music lovers are paying the videographer to listen to said music, instead of the orchestra's recording label.

Does audio-video recording of the first dance & other reception music dilute the copyright holder's value? I don't know. Surely most people watching a wedding video do so for the wedding, not as a substitute for buying a CD.

WEVA points to lack of a specific legal precedent regarding wedding video to argue the law is "gray" as far as whether wedding videos might fall under "fair use" or "de minimus" exceptions to copyright. Apparently the true meaning and effect of a law is unknown until a legal precedent exists- like the thought experiment in quantum mechanics of Schroedinger's Cat (which is simultaneously alive and dead until the box is opened).

WEVA argues that the studios (by not pursuing any court case against wedding videographers in the last 20 years) evidently don't care. In other words, even if wedding video as currently practiced isn't legal, historically there have been no penalties. There might be- there could be- but apparently, a court has never decided this specific question, hence we don't really know.

As someone who has spun a record or two in his time, I have always understood the following.

Mobile DJ's (in most cases) do not require a license in the U.S. to play records. Weddings and parties are "private events" and are closed to the scrutiny of the RIAA. Public performances do require a BMI/ASCAP permit, but is usually the responsibility of the venue/promoter, such as a nightclub, hotel, etc.

There are certainly many variations of performance circumstances that may change this, but to my knowledge, this is the guideline that is used by most professional DJ associations. Making copies of music is another matter altogether.

I've weighed in on these issues before. It all seems to boil down to scale. Regarding the "documentary" aspect of shooting something and not being able to control the background environment, it depends on the nature of the event and the size of its audience. Turn on MTV or VH1 and watcha so-called "reality" show. You'll find that they go to extreme lengths to cover up "source" music that was unavoidable during the shoot. There are lots of tricks to acheive this that I won't bore you with, but it boils down to simply covering up the unlicensed source music with cleared music. Now, these shows garner millions of viewers over their lifetime so this is understandable. Ostensibly, source music in a wedding video probably won't incur the wrath of the RIAA. If you charge for copies and sell 1000 of them, then you're more vulnerable. And it's worth mentioning here that "hold harmless" clauses are worthless. The aggrieved parties will always assert that as a professional in your field you should have known better.

A year ago I posted to this forum about the up & coming "Reunion" business, and how I had been asked to shoot & edit one such event. I was told by event organizers that music current at the time the participants had graduated (1979-81, in this case) was to be key in the cutting and composition of the material, and the resulting video on DVD would be sold to participants. When I pointed out the potential copyright issues, I was informed that the still photographer who had been covering such events not only composed his slideshows to that music and sold the result (as PowerPoint files, as I recall), but that he also sold to participants his home-burned CD complilations of all #1 hits that had happend in the candidate years. This is certainly a clear violation, but again, no one seems to care. With the RIAA attacking individuals for illegal downloading, it seems natural to me that thy would cast their gaze toward such activities, but I' don't know if this is the case.

As for WEVA, they invariably skirt the issue, as they must. If wedding videos and videographers became an RIAA target, the entire industry would disappear overnight. They're all just flying under the radar, keeping their heads down hoping no one will notice. Eventually, of course, someone WILL notice and there will be lawsuits and at that point we may get clarity or new laws from the courts. And then, WEVA will be forced to do what they should ALREADY be doing: employ a lobbying firm in Washington to represent their members and modify the laws. Why this isn't currently the case is a great mystery to me.

Well first HFA stopped offering sync licenses so that answers your question right there.

Second is that HFA just sort of takes the assumption they are the reps for many of the music they offer. When they were doing sync licenses I saw they were claiming to rep my friend so I called him and asked "When did Harry Fox start handling your music?" to which my friend replied "What?!?!?!? I had no idea, I never knew this." Shortly there after HFA stopped offering sync licenses however about a week ago I did a HFA search on my friend and about 65 of his songs came up. HFA is still claiming to rep his stuff - not for film use, but for sub-licensing on comp CD's and such. (And yes that would include soundtracks)

I know many people hold HFA in higher reguards than I do but as far as I can tell the do not hold the artists in high reguards either.

