A lady called me Friday afternoon. She's getting in 8 days and her video person just backed out. Looking for anyone to video her wedding, she calls me.

I go over all the odds and ends, what's included, congratulations, etc. I mention that each package comes with 6 DVDs. That's one for them, their parents, grandparents, etc. I don't think I've ever had anyone request more than 6 DVDs.

Then she asks if she could COPY them.

Uh... what?

So I asked what I remember someone on this board saying:

'I'd rather you didn't. Are you going to copy the still photographer's pictures as well?'

It drove the point home. I hope.

I personally encourage my customers to copy them if they need extra copies. I really hate to do copies. To me it is just a waste of time. I rather be editing than looking for masters and holding me up while it burns, print and put them in a case.

Most videographers see it as extra income, but if you charge what it is really worth, they will copy them without your permission.

That is just me.

I don't have a problem with paying customers making copies of the video I produce for them.

I still hold the copyright. But I tell wedding customers they can make additional copies if they have the means to. Of course, if they want me to make additional copies, the discs and cases will look just like the original.

I also produce promo videos for bands. I actually issue them a license to reproduce and distribute copies so if they go to a commercial duplicater service, they have a paper showing they have permission to make copies. Again, if they want me to make the copies, it looks just like the original. I do charge for copies I make.

To each his own but I never could understand wanting to prevent videography customers from making their own copies if they choose to.

Just out of curiousity, why would you object to your paying customer making copies of the video you produced?

Jeff

Most photographers these days include high-rez files in all packages exactly for this reason. We personally don't- but it really makes the point moot I think.

I will offer to make additional copies for clients for free (within reason). After all, I want my demo DVD to get into as many hands as possible, why not an actual wedding DVD? This is advertising that people are asking for! Why not give it to them?

It's not like it's a short film. It's their wedding. Really, they own it as much as you do (regardless of the fact that you edited it and such). Be fair, and charge for making it, but let them give it to whomever they want. Not like you can sell it or anything.

If it were a case where they were going to make 1,000s of copies (ie a celebrity, though this probably still isn't the case), then you might want to get in on that a bit. But for even 100 family members... how does that harm you?

The idea of it is silly, I say.

Back when I was a wedding photographer (pre-digital days), I'd set the price so I made a suitable profit up-front, and would turn over the sleeved negatives along with the album(s). It saved me the hassle and liabilities of negative storage, print re-orders, etc. As far as I was concerned, I was working for hire, and the customer owned the copyright to their wedding images. The customers liked the idea that they could get whatever prints they wanted and had control over the negatives.

Me? I collected my money, thanked them, then walked away to do the next job. I called them kamikaze weddings -- hit and run.

Martin

Photographers have the disadvantage of not being able to 'brand' their work. You see photos and nobody knows who took the picture.

With videography, I have my three second animation attached to the video. True, the client could remove it in a NLE, but unlikely. I want the client to show people, so I don't charge royalties. I don't burn multiple DVDs because I want *them* to. It's a waste of time for me to do what they can do on their own.

I agree with the philosophy that the wedding belongs to the couple, but I understand it would be hard to swallow that philosophy as a photographer. We've got to make money to provide the service to a couple in the first place. If I were a photographer I would charge for my *talent* and leave it at that.

I always maintain that I own the raw footage, however they have paid me to make an edit of their day and when I supply the wedding dvd to them I also transfer the copyright of that edited work to them using a creative common license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

They are free to copy it (after all, if sony cant stop people copying their blockbuster movies what chance do we have....) but I do charge a small price if they want a copy with the nice artwork and printed disc...(£15 per disc).

Interesting to see how many different opinions there are on this topic though...

Sure, for your work in copying it, a small fee is quite reasonable.
CC is a good idea too.

I'm with the majority here. I encourage clients to make copies. It's just so easy to copy a DVD that I don't see a point of making clients "feel bad" about it - which is pretty much the only thing you can do.

As for raw footage, I never give them out. I've lost potential clients because of it, but I maintain that policy. I'm not trying to make more money out of them or anything, it's just that raw footage isn't representative of what we do, and I would never want an audience to sit through it.

I also encourage clients to do their own copying or if they prefer I will do it but then I will charge for it, I hardly get any requests for extra copies but that's fine by me.

