I have just recently started a production company and will be doing some weddings while I am getting the company rolling. I have noticed many of the wedding "highlight reels" and "trailers" feature copyrighted music. Is this something that could possibly cause a legal issue? Or is it because the videos are made for home viewing that it falls into a gray area? Also if it is in the gray area what are the implications of posting a video with copyrighted material in your online portfolio?
Thank you for your input, it is greatly appreciated!

I have just recently started a production company and will be doing some weddings while I am getting the company rolling. I have noticed many of the wedding "highlight reels" and "trailers" feature copyrighted music. Is this something that could possibly cause a legal issue? Or is it because the videos are made for home viewing that it falls into a gray area? Also if it is in the gray area what are the implications of posting a video with copyrighted material in your online portfolio?
Thank you for your input, it is greatly appreciated!
There's nothing gray about it. Using copyright-protected music in this fashion without the applicable licenses and/or permissions constitutes copyright infingement.

The rights protected by copyright in the U.S. include:

The right to make copies.
The right to prepare derivative works.
The right to publicly display.
The right to publicly perform.
The right to distribute.

What you're describing violates all of these rights and would constitute copyright infringement.

I'm currently in the process of re-editing both the highlight videos I've shot thus far so as not to include any copyright-protected music before I put it on my site. Not worth risking a lawsuit and losing your shiny new company over, no matter how small a fish you think you are.

Thanks for the info gentlemen, does anyone have a good source for inexpensive or free royalty free music?

I'm a big fan of StackTraxx from Digital Juice (http://www.digitaljuice.com).

Unfortunately, 99% of wedding videographers use popular songs, so that's what all the brides expect.

It also gives an edge of danger to an otherwise pretty boring field...
Bill

I encourage all my competitors to use StackTraxx from Digital Juice.

It matches nicely with the poorly composed, out of focus footage and tacky template titles! :)

Just my 2 cents, since I've stayed out of every other copyright and music thread on here:

For my personally stuff I have decided not to use only music that I can obtain the rights to, rather from a royalty stock sites of friends who make music and are willing to donate some music. When I am editing for other's I'm sort of stuck using the music that is provided to me by them, since that pays the bills, but for my own weddings I am doing this because -

1) It's a bigger challenge as an editor. It forces me to use more audio from the day-off so I have to take extra care in making sure it's clear at the time it is being recorded. It forces me to think more in terms of storytelling than simply laying all usable clips on a timeline and sticking dissolves on them.

2) I want to be good enough that brides and grooms want me to do the job because I am good at it, and hire me despite their favourite songs not being included on the DVD. It's the same deal as price: you don't want your clients to book you because you're cheap, you want to be good enough that they think, "We need to find the money to hire this guy." I don't want someone to hire me because I'll put any song they want in the edit, I want them to hire me because they like the way I tell the story of their day.

The disadvantage, of course, is that everyone else is using whatever music the client wants.

So, we'll see how that goes, but in my case I value the security of knowing that I won't have any video with music that I'm not supposed to use online where anyone can see it. I guess everyone just has to evaluate their - and I don't know quite the term to use here - risk tolerance - and do what they feel is right. Just as long as we don't kid ourselves with the standard excuses ("I bought the song from iTunes so the artist is getting paid anyway," and "It's just for private use even though I posted it online to advertise my business") I certainly won't hold it against any other videographer.

The legality of using copyrighted music without either permission of the artist or paid consideration can't be argued, it's illegal. That being said, the general rule of thumb for years has been that if you're passing out a handful of wedding DVD's the FCC generally isn't going to look your way. That's not to say there haven't been cases of wedding guys getting busted, but they are few and far between and I've only heard it told as a "friend of an aunt who knows this guy" kinda thing.

When doing corporate jobs, and especially when doing broadcast work such as commercials avoid using copyrighted music at all cost. This is generally when you get in hot water.

Recently I've started questioning how smart it is of me to have samples up on my website because now it's out there and openly known that I'm using it in my weddings. Before the internet, the FCC would have had to go into someone's home and watched their wedding to find the offense, but now we're plastering our illegal use all over the place for any and all to see. I'm beginning to question my sanity on this one, but I don't want to lose the huge benefit of having samples of my work on the site.

I have to admit, I do lose sleep over this issue and it's always gnawing at the back of my brain, but my videos wouldn't be 1/4 of what they are without the music. If the FCC comes down on me, I lose my business which is my livelihood, and I could potentially lose much more. I don't wanna think about it anymore, pardon me while I go edit to another legally protected piece of music.

