Just a note about using copyright music on the web. I just happened to be checking out a couple of old youtube videos I had up there and 3 of them were flagged for copyright violations because I used commercial music in them illegally.

2 of the three were personal/public ones I did for friends, and one of them was for a client who insisted that I use the song. I warned him that it was illegal and that I may have to pull it down if there's trouble.

Here is the message from youtube:
_________________________________

Your video, Nosara, Costa Rica - Live the Dream , may include content that is owned or licensed by these content owners:

* Content owner: Sony Music Entertainment Type: Audio content

What should I do?

No action is required on your part. Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases ads may appear next to your video.
What can I do about my video's status?

Please note that the video's status can change, if the policies chosen by the content owners change. You may want to check back periodically to see if you have new options available to you.

Under certain circumstances, you may dispute this copyright claim. These are:

* if the content is mistakenly identified and is actually completely your original creation;
* if you believe your use does not infringe copyright (e.g. it is fair use under US law);
* if you are actually licensed by the owner to use this content.

I need more information. I want to learn more about the dispute process.

Please take a few minutes to visit our Help Center section on Policy and Copyright Guidelines, where you can learn more about copyright law and our Content Identification Service.
______________________________

Welcome to the 21st Century, where now these content sites will be scanning for copyrighted music as you post the clips! Facebook and YouTube both are doing it now - it's only a matter of time before Vimeo and others do too.

The days of videographers just using any music they want is about to come to a screeching halt. I'll be the first to say that I've been guilty in the past, but lately have tried very hard to use only music I pay for the rights to use. It makes me frustrated tho, because it puts me at a competitive disadvantage when trying to create compelling demos when my competition is using the Brides favorite top 40 hit to woo her in. I do think that it's okay to put the couple's favorite song on their wedding DVD as that is considered a private (not public) use within the context of their wedding video - but as soon as you put that on the web (or use it in your demo for commercial purposes), it's a whole different can of worms.

I think one of the biggest roots of this problem for us as videographers is that using popular music that already evokes emotion and familiarity makes a mediocre video into a better one, or a good video into a great one. The problem is, it's the song that is the magical ingredient, and if you don't have it, it isn't near as powerful. So, if you try to go the legal route to using it, you'll find yourself in a maze of legal crap trying to get permissions from the label, EACH AND EVERY publisher, and anyone else claiming to have some portion of rights to that song and/or recording. And even if you use a clearing house to clear a song, you'll pay hundreds of dollars and they still don't guarantee that everyone who has legal claim to the recording and/or publishing has been compensated.

Soon tho, with YouTube and the others, you won't just get deleted off the service, but ASCAP and others are trying to make it so you will be fined if they find any instances of it on the web - and possibly multiple fines for multiple websites and/or multiple plays. Failure to pay could bring criminal charges. And, at that point, they can name their price, too.

I think it's time that we all start realizing just how thorny and serious this problem is going to become - very soon.

Hi Ken,

How long would say those have been available? I've only actively been uploading to a YouTube channel for a few months and out of a dozen or so clips only one has received a copyright notice and and now appears with an ad. Seems like from what you're saying that even though they didn't recognize it at the point of upload that doesn't mean it may not have an ad eventually.

...ASCAP and others are trying to make it so you will be fined if they find any instances of it on the web - and possibly multiple fines for multiple websites and/or multiple plays. Failure to pay could bring criminal charges. And, at that point, they can name their price, too.

Yep - YouTube paid 1.6 million to ASCAP and letters were sent out to a few high profile youtube content providers. YouTube told its members to send all the information to them and they would handle it. In my opinion the system it too vast to regulate in pay-per-use way. The ads for the music seems like the best way to account for the use and to make sure that new artists still have a way to get noticed.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1127454934.shtml

ASCAP, BMI and SESAC will try to get as granular as they can when dishing out fees and fines, so don't be surprised when any clip posted on a big service is tracked right down to the individual who uploaded it.

The best way to avoid all of this crap is to use library music, or write and produce your own soundtrack music for your clips if you can. There are lots of music creation programs out there now that can help you create good sounding background stuff with little or no talent! ;)

As a sometimes songwriter/producer living in Nashville I'm hyper-sensitive to this issue - especially because it reflects negatively on me in this town when I have copyrighted music in my stuff on the web that other music industry peeps see. It's really a taboo around here. So, I try to be sensitive to it, but then get railroaded by all the other videographers who couldn't give a crap about it, period. They will just use anything and think it's okay to do so. It makes their stuff stand out, and my stuff seem bland in comparison - and that's not fair, and it sucks, and I hate it. So, I for one will be glad when the day comes when we ALL start to think about using stuff we don't own.

