From reading about copyright restrictions in this and other forums it seems that videographers are banned from doing lots of live events or risk losing their business to a lawsuit at some point. For what I read you can't even record a dance recital or a school play unless they only use public domain songs (which probably most of them don't), or the part of a wedding where people are dancing to pop music, and many other type of events where at some point copyrighted music is being played.

So I'm wondering, how are most videographers dealing with this? Obviously no one is going to pay the excessive copyright fees to use 20 or 30 songs in a dance recital, so doing those is out of the question, and probably a couple getting married will not be happy when you tell them that you can't include any of the dances (including the first dance as husband and wife). They will most likely keep looking for another videographer that is willing to include everything in the video, including making a montage to their favorite song. Of course any videographer doing that is risking losing everything at some point.

So other than doing videos that don't require any use of copyrighted music, what is there left to do for a videographer? Are most videographers nowadays still working on weddings and school events with all these copyright restrictions?

As I understand it Sebastian it has most to do with where the recorded audio originates from and if that reproduction was a licensed use of the songs or not. Where you get into trouble real quickly is when you embed in a nice clean version of a song from a CD or other source, and are not using the ambient audio recorded from the room. The case can be made that in one instance you are recording an event, where in the other you are using the artist's work to enhance your own video production.

I thought that was the case, so that would be easy, just use royalty free music for highlight videos. However, for what I'm reading, you are also supposed to purchase usage rights for any music that is used at the wedding or dance recital. Like the typical "At Last" normally used for the first dance, and then any other music used by the DJ. Sure, if you don't post that online, you may be safer, but for what I read it's still infringement. And, even if you don't post it online, the client can always rip the DVD or Blu-ray and post a portion online. If that happens and the music labels find it, it's you who they will be coming after.

But realistically speaking, if you tell a couple that you can't record their first dance or any of the party (because most likely there will be background copyrighted music playing all the time), then nobody will hire you.

I'm seriously thinking about selling my video gear to get a good DSLR and become a photographer. I prefer video, but photography seems far less stressful.

...photography seems far less stressful.

Hmmm. How does that saying go? "The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence."

I would like to lobby for a *practical* music licensing solution for wedding videographers...
you would pay a *reasonable* amount for either a per-use basis or an annual fee. The
recording industry would make a tide sum, it would de-criminalize an otherwise innocuous
profession, and it would make a lot of brides and their families happy.

Two concepts...

Incidental capture - meaning you are recording an event, and just happen to record the audio playing at the time - the focus is the EVENT, not the audio. May or may not be an effective affirmative defense, but it's as good as any.

Second, "Carterphone" (courtesy of Mr. Hurd)... look it up here on DVi, worth considering that, presuming you purchase a license for playback, the media you play it back from is effectively moot, with the Digital revolution... The only rub is the concept of "sync rights", but one could argue that it's still EFFECTIVELY a playback of the audio and that anyone could achieve the same thing by playing back the audio and video tracks SEPARATELY on two devices without violating the coyright - the utilization of media transfer to a
single playback source is a logical and legal "use".


Of course, IF you "broadcast" (meaning post on the web...), all bets are off, and the above defenses probably won't help you much...


Law takes time to "catch up", there's lots of code still on the books that refers to technologies that are effectively extinct... and things like IM and e-mail and digital copies are still sort of "unknown"...

AND, if you try to buy a "SLR" without video... good luck! I don't have ANY cameras that cannot also shoot good HD video... in fact, even the tiniest point and shoot nowadays can do a pretty good job of image capture... Photography and video are rapidly becoming a merged technology, and for the most part are seeing cell phones take over the "function". Gotta love technology!

would like to lobby for a *practical* music licensing solution for wedding videographers...

I've read a lot of posts on different forums about lobbying, but who's going to do that? Sure, you can write letters to all the music labels detailing all these problems, which most likely is going to go to their legal department, full of obtuse lawyers that would still see the way to make money for themselves rather than work on productive changes to the law that would help both musicians and videographers alike.

Incidental capture - meaning you are recording an event, and just happen to record the audio playing at the time - the focus is the EVENT, not the audio. May or may not be an effective affirmative defense, but it's as good as any.


It should be, but for what I read any piece of music that you use that is copyrighted and you don't have the license to use it can get you in trouble if the lawyers at the music labels find out about it. So in theory you cannot shoot the first dance, or any other portion of the party where the DJ is playing music, or if there's a cover band, you can't shoot that either, or at least you can't use it in the final video you give to the couple, because if they at some point put it online, you can lose your business, unless you have worked for several years and have far more in the bank than they're suing you for.

My problem is not the music you use over the highlights video, since there are a lot of royalty free music services now and you can try to explain the bride and groom that because of the copyright laws you can't use any song they want. But when you tell them that you cannot record their first dance, most likely they will go to another videographer who will. Problem is, one day that videographer can get sued and lose everything. You can swim in shark infested waters and not be eaten for a while, but eventually the sharks are going to get to you.

#1 - there are plenty of unemployed/underemployed attorneys out there, and anyone can sue for just about anything anymore... so any belief you have that you are "safe" from litigation is whistling in the dark, unless you do basically nothing...

