I'm considering approaching my congressman to strike up a conversation re: copyright revision as it relates to wedding video synch licences, and videoing live musical performances or dance recitals.
Any suggestions to make an intelligent pitch?
It'd be really cool if a draft paragraph were created by some of our legal gurus, and then everyone went and talked to their own representative face to face, and presented the idea.
I think Congress should mandate a path for "quick," "easy," and "affordable" licensing for synch licenses, (at least for wedding videos), as it currently does for mechanical licenses. I can see the danger for derivative works, where someone's music could be put to images which the music's copyright holder would find offensive or objectionable. However, I'd like to have paths available for inherently unobjectionable material, like live events where the music is otherwise performed/played legally. Perhaps a worst case system, where the derivative creator pays a set amount, submits the work to the music's copyright holder (or his rep), and unless it's denied for good cause, it's assumed to be acceptable.
Furthermore, any live performance where the music is legally played, like a dance recital or live band/orchestra, ought to similarly have either a licensing exception or a "quick, easy, affordable" path to obtain the license to video/distribute said performance, as long as the performers agree to it as well.
We're overlooking/creating thousands of criminals in our society, when parents videotape their children's musical/recital performances. This is silly, and easily correctable.
Furthermore, there's tons of money to be made for the music industry if they'd start allowing videographers/family to pay a reasonable licensing fee to synch music to wedding videos.
Perhaps someone can further hone my presentation?
Thanks

We're overlooking/creating thousands of criminals in our society, when parents videotape their children's musical/recital performances. This is silly, and easily correctable.

Actually, no offense is committed by videotaping the musical performance, nor watching it in the privacy of one's own home. The inevitable posting of the video on YouTube, making copies for other parents and other such actions are what makes it infringe upon the intellectual property and/or copyright of the holder(s).

And why just wedding videos? I always struggle to understand the argument that it's somehow different for wedding videographers and that there is some unique undue hardship.

And why just wedding videos? I always struggle to understand the argument that it's somehow different for wedding videographers and that there is some unique undue hardship.
I can see the objection for a Christian artist's song to accompany a XXX porn movie. Such a derivative work can be highly offensive and objectionable, and far from the music copyright holder's wishes. A wedding video, even if synched, tends to be unobjectionable, and should certainly be unobjectionable if the music was captured live at the event where it was legally performed/played.

Actually, no offense is committed by videotaping the musical performance, nor watching it in the privacy of one's own home. The inevitable posting of the video on YouTube, making copies for other parents and other such actions are what makes it infringe upon the intellectual property and/or copyright of the holder(s).
My understanding, actually, is that any copying of a copyrighted work is a violation, unless specificly exempted in law, or permission has been granted by the copyright holder. This would include copying a musical performance via audio or video, whether for personal use or not (or an event where music was captured in the background)

Thanks for your thoughts :-)

Actually, no offense is committed by videotaping the musical performance, nor watching it in the privacy of one's own home. The inevitable posting of the video on YouTube, making copies for other parents and other such actions are what makes it infringe upon the intellectual property and/or copyright of the holder(s). .

If a guest at the wedding makes a personal record of it and gives it to the wedding couple, your point is valid. But a videographer hired by a wedding party to make a video of the event is making a copy of the music involved as part of a product he is offering for commercial sale. The fact that the videographer is hired to make the video takes the resulting program out of the realm of a personal, private, video and into the realm of products produced for public distribution. As far as the person making the actual copy of the music, it's being done for purposes of distribution to third parties. And arguing that the video is for the private use of the wedding couple would be similar to saying a video store could copy and sell DVD's of a Hollywood blockbuster without licensing it from the studio since the DVD is sold for the private personal enjoyment of the video store's customers.

And why just wedding videos? I always struggle to understand the argument that it's somehow different for wedding videographers and that there is some unique undue hardship

Agree 100%. The differences between the wedding shooter and the producer of a network TV episodic lie in the scale and complexity of the production, the activity itself is fundamentally the same. The rules for the incorporation of copyright materials owned by others into the resulting programs should apply equally to both.