Hi Ken,

How long would say those have been available? I've only actively been uploading to a YouTube channel for a few months and out of a dozen or so clips only one has received a copyright notice and and now appears with an ad. Seems like from what you're saying that even though they didn't recognize it at the point of upload that doesn't mean it may not have an ad eventually.

Joel, I think their scanning system works periodically (it would crash the servers if they scanned everything all the time I suppose). Once we had created a short video, horror-themed by using a piece from a well-known horror soundtrack and also from an acclaimed composer. The video was done for non-profit reasons by the way. Some months later, the video was down and we received a message that we violate copyright laws. Strangely enough, some other videos with equally known soundtracks, never stopped playing.

But in the case that wedding videos will be hunted down, it will be a huge problem for the industry. Ok, it's a violation of the law, and there is royal free music around, but I have yet to find music there to fit into what we try to edit. Bill got it right, good music may turn an average video into a good one, but also bad music may turn the nicely edited stuff into junk. I wish I could book weddings with 10-15 thousands of euros so I can spend the two thousand on buying an amazing cinematic piece, but this happens only to few top names of the wedding industry. I think there should be some way of a humane annual fee that we should pay in order to use the music we'd like to. In Greece, radio stations and cafes pay fees in order to use copyrighted fees. I wouldn't mind paying them too for my wedding videos, as long as I won't have to pay astronomical numbers for a single piece. It would be great. Composers will get more money and we'll have our peace of mind.

I think the interesting part of this is that the copyright owner (in Ken's case anyway - I'd expect the "solution" to depend on the IP holder, and could range from an ad being added to having the video yanked, and in theory a suit filed...) has chosen some sort of revenue model by which they are compensated by the ad every time the video is viewed - this is an elegant solution really... providing it holds.

Only concern I see would be if the policy changes and they decide to start cracking knuckles, but after the backlash from the "sharing wars", maybe at least SOME IP holders have realized that creating a different revenue stream is more effective in the long run? Far better to monetize than litigate! I suspect Dimitris that in your case, the IP holder didn't want to or hadn't yet negotiated acceptable terms with YouToob... different IP holder, different policies.

If having an ad on the video that promotes the artist (or someone else who pays to be advertised so the IP holder gets compensated) was all it took to satisfy the compensation and use, heck, I think that would be agreeable! And if I'm reading that right, that's what they (at least Sony) has decided to do - seems like a good and fair "solution"!

I'm guessing if that model works, within a few months, they'll have boilerplate agreements you (and of course the IP holder) can agree to (that message looks like a "provisional agreement" temporarily setting acceptable terms for continued use, until "final terms" are worked out), accept the advertising (without getting any compensation for it yourself), and you're "good" (and not a "criminal" anymore - yea!). If the video service is handling the tracking, paperwork, and revenue sharing, should work for them AND the IP holder, not to mention the video creator who can now display (not SELL the finished work mind you) a work without being in violation of copyright law.

While there are still in theory "sync rights" issues, perhaps they fade away once the IP holder agrees that the advertising compensates for the intended/actual use. I'd presume an IP holder would retain the right to revoke if they objected to YOUR specific use, but you'd probably be violating other terms of use of the site anyway if your video was that objectionable!

Hi Ken,

How long would say those have been available? I've only actively been uploading to a YouTube channel for a few months and out of a dozen or so clips only one has received a copyright notice and and now appears with an ad. Seems like from what you're saying that even though they didn't recognize it at the point of upload that doesn't mean it may not have an ad eventually.

Joel, one has been up for about 6 months and the other 2 have been up for almost exactly a year. I don't check them frequently, but I'm sure I looked at them a couple of weeks ago and there was no notice. I'm surprised that they haven't either pulled them or muted them.

Personally, I'm moving to legal music for online content. For the DVD.... technically it's just as illegal - though far, far, harder to track. Ideally, I'd find some musicians who play the kind of music I'm looking for - and provide them some exposure and pay them a fee. I've been shopping for some good stock sources though there is not a lot out there that are really what I'm looking for - that are somewhat affordable.