It is nice to see the non-gouging attitude of this board.

I agree, we should charge for our talents and products and let everything else go as it will.

When I photograph, I deliver the orginals on CD but give them an option to buy prints from me as well.

I use a pro lab and charge reasonable prices for the prints and the customers will often print pretty many because of the longevity issue with cheaper labs.

In this day and age, the business model of making your money on the back end is gone.

Charing up front allows you to focus on quality and lets the customer feel like they are getting a lot in return.

In this day and age, the business model of making your money on the back end is gone.


Are you taking about photo or video here?

No-one has mentioned this point yet:

Here in UK: it is assumed that professional videographers supply a PPL holographic sticker on each copy (which costs a few pounds) for the (limited) rights to dub on copyrighted music.

If clients copy (or are encouraged to copy) such a DVD with dubbed commercial music, they are strictly doing it illegally, as they obviously won't be buying and applying the PPL sticker for each copy.

Of course, no-one has been prosecuted for private copying of such a DVD, but it's an issue that might impinge on how we handle this.

I assume there is some equivalent per-copy-payment in other countries that strictly should be applied to each copy?

Then she asks if she could COPY themHow are you going to stop her?

I encourage it. It's a wedding, not exactly black market material. It's nice to have your name spread around.

I assume there is some equivalent per-copy-payment in other countries that strictly should be applied to each copy?

Not in the US. I would love to have a system like that here. Instead, we have to interpret the copyright law and decide whether we want to take a chance that we interpreted it right.

Are you taking about photo or video here?


Both.

Any money made from making copies of your finished products etc...

Hm. The UK system sounds interesting. But is that for any song you want? Other media?

In the US, you basically need permission to use anything, and if you have it, then that's probably just fine. If you don't (and this can frequently be the case) it's technically illegal, and probably a bad idea because of it.

Any smart videographer would get some rights setup or use copyright free music or music from a library designed for this. It's just asking for trouble if not.

On the other hand, I doubt it's much of an issue to have copyrighted music IN the film, as part of the ceremony/reception. I'm not sure on the legal issues there, but I think it's just generally seen as a public event that you documented, so probably not something you need to worry about. I'd like to hear from someone who knows the copyright law in this case, though.

I don't think anyone knows the copyright laws exactly Daniel. Best bet is to use royalty free music. Definitely safe that way. Not saying that's what I do, but that's definitely the safest way to do it.

In terms of letting clients copy the DVD I'm all for it. I provide five copies up front, with the couple's DVD in a nicer case than the others. If they want to copy it and pass it around that's great. More advertising for me. If they actually like it enough to pass it around to other people then that seems like a compliment to me.

Wow... I wish whoever said they did have a problem with their stuff being copied would chime in! :)

Seriously though... in my packages, a certain amount of DVDs are included (6), complete with customized labels, etc. If they make copies and hand them off to someone else, I hate to think that my work was being delivered on a less than spectacular looking DVD. Also, it does affect my bottom line because if they want extra, they should BUY EXTRA.

Just seems kind of cheap.

And I know in the pecking order, the wedding video is near the bottom rung.

For know, anyways...

I think the key here is to deliver a superior looking final product, so that there is incentive to have you make the copies. A high quality (preferably printed on the DVD) "label" is a nice touch, a DVD cover that looks like somthing you'd buy in the store probably helps.

In the end, I concur that if they order up front, I'd appreciate the opportunity to make any "extra" copies they need... what's a few "extras" while burning and printing a project? If they need stuff 6 months later, I've already archived everything, I'd rather they just burn a quick copy...

Wow... I wish whoever said they did have a problem with their stuff being copied would chime in! :)Who?

I'd have a huge problem with someone copying my short films. But if I did something specifically for someone, such as a wedding, I think they've got the rights to it once it's made.

If you were to record some band's song, wouldn't you get paid to record it and give them the rights?
If you were to film someone's movie as DP, or edit it, wouldn't you get paid and just give the director/etc. the rights?

If you own the rights, what do you plan to gain with them? Would you sell them?

Whose wedding is it? To whom is it of significant importance?
Do you really care about the wedding? About who watches your videos?