#2 - Event video presents some very tricky challenges - as long as there is a finite "audience" for the end product, and you are not broadcasting, there are some possible affirmative defenses IF you find yourself "served", but litigation is ALWAYS possible (see point 1), and if you can't handle the risk, perhaps you should consider other options...

There's a risk to getting out of bed, getting in your car, and going to the corner store... going into business has risks too.

There's a risk to getting out of bed, getting in your car, and going to the corner store... going into business has risks too.

This is different. You can get ran over by a car every time you go out if there's a stupid driver. And going into business has financial risks, like any other investment. But it looks to me that if music labels get their way, the wedding videography business will be restricted to just barebones videos that have the ceremony and the cake cutting, and little else. If the law is applied, any music played at the wedding is copyright infringement the moment it gets into a video produced and sold by a professional. Since getting the rights to even one of those songs would be impossible for cost and time reasons as far as I've read, then what choice does a wedding videographer has?

I mean, is it worth it to try to start a business and work really hard trying to make it work, only to lose it all a couple of years later to the music labels? Until recently, I thought it wasn't a big deal as long as you use royalty free music for any montage in the video and on your website, but given the current sue happy climate nowadays, every time you produce a wedding video that has the first dance, or even the standard classical music when the bride walks down the aisle (which may be public domain, but the performance is not if it's on a CD), you are risking a copyright lawsuit for tens of thousands of dollars.

And what about other things such as dance recitals? Last year I was hired by an out of state production company to record a dance recital at an institute that was like three hours long and had like 40 songs. I didn't sell it to the dance institute, I just sent the raw footage to the production company. I suppose the institute probably can use the songs under fair use because it's for education purposes. But I would love to get into that market, except that the market doesn't exist with these ridiculous laws. Because imagine that if I have to pay a license fee for each and every song it would be impossible for the dance institutes or me to afford.

So the more I read the more I'm arriving at the conclusion that to be a videographer you have to stay out of the wedding and event business, maybe with the exception of some school play that has only their original music. While I believe that artists deserve to be fairly compensated for their work, it's ridiculous that we are in this situation where hard working videographers can get sued for recording a dance recital where the focus is not the music but the kids dancing, or that we can't record a just married couple dancing to "At Last", where the song is secondary and the couple is what's important.

Hmmm. How does that saying go? "The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence."

I would like to lobby for a *practical* music licensing solution for wedding videographers...
you would pay a *reasonable* amount for either a per-use basis or an annual fee. The
recording industry would make a tide sum, it would de-criminalize an otherwise innocuous
profession, and it would make a lot of brides and their families happy.

I've been saying this for years. Give me a reasonable fee based on the number of licenses I want to purchase for a year and I'd happily pay it. Remember I said REASONABLE. Even at $10.00 per song, if I do 50 weddings in a year and use 2 songs per wedding (even if a particular song or 2 or 3 is used in more than 1 video) everyone involved in that song would make something. Not a lot, but 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. If there were say 100,000 videogrpahers that participated in this program the writers, publishers, artists', studio labels, would ALL make a little bit andI would have the knowledge that I would be operating within the law. Now having said that, the chances of this happening are, IMO, slim and none and slim is getting on the train to get out of town. I'm happy I'm looking forward to retiring from the wedding industry in the very very near future.

Hi Sebastian

You also need to look at the fact that, as Dave says, most audio at weddings and dance recitals is incidental..you are not creating it nor playing it from a CD player...AFAIK DJ's do actually have a performance licence here (well, whether they actually buy one is another story) which allows them to play copyright music to guests at a wedding. Videographers can also get a licence on behalf of the bride which allows us to create up to 20 DVD's for each wedding and use copyright music which seems to be going in the right direction. Of course YouTube and the like is broadcast and you are not covered there!!

The music world has gone totally crazy..if they just sat down and came up with a simple "pay per show" fee of say 99c per song they would make a killing!!! However the craziness still continues !! (I guess lawyers need more business??) I heard about a video online where the videographer was filming family and in the corner of his shot happened to be a TV in a shop window with the Simpsons on it..He was sued by Fox!!!

I would say that this isn't going to solved soon or easily (if ever!!!) so you should be fairly safe giving a bride a few DVD's with her favorite songs on it but if you do an online clip just replace the music with Royalty Free stuff..that's what I do!

Chris

Hi Don

Don Bloom ??? Retire ???? I'll believe it when I see it!!! I would have thought our famous Don would keel over, camera in hand and the ripe of age of 97 shooting his last wedding.

We don't retire Don we just do a lot less weddings ..gotta keep active physically and mentally!!!

Chris

Videographers can also get a licence on behalf of the bride which allows us to create up to 20 DVD's for each wedding and use copyright music which seems to be going in the right direction.

That's great for those of you living in Australia, but here in the US there's a medieval system for which you either work and risk losing tens of thousands of dollars in a lawsuit, or you don't do any wedding videos. I can deal with being forbidden from using commercial music to do a highlights video because there are lots of royalty free music services now, some with decent music. So it may take more work and you may have to charge more to pay for the licenses, but there is a way. But when it comes to the music that you capture with the camera microphone, such as the first dance and the music at the party, there's no way around that. Either you don't include it in the video and lose most clients as a result, or you do and you risk getting sued for tens of thousands every time you give a couple their wedding video. If you do 30 or 40 weddings a year, that's 30 or 40 possibilities that your video may make it online and you get sued. So if things keep going in this direction, everybody gets hurt. Married couples won't have a decent video of their wedding, they won't be able to see their first dance, or themselves dancing to the latest hits. The wedding videographers that are more adventurous are going to get the most jobs, but eventually will start getting sued and stop doing wedding videos because of the legal risks.