See my post in this thread for some examples that follow this.

re: documentaries having to clear music instead of relying on fair use
From what I understand, music playing in the background is can be considered fair use if played in a documentary. This gives legal protection for putting the music in a documentary. However, you can be sued for doing this. Even if you "win", the legal bills will be higher than the cost of clearing the music in the first place. So while the law is supposed to be on your side, it may not necessarily work that way in practice.

See http://www.mezomorf.com/movies/news-7322.html

2- This may be a little different than wedding videography. As others point out, some videographers use non-location recordings of copyright music (which should require paying for certain rights).

http://www.current.tv/studio/survivalguide/

found this legal guide....it is regarding podcasting on current.tv...thought it was interesting

>>>From what I understand, music playing in the background is can be considered fair use if played in a documentary. This gives legal protection for putting the music in a documentary.<<<

Depends on the context - interviewing someone as a band soundchecks in the background may be safe however shooting the band and having what they are playing as the soundtack would not be.

>>>However, you can be sued for doing this<<<

And the link to the article you gave is perfect example of this. In the scene with the cell phone clearly the phone, and it's ring tone, are a major part of that scene - thusly the music becomes somewhat of a soundtrack to that scene. It even says that it was great and that is why they wanted it in the film. I think that article should be re-posted anytime this topic comes up as it is excellent.

Just to clarify the issues concerning HFA:

HFA does not represent any artists. They are not a licensing organization. They are a self appointed middleman handling mechanical rights in accordance with a royalty cost standard established by law.in a manner that is legal for any individual to do.

Any one can do what HFA does without permission from anyone. All musical recordings released to the general public in the USA lose the right to exclusive performance and the royalties for releasing one's own version of an audio recording do not require negotiation.

By law in the USA anyone can release their own recording of any song previously released to the general public by paying a standard royalty fee. No negotiation is required unless one intends to distribute so many copies that it would be in their best interests to negotiate a lower than standard rate.

For example, by paying a fee to HFA they do the paper work for me and forward the mechanical license to me so that for a standard fee I can sell CDs of me playing Sultan's of Swing. By law Mark knopfler cannot stop me. I break the law only if I do this without having obtained a mechanical license.

HFA actualy has little to do with this thread on wedding videography which might be helpful to understand.. HFA deals only with remakes not originals. If I obtain a license through HFA for a song that only gives me the right to use the song - not a previously released recording of the song. In order to make use of the HFA mechanical license I have to cvreate my own performance of the licensed song.

To use the example above, paying the fee permits me to distribute 2,500 copies of Sultan's of Swing as played by myself, not a copy of the dire straits performance. Which means that even though HFA is not for sync rights it is also not for duplication rights either.

Who is the ideal customer for HFA? If a local cover band wants to release a demo tape or CD of their version of various covers then they can pay the fee for each of the songs they have recorded and included on their CD. With that fee paid, they are legal to distribute 2,500 copies or less.

Except of course as I've found out if they want to make a video of them performing that cover, then all bets are off. Also it has to be an exact cover that goes onto the CD, no fiddling with the lyrics, making parodies etc, well at least not down here. If you want to do that then you have to negotiate.

For my money shooting a bunch of inebriated folks dancing to someones music (assuming the venue had paid the fees for them to dance to the music that is) really shouldn't be a major copyright issue, I can't quite work out the ethics of this, on the one hand your video would be pretty lame without the music but on the other you haven't chosen the music to put in your work, your 'work' is only shooting what's happening as a record for posterity. I'm assuming of course you're not selling the work, you're just supply X copies to the participants for an overall fee.
The music that you choose to add to the rest of the production is quite a different matter, here your work is enhanced by the work of others and they're certainly entitled to a slice of the action and all the copyright arguments clearly come into play.
Bob.

To use HFA own wording - and this is their "does not" list:

HFA does not:

Also:

* HFA issues mechanical licenses that are valid for products manufactured and distributed in the U.S. (including its territories and possessions), or from computer servers located in the U.S. and its territories and posessions, only.