I can certainly see wanting to make more money, and you suggesting they pay you more to make 12 copies from the start, but if they want to copy the videos and show their grandmother do you really want to stop them? (and as has been asked, how?)

If you have a good reason, please post. I'm not saying you can't have a reason, but I honestly don't understand it if so.

Daniel, when you make your films, aren't you making those for someone? Your audience?

I am very upfront with couples about what's included with my services. You get 6 DVDs included with your wedding... and additional DVDs will cost 'x' amount.

And to flat out ask if they can make copies?! That's just being cheap.

In my opinion, of course.

Hm. The UK system sounds interesting. But is that for any song you want? Other media?

In the US, you basically need permission to use anything, and if you have it, then that's probably just fine. If you don't (and this can frequently be the case) it's technically illegal, and probably a bad idea because of it.

Any smart videographer would get some rights setup or use copyright free music or music from a library designed for this. It's just asking for trouble if not.

On the other hand, I doubt it's much of an issue to have copyrighted music IN the film, as part of the ceremony/reception. I'm not sure on the legal issues there, but I think it's just generally seen as a public event that you documented, so probably not something you need to worry about. I'd like to hear from someone who knows the copyright law in this case, though.

The uk system is clearly defined (thankfully) and you must have a license as discussed (the hologram sticker) for each disc and it can contain as many tracks as you like. Any incidental music is excluded from the need for a license but if there is a band playing, or you are recording in the church then another license is required to cover this.

Even so, at a price of about £8 per disc for live music and £4 per disc to cover any music you choose to use during the edit it is still quite cheap.

however, the price for a copy of a disc is already £12 ($23) for the licenses and then I add on the price of the disc, ink, box and photo paper....still works out cheap.

The sticker music license system sounds nice. Wish we had that in the US.

As for copies, I tell couples that if they have the capability to make copies on their own, they can do that. I state in my contract that they do not take the video to a 3rd party for copying, but that they come back to me. Most of the time they come back to me. They say the price ($20 USD) is reasonable, and they like the labels and packaging.

Daniel, when you make your films, aren't you making those for someone? Your audience?
Sure. It's my movie, my story (sometimes, or one I've grown attached to), my directing, etc.
No one else has any reason to have it be more important to them (others are related, but if I'm directing/editing/etc., then I'm usually the most interested).
The audience is the... audience. But not part of the production. "I want to see the movie you didn't make that I don't know about" is not the same as "I wish I'd had someone record my wedding", etc.

In the case of a wedding, isn't it more for the couple?

Whose production was it? Yours or theirs? I see it as a service where you recorded the film and created it within their "production"-- ie, event... the wedding.

Your job is a simple one-- make the film, get it to them, and, of course, get paid to do it.

I can see a legal argument for owning the copies, but that seems kinda extreme.

That would be like the minister charging twice as much if you brought more people to watch.

On top of that, legally, this isn't entirely yours. You don't have releases from the "actors", so you wouldn't be able to sell this anyway.

If you feel you need to charge more then give them full rights, completely understandable.

But why hold back and keep the film from them if not? Does this actually give you any financial gain?

(Again, if they want you to duplicate them, then that's just fine. Charge for your work/time/costs.)


Think of this as a professional relationship with a studio. You are hired, and you make something. But you don't really own it. Legally you own the way the footage was captured, the tapes, the editing, and any other intellectual property, but it's their content.

Or, do you have them sign some sort of release that you own the exclusive rights to the content you record at their event? (Crazy, I say, but then legally correct. -- And if it was my wedding, I'm sure I wouldn't sign such a contract.)

Do you genuinely feel that you can say to the couple, "No. I filmed it, so you need to ask me permission before giving a copy of your wedding video to your grandmother. Sorry. That's in the contract."?

<<>>

As for the sticker licensing, that's very cool.
Still a bit vague-- so these stickers are decided upon between you and the party holding the copyright?

As for the sticker licensing, that's very cool.
Still a bit vague-- so these stickers are decided upon between you and the party holding the copyright?

It is vague - the UK bodies issuing the licences (PPL (http://www.ppluk.com/) and MCPS-PRS (http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/Pages/default.aspx)) don't require to know the exact pieces of music you use, they just pool the income they receive from all sources and divide it up amongst registered artists in proportion to their "popularity" or "volume of output", or some similar statistics.