Actually, no offense is committed by videotaping the musical performance, nor watching it in the privacy of one's own home. The inevitable posting of the video on YouTube, making copies for other parents and other such actions are what makes it infringe upon the intellectual property and/or copyright of the holder(s).

If a guest at the wedding makes a personal record of it and gives it to the wedding couple, your point is valid. But a videographer hired by a wedding party to make a video of the event is making a copy of the music involved as part of a product he is offering for commercial sale. The fact that the videographer is hired to make the video takes the resulting program out of the realm of a personal, private, video and into the realm of products produced for public distribution. As far as the person making the actual copy of the music, it's being done for purposes of distribution to third parties. And arguing that the video is for the private use of the wedding couple would be similar to saying a video store could copy and sell DVD's of a Hollywood blockbuster without licensing it from the studio since the DVD is sold for the private personal enjoyment of the video store's customers.

Maybe there's some difference between US and Canadian copyright laws, but here in US law, my understanding is that personal use is irrelevant in copyright restrictions, except the specific exemption in law for place shifting of purchased musical recordings and time shifting of broadcast television shows.


And why just wedding videos? I always struggle to understand the argument that it's somehow different for wedding videographers and that there is some unique undue hardship.

Agree 100%. The differences between the wedding shooter and the producer of a network TV episodic lie in the scale and complexity of the production, the activity itself is fundamentally the same. The rules for the incorporation of copyright materials owned by others into the resulting programs should apply equally to both.
If the performance of a copyrighted work is legal because of mandated licensing procedures, then the recording of that performance should have a legal path available as well (with the addition of the performers' permission).
I would be all for no mandatory system to be set up at all for licensing/use of copyrighted works, and leave it up totally to negotiations between the user and the copyright holder... but... Congres has seemed fit to step in and provide mandatory paths for some licensing. I'm suggesting that similar paths need to be set up for synch licenses, at least in cases where 106A3A is not violated, where misuse of the music/performance would result in:
(A) ...any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification
of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation,
and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that
work is a violation of that right, and
(B) ... any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any
intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of
that right.

Maybe there's some difference between US and Canadian copyright laws, but here in US law, my understanding is that personal use is irrelevant in copyright restrictions, except the specific exemption in law for place shifting of purchased musical recordings and time shifting of broadcast television shows.

What I was trying to say is that there are no copyright issues involved if you shoot a video of a perfomance for your private personal use. It's when you transfer that recording to another person or show it to the public that you'll start to have to worry about copyright infringement.

If the performance of a copyrighted work is legal because of mandated licensing procedures, then the recording of that performance should have a legal path available as well (with the addition of the performers' permission)..

A license for a public performance and a license to copy and distribute or to include in an new copyrightable work (which a video is) are two entirely separate critters, not related to each other in any manner.

I have been saying for years that IF the music industry would allow a wedding videographer to buy a license based on the typical number of weddings and the typical number of songs used in each video, the liscense issue would go away and the music industry could make some additional money.
For example, say one does 50 weddings a year and uses 2 pieces of music per video. that's 100 songs more or less since many couples would probably use some of the same music but let's use the number 100. Let's assume the cost of the license is $500.00. That's $5.00 per song. Now while that's not a whole lot of money multiply that by say 20,000 wedding vids thruout the country, Now you've got $1,000,000.00. Again in the grand scheme of things not a lot (compared to what some of the artists, publishing houses, writers etc make) BUT at least they are making something for their work AND the music is now being used legally. Let's be honest, it's not like we're making a ton of money per wedding anyway AND we're not making 100s of copies for distribution. I know some post to their website, and some even post to youtube or vimeo but with some sort of arrangement between the 2 industries all would be right in the world. At least this part of it.
I certainly understand the music industries side but I also understand the wedding producers side, so IMO there has to be, actually there is a simple solution to keep everyone legal and happy. Can't we all just get along?
(off soapbox)
O|O
\--/

What I was trying to say is that there are no copyright issues involved if you shoot a video of a perfomance for your private personal use. It's when you transfer that recording to another person or show it to the public that you'll start to have to worry about copyright infringement.