Granted, I'm no attorney - but I think the case could be argued that the content on a couple's DVD is private and not for public use - and if they actually bought the music that was used in the DVD (or own a copy) than it could be considered fair use under private use laws. In any case, it definitely is harder to track, and I don't think anyone is concerned about the DVDs, since wedding DVDs (unless made for demo purposes) are not mass-distributed or accessible to the public. I don't think ASCAP or BMI will start raiding homes to start watching wedding DVDs, but I guess you never know. ;)

It's when we as videographers want to share our work, or when the B/G wants to share their clips publicly on the web that it becomes a problem.

Welcome to the 21st Century, where now these content sites will be scanning for copyrighted music as you post the clips! Facebook and YouTube both are doing it now - it's only a matter of time before Vimeo and others do too.It will only be a matter of time before they start crawling every website looking for unlicensed use of music. Getty Images is already doing that with their stock photography. If you pull one of Getty's images off another site and use it on yours, they will eventually find it and send you a bill (typically several thousand dollars.)

The days of videographers just using any music they want is about to come to a screeching halt.

I'm just peeling numbers out of the air here, but I'd think that if YouTube deleted every little film that had copyright music attached they'd remove something like 92% of their uploads. Not that it would matter much with 37000 new ones being added every day (more peeling), but there you go.

can't you remove the info/ "metadata" so the software can't even see that your using a song?

I think the interesting part of this is that the copyright owner (in Ken's case anyway - I'd expect the "solution" to depend on the IP holder, and could range from an ad being added to having the video yanked, and in theory a suit filed...) has chosen some sort of revenue model by which they are compensated by the ad every time the video is viewed - this is an elegant solution really... providing it holds.


I agree. It seems like a possible added source of revenue for artists. Much like ringtones & iTunes. If someone is using Taylor Swifts "Best Day" it seems the option is given to her (well probably not HER but her management) saying this song is being used on youtube with 70,000 hits so far. It can either be removed or you can receive a % of advertising revenue from this clip.

I guess that's going to be youtubes revenue model. Sell advertising, myb $10 for every 1,000 hits. Then if the song in it is copyrighted, CR holder receives 50% of ad revenue.. or something like that.

I wish having good music on a wedding video was simply a matter of downloading a 99 cent copy for every time the song is burned on a DVD. 10 wedding DVD's distributed X 5 good songs, net expenditure $50.00.

As a sometimes songwriter/producer living in Nashville I'm hyper-sensitive to this issue - especially because it reflects negatively on me in this town when I have copyrighted music in my stuff on the web that other music industry peeps see. It's really a taboo around here. So, I try to be sensitive to it, but then get railroaded by all the other videographers who couldn't give a crap about it, period. They will just use anything and think it's okay to do so. It makes their stuff stand out, and my stuff seem bland in comparison - and that's not fair, and it sucks, and I hate it. So, I for one will be glad when the day comes when we ALL start to think about using stuff we don't own.

I am also a composer/musician. This subject always gets me going so I'll try to be nice.

Wedding video companies and photographers do have a legal way to use copyrighted music for demos on their sites. The forms are on BMI, and ASCAP's web sites and there is a cost but nowhere near what truly licensing the music would be. I have done that kind of work and total costs for a well known piece range from..."yeah...use it!" to tens of thousands of dollars for a 13 week, one market run.
I'm glad to see some action being taken by YouTube and the publishers. What will probably happen is they will find a major abuser of the law and absolutely destroy them publicly as a message to the rest of the world. This happened several years ago to a lady who had downloaded tons of music illegally and was distributing it. I believe her fine was around the $250k range and her life is changed forever. It's only a matter of time before it happens to a small business which very likely will be from our industry.
Please do the research and get legal with your music usage. It's just not right to rip off musicians and composers like Bill and me!

It's not just music that gets ripped off, and I'm very conscious that anything I have worked long and hard on and supplied on DVD can be so very easily copied tens of times for almost no cost. A lot of us here are in this boat and it's something we must live with.