**EDIT**
I've often wondered where the heavy hitters, the Still Motions of the world are on this issue especially since they are pulling in larger sums of cash than a lot of the rest of us and therefore may be a bigger target for the FCC or whatever regulatory board is up in their neck of the woods. I know Patrick and the boys (and girls) use protected music like most of us, but how do they feel about the risks, and what steps if any do they take to insure against losing everything to a FCC shakedown. This thought isn't limited to Patrick but to anyone who is running a sizable event biz and practicing in the dirty little secret of wedding videos.

The legality of using copyrighted music without either permission of the artist or paid consideration can't be argued, it's illegal. ... Before the internet, the FCC would have had to go into someone's home and watched their wedding to find the offense, but now we're plastering our illegal use all over the place for any and all to see. I'm beginning to question my sanity on this one, but I don't want to lose the huge benefit of having samples of my work on the site.

I have to admit, I do lose sleep over this issue ...

It's not the FCC that get's involved, nor any law enforcement agency (FBI warning on rental videos not withstanding), at least not until it's to the level of selling bootleg copies at retail. (Got a great deal on a genuine Rofex watch if you're interested!) Copyright infringment is a civil action and it is the owners of the copyright or their agents (such as RIAA or ASCAP/BMI, etc) that (might) take action by suing in civil court when infringment is discovered. Remember just a few months ago when Prince sued the housewife who posted a YouTube video of her toddler dancing in the kitchen to one of his songs? That's how it comes about. The major record labels and music publishers have entire legal staffs charged with searching out infringers and protecting their intellectual property. It may be an urban myth but I've heard tale of the couple who had a 1st anniversary party where they played their wedding video. One of their friends happened to bring a date to the party who in turn happened to be an IP lawyer working for the publisher of one of the songs on the video - guess who got an angry cease-and-desist letter by courier the next day? (Not the couple who insisted on the song, the videographer who created the video bears full legal responsibility for its content.) As I said, it may be an urban legend but it's certainly plausible. One thing is sure - using copyright music without license on one's web page advertising is definitely tickling the dragon's tail, inviting it to turn around and bite. Remember, IP legal aids can use Google to find your site just as easily as potential customers.

It's not the FCC that get's involved, nor any law enforcement agency (FBI warning on rental videos not withstanding), at least not until it's to the level of selling bootleg copies at retail. (Got a great deal on a genuine Rofex watch if you're interested!) Copyright infringment is a civil action and it is the owners of the copyright or their agents (such as RIAA or ASCAP/BMI, etc) that (might) take action when infringment is discovered. Remember just a few months ago when Prince sued the housewife who posted a YouTube video of her toddler dancing in the kitchen to one of his songs? That's how it comes about. The major record labels and music publishers have entire legal staffs charged with searching out infringers and protecting their intellectual property. It may be an urban myth but I've heard tale of the couple who had a 1st anniversary party where they played their wedding video. One of their friends happened to bring a date to the party who in turn happened to be an IP lawyer working for the publisher of one of the songs on the video - guess who got an angry cease-and-desist letter by courier the next day? (Not the couple who insisted on the song, the videographer who created the video bears full legal responsibility for its content.) As I said, it may be an urban legend but it's certainly plausible. One thing is sure - using copyright music without license on one's web page advertising is definitely tickling the dragon's tail, inviting it to turn around and bite. Remember, IP legal aids can use Google to find your site just as easily as potential customers.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. It's still the same type of problem, just a new Boogie Man to be scared of. I'd always assumed it was the (mostly asleep at the switch) FCC, but now that you say it's IP Lawyers and the RIAA, well, that's even worse. Thanks.

*insert Family Guy FCC song here*

Thanks for the info gentlemen, does anyone have a good source for inexpensive or free royalty free music?

Check out the SmartSound library and the SonicFire Pro software that uses it. They have a vast amount of music in a variety of genres and the software makes it easy to edit the music so the tempo fits your picture's rhythm, the time exactly matches the length of your video segment, add hits and whooshes, etc, to generate a complete soundtrack "made to order." Typical cost is $15 per song for unlimited use buyout rights and you can preview all the pieces online before committing to buy. Another very reasonably priced library with high quality tracks is Magnatunes.

But wouldn't a lawsuit, like the Prince one, be "please stop", and if you stop, it ends there? You (or the website or whatever) would first get a "take down" notice I believe. You take it down, everything is ok. In the Prince/Housewife situation, it looks like she chose to fight back.

