I have been thinking a lot about Music licensing, as some threads in here suggested the current synch to video charges will be out of reach by Majority of wedding videographers.

I know that if I were to use a popular song and try to pay the rights it would be beyond my reach. I was thinking what if I get an artist in the Philippines to license us her/his songs for the same price as what etiquette is charging, will that work? They are not original compositions but basically renditions of popular songs, love songs. I dont know how they do it but their albums are usually their own versions of popular hits. Would they require permission form the original artist to license their song?

I was thinking .99 per song x 10,000 videographers will be serious money for the artist. And maybe as a pitch the full backing of WEVA might convince the artist. I have not spoken to the powers that be at WEVA, just want to know if this will work.

Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated.

I'm not 100% how this works in the US - but in the UK anyone can record a song - they simply have to pay the artist for each recording they distribute. Either a fixed sum or a percentage whichever is greater. So I'm guessing that in this case the amount you friend would have to pay the original artist would likely be more than 99c per song.

Assuming he is recording the songs legally.

Hi Noel

It appears that wedding videographers in most countries seem to use commercial songs quite freely in their samples and I'm pretty sure that they cannot have paid the huge royalties that are normal practice!!

Over here you can actually get a licence to use commercial songs on your wedding DVD (a single event costs just over $50) However tthe system is so badly flawed because, although you can put the songs on the DVD it can only be used by the couple privately and it only covers DVD's not online video. According to our APPRA you can get a licence for the wedding DVD but if you want to put samples online (server, youtube, vimeo etc) you are not covered.
Even here it seems that videographers are using online wedding 'demos' containing commercial songs and it's pretty certain that they would not be paying huge royalty amounts to overseas publishers for 'internet broadcast' I think worldwide as long as you don't abuse the system publishers turn a blind eye to this minimal music use.

Maybe Rochelle has a comment as PR person for AVPA ??? or you might want a comment from someone at WEVA to clarify the situation.

For me, it's probably safer to use Royalty Free tracks in your productions and know you are in the clear

Chris

Noel -
Let me see if I'm understanding the idea correctly... you have someone do a "cover version" (remake/reinterpretation of the original song), and then use that?

To me this sounds like the same idea as knocking off a product and selling it either labelled as the original or for the same use... I'm not sure how many different laws are being broken there... not to mention the ethical implications.

Technically "cover versions" are supposed to be paying the original artist for the use of the elements of the composition, and there's a long history (and ongoing saga) of artists suing over "similar" compositions (just saw a new one brewing today over a Super Bowl ad!).

I think if I understand what you're thinking, it's perhaps even worse than using the original compositions without compensation... it adds an element of "intent" and "conspiracy" that would likely lead to far worse legal trouble than garden variety copyright violations.

Conceptually, it may look viable, but I doubt the "cover version", even if properly licensed for an audio recording would include the rights to use it in a video...

Getting someone (anyone) to record a popular song is totally acceptable - you just have to pay the publisher for it, not the record label or artist. It is done all the time. You don't have to have permission from the original artist (unless he/she owns the publishing for the song as well).

The only catch is that publishers are all different, and they all charge different rates for a song. It's a negotiated price.

Noel -
Let me see if I'm understanding the idea correctly... you have someone do a "cover version" (remake/reinterpretation of the original song), and then use that?

Conceptually, it may look viable, but I doubt the "cover version", even if properly licensed for an audio recording would include the rights to use it in a video...

Dave actually I am looking at artist who has done it already. Collection of Love Songs in the 70s for example, all sang by the local artist. I know she did not compose it but is merely reviving the songs. It is being distributed/sold by legitimate companies (i.e EMI Philippines, etc). Would it be legal for that artist to let wedding videographers use her own rendition for a fee? Reason I am asking is if it is legal, maybe I can convince that artist to let us Wedding Videographers use her songs legally for .99/song or whatever works for her.

Hi Noel

It appears that wedding videographers in most countries seem to use commercial songs quite freely in their samples and I'm pretty sure that they cannot have paid the huge royalties that are normal practice!!

Over here you can actually get a licence to use commercial songs on your wedding DVD (a single event costs just over $50) However tthe system is so badly flawed because, although you can put the songs on the DVD it can only be used by the couple privately and it only covers DVD's not online video. According to our APPRA you can get a licence for the wedding DVD but if you want to put samples online (server, youtube, vimeo etc) you are not covered.
Even here it seems that videographers are using online wedding 'demos' containing commercial songs and it's pretty certain that they would not be paying huge royalty amounts to overseas publishers for 'internet broadcast' I think worldwide as long as you don't abuse the system publishers turn a blind eye to this minimal music use.

