I need permission from Carly Simon to put a video on YouTube I shot on a BlackBerry!!

[Cameron Poole]

In the five years I have been using YouTube, only once have I had a copyright issue and that was for a video I made for a local restaurant - which is fair enough, although I have many videos online that were simply for my own use and have never had an issue, some of them using many bits of unlicensed music.

Recently, I went to a party to watch the royal wedding. It was not a shoot, but I took some footage on my BlackBerry and ended up using it A: As Final Cut Practice and B: As a video to share with friends on Facebook, particularly a friend who was very ill at the time and was unable to attend.

I used a Carly Simon song and because of this, the sound (all of it) has been disabled.

I have looked into it, I'm not selling my video or trying to make money. BUT - 'Whether or not you benefit financially from using the content doesn't matter. Unless you have permission from the owner, it's not yours to use.'

How much hassle is it going to be and how many hoops do I need to jump through to get permission from the owner? I see many MANY amateur videos on YouTube that use unlicensed music, made by teenagers and made by idiots some of them, surely they didn't have to go through all that red tape???

Is this a recent crackdown or something? Perhaps I should take it as a compliment if amateur looking vids are allowed to get away with it. If I was the artist, I would take it as a compliment that a non profit video was being used to enhance a memory.

How is it detected anyway, and is there a way around this?

I always use royalty free music when I am doing a video for a client, though I have used unlicensed music for wedding videos, but you can get away with it for somebody's wedding dvd, even Facebook doesn't have an issue with it.

I also used a bit of HD footage of Prince William and Kate Middleton which I ripped from YouTube, they don't seem to have an issue with that, why not ban the whole thing?

[Shaun Roemich]

The long and the short of it is that in MOST jurisdictions, what you did contravenes the law and/or the copyrights of the copyright holder.

Full stop.

You know this.

The FRUSTRATING part is that some get away with it on YouTube seemingly without rhyme or reason.

Much like motorists speeding.

"Getting away with it" is NOT the same thing as it being legal.

Sucks... I know. Unless you are the owner of the copyright and you don't WANT people using your music for ridiculous video clips using World of Warcraft...

[Robert Turchick]

I've been through this many times but have always done the research BEFORE choosing a song. That way I've never gotten bit and had to change out music.

It's a pretty simple process once you know where to start. The part that sucks is your answer may come within hours or it may come months later.

First you need to find the publisher of the song you are wanting to use. They are the entity that will give you the final answer.

I believe Carly is an ASCAP artist but each individual song my have different representation (BMI, SESAC, etc.) ASCAP's website will have a place to look up individual songs for electronic delivery. It will have the publisher's name and contact info as well as forms to submit for getting permission.

Main site ASCAP Internet Music License Agreements

Search for publisher's info ASCAP ACE - Search

Hope this helps!
BTW, out of dozens of requests, I've only been able to use 2 songs and did have to pay a fee for each. The others were either outrageously expensive or the publisher simply said no.
I mostly use production or royalty free music for this reason. When I need something different, I have a lot of musician friends who gladly lend or license music to me very cheaply! OR I write it myself!

That last phrase should tell you my stance on the underlying subject...
PAY FOR THE MUSIC YOU USE!! Musicians need to eat too!

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Cameron Poole

...

I have looked into it, I'm not selling my video or trying to make money. BUT - 'Whether or not you benefit financially from using the content doesn't matter. Unless you have permission from the owner, it's not yours to use.'

How much hassle is it going to be and how many hoops do I need to jump through to get permission from the owner? I see many MANY amateur videos on YouTube that use unlicensed music, made by teenagers and made by idiots some of them, surely they didn't have to go through all that red tape???

...How is it detected anyway, and is there a way around this?

I always use royalty free music when I am doing a video for a client, though I have used unlicensed music for wedding videos, but you can get away with it for somebody's wedding dvd, even Facebook doesn't have an issue with it.

