jrazz, et al, when I started my wedding biz, I too contacted HFA, EMG, RIAA, and all the groups mentioned in previous posts to this OT. I quickly learned that 1) the rights to sync music to video belongs, like property, to the player(s) (the music) , the singer(s), the writer(s) (the lyrics and/or music), and to who/whomever they have given that right (contracted with.) For instance, you (your client) want to use a recording of Wind Beneath My Wings, off of Drew's Famous Wedding Songs CD. Turn up the Music, Inc, will give you permission, at a cost, to use the song, as long as you get the person who wrote the lyrics, and the persons who played the music to give you permission. Can you do this? Almost certainly. Can you afford it? Maybe. For every song played at the reception? No way. So your choice, if you want to make a living doing weddings, is to ignore copyright law. You can limit the violation to just the reception, but no client is going to say okay, just sync in any ole music to my first dance, my dance with my dad, or the dance with my mom. You'll be lucky in getting them to let you use royalty free to sync to the wedding, especially if they hired musicians to play at the wedding (unless you get those musicians to give you permission, and remember you still need the permission of the person who owns the music) You still violate the spirit of the law, no matter how you justify doing so. Some videographers think by requiring the bride/groom to own the CD gives them justification to video record the music in the wedding, based on the oft repeated -well, it at least affords the musicians some compensation. I see that alot. I tried to explain copyright to one of my first prospective clients who had seen my work (I don't advertise) and was hot on wanting me to do his wedding (not often you deal with the groom). I said no problem on recording the music they wanted as long it was royalty free - after explaining what that meant, it was adieu and a no sell. Too many others out there to have no qualms in ignoring copyright. So now, I use royalty free or contracted music where I can, and violate copyright in recording those critical shots during the reception. I would rather pay a royalty to do this legally but the industry isn't giving me that choice. Its a shame too, because there is potentially a fortune lurking out there in royalties from indie filmers and videographers.

"...but I still don't understand why. What's the problem with allowing a non-proft to use a song?"

There's not enough zeros behind your offer. "Non Profit" doesn't mean anything. Some of the largest corporations in the USA are non-profits, Red Cross, AAA, Goodwill Industries, etc. Some religous ministries have so much retained earnings that they would be on the Forbes 100 list if they were a for profit corporation. They can easily afford the licensing fees. Besides, what does non-profit mean in an industry where most products (movies) never make a profit?

Steve Mann

"Note- ... the RIAA did sue Amway in 1996, along with their videographer, for some blatant copyright violations in a sales video that was distributed nationwide, and RIAA got over $13 million (!) in a settlement."

Deep pockets. Amway could easily afford it. Their sales are measured in $Billions. (Six billion in 2004).

This is why no wedding videographer is likely to ever get any more than a "cease and desist" letter, and then only if they are stupid enough to put unlicensed music on their website.

Steve Mann

> Personally I don't see where selling a DVD with copyrighted music on it, without artist/publisher permission, is allowed by US copyright law so I don't know what they mean by "grey area".

It's a grey area because it could be argued one of two ways.

First, that it is fair use (assuming the bride has the original CD). If the bride added the music herself, that would be fair use. What's to say that she couldn't pay someone to dub the music for her? Before you say "that's different", there's several businesses that will copy your CD's to your IPOD for a fee. (With the approval of the RIAA). The client gives them the IPOD and a box of CD's, and they return the IPOD and CD's to the owner. How is that different from adding the music to a wedding video?

Second, that it really is a work for hire and you were just doing what the boss asked of you.

"Maybe the best situation is to simply get a "hold harmless" permission, signed by the person ordering the video."

This is actually worse because with such a hold-harmless disclaimer you are acknowledging that you are aware of the copyright issues and are trying to pass off your responsibility.

Steve Mann

Also, for what its worth, and no offense to anybody, I wouldn't bet my money on believing DJs being at a mobile site playing for a customer is exempted from Copyright law. A long way from falling under any fair use category. And even if he has obtained a mechanical license and complying with all the copyright requirements, his rights to play the music to an audience doesn't extend outward to allow videographers or filmers to legally sync the music he plays to their video. It would be interesting to see what would become of a trespass "into my video camera, officer (I warned them, but they got on my video anyway)" defense. I wouldn't want to pay for that privilege, though. I think you could compare that to wearing a paper hat in a hail storm.

Mobile DJ services vary by location. I am not a DJ but I can tell you from personal experience in talking to several DJs in my area that in my area every one I spoke to was legit. They carry a physical copy of the CD jacket with them even if their music is all on the hard drive of a lap top or other device and these are special jackets marked for DJ use purchased with a prepaid license for the music they contain and stating such on the jacket. Many are compilation CDs. They purchase them from DJ supply houses and some are promotional give-aways from the record companies themselves seeking to promote the songs through these DJs.

Furthermore, at a private party, the music played is legit so long as it is played from the legit copies of anyone present at the private affair. After all, If I go over to your house (never been there ... but if) and I slip my Alan Parson's Vulture Culture CD into your player, there is no law being broken. It would not matter if there were a private party ocurring at the time nor would it matter if we were so lazy that we paid someone else to handle the CDs.

Back to the topic of Weddings. These are highly private affairs, invitation only stuff. I recently saw the video DVD made for a wedding I attended in New York City. The Wedding took place at St. Thomas's Cathedral and the reception was near by where the entire second floor of the New York Palace was corded off for the private affair. Huge buckaroos involved. The Wedding was probabaly costing the father of the bride at least $200,000.00. Many in attendance were multi millionaires.

