I'd consider a blu-ray disc to still be a DVD - it's digital, has video on it and is round. The LML doesn't actually ask that much about the actual carrier of the media from what I remember - have I missed that bit?

I'd consider a blu-ray disc to still be a DVD - it's digital, has video on it and is round. The LML doesn't actually ask that much about the actual carrier of the media from what I remember - have I missed that bit?That was exactly the point that I made earlier that they refer to a 'Product' & not to a disc or other specific physical medium.

It's funny. About once a year we have this discussion and over the years nothing has changed. In the UK the laws and restrictions are different than Aus and the USA. Everyones opinion of what should happen is the same as it was the last time- say a year ago, but especially for those of us that live and work in the USA, I can't see how anything is going to change, The music industry is large and powerful, the video industry isn't. Even the almighty WEVA can't or perhaps won't try to do anything to change the situation. Why should they? They would have to be more of a lobbying organization than a gladhanding and awards organization.
Don't get me wrong. I belonged for 1 year, saw what they did and decided to stop belonging. My choice and for those that might still belong great. If it works for you I'm happy.
Since the working event/wedding videographers of the USA have no real organization to lobby the music industry nothing will change. Why should it. The music industry goes along merrily and randomly going after wedding videographers that use 1, 2 or 3 songs for their clients private (generally) use and while many argue that's stealing and perhaps it is, I don't think any of us wake up in the morning and think about the different ways we can screw the music industry out of their $.02 by using a song that the bride and groom have either on a cd or their iPod anyway and they wanted to have on their wedding dvd so they could listen to it for the next (hopefully) 50 years. Don't laugh, I have albums of my favorite groups from the 1960s. So let's see...Oh yeah, those are 50 years old and believe it or not, I still listen to them. Yes, vinyl, 33 1/3rd RPM ALBUMS. Scratches and all.
I have no problem reading these yearly discussions and in many ways find them enjoyable since each time we have this discussion we get some new input. I'm only saying what I'm saying to the folks in the USA since we seem to have the most restrictive laws. Yes it would be GREAT if we could stike a deal like those in the UK or AUS have but the chances of that IMO are slim and none and slim is heading to the train to get out of town. So what choices do we have. Either we use royality free (nothing wrong with it) or we cheat and steal. Is it wrong, yeah, but do 100s if not 1000s of wedding video producers do it? Of course. Is the music industry not only making it hard on us? Yes. Are they losing hundreds of thousands of dollars? Yes! Will it change? Not in my lifetime.
Just one mans opinion.
Enjoy the rest of this discussion ;-)

You're right Don, this topic comes around with increasing regularity, often prompted by news (or rumours) of someone being sued for using music. But also forums such as this are always attracting newcomers who are trying to find the correct way to go about carrying out this business. When I started one of the main concerns I had was the use of music, all couples wanted it and couldn't see the reason why they couldn't. As many have stated here they couldn't understand why if they already own the music they can have it on their video
For many years I would only use specially arranged instrumental music; One of the group of videographers I worked with was a musician who composed music with a hint of recognisable tunes.

I feel for all of you outside the UK. I guess that the advantage that we have is that we have a very condensed population where it's relatively easy for everyone who needs to to attend conventions and expos. It's at some of these over the years when we as individuals have been able to air our views to those in positions to make changes. At first the agencies such as PRS and MCPS, who are separate organisations attending to different aspects of copyright, turned up at video conventions to deliver lectures on the legalities of using music but slowly they listened to the way we work in real life situations and the licensing deals emerged.

I'd consider a blu-ray disc to still be a DVD - it's digital, has video on it and is round. The LML doesn't actually ask that much about the actual carrier of the media from what I remember - have I missed that bit?

when purchasing on the PRS site you have a drop down box (only one selection permitted) and on there is both DVD as well as Blu-Ray so it would appear from the purchase form that they treat them as different products, each requiring their own licence.

Having said that, it's so unbelievably stupid, it just can't be right.