Maybe Rochelle has a comment as PR person for AVPA ??? or you might want a comment from someone at WEVA to clarify the situation.

For me, it's probably safer to use Royalty Free tracks in your productions and know you are in the clear

Chris

Thanks for the input Chris, I know Still Motion mentioned company called Etiquette, you can purchase license (online/synch to video rights) for .99/song. You get to choose from 4 different artist. My question is if a local artist in the Philippines has recorded her/his own version of a popular song legally, can that artist sell/license that song to us for a fee?

Getting someone (anyone) to record a popular song is totally acceptable - you just have to pay the publisher for it, not the record label or artist. It is done all the time. You don't have to have permission from the original artist (unless he/she owns the publishing for the song as well).

The only catch is that publishers are all different, and they all charge different rates for a song. It's a negotiated price.

Bill, is it acceptable/legal for the guy who recorded the song to let wedding videographers use his own version for a fee?

Hi Noel

Actually that is quite correct..If a publisher decides to release "20 greatest love songs" and gets their studio musos to record it (not the original artists) they would have obviously negotiated with the original publishers for the rights to make a compilation album.

Now, the real secret is to find a publisher who has a "wedding" compilation album and get the rights to use any song in the album. Unfortunately it's all going to come down to money in the end and you will have to decide whether it's worth your while to pay for video rights. From the amount of copyrighted songs on wedding videos online I very much doubt that anyone paid the publisher for them but it's simply a situation where it's a one-off use of the song and publishers haven't got the time or resources to sue each and every videographer who uses a song in a DVD.

Chris

Chris, thanks for the input. My idea is to pitch the publisher that WEVA or AVPA or any Wedding Videographer association and its xxxx strong member is willing to pay .99/per song. It is a win-win situation, they get paid, we are guilt free.

Hi Noel

I would go for that!! We can get a 'blanket licence' here BUT only for the DVD not any internet video...if the 0.99c per song allowed 'members' to use the music in their online clips as well it would be a way better system than we have!!!

Keep us informed!!

Chris

Hi Noel,

I think WEVA has already been talking with the major PROs (Performing Rights Organizations - i.e. BMI, ASCAP, etc.) to do something to make hit music more accessible to us. The problem is that there are many fingers in the pies. And to make matters worse, they all have veto power. They are competing to get as much money as they can for any use of that song.

There are positive steps being made, with services that have pre-negotiated with publishers and labels to provide "one-stop shopping" for known songs. However, it's not necessarily cheap - between hundreds and thousands for just one title.

I think the time is coming when the model itself is going to have to change and adapt to a society that has instant access to digital media of all kinds. People are making art out of existing media works that redefine what is "original" and what is "intellectual property".

We have a USD1420 annual fee to pay which covers for public performance of the SDE, sync and mech rights to deliver copies to the wedding couple. It doesnt cover anything online as well.

Anyone has the link to Etiquette?

We have a USD1420 annual fee to pay which covers for public performance of the SDE, sync and mech rights to deliver copies to the wedding couple. It doesnt cover anything online as well.

Anyone has the link to Etiquette?

With Etiquette (http://www.withetiquette.com/)

$1420? Wow, the license in Australia is only about $700-800 annually. I haven't paid a full year license yet because I don't do many weddings. I think it's a very fair price, even considering that you can't upload it online.

Hi John

It's still quite a fair bit of money to pay unless you are doing bulk weddings with a team of cameramen!! If you consider that not everyone wants to use commercial music if can add to your overheads!!

I condition my couples to use Royalty Free tracks and they are normally quite receptive!!

If you only do a couple of weddings a year where the couple insist on commercial music the "one-off" event fee of $51 is a better bet. However it's still cheaper than Singapore!!! and there is no reason why you cannot add licence fees to your bill if they insist on using commercial music.

Chris

Two different licenses.
One is to be able to record a cover of a song- compulsory license in the US. Anyone can record any song that has been published. Just pay a fixed per copy (# of CDs made) fee to the publisher.

The second is the sync rights for picture. This, you have to get the person/company that holds the copyright to the song, usually the author but not always, to make a deal for syncing their song (even if it's a remake) to moving pictures. You also need the actual band/person that recorded the song to sign off on their performance, and most likely the person/company that holds the copyright to the actual recording of the performance.