Jeff

But wouldn't a lawsuit, like the Prince one, be "please stop", and if you stop, it ends there? You (or the website or whatever) would first get a "take down" notice I believe. You take it down, everything is ok. In the Prince/Housewife situation, it looks like she chose to fight back.

Jeff

Yes, a "cease-and-desist" demand letter is usually the first step. But that could include a demand for an audit of all of the videos you've produced and sold to clients with payment of royalties on all infringing works found in them. Far more practical to stay legal from the very beginning. Big or small, we all need to play by the rules of the profession, whether you're a casual wedding shooter out in West Bugtussle or 20th Century Fox releasing a hoped-for Christmas blockbuster. I have a problem with small businesses that try to say "We're too small to have to worry about copyright issues, environmental protection, worker safety, fair wage and labour practices (or what have you)." When you hang out your shingle as a working professional, even part-time, you've moved into a ballgame with more serious rules than confront the hobbyist.

But wouldn't a lawsuit, like the Prince one, be "please stop", and if you stop, it ends there? You (or the website or whatever) would first get a "take down" notice I believe. You take it down, everything is ok. In the Prince/Housewife situation, it looks like she chose to fight back.

I'd say that you're missing the huge distinction here, namely that she wasn't making money off her website. When money is involved it becomes a more serious issue.

The legality of using copyrighted music without either permission of the artist or paid consideration can't be argued, it's illegal. That being said, the general rule of thumb for years has been that if you're passing out a handful of wedding DVD's the FCC generally isn't going to look your way. That's not to say there haven't been cases of wedding guys getting busted, but they are few and far between and I've only heard it told as a "friend of an aunt who knows this guy" kinda thing.

When doing corporate jobs, and especially when doing broadcast work such as commercials avoid using copyrighted music at all cost. This is generally when you get in hot water.

Recently I've started questioning how smart it is of me to have samples up on my website because now it's out there and openly known that I'm using it in my weddings. Before the internet, the FCC would have had to go into someone's home and watched their wedding to find the offense, but now we're plastering our illegal use all over the place for any and all to see. I'm beginning to question my sanity on this one, but I don't want to lose the huge benefit of having samples of my work on the site.

I have to admit, I do lose sleep over this issue and it's always gnawing at the back of my brain, but my videos wouldn't be 1/4 of what they are without the music. If the FCC comes down on me, I lose my business which is my livelihood, and I could potentially lose much more. I don't wanna think about it anymore, pardon me while I go edit to another legally protected piece of music.

**EDIT**
I've often wondered where the heavy hitters, the Still Motions of the world are on this issue especially since they are pulling in larger sums of cash than a lot of the rest of us and therefore may be a bigger target for the FCC or whatever regulatory board is up in their neck of the woods. I know Patrick and the boys (and girls) use protected music like most of us, but how do they feel about the risks, and what steps if any do they take to insure against losing everything to a FCC shakedown. This thought isn't limited to Patrick but to anyone who is running a sizable event biz and practicing in the dirty little secret of wedding videos.

The FCC at this time has nothing "or almost nothing" to do with what is broadcast musically over the internet. If you really want the rights to use someone's composition, you need a license with ASCAP and or BMI if you're using a composed song they are representing. To broadcast digitally over the internet, you'd also need a license with Sound Exchange as they represent the publisher and band of the recording being used via digital broadcast.

I've had a "live band" website for 3 years and since I do all the recording, hence am my own publisher. My only licensing needs are with ASCAP and BMI. I sleep at night because I don't have to worry about the $150,000 potential lawsuit per song times the amount of runs.

To be truly legal to broadcast music over the internet, you'd need about $2000 a year for licensing fees.

When it comes to making and distributing copies of music via DVD, you'd need a mechanical license with the Harry Fox Agency www.harryfox.com I think it is somewhere in the range of $90 per song but you may want to check further into that.

I think I'd rather pay $180 to have two songs on a photo montage/highlight video than risk the Copyright Royalty Board breathing down my neck via the various royalty agents with busted noses showing up at my door.

It's confusing but maybe I can help someone out with this as I learned the hard way (threat by royalty company to be sued for millions)

but isn't the client's responsibility for the copyrighted music who owns the DVDs and not the videographer? after all the various film clips that are posted on the Internet (especially You Tube) belong to the owner of the DVDs, maybe the bride and groom.

Stelios

but isn't the client's responsibility for the copyrighted music who owns the DVDs and not the videographer? after all the various film clips that are posted on the Internet (especially You Tube) belong to the owner of the DVDs, maybe the bride and groom.