Not fair, for sure, but pretty convenient for us music dubbers. There are limitations to our use of the system - supposedly only 20 minutes of dubbed music (from memory) but you don't have to nominate the tracks you use.

...On the other hand, I doubt it's much of an issue to have copyrighted music IN the film, as part of the ceremony/reception. I'm not sure on the legal issues there, but I think it's just generally seen as a public event that you documented, so probably not something you need to worry about. I'd like to hear from someone who knows the copyright law in this case, though.

I am not a lawyer. There's an extensive discussion of the issue in an article by Doug Spotted Eagle over in the articles section of the board. The gist of it is that if copyrighted material is used in your production you must have permission from the copyright owner or it's illegal - full stop. There are a lot of myths around that say "It's only 30 seconds" or "I can make less than 5 copies" or "The B&G gave me the CD of their favourite song to use and its legal to copy it because they own the CD" or some such but they're all just that - myths. While there are some possible exceptions for incidental use such as snatches of music overheard in the background during an interview (and those are only *possible* exceptions, not guaranteed to hold up in court should a rights holder want to make an issue of it with you), if the piece is music you added to the soundtrack or is a material part of the soundtrack (like recording the music that the DJ's playing as the sound while filming the couple's first dance), you have to have permission or you can't legally use it. Whether you'll get caught is another matter, but wedding videographers have been nailed on it and lost major bucks if not their businesses and personal assets because of it - they just don't make the press very often because non-disclosure is often a part of legal settlements these days. Even the cost of defending an action would be a major financial hit even if you eventually prevail.

Yes, I meant entirely incidental music, with "IN", which admittedly wasn't very clear.
If you add a track, then you would certainly need permission.
(The only rule I know about is a 10% or 30 second (I think that's the number) allotment of any copyrighted work for purely educational and nonprofit works, and this I have just heard about in passing, though from several generally reliable sources.)

Clearly in the case of a wedding video you are selling, you would need full permission from anything you do. However, anything that was actually recorded as part of the video seems more the responsibility of the bride and groom.


As a matter of fact, this actually ties in very closely with the original question. If you charge for your SERVICES ONLY, then you don't really need to worry about copyright.
Your job is a simple one-- sit at a computer and be paid [arbitrary] $500. Then give them a CD when you are done, as their employee (or something like that), not as an independent production studio.

Issues could still arise from including your own music library if you don't have rights to distribute that, but, really, just like if you were to give them a copy of the CD, except that it might be more noticeable especially as it was related to a financial transaction.

As an example, I know that it's legal to hire an FX artist to work on a Star Wars fan film. But then you can't sell the film itself. People have also paid actors, rented locations, etc.

Your actions are purely your own and you're free to sell them as you want. Selling anything that has copyrighted material in it directly, though, will be a big no no.

But, of course, these actions might be independently illegal (regardless of your pay for working on them), such as duplicating a song on the disc.

If it's their music and you copy it FOR THEM (making duplicate copies might be an issue), then you probably would be fine there.

Of course, it's a gray area still.

...As a matter of fact, this actually ties in very closely with the original question. If you charge for your SERVICES ONLY, then you don't really need to worry about copyright.
Your job is a simple one-- sit at a computer and be paid [arbitrary] $500. Then give them a CD when you are done, as their employee (or something like that), not as an independent production studio.

...

AFAIK you are incorrect. You are not their employee: they're not withholding income and employment taxes from your cheque; they're not directing and supervising your work; they're not sitting beside you telling you which button to push and when to push it. You are not selling them camera operator or editing services in the same manner a TV station's cameraman or segment producer is selling his or her labour to the station. You are actually an independent vendor who is selling them a customized retail product that you have created, that is, the completed and edited video. The fact that they requested that you create it with particular content doesn't make them legally responsible for that content - you are still the one doing the creating and have the final say as to what you will and won't include and the fact that they'll be an unhappy customer if you don't include what they want doesn't shift that responsibility away from you. Think about the still photographer - he doesn't get paid an hourly wage just for shooting and then turn over the unprocessed film to the couple at the end of the day. He sells them a package of completed wedding photos. As the creator of those photos he owns the copyright on them. If if he was their employee, they would own it. The wedding videographer is in the same boat - he's selling the couple a "made-to-order" retail product. He owns the copyright as the creator of the work and as its creator he and he alone is responsible for the content, including insuring that all of the content is legal. The couple can request anything they want, as any customer can do of any merchant, but the courts would likely say that it's the producer's duty to say "no" if the request is illegal and hold you responsible if you don't.