Steve, respectfully, my understanding (honed in part by previous, more worthy-than-mine postings here in DVI), is that technically any videoing of a copyrighted performance/material is both copying and more importantly creating a derivative work, both of which are reserved, exclusive rights of the copyright holder, but the video (derivative) part has NO allowances short of specific permission by the copyright holder (and news gathering with limitations). There are indeed, exemptions/exceptions/licenses available for audio recordings/performances and furthermore for personal uses of such, but these have not been transferred over in law to video considerations (except time shifting, like with DVR's).

A license for a public performance and a license to copy and distribute or to include in an new copyrightable work (which a video is) are two entirely separate critters, not related to each other in any manner.

They are seperate isues, but are related in that Congress has seen fit to mandate a licensing path for the audio recording/performing and mechanical distribution. I'm suggesting that it's time for that same logic to apply to allowing the videoing of music at live events, where legal music is heard/performed; and besides this, also ambient music at weddings, furthermore extending it to synching music for weddings whose content presumably would not have offensive content for the music used or for the music's copyright holder.

I have been saying for years that IF the music industry would allow a wedding videographer to buy a license based on the typical number of weddings and the typical number of songs used in each video, the liscense issue would go away and the music industry could make some additional money.
Here, here!
Now I remember your idea from before... this would be a good aspect to add to the "pitch."
Thanks, Don!

Sam -

Based on your title, may I suggest a large wad of untraceable cash... <wink>!

Joking aside, I'd suggest you start with the systems available in the UK and Australia (IIRC) for small volume yearly licensing. They seem to have developed sucessful systems for the small producer/publisher of limited interest/volume works.

You're not going to solve the "into the wild" issues connected with putting a video up on the internet - but it may be possible to suggest a relatively simple system/clearing house for limited distributions.

Inherently, when one produces a wedding video, you expect to make a FEW copies for personal use by family and friends, not broadcast to an audience of hundres of thousands. The value is in the personal nature of the production, to put it bluntly, very few other people will care one whit about "Jonny & Jane's fantastical wedding". Also for the event producer, who wants to be able to produce say 250 DVD's of a dance performance so granny and gramps can watch little Suzie and all her friends at their dance recital that they can't be at (and again, not very many other people would have the least amount of interest in the footage...)

YouTube and Vimeo screw things all up, because while it's great to "share" your footage ONE time, and send everyone in question a link to watch it on thir iPad/computer/phone... what happens when 10,00- other people for some reason "tune in"?!?

You must examine the ENTIRE problem - IMO, "incidental capture" is covered, I argue (yeah, my brother froma nother mother Steve and I differ on this, HI BUDDY!) that media shifting of music over a video track for a private party is "defensable" if on the margin, as they could do it for themselves and OWN the media. It goes off the tracks when you bring in digital distribution via the internet...

People paid for years to hire a photographer, and tradition has always been that the photographer OWNED your pictures, and if you wanted YOUR pictures (or any copies thereof), you had to pay whatever they asked... I believe conceptually this would be seen as an offensive concept in the digital age... times have changed.

People expect "fair use" and access to THEIR content in digital form, something that's not served well by legislation which often still uses the word "phonograph"...

....

People paid for years to hire a photographer, and tradition has always been that the photographer OWNED your pictures, and if you wanted YOUR pictures (or any copies thereof), you had to pay whatever they asked... I believe conceptually this would be seen as an offensive concept in the digital age... times have changed.

People expect "fair use" and access to THEIR content in digital form, something that's not served well by legislation which often still uses the word "phonograph"...