It would be great to get a compulsory license thing going in the US, but that will be very hard to accomplish. The right to refuse the usage of your work to be associated with, say the KKK or NAMBLA, is important to artists, as it should be.

Hi Chris L, so basically it is back to square one. There is no way around it. It was worth the shot, hopefully a system will be in place soon where Wedding Videographers will be able to afford a synch fee.

Thanks for all the input.

I'm shooting a documentary involving a local ballet company who is performing a dance to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. The music will be performed live by a cover band.

Specifically, I am hoping to use "The Great Gig in the Sky" and "Brain Damage"

Is there any difference in my situation then in what is being talked about (using a song from a cd on a DVD)? Sync rights, etc....

I wanted to get as much info before going to the company with questions on their licencing powers since I'm sure they're paying something for the use.

Thanks for the input Chris, I know Still Motion mentioned company called Etiquette, you can purchase license (online/synch to video rights) for .99/song. You get to choose from 4 different artist. My question is if a local artist in the Philippines has recorded her/his own version of a popular song legally, can that artist sell/license that song to us for a fee?

withetiquette currently features 6 artists and just under 40 songs. all are $99 each for a license that lets you use the music in your films as well as online (website, blog, vimeo).

we believe that by fostering a relationship with independent artists, everyone involved wins. the photo + cinema industries have access to affordable original music, and the musicians have an avenue to share their music and fund the creation of new music.

P.

Hi Noel

It appears that wedding videographers in most countries seem to use commercial songs quite freely in their samples and I'm pretty sure that they cannot have paid the huge royalties that are normal practice!!

Over here you can actually get a licence to use commercial songs on your wedding DVD (a single event costs just over $50) However tthe system is so badly flawed because, although you can put the songs on the DVD it can only be used by the couple privately and it only covers DVD's not online video. According to our APPRA you can get a licence for the wedding DVD but if you want to put samples online (server, youtube, vimeo etc) you are not covered.
Even here it seems that videographers are using online wedding 'demos' containing commercial songs and it's pretty certain that they would not be paying huge royalty amounts to overseas publishers for 'internet broadcast' I think worldwide as long as you don't abuse the system publishers turn a blind eye to this minimal music use.

Maybe Rochelle has a comment as PR person for AVPA ??? or you might want a comment from someone at WEVA to clarify the situation.

For me, it's probably safer to use Royalty Free tracks in your productions and know you are in the clear

Chris

Chris, I'm going to have to speak as an individual rather than a representative of AVPA. This topic has been debated many times among our producers and it's a worldwide issue.
In relation to Royalty free music, AMCOS has Production music that is of high quality and has recently changed their fee structure. We have purchased some music from there for online use and it can add up. I have yet to find out more about the changes, and will make the enquiry soon.

Soundtracks make a difference to a clip and to your business image. It's a risk that producers take when they chose to incorporate licenced music for online broadcasting - I can advice you to do the right thing and build up a music bank of paid music. The problem of online clips is that a bank of music isn't infinite.

I'll make the effort to enquire about the AMCOS deal this week - any aussie can email me directly and I can pass on the details

Hi Rochelle

Your comments are much appreciated. I really thought that APPRA were going a great route with their blanket licence for wedding videographers until I discovered that it only applied to the actual DVD!! It's a business fact that we need to show brides online samples and those cannot contain any commercial songs unless thousands of dollars and months of tracking down publishers are completed!

I don't use any commercial tracks anymore as all my packages include hosting an online video for the couple so licence-wise I'm not covered!! I do have an adequate SmartSound library which does the job nicely but it would be great if one could get around all the legal 'mumbo-jumbo' and use a couple's favorite song without fear of copyright infringement.

It's silly really, as using an artists song in your online video is only likely to increase sales for the publisher and they should be happy with extra exposure. If publishers could work out a simple one-off method of controlling copyright then things would be so much easier and they would have more income. Personally I don't think that commercial song usage will ever be controlled effectively..publishers are way too greedy and there are just too many instances on line to try to police.

Chris

I've often thought that what is always being argued about is not the actual use of copyright material, but the copyright holders right to say no. I'm in favour of allowing the 'owner' to say no - but if they're happy, for it to be used. Quite how this could be policed is a mystery. I just get amused by somebody who claims the right to do whatever they like with somebody else's product. As if their right to use was stronger/more valid than the person who actually created it?