This reasoning only works if it's the client who edits the footage. If you (the videographer/production guy) edit the footage to copyrighted music then that's on you, not the B&G. It's the production company's responsibility to know the law and avoid breaking it, not the client, just as it's any other professional's responsibility to know the regulations of their profession.

Again, the differentiation between using that music for a wedding video and some random video you just toss up on youtube is that you've gotten paid to do the wedding video. It's generally when money is involved when you draw the ire of lawyers & regulators.

but isn't the client's responsibility for the copyrighted music who owns the DVDs and not the videographer? after all the various film clips that are posted on the Internet (especially You Tube) belong to the owner of the DVDs, maybe the bride and groom.

Stelios

Nope - it's the producer of the completed work who is responsible. If you created the finished program, you're 100% personally responsible for the legality of all of its content. Your client insists you include infringing content such as unlicensed music and it's discovered and the copyright owner chooses to take action, your client is not liable, you are, and there's no contract or waiver you have them sign that would shift the legal responsibility from you over to them. Only if your role as wedding videographer were to be strictly that of a camera operator, shooting the ceremony and reception and handing over the tapes of raw footage to the couple at the end of the day, would that argument apply.

...Again, the differentiation between using that music for a wedding video and some random video you just toss up on youtube is that you've gotten paid to do the wedding video. It's generally when money is involved when you draw the ire of lawyers & regulators. Not quite true - it is just as illegal to give away copies as it is to sell them. It is the act of copying and distribution that is the infringment, not what you do with the copy later. None of the people the RIAA have sued were selling the copies they made - they were just posting them where people could download them for free. Copy a CD you own to take with you when traveling, no problem. But give a copy to your buddy for Christmas, you're broken the law. True, commercial uses such as including copyright music in a wedding video are more likely to be discovered, but the commercial use is not the main issue.

...
When it comes to making and distributing copies of music via DVD, you'd need a mechanical license with the Harry Fox Agency www.harryfox.com I think it is somewhere in the range of $90 per song but you may want to check further into that.

...
It's confusing but maybe I can help someone out with this as I learned the hard way (threat by royalty company to be sued for millions)


Mechanicals still don't convery the right to incorporate music into the soundtrack of a film or video production. For that you need a sync license from the publisher to use to the music and a usually a master use license from the record label if you're using an existing recording. Mechanicals refer to reproducing audio recordings for distribution as audio recordings.

ASCAP and BMI licenses are performance licenses - playing the music publically or broadcasting it. Whole different ballgame from recording it or incorporating it into a soundtrack.

Not quite true - it is just as illegal to give away copies as it is to sell them. It is the act of copying and distribution that is the infringment, not what you do with the copy later. None of the people the RIAA have sued were selling the copies they made - they were just posting them where people could download them for free. Copy a CD you own to take with you when traveling, no problem. But give a copy to your buddy for Christmas, you're broken the law. True, commercial uses such as including copyright music in a wedding video are more likely to be discovered, but the commercial use is not the main issue.

I wasn't saying it was legal, just less likely to land you in hot water.

I've been wondering recently about dancing at the reception - I usually shoot several dances, and obviously that's to copy protected music. Should we be concerned about recording that?

I've been wondering recently about dancing at the reception - I usually shoot several dances, and obviously that's to copy protected music. Should we be concerned about recording that?

no.

(I have to type more here cause that response wasn't long enough)

I've been wondering recently about dancing at the reception - I usually shoot several dances, and obviously that's to copy protected music. Should we be concerned about recording that?

no.

(I have to type more here cause that response wasn't long enough)

Maybe so, maybe not. The issue of "incidental music" is still undecided, with some cases going one way and some going the other. If you shoot the couple dancing, the music is a material part of the scene. OTOH, if you're shooting a "congratulations to the couple" interview sort of shot with a guest during the dancing and music just happens to be audible in the background that's something else again. As I understand it (IANAL and I'm no expert) strictly speaking the first use would require clearance but the second would probably slip by as incidental and not need to be licensed.

Mechanicals still don't convery the right to incorporate music into the soundtrack of a film or video production. For that you need a sync license from the publisher to use to the music and a usually a master use license from the record label if you're using an existing recording. Mechanicals refer to reproducing audio recordings for distribution as audio recordings.

ASCAP and BMI licenses are performance licenses - playing the music publically or broadcasting it. Whole different ballgame from recording it or incorporating it into a soundtrack.