If nobody does anything about this hard headed copyright system where even including the couple's first dance in a video can get you sued, that's what's going to happen. As far as I've read today from many articles on copyright, the only instance where you can use music that was recorded on location is if it's way in the background and people are talking loud so you can barely make out the music. But when people are not talking and music is playing, such as the first dance and the party, if you can't have a license, you can't use it. That's outrageous. That's a situation where nobody wins.

Hi Don

Don Bloom ??? Retire ???? I'll believe it when I see it!!! I would have thought our famous Don would keel over, camera in hand and the ripe of age of 97 shooting his last wedding.

We don't retire Don we just do a lot less weddings ..gotta keep active physically and mentally!!!

Chris

Chris, I've already put the wheels in motion. This year I'm at 30 with only enough days to add perhaps 5 more then I'll close the books on 2012 and I believe that will be it for weddings. I'll still continue to do a certain amount of non-wedding work but the music copyright issue is still there even for that.

Yes its true. This is it. Yay

Hi Sebastian

In practice who is really going to have access to the DVD's ..the bride and groom and parents and then it's put in the cabinet forever and a day. Wedding videos are almost 100% privately viewed so unless the bride's Uncle Tom just happens to be a hotshot lawyer who specialises in copyright law...there is very little chance of anyone apart from the family who will actually view the video who could raise the roof about copyright!!!

I know it sound "illegal" but I sure that's what most videographers do nowdays. In the USA how is the DJ covered for copyright when he plays a commercial song at the wedding??? If no licences exist then surely DJ's are in the same boat as videographers???? Remember they are actually "broadcasting" the music to the crowd...your mic is picking up the ambient sound along with everything else so in my view you are being a lot less "illegal" than the DJ. (Unless he actually CAN get a licence to play copyright music)

Is it only the USA? I'm sure Ken in Canada said that they can get a licence to cover themselves and I know that in the UK the same sort of facility exists.

Don?? I can see many brides being disappointed when they realise that Chicago Master has retired!! It's nice to know you are still keep your cameras and doing other things!!


Chris

Chris, that's all good as long as the bride and groom never post any portion of the video that has music online. But if any of them do, if any of the dozens and eventually hundreds of couples you did a wedding video for puts it online, and it's the part with their first dance, one video is all it takes to ruin your life, at least here in the US. The legal system is setup so lawyers get rich and nobody else benefits. They put these ridiculously high figures on copyrighted music, like that wedding videographer that got sued for $150,000 and had to settle for five figures. So lets suppose he settled for $30,000. Did his use of that Coldplay song in that wedding video make the band Coldplay lose $30,000? Or even $10,000? No freaking way. That's plain and simple, the legal system taking advantage of a situation because they can. I'm not saying that he had the right to use that song without paying either, if he was making a highlights video he should have used a song from a licensing service.

As for the DJs, for what I read they do pay a flat fee to be able to play their music at a private party, however that license does not extend to the videographer, who has to pay for the right to use those songs in his video, as ridiculous as it sounds.

As for Canada I don't know, but I read that the UK and Australia actually have smart licensing systems in place that cover wedding and event videographers so they can do their job.

Hey Sebastian

If you film the couple doing the first dance and you upload it online you get sued right?? Not the couple and not the DJ ??? So surely if the bride rips part of your video and uploads it to the web she has committed the breach of copyright not you...or doesn't it work that way???

I would make sure that I had a condition on my contract that says "no part of the DVD may be extracted and uploaded to the internet. Copies of the DVD may only be made to another disk for personal viewing otherwise copyright laws could be breached" ...(or something like that??? I'm no legal expert)

It might be worth having a consultation with a lawyer just to find out if you are protected that way!!!

Surely you can cover yourself so that the bride and groom are refused permission to use the disk contents in any way whatsoever apart from personal viewing from another disk ???

You of course can also protect yourself from them making copies or ripping by making each disk "faulty" to copy but not faulty to read and play by taking a file and just scoring the outer edge of the DVD with a file (just a tiny scratch is all you need) so when a copy program tries to read it, the media has a fault and the disk is "un-copyable" It will still play in a DVD player as all the content is written from the inside outwards so the outside edge of the disk would not have any data written to it.

There are seemingly a lots of lawyers in the USA looking to make not an honest buck but a fast one!!!

Chris

Hey Sebastian

If you film the couple doing the first dance and you upload it online you get sued right?? Not the couple and not the DJ ??? So surely if the bride rips part of your video and uploads it to the web she has committed the breach of copyright not you...or doesn't it work that way???

It doesn't, as far as I've read. The liability goes all the way down to the producer of the video.

I was just taking a look at the website that issues the licenses in the UK. I'm sure musicians in the UK make a lot more money with this intelligent system than they do here in the US with these draconian laws. Take a look:

Limited Manufacture Licence (LM) (http://www.prsformusic.com/users/recordedmedia/dvdsanddigitalmedia/Pages/LimitedManufactureLicence%28LM%29.aspx)

Here in the UK as has been said we can licence the music for modest fees. We retain copyright so if the bride does post a video online it's a technical breach of our copyright as we have not authorised the usage online.