Copyright is violated by the person who makes the copy. If someone comes to you and gives you a CD of copyrighted music and a blank disc and says "I'll give you $5 to copy this for me" and you agree to do it, YOU, not them, are the one that has violated the law. Kinko's ran into trouble from the "charging for sevices" notion with regard to copying printed materials, claiming that they were only providing a service and it was the customer's responsibility if the copying violated copyright. They lost.

Well, I WAS talking about a situation in which you would be their employee. Perhaps that is the incorrect word, but the idea is that you are working for them on their project, not on your own, on your own project. Your job is purely technical (of course creative, but that's not really relevant in the eyes of the law).

Being the one who makes the copy is an interesting argument. I can see that being the case.

It doesn't sound like you have any official/professional legal knowledge (not to say you are wrong at all-- very interesting), so I'd love to hear a confirmation of this from someone who works in the field. I wonder if anyone on the board fits this.

Anyway, it's an interesting thought.

Another legal argument is that being the professional, you should be aware of the laws, so perhaps hiding behind that would not be a factor.

One thing to consider, though, is that it's very unlikely anyone would be sued for copying a CD and giving it to a family member. In the same sense, if that was all you were doing from them, it might not be a big deal.
If you were to own the copyright on the film, then actually sell it to them, even including their music, it would be actually selling copyrighted material and benefiting directly, rather than in the process of working with such material coincidentally (if you could argue that).

Well, I WAS talking about a situation in which you would be their employee. Perhaps that is the incorrect word, but the idea is that you are working for them on their project, not on your own, on your own project. Your job is purely technical (of course creative, but that's not really relevant in the eyes of the law).

..).

You are correct - as I said in my first post I am not a lawyer or legal professional. However I *have* tried to educate myself as much as possible on the topic since like any other legal matter affecting one's profession, it's something that you simply must know.

You seem to think that because the completed video is assembled abstract content rather than a manufactured physical product and your role in the matter is providing an intellectual creative service, that it's not really a "thing" that is being sold. But the law disagrees - intangible intellectual content is just as much an real item sold in the marketplace as is a toaster. Even though you're not building something physical or buying something from a wholesaler and reselling it at retail, you are still a vendor selling a product.

The fact that they are paying you to work on a project on their behalf rather than you working on the project purely at your own initiative doesn't change things. True, if you are an employee hired to make a product, the burden is on the employer to insure his product is legal - a worker on the assembly line is not personally liable if his employer markets a defective product, for example. But the fact that someone requests you do something and pays you money to do it does not automatically make you their employee. If you go into a tailor's shop and ask him to make you a made-to-order custom tailored suit with a certain style and colour of fabric, does that make him your employee? Is the plumber you call to your home to fix your leaky pipes your employee? And more to the point, if the plumber you've hired to fix your pipes does something illegal - lets say, he does work that doesn't comply with the building codes - who is responsible, you or him? He is - even if you have asked him to save you money by cutting corners and do non-complying work. (Remarkably similar to the client who says they can't afford you if you insist on only using licensed material, hmm?) If his assistant does the non-complying work, who is responsible - you, the plumber, or the assistant? Again, it's the plumber. He's the professional - he is expected to know and comply with the law regardless of the client's wishes and he's responsible for HIS employee's actions.

If you, the videographer, have an employee who does your editing and he places unlicensed material in the video at your direction he doesn't have any legal liability. But if you're the videographer and you acceed to your client's wishes and use unlicenses material, it's going to be you on the hook. The argument is that you only provided a service won't protect you, any more than it would protect the plumber who you requested to do out-of-code work.

you are still a vendor selling a product.Not if you are selling your time, not the product. It never is yours nor do you own the copyright. They own the footage, the music (or not), whatever.