Yep, you got me on that one...the sync license. I've dealt mostly with compositions and digital transmissions over the Internet during the last three years so the sync license is yet another headache to 'sync' my head into.

Any idea of the costs of master use and a sync license? Time involved? My licenses with ASCAP and BMI aren't too bad until it comes time to report plays and money figures. Both take a percentage of the gross regardless of a profit or loss. Reporting plays can be time consuming until a proper procedure is in place to track the plays.

Is there anyone out there who can assist with all of this and make it easier to be legal? Instead of each videographer having to do the paperwork every time a new client walks in the door?

Will the client be willing to absorb the costs for legal use of music or will it cause them to be turned away from hiring a videographer?

...
Is there anyone out there who can assist with all of this and make it easier to be legal? Instead of each videographer having to do the paperwork every time a new client walks in the door?

Will the client be willing to absorb the costs for legal use of music or will it cause them to be turned away from hiring a videographer?

A quick Google on "Music Clearance" or "Music Rights Clearance" and simiilar search terms turns up a wealth of information and a number of firms that specialize in obtaining clearances, Unlike ASCAP/BMI performance rights or mechanicals which are essentially standardized rates, synch and master recording rights are whatever the market and the whim of the owner dictates.

Yep, you got me on that one...the sync license. I've dealt mostly with compositions and digital transmissions over the Internet during the last three years so the sync license is yet another headache to 'sync' my head into.

Any idea of the costs of master use and a sync license? Time involved? My licenses with ASCAP and BMI aren't too bad until it comes time to report plays and money figures. Both take a percentage of the gross regardless of a profit or loss. Reporting plays can be time consuming until a proper procedure is in place to track the plays.

Is there anyone out there who can assist with all of this and make it easier to be legal? Instead of each videographer having to do the paperwork every time a new client walks in the door?

Will the client be willing to absorb the costs for legal use of music or will it cause them to be turned away from hiring a videographer?

I'm sorry, I can't give you any specifics, but traditionally the use of "popular" music is very expensive. We're talking in the multiple thousands of dollars for a sync license, per song. That's why the topic is taboo in the wedding industry because there is no way it's feasible to use that music and be legal.

I would think that if you're concerned with the legality of the music you use that you would want to search out a few good stock music libraries. From what I've read of your posts, that really seems to be your best bet.

To legally use the type of music you hear on the radio or can purchase on iTunes will simply cost too much money. Ask yourself, why is it that I hear that type of music on national TV ad's and not local. The answer is that the national ad's have a very large budget to be able to pay for the sync license. The same basic rules that apply to that type of production would also apply to your wedding videos. No, the wedding isn't broadcast, but many of the same rules apply.

I'm sure someone else can chime in here and give you more concrete examples of what I've outlined, and I'm sure someone else can chime in and argue over semantics, but rest assured, obtaining a sync license for a wedding video would cost you thousands of dollars per song. You want to use some nice popular music in your video? It ain't gonna happen, not legally anyway.

You know guys, no composer, singer or musician is going to go bankrupt just because you use his music in one wedding DVD; on the other hand we do him a favour using his music on our wedding videos. I never worry about these "copyright" thing when I put music on my videos.

Stelios

You know guys, no composer, singer or musician is going to go bankrupt just because you use his music in one wedding DVD; on the other hand we do him a favour using his music on our wedding videos. I never worry about these "copyright" thing when I put music on my videos.

My word of advice... duck!

" I never worry about these "copyright" thing when I put music on my videos."

It will only take one music executive to see this crap, get pissed off, and have their people to start cruising video sites and fining people huge sums of money.

They fine housewives and teenagers, you don't think they will come after professionals who do it? It is easier to find videographers who break the law than to find people who illegally share downloads.

Did someone say in a previous post that we are doing the artists a favor? What a joke. Be serious. Like they need their music on our videos?

This topic is tired and worn out. This has been covered ad nauseum over and over on this board.

Many do it but it is illegal no matter how you slice it. If sharing music amongst others on the net is illegal, doesn't it make sense that using it in a wedding video is illegal as well?

To publish comments in a public forum that justify as to why it is OK is pure stupid.

It is illegal. Leave it at that. If you choose to do it anyway, please don't talk about it on this board.

This could be the Solution for use of copy right music

https://www.zoomlicense.com/

I agree with Ethan DUCK. lol

You know guys, no composer, singer or musician is going to go bankrupt just because you use his music in one wedding DVD; on the other hand we do him a favour using his music on our wedding videos. I never worry about these "copyright" thing when I put music on my videos.