About 2 years ago, I was asked to film a small elementary school talent show to sell to parents. About 20 families participated. I was happy to do so at a bare cost because I had gone to that school and still volunteered there a lot.

I worked with the kids, parents, and teachers over a 3-month time period as they went through tryouts, rehearsals, and then finally the big night.

Once the DVD was all edited and printed, I gave sample copies to the Directors and Principal for final approval. The Directors LOVED it... so did the Principal, except... she said that much as she liked it, I would have to destroy all the copies and never let anyone see them! She said it was copyright violation.

At this point, I had to wonder during all that time she saw me checking in at the front desk and going to film all this stuff and having conversations with me about this, why didn't she stop me in the beginning BEFORE all those hours of work??

Also, isn't the school violating copyright by allowing all these Top 10 pop hits to be sung and/or played during a public event on their school property by their students - without a license to do so?! A practice they have continued both before and after this event with me... as I'm sure many other schools do.

The really sad part was that so many parents expressed their joy during the big night that I was recording this as they didn't own a camcorder, hadn't brought one along, or stopped their own recording once they knew a DVD would be available.

Needless to say, this Principal has not turned out to be very popular.

Soooo... what is the situation with this kind of talent show/recitals in small-time schools in the States?

Deborah

Hi Deborah

I have always wondered that myself?? Dance schools too will do a concert with paying parents at a public venue and use copyrighted songs..in fact during the students lessons each week copyright songs are also played which technically is a copyright infringement as songs purchased on a CD are licensed for users to play them for their own enjoyment, and privately too!! Technically if you invite your friends around for a party are you not then infringing copyright as you might be playing songs to 30 or 40 people at your birthday party. I have only done one or two concerts and when the concert started the organiser said that "we have an official videographer here tonight so no personal photos or video is permitted"

I know that some schools require a release form for each and every student and some will also state on the ticket that "this event is being filmed, entry is allowed on the condition that you have no objection"


There are quite a few people here that specialise in dance recitals (much the same as concerts from a music point of view) so maybe they can answer how the school/dance studio gets away with playing copyrighted music???

Music copyright has always been a sticky issue from the day the lawyers discovered they can sue people!!

Chris

Non-profit educational institutions in the U.S. are exempt from ASCAP fees, from what I've read on the ASCAP site.

On the other hand if a for profit videographer tapes and sells DVD performances they would likely be subject to fees, thought I don't know this for a fact. As soon as money making becomes involved for anyone where there is a use of copyrighted music then everything changes.

That's why for-profit day care centers / montessori schools cannot use copyrighted material in their performances and recitals, but public and other non-profit schools can. I'm sure Catholic and other religious educational institutions fall in the non-profit category as well.

I think it's about time somebody did something about this. The situation we have now in the US is like the law allows you to drive, but with one arm. If you use both arms, you risk getting a ticket in the tens of thousands. Plus it's not only bad for videographers, it's also bad for all people. Because according to the law, you can't record the first dance of a couple, or their guests dancing at their party, or a dance recital, so all the technical progress we have made in the past few years is useless, because parents won't be able to show their kids in 20 years the video of them dancing when they were 8 or 10, or they won't be able to show them the video of their first dance as husband and wife.

Besides, I read dozens of people post something that makes a lot of sense to me. Lets suppose you were doing a romantic video of the couple to an Adele song but you give them the video with no audio track, and you tell them that as soon as the video begins, they have to play track 4 of Adele's "21". So they do that, and they listen to the song while the video you edited of them is playing on their TV. That is perfectly legal, but if you include the song in the audio track of the video, then it's a blatant breach of copyright law. That's a load of crap in my opinion, because the result is exactly the same, the couple sitting in front of the TV watching their wedding highlights video with Adele's music.

But at least when it comes to highlights videos, we have the choice of using royalty free music. When it comes to the first dance, or a dance recital, we just don't. So eventually someone will have to do something about it.

If you get familiar with the history of ASCAP it will be clear that eventually ASCAP will find a way to collect from wedding videographers even when they do not post to the web.

They will find a way. Nobody is going to do anything, there is nothing to be done. ASCAP is very powerful and the law is on their side.

As history shows they will find a way to scare for-profit enterprises and cause the vast majority to pay licensing fees somehow. How will they do it? I have no idea, but I"m sure they will. They can independently hire videographers themselves, and then sue them with the evidence, destroy them, and scare the pants off of everyone else.

It will get worse, never better, IMO.

I often wondered what the difference is between the Bridal March (Chris Brown song) that went viral vs. Joe Simon's. One got nailed, the other went scott free.

I suggest moving this to the members only section given the sensitive topic at hand, with all due respect Mr. CH.

Sebastian, you're absolutely right. Just like you, I also felt that prick of my conscience, which is exactly why I quit shooting weddings, dance and skating events. Now any video I shoot is strictly business, in which it is much easier to control the content. I also diversified my business to include web development to cover the lost business.

How are US videographers dealing with copyright restrictions? The easy answer is they ignore them. Typically they manufacture legal-sounding excuses to ease their own consciences. I tried that for a few years and almost convinced myself, but in the end I could not, so I simply stopped trying. I'm convinced that the way the current laws exist, it is illegal to professionally shoot wedding video.