Your comments got me thinking along still photography lines and the intent of copyright law. The intent of copyright is to encourage creative artistic work by giving the creator of the work exclusive control of any use or exploitation of that work. So say I take a picture of your happy face. Is the creativity and value of that photograph derived from the fact that it is you in the image or is it due to my artistic talent and the professional skills I employed in making the photograph? I would submit that the value of the image comes from the photographer, not the subject, and as the creator of the only value attributed to the image, the image remains his property and requires his permission and license for any use, even uses by the subject. You may pay me for your portrait but that does not give you give you the right to license that picture to Sears, let's say, to use in their advertising. Extending the concept to music captured in an event or wedding video, the value the music has to the video is not related to the event where it occured, its value lies in the music itself. The music adds value to the event and keeping it audible in the recording adds value to the record of the event. By retaining it, the videographer has used the value of the music to enhance the value of his own work. As such, the creators (and their agents) of the music should retain control over the usage of that value and whether or not the videographer should be allowed to benefit by their efforts in creating it.

I suggest to you whether the image is a daguerretype, or made with collodion plates, gelatin-silver emulsion on paper, or digitally, the means of capturing the light and recording the image is irrelevant. Digital is just another recording medium and doesn't change the basisof valuing the resulting image, neither enhancing it or nor detracting from it. You are suggesting the fact that the media is digital, and thus easy to copy, somehow changes that basis for the value of a copy. The only thing digital changes over conventional wet-chemistry photography is the ease of making faithful copies and the relative lack of mess to clean up in the studio after. But the value of the image is not changed by the method used to record it, nor does the ease of making copies reduce the rights of the original creator in the matter.

Of course this may reflect my photographic prejudices. I cut my teeth on wet chemistry photography well over 40 years ago but for the last several years I've been shooting digitally, no room for my own darkroom and professional labs are becoming impossible to find. But even though I shoot 'em, I don't really consider the raw files from the camera or jpg's etc to be real photographs. They're nothing more than an intermediate stage, comparable to a negative. It's not really a photograph until the digital files have been printed and turned into a physical fine-print that can be mounted, matted and framed.

So say I take a picture of your happy face. Is the creativity and value of that photograph derived from the fact that it is you in the image or is it due to my artistic talent and the professional skills I employed in making the photograph? I would submit that the value of the image comes from the photographer, not the subject, and as the creator of the only value attributed to the image, the image remains his property and requires his permission and license for any use, even uses by the subject. You may pay me for your portrait but that does not give you give you the right to license that picture to Sears, let's say, to use in their advertising.
Above, you've put the value on the PHOTOgrapher, and give him the copyrights. It's the creativity of the capturer putting value into the product, as opposed to the subject... as if there were no more value to a lump of raw coal on a dirt road compared to a supermodel who goes through hell to obtain and maintain a certain look and has the experience to strut that look, or value for a family who is paying the photographer for his work, without which he'd not have the job.
Yet, fail to apply the same logic to the VIDEOgrapher below? Here you put all the value into the subject, as if the creativity, equipment, maintenance, operation, lighting, sound, editing, processing, and distribution of the video had no similar contributive value to the final derivative work?

Extending the concept to music captured in an event or wedding video, the value the music has to the video is not related to the event where it occured, its value lies in the music itself. The music adds value to the event and keeping it audible in the recording adds value to the record of the event. By retaining it, the videographer has used the value of the music to enhance the value of his own work. As such, the creators (and their agents) of the music should retain control over the usage of that value and whether or not the videographer should be allowed to benefit by their efforts in creating it.

I'm not arguing that the photographer should not retain copyrights. I'm not arguing the musicians should not retain control over derivative works. I'm disagreeing with your logic. Photography you're for one side of the lens; videography you're for the other side.

I am for similar mandatory licensing paths for video that audio has.

But the value of the image is not changed by the method used to record it, nor does the ease of making copies reduce the rights of the original creator in the matter.
But with the ease of reviewing/processing/duplicating/distributing photos digitally (and for that matter, similarly video), some of the value of the process has been reduced for many consumers that are digitally literate/equipped. This leaves the value of the actual composition/lighting/posing/creativity part of the photography. People are still willing to pay for this, but find the rights of the images afterwards to be desireable, as they are usefully within their reach technologically now, and without those rights conveyed, may be unwilling otherwise to enter into a contract with a photographer, who then must compete with those who are willing to give up the perpetual rights to the images.