Of course our films are usually commissioned up front so that we get paid accordingly. Song writers generally work the other way around - they labour in the hope that people will hear and want to buy their hard work.

tom.

can't you remove the info/ "metadata" so the software can't even see that your using a song?It's not as simple as reading ID3 tags from MP3s. They use an acoustic fingerprint, which is a condensed digital summary, deterministically generated from an audio signal, that can be used to identify a song. (Wikipedia)

There are several methods people have found to be effective in defeating YouTube's and Facebook's fingerprinting algorithms, such as not using the first 30 seconds of the song, or inserting a period of silence before the music begins, or mixing with some room ambiance or other noise. This may explain why YouTube has apparently not identified all videos with copyright music. But, they are constantly tweaking and improving the software, so what fools it today may not fool it tomorrow.

Chris is right. There's a cool website Pandora which is a music radio station where you type in a band you like (Metallica, Rolling Stones etc) and it finds additional similar bands, not really by genre, or others opinion, but by some intense algorythm of beats per minute, guitar riffs, drum speed & volume. Worth checking out & reading wiki on.

As for youtube, funny just a few days ago I saw a homemade video with no sound. After checking my volumes & everything I saw a note saying they didn't have the copyright to the audio (I guess it was a song), so youtube kept the video up but just without sound. Pretty worthless without it, but they must have begun cracking down alot recently.

Question: What if the bride/groom have purchased the song and thereby have the right to have it used on their personal videos? Should not that be legal?

Technically that would be personal use, as I stated in my post earlier. It's not the personal DVDs that are the issue here - it is the posting of highlights clips and love story clips on the web that contain copyrighted music. Once it is made public it becomes liable for royalty collection, and opens you up to a slew of lawsuits from record companies, publishers, writers, and artist management companies.

The days of the Wild West Internet are coming to an end, and our privacy laws will probably be eroded (even more than they already are) as well to facilitate the policing of "intellectual content". This thorny issue may be what eventually corporatizes the Internet completely - and what very well might also kill free speech on the net, but that's another issue entirely.

Question: What if the bride/groom have purchased the song and thereby have the right to have it used on their personal videos? Should not that be legal?

I feel that 'should be legal' but it's written clearly on every CD that any copying, public performance, broadcasting etc etc is illegal. So that means if you've bought the disc or paid for the download you cannot legally copy it.

Tom -
This specific scenario has been debated at length on these forums, and in fact there's an offer of significant support if one should be sued under this VERY narrow scenario, i.e. that the couple owns the CD or whatnot of the song, and it is "media shifted" onto the video.

The logic is that they have the right to play the song, having purchased it legitimately, and in theory could play the CD and the video simultaneously without falling afoul of the law. The mixing of the two together for personal use should not become illegal - (search "Carterphone" on DVi for a thread on this recombination of technology).

Keep in mind this is VERY narrow. Open, online distribution of the video (aka YouTube) would be infringement. There is the question of if one can legally play it for friends and family in their own living room legally, at what point does it become illegal to "share" with those same people utilizing the miracle of the Internet?

One would expect that obviously a video posted without password protection that ANYONE can access would be infringement, but we've also discussed the "top 10 hit" wedding march from last year that hit it big time while infringing on the Chris Brown song being played...

The one take away is that law is messy, and IP law is a REALLY messy area with the digital revolution - it wasn't nearly the problem before everything can be expressed as 1's and 0's and can be easily copied by even a cheap desktop or laptop computer.


As I said earlier, the simplest solution would be for IP holders to work with online video sites to create an acceptable agreement whereby the IP holder gets compensated or benefits from online views utilizing the IP.

See my post in the "socan" thread. But there are 5 rights in play here.
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/470597-socan-fee.html#post1472370

Long story short, don't upload those clips to the web.

It's sad that this whole matter has become such a bugbear for us all, but that's partly because the law involved is civil and the litigant initiating the action will only do so if there's a reasonable chance of recovering the damages and costs they're awarded. Chances are if a large recording organisation sued a couple of video people they might bankrupt a couple of people indulging in their hobby but probably achieve little else. Even the largest wedding producers aren't high profile enough to justify the time and expense.

Many years ago one of London's largest AV production houses used some commercial music in a programme for BP, the big oil company without negotiating or paying the fees. The copyright holders, through their organisation if my memory is correct, sued and won - and more than justified their time and trouble.

The ripple effect through the whole industry was significant, for a while at least.

More recently the recording business in the UK has negotiated a way for small scale users like wedding producers to use commercial music and pay for a blanket licence via a small sum per programme disc sold. It doesn't cover public broadcasting so the Internet's a no-go area and sadly some video people still don't even pay this reasonable fee, but it helps the majority of us stay within the letter and the spirit of the law and also satisfy our clients at the same time.