There are, in my mind, two principles at work here, and they are related. The first is "fair value" or "innate value". People have a sense of what things are worth - what is fair - independent of whatever the seller may actually be saying or whatever laws are in play. It's why we cringe at $6.00 sodas and $8 hot dogs at the movie theater ... we know that is not the innate value of those products and we only buy because we are captive in that setting and there is an effective monopoly.

In the same way - people know that a popular song on a wedding video is not worth hundreds or thousands of dollars. It just isn't ... by anything close to a rational standard. So, when crazy crap comes up like that, people just ignore it. It's like a speed limit - if you made it 3 MPH on a highway - everyone understands that's crazy and no one will follow it.

The second principle is related, but is more of a practical precedent for this line of thought. When Celine Dion (or whoever) sells a CD for $15 at Walmart, her Rec Co. might get something like $5 and she gets some portion of that (let's not argue how accurate that # is or not, just using as a rough example). Now I actually get 10-12 songs for the $5 - making each one worth maybe 50 cents - and if I get it on itunes (the 1 song) - it's like 99 cents right? And apple gets some of that. That's what they're trying to do yeah? ... sell all the songs they can to make .50 to a $1 on each one. If I go buy 10 copies of it, they make $5-$10. They are happy when this happens. We all agree so far?

So - importantly - we have established a practical precedent that the innate value of a Celine Dion song on an optical disc is worth $1 (at most) to the "publisher/artist/rec co" and they are happy with that. If I buy it, I have the right to listen to it as many times as I want, play it for my friends and family, etc. etc. etc.

Now - why is it that if I decide to put that song on another optical disk - a DVD - that the value suddenly jumps to hundreds or thousands of dollars? That's the major disconnect! As a Video producer, I would be happy to pay Celine and co. $1 each time I put it on a new disc to be legal ... BUT THEY WON'T LET ME! Why are they elated to get $1 for a copy encoded on "Disk A" but somehow think that getting $1 or even more for a copy encoded on "disk B" is screwing them over? D-I-S-C-O-N-N-E-C-T!

But look at the end result even from the rec. cos and artists/publishers perspective ... right now they are getting NOTHING from all this because people either won't use it for fear and inability to afford it, or they use it anyway and pay nothing. If they were just willing to take something REASONABLE like $1/copy or heaven forbid 9.1 cents like with audio, they would make a bunch of money they are not now getting and videographers could breathe easily. I honestly don't understand why they would not want this themselves.

I do wish someone would pick this up and run with it for new laws, but I'm not holding my breath.

Sebastian, you're absolutely right. Just like you, I also felt that prick of my conscience, which is exactly why I quit shooting weddings, dance and skating events. .

To me it's not a matter of conscience. My conscience doesn't bother me at all for video-recording a wedding or a dance recital where they play music from whatever artists the DJ chooses. We are just providing the couple and their family with a tool that will make them remember that day much better. And I wish I could switch to corporate video easily, but I only did a few corporate things for a former employer that were many years ago and it wasn't a very professional job because back then I didn't have the tools. Now I do, but I don't have a lot of sample videos to show companies that I can do a good job.

But going back to the wedding issue, to me it's very simple. If we had to pay a small fee like they do in the UK to be able to use all the background music captured with the camera, and another $10 fee per song that we want to add to the video for transitions or highlights, everybody could afford that and musicians would be getting a lot of extra income thanks to that. But until someone at the music labels figures that out, we are going to either stop shooting weddings or keep shooting them at the risk of getting sued for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, only because we want to give married couples the chance to remember their first dance for as long as they live, or kids the chance to see themselves dancing on stage when they are older and they can show it to their own kids. I think these people need to wake up to reality. I'm sure that if they start suing videographers just for the fact that they include the live music from the event, everybody gets screwed including the same lawyers that prepare those lawsuits, because they also have kids that do a play at school with copyrighted materials, or they have sons or daughters that will get married eventually, and they will want to have a nice video of their wedding that includes the first dance and themselves dancing to Billy Jean or Don't Stop Believing and many others.

Thanks guys this is getting interesting...now IF a home movie maker can use copyright music for an amateur video then surely an amateur can also film a wedding (at no charge) and be in the clear???

If that's the case then we simply do wedding videos for free!! and it's no longer a business contract???

I remember in the UK many years back there was bitter arguements about trading on Sundays ..you could sell vegetables but NOT furtinture so an enterprising furniture shop set up a market stall every Sunday and sold carrots at 300 pounds a bunch and you got a free bedroom suite and mattress!!!

It seems very much like you can skip all the copyright problems if you are a school...I wonder if the school staff are allowed to produce a DVD and sell it to parents??? Would they be exempt from any copyright issues, simply because they are a religious or educational establishment????

These music artists make a fortune anyway as do the record companies without fleecing poor little videographers! Soon enough they will be arresting 12 year old children in the street for broadcasting songs from their IPods!!!cos you can hear the music when they take an ear bud out!!

I would still like to know, regardless of the fact that schools are exempt, how videographers do dance recitals and concerts without being illegal???? Some input from those who do concerts would be nice

Chris

"Soon enough they will be arresting 12 year old children in the street for broadcasting songs from their IPods!!!cos you can hear the music when they take an ear bud out!!"