That being said - to clear up what I meant - in my friends case HFA does not represent him or his band. That part is clear. So if you read HFA own words on the matter they say/ask If you are aware of a current or future use of your copyrighted musical composition on a recording that has not yet been licensed, and would like HFA to attempt to license this use...

In other words a songwriter can request HFA rep them. And in doing so you allow HFA a % of the royalties - again in HFA own words: The commissions retained by HFA for the services it provides are among the lowest of any music rights agency or society in the world. The current commission rate is 6.75% of royalties distributed.

So in my eyes they are taking money out of the pockets of people who don''t even know HFA is "representing" them. How is that legal?

Indulge me in one further clarification. The cell phone incident mentioned above concerning, "Gonna Fly Now" is a perfect example of how the Law in the USA is not what is written but what is litigated. In my opinion for a documentary it is a clear case of fair use. It is a video capture of an historical moment exactly the way it went down - not the way it was scripted. The settlement made resembles a high stakes poker game, it has nothing to do with a responsioble hermenuetic in interpreting written law.

In some ways I feel this has contributed to the lawlessness in America. How can we take laws seriously when written laws are either not enforced or if enforced are done so based on the intepretation held by the party with the most money or linguistically clever high paid lawyers.

In deed as support of this argument I suggest that this is the reason we are all far more careful about authentically potential litigation than we are about the actual written law. Take the stop sign example cited above. We would consider a person who was strongly outspoken about the failure of so many to come to a full stop at a stop sign as suffering from a few emotional mal-adjustments. Why is that? Because since people rarely get a ticket for such failures unless the officer is being a jerk or the ticket is incidental to other more serious moving violations it is simply irelevant to the outcomes we typically experience during such moments.

This is actually no more than job security for lawyers. If you were to read the law books but fail to read case reviews you will do poorly in court. In court the law is not good enough except when a new politically correct trend comes into vogue. What pursuades the judge is the recitation of precedent when available and if precedent differs with a good but atypical reading of the law, then that reading of the law is junked by the judge not willing to make a decision that can be appealed based upon precedent even though his decision could actually be based on law. Bottome line, the law in the USA is the law as it is practiced in court. What is written is merely the starting point for the court battles that determine the real law we have to live by or suffer the economic concequences.

"So in my eyes they are taking money out of the pockets of people who don''t even know HFA is "representing" them. How is that legal?"

This is a genuinely good question but I think I have a genuinely good answer.

Because in spite of the commission structure - be it high or low, HFA does pay every penny of royalty required by law. They are taking the money out of no one's pocket except of those who finance other schems for obtaining mechanical licenses. Those who have higher rates are merely absorbing higher commissions or higher overhead costs - others do not actually pay more in royalties to anyone. If I pay ASCAP $100.00 for the mechanical rights instead of #10.00 to HFA I gaurantee you the artist will not see more of a royalty. ASCAP merely absorbs more to cover their overhead.

The artists HFA actually represents have given HFA an even better than standard rate by written agreement, those who have no formal agreement with HFA get the standard rate as dictated by the law. HFA pays royalties for those they do not directly represent - not directly to the artists but - directly to their licensing representative. By authorizing HFA to represent you, you merely increase the liklihood your song might get chosen thereby profitting from a volume sale rather than a piece sale and you also gaurantee that the royalties will be sent directly to you from HFA just in case your licensing rep is not keeping acurate statistics.

In deed you or I could set up a company to "represent" mechanical licenses. So long as we forwarded at least the standard royalty rate it is not only entirely legal but exactly what the law prescribes.

Perhaps what needs to be clarified is that the law istelf has set the royalty rate for mechanical licenses. With that rate set by law, no one is paying more than that rate for mere mechanical rights no matter what they charge to process the mechanical license. HFA is not paying any less. They have simply set up an efficient way of doing it so that they can charge a low fee for doing it.