...
I'm not arguing that the photographer should not retain copyrights. I'm not arguing the musicians should not retain control over derivative works. I'm disagreeing with your logic. Photography you're for one side of the lens; videography you're for the other side.

I am for similar mandatory licensing paths for video that audio has.


....

I am not inconsistent. Both photographers and videographers should retain copyright on the intellectual property they personally create unless they choose to dispose of it. But when a videographer includes music (that he did not personally compose) in his program, either adding it himself durin g the editing process or capturing it as part of the events being filmed, he is incorporating the intellectual property of another person within his own copyrightable work. The music adds value to the video, value belonging exclusively to the personal intellectual property to the music's creator. Exempting music from the copyright restrictions or adopting mandatory license schemes when it's being used by smaller producers such as wedding/event videographers is effectively the confiscation of personal property from the artists - the composers and their publishers - by the government in order to allow a third party to capitalize on its value. The current exemptions defined under the Fair Use doctrines came about because in a few limited circusmstances it is realized that certain encompassing social interests - education, news reporting, academic research, etc - outweigh artists personal property rights. But the use of a pop song in a wedding video is not sufficiently important to the advancement of society and culture as a whole to justify what would be essentially an exercise of imminent domain on the part of the government over the intellectual property concerned. While the acceptance of the videographer's work by his customers in certainly enhanced by his use of music, the foundations of civilized society won't crumble if he can't do it. OTOH, it can be argued that the ability to use intellecdtual property in the education of children or for academic research is absolutely critical to the maintainance and progress of society while removing any impendiment to news reporting due to its possible publication incidental to the body of the reports is critical to the continuance of a free society.

Exempting music from the copyright restrictions or adopting mandatory license schemes when it's being used by smaller producers such as wedding/event videographers is effectively the confiscation of personal property from the artists - the composers and their publishers - by the government in order to allow a third party to capitalize on its value.

I agree... but I also think that it's mandatory confiscation where the government has mandated a licensing path to perform/record/sell someone else's music, and yet they have done that very thing. I'm suggesting that this same, rude logic transcend over to the video of live events where it's performed or heard legally, and for synching to wedding videos.

Why is one confiscation appropriate for audio, but not similarly reasonable for video?

Whatever justification can be made for allowing mandatory licensing for audio, seems to be applicable to video as well (in my proposed circumsances).
Whatever justification can be given for not allowing video in my proposed scecnarios, seems like it could apply to audio also, and yet the audio is accomodated in law.

GREAT discussion, Steve has very well outlined the basis for his position, and by and large I agree with it, to an extent... Steve argues "artists rights", I believe I argue for "users rights"., and this is your question, Sam?


There are THREE elements here, combining to create CONTENT - there is a "SUBJECT", who as noted might be my ugly mug ("I'll pay ya to burn that negative") or a supermodel... When dealing with say music or a movie the "subject" is perhaps supplanted by a "user/viewer/listener" in SOME circumstances where the subject is NOT the CONTENT. There is an "ARTIST", be they a painter in days of yore, or a brat with a Flip..., and there is a TECHNOLOGY, and a related PROCESS.


Traditionally, TECHNOLOGY was a high cost, high labor part of the equation = canvases and paints, heavy printing press, large cameras, darkroom, mixing desk the size of a small room, a large studio for recording, etc... IOW, the investment threshold required a degree of financial sacrifice, creating a barrier to entry into the "club" that could produce content in ANY form... the digital revolution has, one brick at a time, reduced that "wall" to a tiny little bump of rubble on the road. Technology does that... with the result that some people and their "talent/skills" are reduced to insignificance, while others rise to the occaision and prosper.