Stelios

And what about your ethical obligation to a fellow creative professional to respect the sanctity of his labour? You make your living creating video, they make their living creating music. Neither of you earn a living if you don't get paid for your work by those who use it. Would a broadcast network who aired one of your tapes in a commercial that made them money without offering you payment or credit be doing you a favour? Do not unto others as you would not want them to do to you. Is it okay to steal a car just because the dealer won't go bankrupt from only one theft?

Steve
You are right what you are saying, but the main problem with the music industry, is not me buying one cd and using one track of this cd for a wedding video; the problem is for the thousands or millions of illegal downloads who pay nothing . These are the guys that the music industry is worried about.

Stelios

Steve
You are right what you are saying, but the main problem with the music industry, is not me buying one cd and using one track of this cd for a wedding video; the problem is for the thousands or millions of illegal downloads who pay nothing . These are the guys that the music industry is worried about.

Stelios

As a mayor of New York once said, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. You're no different from the downloaders....correction, you're no different from one of the people who POST to make the tunes available for download, far more serious than merely doiwnloading.

OK Steve if you put it that way, I suppose you are right. It's just what I thought about it but you convinced me that I was wrong and I apologise for insinuating that it's right to use other people work without paying for it. Sorry again for that. and Jeff it was stupid for me putting these crazy ideas on this board in any case. It won't happen again.

Stelios

Steve
You are right what you are saying, but the main problem with the music industry, is not me buying one cd and using one track of this cd for a wedding video; the problem is for the thousands or millions of illegal downloads who pay nothing . These are the guys that the music industry is worried about.

Stelios

and of course I just noticed that you are NOT posting from the US. so you have an entirely different set of national rules which, in most cases, work in your favor. Licensing music for use in video productions tends to be easier pretty much anywhere outside of the US, thanks to us living under the rules written by the music industry for the music industry's benefit.

Good point Jason. Stelios you have to remember here in the US they have taken houswives and teenagers to court and fined them huge sums of money for downloading music, as Jason alludes to.

I believe it is only a matter of time before the video world gets hit. the music companies are not having it good now...the artists may be doing fine, as you say, but the music companies are having a very tough time.

I've been following this subject very closely since it was posted. I always do my best to follow by the rules, but wow... It's sometimes hard to do.
Anyways, what about using a song from a karaoke website? A lot of the songs that you can purchase have been redone by other artist's and even include light vocals. Would this still be wrong to use. Or maybe raise less eyebrows then the original tracks?

In my opinion, it would be beneficial for both sides to figure out a way to use a blanket policy that would cover video production companies, especially those who specialize in weddings. I know the logistics are a nightmare, but if you could pay a fee of say $2,000 - $5,000 a year for a blanket policy and be legally covered to use the music your clients actually want in their videos, it would be worth it. You could cover the expense with one wedding video.

Perhaps there would be some criteria you would have to meet, such as gross sales would have to be under $500,000 and if they go above you have to pay a higher fee or something to that effect.

I've never felt right about using copyright music on a video that you are getting paid to do. But like many others, I have felt the need to do it to keep clients happy. If the music industry decides to clean house at some point and start suing everyone think of all the companies that could end up in their crosshairs. Will they do this, maybe not. Just depends on how desperate they are to get additional revenue streams.

But as artists, it does reflect poorly on us when we do it. Think of it this way. If you found out a band had used some footage you shot in one of their music videos, and they didn't offer to pay you for it or even acknowledge it is your footage, you'd be upset. It's a tricky issue.

In my opinion, it would be beneficial for both sides to figure out a way to use a blanket policy that would cover video production companies, especially those who specialize in weddings. I know the logistics are a nightmare, but if you could pay a fee of say $2,000 - $5,000 a year for a blanket policy and be legally covered to use the music your clients actually want in their videos, it would be worth it. You could cover the expense with one wedding video.

Perhaps there would be some criteria you would have to meet, such as gross sales would have to be under $500,000 and if they go above you have to pay a higher fee or something to that effect.

I've never felt right about using copyright music on a video that you are getting paid to do. But like many others, I have felt the need to do it to keep clients happy. If the music industry decides to clean house at some point and start suing everyone think of all the companies that could end up in their crosshairs. Will they do this, maybe not. Just depends on how desperate they are to get additional revenue streams.

But as artists, it does reflect poorly on us when we do it. Think of it this way. If you found out a band had used some footage you shot in one of their music videos, and they didn't offer to pay you for it or even acknowledge it is your footage, you'd be upset. It's a tricky issue.