ASCAP has threatened to sue both the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts for singing copyrighted songs around the campfire.

There has been controversy whether they can collect fees from phone users each time a ringtone plays on a phone using copyrighted music, calling it a public performance, thought they dispute this.

If you read the criticism section of the Wikipedia entry for ASCAP you can learn a few interesting tidbits about the organization.

It all comes down to one word: greed.

Sebastian

The bottom line is that it's a bit pointless trying to wage war with such a determined organisation so in a nutshell dont!!

Keep all your online samples free of copyright music and make sure that your brides know they cannot upload their wedding video to the web without getting sued!! Keep the copyright music completely private for the bride's eyes only and you should stay out of trouble.

I always upload a royalty free ceremony clip for the couple and give them the link so they can add it to social media sites....that way you ensure that your video on the web is 100% legal!! AFAIK even the Australian and UK licences ONLY cover the DVD's not stuff you upload to the web...the Aussie licence is ONLY for a maximum of 20 DVD's and private viewing only.

Chris

If you read the criticism section of the Wikipedia entry for ASCAP you can learn a few interesting tidbits about the organization.

That they're evil?

:)

Deborah

Hi Deb

Soft targeting is not the way to go about things..they should rather be concentrating on the real bad boys in countries that rip actual CD's and distribute millions of counterfeight copies for consumers..that is what the body should be trying to eliminate as that DOES cost the music industry millions in lost sales.

Targeting the "one man show" that may use a song once in a video is unlikely to make CD sales go up at all but bringing down the real multi-national duplicating syndicates certainly will help. Sorta like robbing a 90 year grandmother at the crosswalk as it's easier than bringing down real crooks.

In fact if you think about it, there is a pretty good chance that the couple have especially bought the artist's CD for their wedding and when the vision is added, probably others watching it might think.."Gotta have that CD" .... I think we are more than likely doing more promotion than anything else for them..gosh, maybe they should start paying us for advertising their label and artist!!!

Chris

In fact if you think about it, there is a pretty good chance that the couple have especially bought the artist's CD for their wedding and when the vision is added, probably others watching it might think.."Gotta have that CD" .... I think we are more than likely doing more promotion than anything else for them..gosh, maybe they should start paying us for advertising their label and artist!!!

I'd be happy if they just left us alone and like you said, go after the real bad guys. Seeing a well edited romantic video with a good song online will probably make many people buy that song or the whole CD. So with this system, basically we are punished and intimidated because we provide free publicity to the artist. Absolutely ridiculous.

I completely agree with you both, Chris and Sebastian.

I've long been following copyright and patent laws and the madness to which they've descended and how far they've come from their original intent and purpose.

I've been trying to tell everyone I know about SOPA, PIPA, and now ACTA, and not a single person had ever heard of these things before I mentioned it to them. Of course, SOPA/PIPA got most of my friends' attention when Wikipedia, etc. did their blackout. But, they had no knowledge that this sort of thing was in the works beforehand.

Basically, I feel our government is in the pocket of the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc. because they are clinging to an antiquated business model and expect the government to allow it to continue by propping it up.

All this doesn't bode well for videographers. :(

Deborah

It all comes down to one word: greed.

I disagree with that. If it were all about greed, they would create a system to allow videographers and other professionals to pay a fee (as in the UK and Australia.) This is a revenue stream waiting to be tapped. If it were all about greed, they would be tapping it.

I personally believe it's more about changing attitudes and markets. This market did not exist 30 years ago, and it's not a market the record companies sought to develop. It simply developed independently, and much like downloadable music, will require a paradigm shift for them to monetize. Corporations move slowly. They were forced to adapt to deal with illegally downloaded music, and have done so and are making a profit from it. Eventually they will recognize the potential for licensing of music on the micro level.

The reason I don't bother with it anymore is because it comes down to profiting from someone else's work without compensation or permission. I wouldn't appreciate it if someone were to use my work without my permission, so I won't do that to others.

Chris, videotaping an event that happens to have copyrighted music being played by a DJ and then being paid to produce DVDs of that event is not profiting from someone else's work, not by a long stretch.

You may feel it is, and that is fine, but that is an absolutely ridiculous concept to me and I won't fall for the brainwashing. I'm hired to videotape events, I'm not "stealing" anything by filming an event. I'm being paid for my time, I'm not getting rich off of the back of anyone.

The argument is framed by licensing bodies in such a way that is designed to make people feel badly for some acts which are in completely innocent. Just because something is the law does not mean it is right.

How would you like to have to pay a contractor when you sell your house, just because he did the original work building your house? Does he deserve a slice because you made a profit off of his work? I don't think so. To me this is no different.

People profit off of other people's work all the time, but only songwriters, etc., are paid for life for a single piece of work. Should my web designer be paid every time someone visits my site and I make a sale? Am I not I profiting from the web designer's work? Why shouldn't they be paid like a songwriter?

Then whole thing makes no sense.

Songwriters should be paid once for their music, and that be the end of it. Once you sell your work, how can it still be yours? It is nonsense.

How would you like to have to pay a contractor when you sell your house, just because he did the original work building your house? Does he deserve a slice because you made a profit off of his work? I don't think so. To me this is no different.