Technology (probably protected by PATENT, another form of IP protection) has a simple mantra - better, faster, cheaper, (and marketable). What once took a gigantic recording studio can be created in a bedroom or dormroom on a cheap laptop with a few "toys" and some software... Times have changed. What used to take access to a darkroom and thousands of dollars in equipment and supplies can be done (admittedly to a lesser degree, but now ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, and for a pittance) with a toss away camera and a most basic computer. What used to take a studio (i.e. MGM) to create can now in theory be created with a small budget and limited crew... Technology changes the COST part of the equation, and democratizes/commoditizes/personalizes the capability to produce CONTENT, bringing it to the "masses" and reducing the "control" over content and its production due to the high costs.

Making the issue even more "interesting" is that technology can be morphed by creatives to do unexpected things in new ways, digital is especially "dangerous"!

Now, to the ARTIST... who engages the TECHNOLOGY in a PROCESS, along with his or her TALENT/SKILL to create CONTENT... they may create only for their own enjoyment, on "commission" for someone who asks them to create a work on their behalf, for sale to a limited number of people who enjoy and wish to support their "work", of they might package it for mass consumption... There is a WIDE range of "audiences" here, with widely ranging potential for financial gains (or losses). Steve argues from the standpoint of many "artists" I've met, that they must have ABSOLUTE control over their work (OK, fine to that point), but then insist it is of such high value that no one will want to pay for it, or it is of such low quality or easily replicated by ANYONE, that it is of limited market value... yet this does not dissuade the impassioned ARTIST... To butcher an old axiom... the wise artist realizes that if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, no profit is made...

This is where things get tricky - for the artist to "profit", they must offer their work in tangible form, for someone to see or hear, and hopefully wish to pay for... for someone to hear or see, there must first be a "someone"... and there must be a SUBJECT (or object), be it a catchy ditty, a "must see" movie, a family picture, a wedding video, etc, that has been captured or created via technology, and is of sufficient "value" to justify the attention, financial or otherwise.

Arguably, one never really knows exactly what the value of a given piece of content truly is, other than whatever value can be set from the production cost or the liquidation/sale value. Will and Kates wedding video clearly had more mass appeal than "Bill and Katies"... unless you're Bill and Katie, and their family... IOW, the SUBJECT (who for the purposes of our discussion is also the viewer/end user) can have a vast influence on what the value of the content is.

It is the TANGIBLE FORM over which the debates begin - who OWNS it? And how far do their rights extend? Where exactly is the value?!? Is it in the subject, the person capturing it, or the final form??
The subject will see the value being in THEIR image(s) because THEY are in them and they have meaning to THEM... the artist conversely sees the value being in the fact that THEY (the artist) created them...


Steve argues that by allowing the SUBJECT to pick a song that has meaning to them and which they have in another media form, and attaching it to visual images which also have meaning to them (IOW "shifting" their OWN media into a A/V format) is breaking the law, or that videotaping professionally a performance so that people who are recording it ALREADY can have a higher quality end product is illegal... I on the other hand contend that offering the service to do something which is 100% legal for the USER to do is difficult to "criminalize" just because an "artist" takes the time/effort and skill to capture the subject properly!

Steve even argues incidental capture (already widely regarded as not a copyright violation) is illegal... some would have it that ANY sound, visual image or object is "protectable" just for it's very existence, and that once one has copyrighted/patented/trademarked it, they can charge everyone else for its "use"... wherever, whereever, regardless of the circumstance and regardless of the value (if ANY) attached to it's "use". I recall a company that tried to patent a specific COLOR for one particular item and thereby prevented their competition from producing their product in that color... silliness, if you ask me, but it happened.


As this illustrates, there must be a BALANCE between the right to protect and determine the use of one's WORK PRODUCT, and the rights of a viewer/user/listener... I agree an artist SHOULD be able to determine the use of the fruits of their labors, and reasonably profit therefrom, but I also contend that an audience/user/subject should have strong and reasonable rights to the content where they have established rights in ANY digital format.

Steve argues that by allowing the SUBJECT to pick a song that has meaning to them and which they have in another media form, and attaching it to visual images which also have meaning to them (IOW "shifting" their OWN media into a A/V format) is breaking the law, or that videotaping professionally a performance so that people who are recording it ALREADY can have a higher quality end product is illegal... I on the other hand contend that offering the service to do something which is 100% legal for the USER to do is difficult to "criminalize" just because an "artist" takes the time/effort and skill to capture the subject properly!