Here is another example of disparity that makes no difference to the royalty the artists receives: A medium size bar pays $1200 to $1500 per year to all three major licensing organizations for royalties due on cover tunes played by live bands. However the same bars only pay $8.00 per year for the juke box. Is the artist getting ripped off and paid less when their version is played on the juke box but they get a decent royalty when a cover band plays their song? The answer is No. The royalty paid to the artist is identical . When BMI statistically counts the number of times a song was played on a juke box or played by a live band the royalty added to the artist's account is the exact same amount. The higher price for the cover band is to pay the overhead and commissions of the staff required to go around and collect the fees from the various bars. No such overhead or staff are required for juke boxes because they are registered with the copyright office on an anual basis and the $8.00 fee is paid directly to the copyright office for BMI, ASCAP, etc to divvy up based of their statistical data. This is why the copyright law needs to be amended to allow bandstands to register annually for cover bands.

No artist is getting ripped off or paid less by HFA than they would by their own licensing organization. The only one getting "ripped off" is the licensing organization that has a bloated proft structure for processing mechanical requests.

I’ve been following the complexity of this thread with interest, but the “stop sign” example is forcing me to go off-topic… sorry…

I learned to drive in Boston, where nobody comes to a complete stop at a stop sign. After driving for 10 years there with no problem, I found myself in a place called Kitchener, Ontario, and in a 3-week period, I got 3 tickets for not coming to a complete stop at stop signs. I just could not re-train myself. I got fed up and on the 4th week I rode my bicycle on the same route instead. I then got a ticket for having a “non regulation headlight”.

As well as humoring me by allowing me to share this, I guess the moral is that if you violate the law, even if it is something trivial, you may be unlucky and be the one who gets caught, while most everyone gets away with it…

Coming back on topic... I've filmed a number of elementary school productions, and created DVDs for sale. These have been musical productions with popular songs. So I have worried about this, and I'm sure broken some laws. I made no profit from this. The DVDs were sold at a slight profit, but all that "profit" went to the school to help cover the costs of the production. On the last one I donated the materials as well as my time.

I took the view to make my own moral decision - that parents want a record of their kids performance, I was making no gain, and I was unlikely to be prosecuted. I've since talked to many parents who were thrilled with the DVDs so I have no regrets (and hope I won't be so unlucky to be arrested for this).

Mark

Okay, I am still thinking about this as it is illegal and morals due matter to me. How or where should I (we?) start in trying to change the law to allow for a sync license for people like us? Would this be something that I (we) should approach WEVA about? I am sure that they get asked about this regularly, but where do we begin? I would suppose the labels would oppose a change regarding this, but surely if it is working in Australia and parts of Europe, why not here? One would think that if people are going to steal music and us it illegally or just use it without permission, they would do it regardless of whether or not their was a sync option. But, for others, who would want to do things legally, they would jump at the chance to pay sync license fees to be legal I would suppose.
So, how would one go about this?

j razz

What makes it such a mess is that if you need a song and try to get rights , it is (or can be) next to impossible to even get a no, let alone a price. We tried 2 yrs ago to get the rights to the old Stevie Wonder version of "Sonny", faxes,emails phone calls, more faxes, well I'm still waiting.
so , not that I think its acceptable to use music without permission, I can see why it may happen.

Any attempt to deal with the RIAA or similar body will go nowhere.

An interesting alternative -- if you have any good high-level contacts -- would be to approach Apple. Because of Jobs unique stature in the industry, he was able to do with iTunes what no company or individual before had been able to do (at least not as successfully), namely to get the "music industry" to "buy into" the idea of collecting small license fees. The obvious extension of such a license is to include a limited "sub-license" to let you include that tune on your own disc. The obvious starting point would be for Apple to collect the $0.99 fee for every tune you include, for every disc you sell. Thus, if you had nine songs on a disk, you would owe just under $9.00 in royalties for each disk you sell. I believe the old "needle drop" royalties require full royalty payment even if you only use short segments of a song.

If you try to get a group together and lobby the industry directly, I don't think you'll get very far. For various reasons, I watched very closely when Hummer Winblad and Bertelsmann invested in Napster and tried to make it legitimate. Even with the money and legitimacy that these firms brought to the table, no one in the music industry would give them the time of day.

How about one of our Aussie friends on this forum set up a wedding video clearing house in Melbourne?

Your NY customer wants to buy extra copies of their wedding video, give them the Australian website to order from.