"Synchronization Rights" - the right to synchronize the song to images.

You have to pay for them.

Doesn't matter if you make a profit from it. If you use the music, without paying for the rights, it's illegal.

Wedding videographers are the 'authors' of the work they create. They will be held responsible for the resale of the product utililizing synch rights in the U.S. It's possible - theoretically - to pass off the liability, at least 'partially' to the couple as the 'producers' - but I'm thinking the court would have to see this liability assumed in writing. (This also opens up the whole 'employee' - independant contractor - can o' worms. Did the couple also hire the editor? Sit in on the editing sessions? Dictate the time and duration spent in the edit? Pay for the equipment used to create the video??? See how complicated passing liability as 'producer' can be?)

It's really not that hard to understand. It's theft. I realize people don't like it, but it's the simple truth.

Untill or unless the law changes.

Returning to the BBC non-payment for copyright, there is some confusion with satellite broadcasts intended for reception in areas with different rules, however, from my own dealing with copyright and the BBC they are not always as 'accurate' as we think. I do a fair bit of production work, and was working in Northern Ireland on a live outside broadcast of part of a theatrical show. The musicians wanted extra payments for their clearance of the copyright on their performance, and the composer also wanted extra fees for use of his music - which they did agree to in the end and after much prodding from me, the musicians and composer got their money. However, being a sneaky person, I'd also recorded the off air broadcast, and discovered that they had totally without permission or payment used some additional items form our show by cutting to the show, in the section before, as a teaser. We're not talking lots of money, about £70 for the minute or so they used (per person, so 7 musician = £490) but they didn't even mention the bit the had for free.

Broadcasters will try to get away with it. It may be worthwhile, if you have the date and time, to simply invoice the producer and see what happens. I guess here in the UK you could even take out what we call a County Court Summons - if you have something similar and cheap to do where you are?

The videographer is being paid to just record moving pictures. It is the editor who combines the video with music. This is not always the same person. And it's not always the editor who make the DVD that ends up being distributed. So who then is responsible for any copyright infringement. The producer who is responsible for putting all the pieces of the puzzle together. And that producer is the wedding couple who commissioned the work.
...
Again the videographers work would stand alone. His job is not a derivative work. It's not like a music video where the song is playing over and over again well he's shooting.
...
Then your editor is not doing a very good job. Yes music can enhance a scene, but it doesn't become boring without it unless the editor is not doing his job.

You are confusing a wedding or event videographer who is retained to create and produce a completed product with a camera operator who is hired as a technician operating a certain piece of equipment. The B&G are customers, not the creators.

The music doesn't have to be playing while he is shooting for the final work to be a derivative work. It doesn't mean you're shooting to fit to the music. Derivative means that another copyrighted expression has been incorporated as a material part of the work in question. As a rule of thumb, if it's put there on purpose you've got to license it.