It should be established that currently, LEGALLY speaking, it is illegal for either the SUBJECT or the profesional to create a derivative work of a copyrighted work; for instance, videotaping an audio, dance, or dramatic performance, or to synch music to video.

Steve even argues incidental capture (already widely regarded as not a copyright violation) is illegal

it is illegal, unless it is short and in the process of news gathering.

As this illustrates, there must be a BALANCE between the right to protect and determine the use of one's WORK PRODUCT, and the rights of a viewer/user/listener... I agree an artist SHOULD be able to determine the use of the fruits of their labors, and reasonably profit therefrom, but I also contend that an audience/user/subject should have strong and reasonable rights to the content where they have established rights in ANY digital format.

Starting from the base, that a copyright holder has ALL the rights to their work is very limiting to everyone else, but that's fine for many reasons. The imbalance to me is that Congress has seen fit to make mandatory exceptions for audio performances and audio duplication/distribution and not similar exemptions for video recording live performances or synching to wedding videos.
Based on your title, may I suggest a large wad of untraceable cash... <wink>!
LOL

......The imbalance to me is that Congress has seen fit to make mandatory exceptions for audio performances and audio duplication/distribution and not similar exemptions for video recording live performances or synching to wedding videos.

LOL

Slight correction. Congress didn't make performance licenses mandatory. They didn't need to. After all, what is the point of composing a copyrighted song if you never license it for performance? What they did, at the music industry's prompting, was make it easier for performers to acquire performance licenses and to pay the royalties due from public performances by authorizing the creation of the Rights Societies such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc, to act as clearing houses for performance tracking and royalty payments. Similarly, compulsary mechanical licenses do not license the duplication or copying of existing audio recordings, they license the creation and distribution of NEW audio recordings of new performances as covers of songs that have already been released to the public as an original recording.

Please forgive me for saying this, because I don't understand US rights as much as I do the UK system - but what you're really asking is for a new system to make life easier for businesses who have to deal at the moment with labour intensive, complex authorisations to make everything legally acceptable? I really can't see our MPs here in the UK putting their weight behind something that merely inconveniences businesses. It doesn't stop them providing the product. Wedding video people do seem very polarised - they are the same here too. There's currently a UK pressure group trying to put together a code of practice/conduct during weddings because many vicars over here, fed up with the intrusion some thoughtless video people cause in the religious buildings - they are banning or severely limiting video access. No cameras near the couple, no movement during the service. Some vicars have started warning the couple on the day that these rules are in force, and it's causing very bad feeling.

The problem is that many wedding video people feel that as they've been commissioned to do the video, they have the right to do what they want, record what they want and use music they want. They're not against paying for the copyright, but they want it on their terms. They're also the first to complain when their wedding video is stolen by an unscrupulous video firm, somewhere else in the country and put on their web site. You frequently hear complaints that x has stolen y's footage and used it without permission, yet pinching somebodies else's music is ok?

Our PPL and PRS organisations do pretty well really, acting on behalf of the copyright owners, and we do have systems to make purchase of rights quick and reasonable simple - but some people still complain.

We also have the belief that personal use is fine - when it's not really, it's just that nobody is interested in attempting to collect personal use fees - the paperwork would be more expensive than the income. Hence personal use is rarely investigated. Not quite the same as saying it's legal.

If the US system of getting legislation passed in anything like our one, complaining to your representative is rather pointless unless there's public support. As an example, when the TV digital changeover was announced and we got informed we would lose our radio microphone allocation in channel 69, replacing it with channel 38 - meaning new kit, we were encouraged to contact our MP and complain, and request him to support something called an 'early day motion' in the House of Commons. Mine replied and said that as he is a Government Minister, this would go against his party policy, so he couldn't support us. He did, however, write a nice letter to the Minister in charge.