That sounds like a pretty apt analogy to me, Jeff. I guess the part that gets sticky is the question of who actually owns the house in the end. Unfortunately, even with seemingly simple and harmless events (such as a school production of a musical), it is never so simple -- from the copyright associated with the musical publishing company, to the commercial music played at productions and ballets... and of course the oft debated first dance and bridal march.

Chris, videotaping an event that happens to have copyrighted music being played by a DJ and then being paid to produce DVDs of that event is not profiting from someone else's work, not by a long stretch.

You may feel it is, and that is fine, but that is an absolutely ridiculous concept to me and I won't fall for the brainwashing. I'm hired to videotape events, I'm not "stealing" anything by filming an event. I'm being paid for my time, I'm not getting rich off of the back of anyone.

The argument is framed by licensing bodies in such a way that is designed to make people feel badly for some acts which are in completely innocent. Just because something is the law does not mean it is right.

Songwriters should be paid once for their music, and that be the end of it. Once you sell your work, how can it still be yours? It is nonsense.

Excellent words, although I disagree that songwriters should be paid once for their music. I think it's fine if they get paid every time a CD with their song is sold, but it's outrageous that just by recording the first dance of a couple on video without paying a license for that song is breaking the law. I'm paid to record that, and I couldn't care less what the DJ plays. The focus is not the song, it's the couple's first dance. Same as the party, when the couple and all their friends and relatives are dancing, THEY are the focus, I don't care whatever music the DJ is playing. So the DJ plays 30 or 40 songs, that means I should ask ASCAP or BMI for permission to use those songs and then tell me that it's going to cost me about 50 times what I charged for the wedding video? That's beyond idiotic. With that reasoning, I should pay each and every guest of the wedding, because they all appear on my video and you could make the case that they are helping me make money off that video.

The point is, we shouldn't have to pay for music that goes in a video that will be seen in a private environment such as the couple's home, and we shouldn't pay even if the video goes online because that video will generate sales for that musician. And I know that musicians have the right to decide how their music is used, but with the current technology, that's impossible. In any case, if a musician or their agents find out that their song has made it into something they disapprove of, such as porn or a KKK video or similar, they can sue the producer of that video. For the most part, wedding videos are highly inoffensive and will never deter anybody from buying that song, on the contrary, people will buy that song. If I were a musician I would be happy to let any videographer use my songs for free. It's not like they're going to say that they composed and performed the song.

However, I wouldn't mind so much paying $10 for the right to use a regular song by Adele and popular artists. And if I have to pay another $10 for the use of all the background music I capture with the camera, so be it. But if they just keep suing videographers, the only ones who win are the lawyers, not the musicians.

I'll add a couple thoughts...

There's a difference between IP (intellectual property) and real property - the distinction being that you can't just duplicate a house or car at will - its tangible form prevents that. With IP, it's realtively easy to "copy", either by plagarism or by outright reproduction, especially now with it being nothing more than 1's ands 0's. And in copyright litigation, remember that there have been brutal battles over the "similarity" of one work to another...

You have to remember that the "arist" or creator (or more likely a faceless corporate IP rights management entity) has to retain a certain degree of control over the "product", both to produce revenue and to protect against inappropriate or unauthorized use(s). If they see a revenue stream, and/or a public backlash (like if they sued over a viral video), they'll find a "fix" pretty quickly... but that's the exception.


Think of it this way... sell your car to a bank robber, you just have to show the transfer, and you aren't liable or associated with the "criminal"... Now let's say you "sell" (actually license most likely, under copyright laws) your video or audio to someone who is using it in a "hate" video (or just a truly awful one!) - now YOUR "work" is inextricably attached to that "new" work... your only "recourse" is to go after them and stop the "use". "IP" is a lot easier to "misappropriate" and steal or damage the value of the "work". Aside from some "high profile deals", most "artists" don't see a whole lotta loot from their "art"...



Sure there is a need for a practical, understandable licensing "system", other countries seem to have managed it, but not the US...

I think "the lawyers" (and I will say there are "good" lawyers out there to whom this doesn't apply) are the culprits here - there are few "professions" where one makes money win or lose, and makes MORE money (up front or billed regularly at obscene hourly amounts) by prolonging the "job/problem" instead of finding a solution. Certainly a well crafted "solution" could be put forward relatively quickly, but as long as there is more $$ in litigation than in innovation, I don't expect to see it.

I've already posted and been indirectly referenced in this thread, and still believe the "incidental" and "Carterphone" defenses make good common sense, but common sense and how it would play out in Courts are often two distinct things. Law and Sausage, as the old saying goes. I DON'T want to make this a political debate (so DON'T go there!!!!), but you take your chances in a country run by lawyers, for lawyers (do the math on how many politicians are lawyers...), and until innovation and creativity become the most important thing economically, it is what it is.



I believe it is possible to strike a balance between fair and reasonable "use" of IP and artist rights, but I'm not holding my breath...

I think "the lawyers" (and I will say there are "good" lawyers out there to whom this doesn't apply) are the culprits here - there are few "professions" where one makes money win or lose, and makes MORE money (up front or billed regularly at obscene hourly amounts) by prolonging the "job/problem" instead of finding a solution. Certainly a well crafted "solution" could be put forward relatively quickly, but as long as there is more $$ in litigation than in innovation, I don't expect to see it.