I...

So your personal sense of ethics tells you it's perfectly acceptable to break the law, just as long as you don't get caught? Hmmmmmm

[Cameron Poole]

Ethics and morality are not always on the same team as the law.

Remember that many defense lawyers are paid very highly to get some very very nasty people of the hook, where's the morality in that?

I do agree that an artist should be paid a fee for music used in a video that generates a fee for the editor, and even when I use low quality royalty free music from RF websites which cost nothing to use, I credit the author.

I used to compose music/songs myself ten years ago and gained a popular local following (My Yamaha keyboard was too huge to bring to Bangkok and remains in my mothers loft in England) but if somebody wanted to use it for their kids birthday party and put it on YouTube to show their family back home then I wouldn't have an issue with it at all - especially if I was a multi millionaire!!

Horrible the way of the world sometimes, especially when your prime motive is to entertain people and making a buck is the last thing on your mind.

Incedentally, any recommendations for good free royalty free music?

I have a load of stuff from a website called Big Bang & Fuzz which we used when I was working for a ocal TV Station but I don't think I can even use that now because the station paid a monthly fee.

[Vincent Oliver]

I produced some videos for use by my client on YouTube, all productions are my copyright. I also published these as samples as my work on YouTube. A week later I received notification (from YouTube) that I was in breach of copyright and my video was removed. I didn't follow up on the complaint, keeping good relations with your client is important too.

Basically, if you want to use someone else's work then you must respect their copyright. I don't think you would be too happy if you saw your work on some other persons YouTube channel, even if they claim it is for their own use. You are giving a public performance of their work.

"Horrible the way of the world sometimes, especially when your prime motive is to entertain people and making a buck is the last thing on your mind."

Entertain by all means, but also respect the author

[Cameron Poole]

What if you're shooting at a party, let's say a big public wedding party - and the DJ is playing 'Imagine' by John Lennon. We all know that one thing that technology can NOT do is separate background music from the footage audio, all we can do is make sure we keep the camera running for the duration of the track to get a smooth professional edit and cut in the reactions of the wistful onlookers and the dancing couples later with fill in shots.

How many of us here would honestly go to all the hassle of getting permission, which could potentially cost hundreds of dollars??? Even if it was free, Yoko Ono would have probably have bigger fish to fry than granting permission for it to go on YouTube so that the bride's aunty and uncle can enjoy the moment from their home back in New Zealand.

Facebook would accept it, YouTube would remove the sound - Vimeo? I honestly don't know. But either way I'd be breaking the law for presenting somebody else's work in public.

Where exactly does that leave the DJ?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Cameron Poole

We all know that one thing that technology can NOT do is separate background music from the footage audio...

That's an entirely different thing though.

You're talking about background music, happening at the moment and which you had
no part in choosing, and most likely well beyond your ability to control. That's not at all
the same thing as intentionally embedding (synchronizing) a piece of music of your own
choosing later on during editing, which certainly is within your ability to control.

So no, that's not the same thing at all.

[Chris Medico]

(Steve H., please correct me if I misstate this)

The DJ should have a performance license to use the music they are playing. Many DJs subscribe to a music service that includes the license as part of the subscription fee.

Someone shooting video at the event where the DJ is performing would be safe and legal to view their recording at home for their own use.

If you are recording the event as a service and producing a product for a customer then you are responsible for getting the proper license (two licenses actually) to use the music or replace it in post with something you are legally able to use. Its not the DJs responsibility to defend unfair use at that point it is the videographers'.

Posting the video of the event on YouTube or playing it in a public space is a step too far and not allowed under Fair Use as applied in the US.

Whether or not these laws are broken doesn't dilute the fact they exist or what they mean. It only means the limits that are set by them are being exceeded without permission.

A snipit from the ASCAP website. Full text here - ASCAP Licensing: Frequently Asked Questions

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.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Chris Medico

Posting the video of the event on YouTube or playing it in a public space is a step too far and not allowed under Fair Use as applied in the US.