As it happened - we did actually get quite good compensation for surrendering our equipment about to be made obsolete, which was nice.

Would your representative really support this issue, and try to get it debated?

Slight correction. Congress didn't make performance licenses mandatory.
It's mandatory in the sense that if a performer wants to use a copyrighted work, and record the audio of their performance, there's no refusal rights by the copyright holder, and it doesn't take direct negotiations, or involve subjective, variable fees.
They didn't need to. After all, what is the point of composing a copyrighted song if you never license it for performance? What they did, at the music industry's prompting, was make it easier for performers to acquire performance licenses and to pay the royalties due from public performances by authorizing the creation of the Rights Societies such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc, to act as clearing houses for performance tracking and royalty payments.
This same reasoning should apply to videotaping the legal performances of the licensed music, or live events where the music is legally heard, and synching to wedding videos. These are additional opportunities for the composers to earn more money.
Similarly, compulsary mechanical licenses do not license the duplication or copying of existing audio recordings, they license the creation and distribution of NEW audio recordings of new performances as covers of songs that have already been released to the public as an original recording.
Yes, and I'd like easy access to compulsory licensing for new video of those new performances. No reason not to provide for video as well.
Would your representative really support this issue, and try to get it debated?
I don't know, but I certainly hope so. I'm sure they won't if they aren't asked. I particularly like our Representative where we are. I'm close to D.C., so politics are pretty much a part of every day life around here ;-)

Sam, also remember there are at last two licenses involved when a musical recording occurs in a film or video soundtrack. The first is the sync license on the melody and words and the other is the master use license for whatever specific recording of those words and music is used. If you're going to model the changes to law on the compulsary mechanical licenses, that would only cover the sync license side of things, the license to use the words and melody. The compulsary mechanical for audio recordings ONLY applies to distribution of a new recording of a new performance ... it does not permit copying an existing, already released recording. So unless the videographer was ready to make a fresh recording of a live performance or is recording a live performance at the event, extending the compulsary licensing to cover using music in a video doesn't help him any. If he wanted to use an already existing recording of the music he would still need to obtain the necessary license to copy that master recording from the label that released it ... the license on the music itself wouldn't extend that far. Indeed, that is the situation with sync licenses today ... obtaining one on the music still doesn't grant the right to use any particular recording of the music. Even with the sync license from the music's publisher, if he wants to capture recorded music played at the event or drop in music from commercial CD, he'd still need to obtain the master use licenses. Makig sync licenses compulsary won't change that.

Sam -

Perhaps a suggestion - understanding the progression of how computer horsepower affects such things (especially in the consumer market place) might be helpful to your approach.

Computers (digital revolution) started being big huge things, capable of rather crude "manipulation", better handled by analog (typewriters/printing presses/vinyl records/film, etc.) recording/reproduction/distribution.

Along the way... (Word Perfect) they were able to effectively manipulate B&W text as horsepower became available... and clunky but effective printers allowed analog output.

Further on, (Photoshop) manipulation if images in full color became practical...

Another area that benefitted from more capable computers was audio, allowing a realtively extensive production capability in a small space...

Right now we're watching video fall to the digital revolution, in glorious High Definition...

AND we are actually probably on the verge of seeing the "computer" be replaced by varying sizes of display devices (phone/tablet/larger touchscreen) with small personal memory chips and a "computer" inside we don't even think much about...


Not sure what's next, although I wonder if perhaps the carbon based element of the equation may become "obsolete" and outmoded...

Point being is that as digital has replaced analog in one area after another, prices drop, capablities increase, and possiblities open up for better or for worse. The same scanner that lets me make a copy legally can also be used to make an illegal copy to be mass produced... The web site that replaced the morning paper is mirrored by a website that illegally distributes less than savory content, or programs that do harm...

Best one can hope for is to understand how the increase in potential brought on by the digital revolution can be guided in a positive way for the best possible outcome. Part of that equation is protecting IP without overly restricting it such that it chokes the value or the overall economy. Tricky stuff to be sure!