I strongly urge people without such a scheme (I believe the Australians have a similar scheme) to press their recording industry to initiate one. It won't make them a lot of money but it will ease the angst about the risk of going to court.

I think that maybe we are seeing the direction of where we are headed with this issue. The now infamous "wedding march video" which everyone clearly understands was a blatant violation of the copyright issue was taken care of by simply inserting advertising on the video, for the sale of the song, as opposed to removing it from view.

To me this indicates that the "powers to be" decided that they would make more money with this solution as opposed to litigation. They saw it as a revenue generator that provided their client with a new stream of possible income and exposure to the clientele that they are trying to attract.

Jim, That may be true but it's dangerous to assume that. The "posture" of various agencies and companies can change at any time. Who knows what will come from the next board meeting or what the attitude of the next CEO will be? It's not worth the risk of finding out the hard way.

Tom -
As I said earlier, the simplest solution would be for IP holders to work with online video sites to create an acceptable agreement whereby the IP holder gets compensated or benefits from online views utilizing the IP.
That's the real issue for me. I'd happily pay a reasonable fee for song or other music usage if a) there was a central rights clearance site that issues definitive and unencumbered rights to works without months or lawyering or hassle; and, b) the fees were reasonable, i.e. based on actual use and classes of use.

As someone who -- billions of years ago, and in another country entirely -- once attempted to make a living in the music biz, I'd rather be paid something like $50 or $500 for small-scale semi-commercial use of my music than nothing at all; and as a video maker I'd be happy doing something like a capped per-click deal for each song used. Fat chance, of course, but I can dream...

I'd rather be paid something like $50 or $500 for small-scale semi-commercial use of my music than nothing at all

The problem is MOST videomakers don't see $50 - 500 per song as reasonable - they see $1 as reasonable. I agree with your scale personally, as a musician and as a videographer.

The problem is MOST videomakers don't see $50 - 500 per song as reasonable - they see $1 as reasonable.
Ain't that the sad truth?! :-) I often get a little depressed about just how little artists working in one medium value the products of those working in another, even for things that obviously took weeks of studio work and months of effort.

Taking the UK system as an example, the key decision to create a system has to be made by the copyright machine by which I mean the organisation/s which collect and distribute the fees.

Most composers/musicians aren't innately litigious but equally they're not familiar with the economics of all the businesses which use their work.

As someone who plays by the rules, what really tees me off is the number of established, full time wedding video production businesses that still don't pay the fee of £5 (say $7.50) per disc but would rather take the risk.

That's the real issue for me. I'd happily pay a reasonable fee for song or other music usage if a) there was a central rights clearance site that issues definitive and unencumbered rights to works without months or lawyering or hassle; and, b) the fees were reasonable, i.e. based on actual use and classes of use.


The problem with a central rights clearance site is that most publishers refuse to go along with this scenario - because they make their money by negotiating individual deals for use of their properties, based on what they see as the perceived value for any particular use. In other words, they charge what they want to based on how much they think it's worth to you. They like it this way, and they do NOT want this to change. To make things worse, many of these publishers are mom/pop operations and they hang their entire business on the ownership of one or two really popular copyrights.

As long as this model exists there will never be a completely seamless way to obtain rights. You're always going to have to deal with some starved-for-cash publisher who just happens to own the rights to that one song you want to use, and they are the gatekeepers. They will milk you for what they believe the song is worth, and they won't hesitate to sue you if you don't comply. Not only that, but just asking them about using the song is enough to put you on their radar in terms of your using the song without permission. So if you contact a publisher and then don't play their game and use the song anyway, you can almost guarantee they will be hunting you down.

This is the part of the music business that just gets really slimy and nasty, and it's unfortunate but it's been this way for many years, and these small publishers who make their entire fortunes off of the ownership of one or two great songs will never acquiesce to a new model if they can't negotiate each deal individually.

Question: What if the bride/groom have purchased the song and thereby have the right to have it used on their personal videos? Should not that be legal?If you're in the US, purchasing a CD copy of the song does not give one the right to use it on one's personal videos.

snipped

As long as this model exists there will never be a completely seamless way to obtain rights. You're always going to have to deal with some starved-for-cash publisher who just happens to own the rights to that one song you want to use, and they are the gatekeepers. They will milk you for what they believe the song is worth, and they won't hesitate to sue you if you don't comply. Not only that, but just asking them about using the song is enough to put you on their radar in terms of your using the song without permission. So if you contact a publisher and then don't play their game and use the song anyway, you can almost guarantee they will be hunting you down.