Hmm. The plumber simile makes sense, but at the same time it's a professional job they are probably licensed to do. Video isn't quite the same.

You keep saying that the assistant wouldn't be responsible. Why is the videographer not the assistant?

If the scenario were to be that you had the bride and groom standing behind your shoulder telling you what to click, would you be responsible then?


Anyway, I just think there may be some ways around this, or, perhaps, LESS legal responsibility than if you were to actually sell them the discs.


But I think that being paid to duplicate someone's CD FOR THEM is not really all that illegal. You don't own the disc nor do you own the songs, anyway. You own the right to listen to those tracks. So, you can listen however you want. Putting it in the video would be no more illegal than putting it on an iPod.
So... if you just worked for them on their computer, it would be fine. But of course that isn't practical. Just not sure where the line would be drawn.



On another note-- this is sorta a documentary. Are there any laws that would allow use of copyrighted material in order to document events? You could document the history of the couple and how music has affected them. Sure, it's abstract, but a lot of legal arguments are weird.



//thoughts...

Not if you are selling your time, not the product. It never is yours nor do you own the copyright. ... Nope, you might want to believe it but you are an independent contractor producing a custom product for retail sale. And as the creator of a copyrightable work, you do own the copyright to the video you created for the B&G until/unless you assign it to them.

You keep saying that the assistant wouldn't be responsible. Why is the videographer not the assistant? See above.

If the scenario were to be that you had the bride and groom standing behind your shoulder telling you what to click, would you be responsible then? Yep, you have to be in an employer/employee relationship. An independent contractor is not an employee

Anyway, I just think there may be some ways around this, or, perhaps, LESS legal responsibility than if you were to actually sell them the discs. Lots o' luck and keep your fingers crossed you don't have to defend your theory in court. Lotta shooters tried, lotta shooters died.

But I think that being paid to duplicate someone's CD FOR THEM is not really all that illegal. Legality is like pregnancy - there're no degrees of it. Ask Kinkos. The law does allows YOU to make PERSONAL copies for YOUR OWN use but that permission does not extend to third partys who make the copy for you, ESPECIALLY if they charge a fee to do so and offer the same service to the general public.

Putting it in the video would be no more illegal than putting it on an iPod. Nope, don't work that way.

On another note-- this is sorta a documentary. Are there any laws that would allow use of copyrighted material in order to document events? Nope, there's nothing special about non-fiction or documentary productions unless it's explicitly for academic criticism or journalism.

//thoughts...

The topic is reviewed extensively in the article by Doug Spotted Eagle posted here that I referenced earlier and also discussed extensively in the Taking Care of Business forum, where several of the intellectual property attorneys frequenting this board have thoroughly debunked each theory and work-around you have proposed. The law is really quite simple - you must have a proper license to include any copyright work in the videos you make for your clients ... full stop. Wedding and event videos don't even come CLOSE to the exceptions considered "fair use" nor are they covered by the very explicitly defined "works for hire" provisions under the law. Without the license any use is illegal and you have exposed yourself to suit that will require mucho dinero to defend against should the copyright owner discover that you've used their property and wish to pursue you for it. Don't kid yourself, lots of videographers have had the rude surprise of finding a registered letter containing a cease-and-desist demand in their mailbox.

Then she asks if she could COPY them.


Just let her get on with it... who needs hassle!

If I use royalty free audio (licensed to me) - for example, SmartSound series - (www.smartsound.com) - and I created the video, and I pass on the final copy to somebody else, is that somebody else violating any laws when he copies the DVD - which is a result of my work?

Technically violating your copyright unless you give them rights to do so. However, as has been discussed, it's a strange situation. Not like they're trying to make money, etc.

Technically violating your copyright unless you give them rights to do so. However, as has been discussed, it's a strange situation. Not like they're trying to make money, etc.

If they have permission to make the copy, they're not violating your copyright. There's nothing in that law that says money has to change hands for it to be a valid license, only that anyone who wishes to make copies has to have a license to do so from the copyright owner.

If they have permission to make the copy, they're not violating your copyright. There's nothing in that law that says money has to change hands for it to be a valid license, only that anyone who wishes to make copies has to have a license to do so from the copyright owner.