I feel exactly the same way, even down to the payment policy you laid out, but was too lazy to type everything out. Thanks for articulating it for me.

I've been following this subject very closely since it was posted. I always do my best to follow by the rules, but wow... It's sometimes hard to do.
Anyways, what about using a song from a karaoke website? A lot of the songs that you can purchase have been redone by other artist's and even include light vocals. Would this still be wrong to use. Or maybe raise less eyebrows then the original tracks?

Yes, it would be just as much a problem as the original. It is perfectly legal to record a cover of a song once it has been released by another artist, of course with payment of the proper licensing & royalty fees. The Harry Fox Agency in New York is the primary licensing agent in the US and their website is a wealth of information on the matter of mechanical and compulsary licensing. The music is still covered by the original copyrights and you're still required to get the same synch licenses from the publisher to use it in your video production - the fact that a cover has been recorded by other than the original artist doesn't change that. Remember that the music - meaning the words and musical notes - has one set of copyrights and a recording of a song has an additional set of copyrights. If you want to use the words and music to "My Heart Will Go On" you must obtain a license from that copyright owner, usually the publisher. But that DOES NOT give you the right to use an existing recording of it, only to use the words and music. If you were recording it yourself you'd be good to go. But if you want to use Celine Dion's recording of it, you must ALSO get a master use license from the record label that owns the copyright to that specific recording. So you use your karaoke version legally, you need to get a synch license to the music from its publisher and a master use license to the specific recording from the whoever owns the copyright to the recording on the karaoke site.

I agree with the other posters that it should be possible for small users such as wedding and corporate videographers, low-budget indy filmmakers, documentary producers acting in the general public interest, etc, to have access to some sort of affordable rights management provisions in the law so as to allow the use of music they need. For now, the legal and financial requirements to use music in a video are the same whether you're Joe's Wedding Video Emporium over in West Bugtussle or Warner's clearing music for George Lucas' latest release. Something to consider - for it to EVER happen that rights management evolves the music industry must come on board. If they perceive that the people who want to use their property are a bunch of thieves and pirates who'll keep ripping them off anyway, they'll dig their feet in and never allow it to happen - remember the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules." The small-user community needs to establish their credibility with the big boys as fellow media professionals who are just as concerned about the sanctity of intellectual property as they are and are seeking to reach an accomodation to their mutual benefit. That means that JWVE (Joe's ...) needs to be just as rigorous about staying legal as are NBC, CNN, or Fox. As soon as you accept a cheque for your work, you're playing in the major leagues and need to play by major league rules the same as if you were a mainstream Hollywood professional. Something to think about.

Steve....
Thanks for the input... Wow, you've really done your homework on this subject. I believe the general population of us might be over our heads. I know that I am.
I knew 100% when asking the question that chances are that it would still be illegal. I was looking at it like this. When you drive around town most people know if they drive 5mph over the speed limit, chances are that they wont be getting pulled over. It's still illegal, but not like driving 20mph over the limit. So my thought using a re-recorded version by a cover = over... using the original = 20mph over. Wow... after re-reading that it sounds terrible...

Steve....
Thanks for the input... Wow, you've really done your homework on this subject. I believe the general population of us might be over our heads. I know that I am.
I knew 100% when asking the question that chances are that it would still be illegal. I was looking at it like this. When you drive around town most people know if they drive 5mph over the speed limit, chances are that they wont be getting pulled over. It's still illegal, but not like driving 20mph over the limit. So my thought using a re-recorded version by a cover = over... using the original = 20mph over. Wow... after re-reading that it sounds terrible...

Letter of the law aside, to me it's a simple ethical issue. We owe our brother and sister professionals respect for their work and for their right to be compensated for their efforts. We don't have the right to advance our own careers by usurping the fruits of theirs even if we are usually able to get away with it. It's an issue of doing the right thing even when you don't have to.

so if a bride wants a particular song on her video - what's the answer? can I have her purchase the song or album and 'make a copy" for her use on the video?

If I purchase the song from itunes can I use it for that one instance of a wedding DVD?

so who actually uses music in their wedding that they got off a soundtrack or download???

or is that something no one will admit to

so if a bride wants a particular song on her video - what's the answer? can I have her purchase the song or album and 'make a copy" for her use on the video?

If I purchase the song from itunes can I use it for that one instance of a wedding DVD?

I see that you are in Australia and you're lucky because there is a limited use licensing scheme there that make it viable and affordable for Oz producers. In North America it's another matter. ...