And that's the single most important thing to understand here.

[Predrag Vasic]

So, to summarise the above:

When a videographer is hired to shoot a wedding, he MUST obtain proper licensing for EVERY copyrighted work of art that ends up in the final product (song, video excerpt, anything). The fact that the DJ has proper licensing for his own public performance of copyrighted songs does NOT help videographer.

If an amateur shoots video at the same wedding, for his own in-home use, he does NOT need the license, as long as it is his own home use (i.e. sharing with friends).

However, none of the common web sites out there that allow video sharing are considered home use. Instead, They are considered as public performance, for which a license is required, even for home-made videos.

YouTube apparently employs some software that performs intelligent music recognition (same as 'Shazam!' app does on the iPhone), in order to discover unlicensed audio. It seems that Facebook or Vimeo don't do this yet.

As a musician, I can completely understand the reasoning behind this. When someone uses my music in their video, I would very much like to reserve the right to refuse the license, if I find the video offensive, inappropriate or in any other way damaging to my music. There is simply no way for the author of the work to know what does your video contain, so that (s)he can simply grant license sight unseen. Of course, in my case, as long as I am comfortable with the video, you can use my music without compensation (assuming you aren't making money off that video, and my music is helping you do it).

[Steve House]

The DJ or the venue must obtain a performance license from ASCAP in order to legally play the songs in public and even a private, closed, affair such as a wedding reception is still a public performance under the law. But that license does not extend to any third party nor to any other use beyond playing the music for the party, such as on the soundtrack of a video of the reception. ASCAP performance licenses and sync/master use licenses are two entirely different critters, which is what I think you're saying here

It's interesting that the courts seem to be relaxing a bit on "incidental use" where snippets of music occuring in the background are not considered infringing even if they're not licensed. At the same time, broadcasters seem to be gettign more and more paranoid about it ... was watching an epsiode of "Kitchen Nightmares" last night and noticed that posters and pictures on the wall of the restaurant they were in were all blurred beyond recognition, presumably due to lack of copyright clearances on the images. By parallel, that would be the same situation with recognizable music being played by the DJ while a video makers is filming interviews or couples dancing. If that's an example, the videographer would need to license everything in order to include it at all
.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Cameron Poole

What if you're shooting at a party, let's say a big public wedding party - and the DJ is playing 'Imagine' by John Lennon. We all know that one thing that technology can NOT do is separate background music from the footage audio...

If you're making a wedding video for the couple, no problem. If you're making a documentary about weddings to be shown on the Lifetime Channel, license the material, use different footage, or do ADR. There was a case a few years ago regarding a documentary where The Simpsons happened to be playing in the background on TV and the filmmaker lost.

[Simon Wood]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

If you're making a wedding video for the couple, no problem. If you're making a documentary about weddings to be shown on the Lifetime Channel, license the material, use different footage, or do ADR. There was a case a few years ago regarding a documentary where The Simpsons happened to be playing in the background on TV and the filmmaker lost.

I have a big problem with that. Its a shame when things are allowed to go so far.

In terms of inserting copyrighted music into a film or documentary; yes of course the normal rights must be addressed and paid.

But if you are making documentary then you are recording reality as it unfolds. The fact is people watch tv, they listen to music, and advertising (in the form of posters) are put up in public places. If that is recoded incidentally, without any planning; well then that is just a reflection of reality. Are we really to believe that background music and images are somehow 'exempt' from reality, exempt from the real world? They're not; the media is a part of of the modern fabric of society.

Its a shame too, because the creators of the Simpsons usually offer such scathing views on the media and lawyers - I wonder what would Matt Groening actually have thought about it....?

[Brian Drysdale]

Best to remember that "Happy Birthday" is in copyright as well.

Pity about all that blurring of posters, T shirts etc., it's getting distracting.