Not necessarily. If I buy a CD or DVD I have a legal right to make copies for my own personal use. I can back up my DVD collection on my PC, for instance. Are you saying that if I have my computer savvy friend do the duplication then it's illegal all of a sudden?

AHHH, and here's the rub... if your friend makes a business of it, he in theory is violating copyright, BUT is he really doing anything other than facilitating your right to use your media as you see fit? Tough call, he's merely charging for his time to do something you are not technically inclined to do... HMMMM


On the one side content providers want and deserve to be compensated and protect their work against unautorized or unacceptable use (how would you like a wedding video you produced to be used in a porn or horror film, for instance... I know it's an odd example, but we're talkig law here, and part of protecting one's "work" is the prevention of tasteless and unacceptable uses).

On the flip side, the Supreme Court has upheld that the end user has a right to duplicate for their own use, and some licenses acknowledge you may make a backup copy... if you make a copy for a "friend" you've crossed the line... BUT, it's been acknowledged that the end user has SOME rights, albeit limited.

The idea that you can shift content from one media to another is established to some degree already, but when you switch from audio to video (and those lines are blurry at best) you've created a new beast, and we'll probably be seeing cases on the topic eventually... stay tuned. I'm still not sure exactly how one becomes liable for synchronizing audio and video that could be played from two separate devices (see an earlier post of mine) so that they may be watched and enjoyed together for the end user... but if you "go public" with that "product", I think you're over the line...

The main problem is the total lack of a simple licensing system - the pay per download sites clearly have solved it (or at least come up with a workable system) for the "end user", now someone needs to solve it for the small videographer - but I'm guessing it's too small a market to pay attention to?

And the big risk is that the "media" controllers have piles of attorneys looking to sue grandmothers and college students just for the "deterrrent value", while the REAL pirates churning out bootlegs CDs and DVDs often go unchecked, because they are harder to find and shut down... and crime pays well enough they can stay on the run for a long time. SIGH...

I think the UK has a good system worked out (at least from what I know of it). I would love to see a system like that in the US. I think just about every wedding videographer would pay a monthly fee just to be on the safe side. I would.

Not necessarily. If I buy a CD or DVD I have a legal right to make copies for my own personal use. I can back up my DVD collection on my PC, for instance. Are you saying that if I have my computer savvy friend do the duplication then it's illegal all of a sudden?

AFAIK, strictly speaking it is. Whether you'd get caught is another matter.

If he offers it as a duplication service it absolutely is.

Hi Adam,

From what you say and from what I read in this thread I too am glad I am filming in the UK!

Simple method of license per disc for using music from a cd and a seperate one for live performance makes it cheap and simple to achieve.

I think that the fact it is that simple and reasonably priced will encourage UK videographers to abide by the rules.

Adam -

IANAL, BIPOOTI (I'm not a lawyer, but I "play one on the internet" <wink>).

I believe that the Kinko's analogy would apply at least in theory - while the purchaser of a work can copy it on their own, someone "facilitating" copyright infringement on a large enough scale is a "target" for lawyers, IIRC Kinkos got sued and lost on this somewhat spurious legal theory.

BUT they still provide copy machines, right? And they simply post a warning about copyright infringement... and I'm guesing this is deemed legally sufficient - but if you took 20 copies of a book up to the counter to pay for it, they "might" (and should) crack the whip on you.

I think if the person requesting the duplication can show they own the work they want copied or media shifted can show legal ownership or a clear copyright (and many stores now ask for copyright releases for stills), the "facilitator" is in the clear.

The primary case quoted IIRC is the betamax case, where "fair use" was first put forward as a legal theory - it established that an end user has the right to make a copy... but that case is ancient history in a digital world, and I understand it is under constant attack...

Keep in mind that if anyone can show case law, that case might be overturned or directly contradicted if you're unlucky enough to be the victim of a suit... IP law is VERY much in flux, and attorneys are quite creative in thinking up new and novel ways to approach common sense questions and make them unimaginably complex...