The short answer is no and no. The purchase of a CD or an iTunes downloads does not convey the right to copy it or "re-purpose" it by synching it to video images. Essentially buying a CD or an iTunes download gives the purchaser the right to listen to it .... period. Nothing else. And while there are exceptions that allow the owner of a CD to personally make limited copies for backup or to rip it to their computer or iPod for their personal use and the iTunes license allows you to burn an audio CD of your downloads for your personal listening, using it in a video soundtrack for any purpose is definitely NOT included in those exceptions.

In answer to your first question, the only legal way that bride can have a song of her choice in the video is for you to contact the music publisher and license the use of the words and melody with a sync license and then contact the record label that released the recording and obtain a master use license for the specific recording you want to use (and of course paying whatever license fees they demand). That is the ONLY way to legally do it.

There are no legal workarounds or backdoors ... period.

Thanks Steve - I checked out APRA/AMCOS and the rate appears to be reasonable, I'll give them a call to clarify exactly what's covered.

They even have a rate for films produced for festivals only!

I feel this is somewhat relevant to the discussion, since a lot of the talk has been about the RIAA and music labels suing "housewives" and other people allegedly involved in the p2p music scene. The labels have decided to drop their strategy of suing individual downloaders of music. Instead, they'll start going after ISPs and working deals to cut off or restrict internet access to offenders. This is a whole new ballgame, ladies and gents. We're not in Kansas anymore...

Article here: Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html)

What does this mean to people like us that use music? I'm not sure. But it seems interesting that the lawsuit game is being abandoned. It seems to me that the main focus of the issue of copyright infringement is not to go after small-time producers (yet) but to focus on the people that download and therefore do not purchase music for private listening.

I'll echo what some others have mentioned in this thread: it's mutually beneficial for the record labels to work out some type of deal with small-time producers like us. We serve our customer's wants by using a popular song, and the record company gets exposure and (very little) compensation for the use in a wedding DVD that will be distributed to a whopping 10 or so people.

If anyone hears of any lobbying group or nonprofit that's willing to work on something like this, I'm all ears. Seems like WEVA or another trade group would be perfect to approach the record labels.

...
What does this mean to people like us that use music? I'm not sure. But it seems interesting that the lawsuit game is being abandoned. It seems to me that the main focus of the issue of copyright infringement is not to go after small-time producers (yet) but to focus on the people that download and therefore do not purchase music for private listening.

I'll echo what some others have mentioned in this thread: it's mutually beneficial for the record labels to work out some type of deal with small-time producers like us. We serve our customer's wants by using a popular song, and the record company gets exposure and (very little) compensation for the use in a wedding DVD that will be distributed to a whopping 10 or so people.

If anyone hears of any lobbying group or nonprofit that's willing to work on something like this, I'm all ears. Seems like WEVA or another trade group would be perfect to approach the record labels.

I think it's worthy of note that music downloading is not a parallel to the use of commercial music in wedding and event videography, it's the music uploading that is the equivalent copying and subsequent distribution of the copies. And nothing I've read indicates that the RIAA is going soft on the uploaders - my reading is that they're narrowing their focus to better concentrate on them.

I too am perplexed at the resounding silence of the professional organizations in the wedding video industry and their lack of approach to the music industry. It's not just the labels, it's also the publishers that need to be involved, BTW. The publisher licenses the words and music, the label licenses a specific recording of a particular artist's performance of those words and music. A limited use licensing scheme such as that in Australia, administered through a central clearing house in the same way ASCAP and BMI administer broadcast and performance licensing and royalty distribution, makes immanently good sense to me. You pay your $500 or $1000 or $2500 per year and get a blanket license to use music as incidental music in wedding and event videos whose distribution is limited to no more than, say, 10 copies per production distributed only for private personal use and not used for broadcast or other commercial purposes. Or you report quarterly on the cues you use and how many copies of the production have been distributed where and pay a royalty accordingly. Seems to make perfect sense to me. But the music industry won't do it on their own initiative - why should they, what's their incentive? The initiative has to come from the videographers who establish themselves as a full fledged professional guild and establish their credibility to be on a par with other media production professionals who can then approach the likes of the RIAA, ASCAP, etc as fully the equals of all of the other interest groups in the broad umbrella of media and entertainment oriented industries.

Myspace or other websites to to view local artists is a great way to find good music without having to worry about licensing fees. Just send them a message asking for their permission to use their songs if you put them in the credits. most are thrilled to be used for such things. It may take a while to find some good stuff, but at least it's not the cheesy royalty free music from most places that don't even have lyrics.