That's exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned that it all comes down to greed. I'm sure the greed doesn't come from the musicians, they just want people to buy their CDs and concert DVDs, not sue small business owners because the DJ was playing their song at a party, or even because the videographer used their song for a cute highlights video.

Lots of good discourse here. The proper solution to these woes would likely not be found in any extreme direction, but by a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.

Chris, videotaping an event that happens to have copyrighted music being played by a DJ and then being paid to produce DVDs of that event is not profiting from someone else's work, not by a long stretch.

In specific, I was referring to the common practice of syncing wedding highlights with popular copyright music. In that case, you are using someone else's work to enhance and add value to your own.

How would you like to have to pay a contractor when you sell your house, just because he did the original work building your house? Does he deserve a slice because you made a profit off of his work? I don't think so. To me this is no different.

Unfortunately, it is different because the law says it is different. If you employed a musician to compose and perform a piece of music for you as a work for hire, that would be more analogous to your house/contractor example.

That's exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned that it all comes down to greed. I'm sure the greed doesn't come from the musicians, they just want people to buy their CDs and concert DVDs, not sue small business owners because the DJ was playing their song at a party, or even because the videographer used their song for a cute highlights video.

WELL, having spent a fair amount of time dealing with "artists", I can tell you they can have some pretty wacky ideas as well, and more often than not take a degree of offense if something they say is THEIR idea is used in some way THEY don't approve... in fact I believe there are artists out there who have done themselves a great disservice by suing "the customer"... there's lots of options for "art" (most of which I admittedly don't "get"...), and if one artist doesn't want his or her "work" used, there are others happy to work with other "creatives"...

This is certainly a spirited discussion and allows us to vent of feelings. Of course, you do realise that nothing will come of it sadly.... I think appeals have been made to the music industry over and over for a simply pay per use system but it's fallen on deaf ears. Pity! lot's over money to be made there.

Unfortunately law becomes more and more complex over the years as lawyers find more loopholes in legislation!! Soon you will have to be careful who is in the extreme background of your shot too ...someone might just drive down the road in their vehicle and be in your wedding shot and demand an appearance fee!!! It's really a pathetic and sad world now with all the takers and few givers...I used to do school photography concerts in my early days but now you have to get individual student permission, convince the police you are not a child molester and make sure the school only plays elevator music during the show ..all too hard for me!!

I wonder if photographers have any copyright issues at weddings???

Chris

I know this doesn't relate to the online debate that's going on but I have just spoken to MCPS and they have told me that if you want to make up to 5 copies of a DVD you'll need one licence (as well as PPL) but if you want to make for example 1 bluray copy and 1 DVD copy (or any combination up to 5 copies) you'll need to buy 2 licences with no discounted rate because you're producing 2 different formats.

How in the world is that remotely fair?

Obviously - with a reasonable system, the artists/publishers/RecCos could make money and videographers could be clean and everyone wins ... everyone of course but the lawyers ... so if "greed" is the argument, then it is the greed of the legal crowd.

I think a fee of something like $1 / copy for non-broadcast purposes should make everyone happy - even a $1 for sync rights + $1 for master rights (which you have to have to use a particular artist's version of a song) would be reasonable and make ton's of money for the artists and publishers. We could afford to do it and therefore would.

But having said this - a little math shows that even then you couldn't afford to do, say a dance recital video, where there might be 25 or more songs on the DVD and you need 100 copies. There would have to be some sort of different rate/rule for recordings of a "performance" using songs as opposed to syncing "Created" video to a song - not even sure I know how you would define the difference or what the rate should be.

I know this doesn't relate to the online debate that's going on but I have just spoken to MCPS and they have told me that if you want to make up to 5 copies of a DVD you'll need one licence (as well as PPL) but if you want to make for example 1 bluray copy and 1 DVD copy (or any combination up to 5 copies) you'll need to buy 2 licences with no discounted rate because you're producing 2 different formats.

How in the world is that remotely fair?It's not fair & I don't think that it's correct although quite typical as every time you ring MCPS & speak to a different person you will get a different answer. The licence refers to 'Product' with a capital 'P' not a DVD or Blu-ray or CD or tape. Your 'Product' is what you create & sell to your customer so a production that ran to two or three DVDS only requires one licence.

It has been mentioned here before that in the UK the matter has been resolved by the agencies who police copyright protection for the main music industry getting together and coming up with a licensing agreement for the likes of us who shoot personal and amateur/school productions.

However this didn't come about by an altruistic act on behalf of the music industry but as a result of lobbying and liaising by organisations in the UK set up to promote 'event videography' as an industry with professional standards. It took many years and a few attempts to get to the position it is now where we can pay a reasonable fee (starting at £12 for 5 copies) for permission to both record in actuality as well as sync to physical media, though not for the internet. This can be bought for up to 1,000 copies (@ 32p each).

I guess it is a matter of each territory getting organised enough to get their authorities to look at the UK solution. I don't think that individuals trying to circumvent, ignore or come up with their own justification for their rights will change matters. And as others have said in a highly litigious country you are always at risk.

You can see details of the UK system here:

Limited Manufacture Licence (LM) (http://www.prsformusic.com/users/recordedmedia/dvdsanddigitalmedia/Pages/LimitedManufactureLicence%28LM%29.aspx)