This is the part of the music business that just gets really slimy and nasty, and it's unfortunate but it's been this way for many years, and these small publishers who make their entire fortunes off of the ownership of one or two great songs will never acquiesce to a new model if they can't negotiate each deal individually.

Bill I realise this is the status quo but isn't there a conflict in what you describe? If the Mom and Pop outfits are cash strapped (and I think you're probably right) then taking legal action which is going to cost them plenty (unless things are very different in the USA) with little or no hope of actually getting whatever the court awards them is a waste of money they don't have. The smaller the business the more they stand to gain from an industry-wide solution. Even if the big companies get the lion's share of any deal, the small share the small businesses get could well be worth more to them.

My point is that it is the organisations who (in the UK at least) act for the publishers in collecting fees who are likely to prove the best channel for success. Do you not have such arrangements in the USA?

Changing mindsets that have been fixed for years is certainly difficult but I hope worthwhile in the end.

I see plenty of legal ads on the tv and in print around here where the lawyers advertise "you only pay our fees when we win your case for you." The cash stapped mom and pop's will have no trouble finding a lawyer to carry out their suit, if the lawyer believes he will win a big judgement for his client, and a nice fee for himself. The videographer will have to come up with the cash to pay HIS lawyer. The advantage both legally and morally, is to the copyright holder.

Roger, of course you're right, but assuming our legal systems have much in common, winning a civil case is only the first part. Enforcing the judgement is something else entirely. And if the person who loses hasn't got much money anyway, it's a pyrrhic victory at best.

I don't have a really good showreel for wedding fairs and my website.

Can someone give me a link to one to copy?

Im going to change the music to music of my own composition, so it will be okay legally.

Thanks!

That's a great way to make the point Jeff. When someone can see the point closer to their perspective, it registers better.

I understand your point Philip - and yes, it would be a burden on the publishers to pursue each infraction in court. Luckily for them, they can just send the attack dogs (the Performing Rights Organizations - ASCAP, BMI, etc.) to do that for them, and those organizations have legal staff and their own enforcement staff who do nothing but pursue people who are in violation of their policies. If publishers (or writers) are aware of an unauthorized use, they can report it to their PRO and the PRO will do the rest, first through a threatened fine, and after that through a lawsuit, or both.

I totally agree that there SHOULD be a better way, and I don't condone the way things are by any means. However, as I stated before, many people have a serious stake in keeping the status quo. If things change in favor of a more equitable means of intellectual property usage, than individual negotiations with publishers is the first casualty - and the publishers know this. The rights of publishers (and labels) to negotiate (on a per use basis) the usage prices of their properties is at the heart of this problem. They balk at even the thought of giving up that power, because they know it would significantly decrease their overall revenues.

This issue really touches the heart of the free enterprise system - the ability to charge whatever the market will bear for a particular product (in this case, to license a particular song). It's similar to me wanting to buy a Rolls Royce. I might believe that Rolls Royce charges too much, and that it's totally unfair that they control the ridiculously high price of their cars. But to try to get the entire auto industry to come up with a "standard affordable price" for ALL cars is unfair to the individual auto makers - especially just because I want a better deal on a car I want. That is the situation we face, and I don't think it's going to change (at least for the hit songs). For lesser known (i.e. nobody wants them) songs, publishers might be willing to allow them to be used in a blanket type of situation because the potential for profit is better.

My 2 cents....

I can't count the CD's I've purchased because I saw a wedding video online and liked the music they used! I just bought the album by "Plain White T's" for the song 1,2,3,4... just because I saw it used in a video on Vimeo. Oops.. I just said their name.. Should I be charged for that too?

Should the videographers start charging the artists and record companies for advertising their songs?

I say this will bite them in the rear and they don't even realize it! I understand copying music and distributing it for profit without the artists permission, but in this case I don't see the harm as long as credit to the artist is given. Maybe even make it a rule that a link to the artists/companies online store be made available with the video?
(By the way... I'm also an artist who played guitar in a band in college. We recorded a few songs as well so I do understand.)

We (the video producers and artists) can both win if we work together on this.