Don is right as always!

This certainly won't change in any way in most of our lifetimes so this lively annual discussion will appear again next year with the same comments the same complaints and suggestions. Guess what?? The 2013 thread will also show that the industry hasn't budged an inch either...you can be almost 100% sure about that!!


Since Don is on the verge of retiring from weddings, at least it won't affect him!!

Chris

Don is right as always!
This certainly won't change in any way in most of our lifetimes so this lively annual discussion will appear again next year with the same comments the same complaints and suggestions. Guess what?? The 2013 thread will also show that the industry hasn't budged an inch either...you can be almost 100% sure about that!!

I've gotten more cynical over the years, but I am not sure about things not changing in our lifetimes. With rapidly changing technology and changing ways we access to music, I could imagine something coming about. But of course, who knows?

This certainly won't change in any way in most of our lifetimes so this lively annual discussion will appear again next year with the same comments the same complaints and suggestions.

Since Don is on the verge of retiring from weddings, at least it won't affect him!!

Chris

You must remember Chris that while some of us are starting to roll the end credits many here will be just bringing in the opening title.

when purchasing on the PRS site you have a drop down box (only one selection permitted) and on there is both DVD as well as Blu-Ray so it would appear from the purchase form that they treat them as different products, each requiring their own licence.

Having said that, it's so unbelievably stupid, it just can't be right.I was recently told by a very experienced wedding videographer that at the beginning of the season he buys 100 licences & just ticks off one for each disc that he gives to a client & when he hits a 100 he buys another batch. That isn't how I had always interpreted the scheme as I thought that licensing was on a per project basis. However having looked at the site again his interpretation seems just as valid.

To put this all into perspective the 32p per disc/product/whatever for up to 120 minutes of copyright music is an awful lot more than is paid for airing the same songs on radio where a fraction of a penny per play is the rule. Apparently when radio stations first started playing music the record companies tried to stop them as they thought that with music available for free on the radio that nobody would want to by records any more. Eventually they must have realised that being paid a small amount for airplay was actually more lucrative as they were also getting free advertising of their product.

Nigel, although the price per disc is more than the price per play that radios stations pay they could well be playing the same song many times so the accumulated payment could be a lot more, whereas the per disc payment is in effect a buy-out.

Another thing to keep in mind is that applying a music track to a video is not just a matter of hearing the song as you watch but it adds a strong enhancement to the visuals and effectively becomes a part of that work so the payment is towards that contribution to the overall production. I'm sure we all appreciate just how music adds mood and emotion to our images, otherwise why would we use it; the power of a music track can make or break otherwise run of the mill images.

Whilst it's the videographer/editor who will have crafted the music/visual montage I have no problem acknowledging the valuable contribution that music adds and don't mind paying for it, in the UK the charge is not unreasonable.

I do agree that the PRS/MCPS could be a bit clearer and realistic with the DVD/Blu-ray situation. They probably still consider Blu-ray to be a premium product attracting a much bigger price to the customer.

Ignoring for the sake of argument those artists who have sufficient recognizability that they CAN control how their "work" is used...

There are those that argue for a royalty to be paid EVERY time a song is played (obviously absurd with "old" tech, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the concept revived with digital tech... and in radio, they DO account for every play for royalties I believe). The "customer" sees it as a one-time PURCHASE (incorrect, as it is a license, but law has upheld some aspects of a "purchase"), for their use whenever and whatever way they want to play it back (including the right to "shift" the media to a different carrier). People figure that advertising supports the over the air transmission and don't think about the "price", it's "free" for the annoyance of putting up with commercials.

That's the core of problem, there's a vastly differing perception of "value", ranging from "free" to potentially quite expensive. Even more expensive if somehow it's interpreted that you "stole" the IP and are a criminal of the highest order... despite any intents you may or may not have had to legitimately purchase and use the media and see the IP holder "fairly" compensated.