The videographer had no licenses for anything. He had great equipment steady cams etc. The videographer charged several thousand dollars but would only render 3 DVDs - 1 each to the parents of the bride, parents of the groom, and the young couple. Important politicians were present at the affair.

I dare say based on a few discussions I had at this affair it made me realize that law makers in Washington who marry off their daughters and hire wedding videographers do not think twice about the copyright law.

I am not a wedding videographer because I prefer to sleep at night. I would be too nervous that one day they would come get me. But I make no bones about the fact that in my opinion respect FOR the law requires a mutual respect FROM the law. It is highly unethical for the music industry to NOT provide wedding videographers a reasonable opportunity and process whereby they could legitimize this practice. It is obvious they do not really care.

That breeds contempt. Most wedding videographers that I have spoken to privately are angry as all get out at the current situation and wish they could legitimize their business but the option simply does not exist.

It used to be in the country that you could lose your intellectual property rights if you knowingly permitted any violation of them. This is not true anymore. But if it were, then the wedding videographer's defense if sued would be to inquire how many other videographers they are aware of and have they gone after them as well?

For me this is not a gray area - it is crystal clear. The industry does not care about Wedding videographers and intended to never care about them so long as the sales are not significant enough to suck away through law suits. I am a musician and have no problem respecting the rights of my fellow musicians, but I have a deep disgust for the music industry. It is corrupted, greedy and self-righteous. The Wedding Videographer's royalty dillema is just a collateral part of the industry's rottenness.

Well said BobGreaves. And, I am total agreement with you on needing a way to include music in a wedding legally. However, even private affairs have their limitations. Such as, I shoot a home movie, and decide to doll it up with music from, say Alan Parson's Vulture Culture CD, and I play my work for my family. I think noone is going to come knocking on my door. However, extend the viewing invitation beyond the immediate family, such as to my local neighborhood, and I could be inviting trouble. As you implied, one does have the right to play the music one purchased as one sees fit. Its much like a noise ordinance - at some point you cross a line. A line in which a judicial system may eventually set. Its why that little blurb is included on all thoseCDs - All rights reserved. DJs could claim they only play at/for private parties, thus proclaiming no need for any mech licensewhatsoever, but the fact is even the people selling DJs their licensed clad music realize that is one leaky boat in which to set sail. A. mech license authorizes someone to play someone else's music (property) to somebody else. It doesn't say it has to be at a public or private affair. It doesn't say you have to be making money in doing so. It doen't even require someone to hear the music. Can I hire someone to play my music for me? Yes. At my home? Yes. Is it legal? Yes. Is it a contract? Yes. Even if its a friend and he/she is doing it for a chicken leg and a chance to date my sister? Yes (but getting the date is his own problem). Is he a DJ by definition? Could be. Could be something a court could decide. How, Alan Parson just showed up and wanted to know if the "DJ" paid for the right to play his music to my 300 private guests? My friend points to me and says ask him. I say its a private party, and go away. Just for the sake of saying it, I also own the Seahawks, the stadium, the town, and plan to play his music at the next practice game, proclaiming its all just a big private party. Alan contacts the BMI, ASCAP, RIAA, and a whole bunch of others who likes to sue even little girls who download music to listen to all by themselves, because I didn't invite him to the party. Have I violated the law? Better yet, who has the money for the better attornies? I know , far-fetched. and geting off the subject of this OT. But a private affair is not a sure-fast bar to getting sued. The host may not get zapped, but his "DJ," who agreed to spin those records for him, could be in a surprise. Why?, No mech license. Unless a person can afford to toss hail back in a hail storm, that private paper hat is not going to protect you. Would he get sued? Probably not. Could he get sued? You bet. Would he win? The minute he got served, he lost because its going to cost him. Will he win in court? Who knows. The US - the land of the lawsuit. Gotta love it. More cases are "won" in settlement. How about this: if a person videographs his friends wedding, edits it for him, and includes all their favorite songs synced to the video, and cuts a couple DVDs for him, wraps them in a pretty pink bow, and gives the DVDs to them all for free, or as a wedding gift. Has he violated the copyright law?

In the U.S.:

According to the HFA (Harry Fox Agency), a mechanical license is defined as follows: A Mechanical License is a written authorization from the publisher to manufacture and distribute a record, CD or audio tape for a specific copyrighted musical composition.

A Performance License (either live or from recorded media) is obtained from BMI, ASCAP, SESAC and etc. This license is usually, but not limited to, the responsibility of the venue owner or promoter of events. Live concerts and public performances of recorded music (including radio) fall into this catagory.

A Synchronization License is necessary when music is “attached to” or becomes a part of any production, ie: film, video, DVD, television program, commercial, multimedia CD-Rom, web site or audio CD. This license is often referred to as a “sync” license. “Sync” licenses come in many shapes and sizes depending on the terms set by each publisher/distributor.

The RIAA is not a licensing organization. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes its members' creative and financial vitality. Basically, they represent the legal interests of their members.

There are many websites devoted to defining the various types of necessary licensing, including sites maintained by the Harry Fox Agency, BMI & ASCAP. Unfortunately, understanding licensing doesn't automatically create a means to license music for many of our uses.