I'm not bad at deciphering legal issues, and frankly some of these areas are just too dicey to tread in for my tastes. I feel "incidental" music probably is relatively safe, but I'll avoid using copyrighted music (as a "soundtrack) out of caution until there's a better answer. I suspect if you bought a copy of the song in question through legal online channels, you'd have a decent affirmative defense should you be sued (no way to purchase, so you tried to ensure the copyright holder was compensated in some way). But having a good affirmative defense and having the $$$ to make it fly in litigation are two very different things.

I guess you should always ask yourself the question is it RIGHT to COPY this work? If it was yours, would you want it dup'ed? Would you want it used in the way it's going to be used (keep in mind there are exceptions for parody). MOST IMPORTANTLY, would you feel ripped off if someone used YOUR stuff and didn't pay for it's use?? If you're not comfortable in the slightest, rethink what you're about to do.

The primary case quoted IIRC is the betamax case, where "fair use" was first put forward as a legal theory - it established that an end user has the right to make a copy... but that case is ancient history in a digital world, and I understand it is under constant attack...

It's also under constant defense. If I buy a CD I should be allowed to put the songs from it on my MP3 player. And I can legally. Media companies always try to come up with new ways of not letting me do it, and that's their legal right, but I can and will still find ways of doing it (as long as it remains legal).

I guess you should always ask yourself the question is it RIGHT to COPY this work? If it was yours, would you want it dup'ed? Would you want it used in the way it's going to be used (keep in mind there are exceptions for parody). MOST IMPORTANTLY, would you feel ripped off if someone used YOUR stuff and didn't pay for it's use?? If you're not comfortable in the slightest, rethink what you're about to do.

If an artist produces an album for distribution he is already having it dup'ed. That's how the Bride and Groom got it in the first place. I think if the artist has a work published and someone buys it, they shouldn't be too upset if that person wants to put it in their wedding video.

But again, this doesn't answer what the law says and I think that's because it's subject to interpretation. If and when there is a legal precedent for this very issue, there will be a definite answer to the question. Until then I think we are stuck just guessing and either playing it safe with royalty free music or taking a chance that we could be the first one to have a court test the law on us. But I still feel that if the bride and groom buy music, they should be allowed to have me put it in their video. I feel strongly that that would be completely fair to the artist.

...But I still feel that if the bride and groom buy music, they should be allowed to have me put it in their video. I feel strongly that that would be completely fair to the artist.

I would agree that's the way it should be if the world was fair and if the video is the B&G's own personal copy. Too bad they didn't ask us before making the law. It would also be great if the US and Canada would enact licensing schemes such as Australia and the UK have that allow for such limited use copying as wedding coverage at low cost but alas, there seems to be no interest on the part of music publishers and recording studios to wsupport such as move. (And if you use a popular recording you have to deal with botyh - the copyright on the music and the copyright on the specific recording).

But consider if the B&G were to order multiple copies of the DVD from you and give them to their friends and family. Now it would be the same situation as buying a music CD, making a bunch of copies, and giving them away as presents. Clearly illegal.

I also encourage clients to do their own copying or if they prefer I will do it but then I will charge for it, I hardly get any requests for extra copies but that's fine by me.

I seem to always get requests for extra copies. I, like most of you print the DVD covers on Premium glossy photo paper, and I also use Taiyo Yuden Watershield Glossy hub printable DVD's. I don't mind if they make copies of the DVD, but they don't get the quality look I offer them through the case cover & printer glossy disc.

I would agree that's the way it should be if the world was fair and if the video is the B&G's own personal copy. Too bad they didn't ask us before making the law.

Which law would that be?

But consider if the B&G were to order multiple copies of the DVD from you and give them to their friends and family. Now it would be the same situation as buying a music CD, making a bunch of copies, and giving them away as presents. Clearly illegal.

Once I deliver the product, that's their business.

Gentlemen,

Excuse me if I seem out of order for commenting on this on-going spirited discussion of legal and illegal copying but hasn't this issue been brought up several times, in many other threads, over the course of time.

It almost comes across as though person #1 is trying to persuade person #2 to see things person #1's way and vice versa.

If you have an issue with making copies of anything at all, then don't make the copies. If you're OK with making copies, encouraging others to make copies, aiding someone in making copies, or any other thing that has to do with copies, then by all means, continue doing what you feel comfortable with.

No one is going to convince the other to see things his way.

That's just my point of view.

Jeff