It is after all, a few chords and some words, isn't it, just how they are arranged!? I only note that for the poster who used a composer of "similar" music... still technically infringement...



As far as "change", it wouldn't come cheap, and I don't know if there is even enough interest to organize and fund a lobbying entity, or develop a sound "grassroots" network capable of supporting legislation, as it probably will take that, since much of the problem stems from laws "on the books", resulting from lobbying from the "enforcement" organizations who have sought to protect the value of IP (not that that's a BAD thing!!).

If one studies how "change" takes place in the US, it's pretty complex, and you have to get (buy) the ear of the right "representative", who may or may not draft new legislation, which may or may not pass, and if it affects the interests of someone else, it will be opposed (especially now that Corporations are people too, and can afford "representation" far more readily than an individual not part of a large well funded organization...). Law and Sausages...

The only other possibility is through a media campaign, or public outcry over the topic, and I doubt there's enough interest to even make the back page... a high profile suit with just the right set of outrageous facts might bring this up briefly, but again, not terribly likely.


I don't know how many of you heard about the composer who did the music track for the anti-pirating "commercial" (I believe the one we see regualrly on most DVD's?). His original agreement was for "local" use only, he discovered it went global, and was suing for damages... even the "anti-pirates" were caught "pirating", so the theatre of the absurd plays on...


Much as the recurring discussion here is thoughful, unless there's a real interest in the needed political action (with the requisite $$ and organization), Don hit the proverbial nail with an 18 pound sledge! Frankly I doubt the W&E "industry" has either the necessary money or interest in the effort required to get the changes even onto the radar, let alone done.

The only other possibility is through a media campaign, or public outcry over the topic, and I doubt there's enough interest to even make the back page... a high profile suit with just the right set of outrageous facts might bring this up briefly, but again, not terribly likely.

I think the right angle to approach it is to reach out to future brides, grooms and their parents. Other than videographers, they are the other group that will be permanently harmed if the music labels start suing videographers around the clock because they included the bridal march, first dance and party music. They simply will not have it anymore. They will have a video of just the ceremony where the bridal march will have to be muted, no first dance (unless they want it muted as well), and then just the toast and cake cutting, as long as there's no music playing in the background. That has to anger a lot of people. 99.99% of people that are not wedding videographers don't know about this, but if the music labels start suing videographers, people will start to notice. So it will take a lot of those people writing letters to their representatives in congress, and we should start writing those letters as well, explaining that as of now it's practically impossible to be a wedding videographer and stay within the frame of the law, not because we're crooks, but because we have draconian and absurd laws that make it impossible to do our job in a completely legal way.

If congressmen and senators start receiving enough letters explaining this problem, we might be able to shake things up and some day perhaps have a system as good as the UK has.

It a very tough situation to regulate anyway!!!

Please don't think for a moment that our licensing system is good..it's actually full of exclusions and conditions and ONLY covers record companies that have a local release and are members of the organisation.....play a song by AC/DC on your wedding video and BAM you are not covered...if a song released by Sony Music in the USA is included BAM you are not covered.

In fact despite the licence being issued to you, you still have a 50/50 chance that a song (or even an ambient song (what wedding DJ doesn't play an AC/DC song?) makes the whole thing invalid) Here you are even supposed to apply for a licence to transfer a legal, paid for, iTunes song onto your iPod !!! I really and truely wonder who actually has bothered to get one of those???

Chris

I was recently told by a very experienced wedding videographer that at the beginning of the season he buys 100 licences & just ticks off one for each disc that he gives to a client & when he hits a 100 he buys another batch. That isn't how I had always interpreted the scheme as I thought that licensing was on a per project basis. However having looked at the site again his interpretation seems just as valid.

It is my understanding that in the UK you need to do both. The PPL licence is per disc and I too just bought a batch of 100, they're dirt cheap. MCPS' LM licence on the other hand is per project and price depends on a few factors but they're as cheap as £8 each (up to 5 copies - as long as they're the same format)