Just guessing, but the administrative costs to the music publishers and record labels associated with large numbers of such small fees would likely far exceed the revenue they generate. It would make no sense to spend $100 in salaries and overheads to issue a license that only generated $10 of revenue. And then there is the whole other issue of loss of control over the product itself and the dilution of a song's market value through over-exposure.

I don't see that. There are thousands of events videographers in the country, weddings and otherwise. The music industry doesn't need a lot of people for that, they just need a small office and to hire a good programmer to setup the payment system online, and then keep a few people to administer the licenses, most of which they already have for the licenses they sell to broadcast and radio. At most they would need to hire a few more people, but it would be more than paid for with all the new revenue from hundreds or thousands of new sources that now they just don't have, because videographers don't pay a dime to the music labels. They use the music or not, but the label and the artist don't see a dime of that, and it's their own fault for not setting up the system to do so.

Remember though, that changes in the copyright laws would be a sword capable of cutting both ways. Videographers are also creators of copyrighted works. Liberalizing laws allowing you to more easily use copyright music in your productions would also mean YOUR ability to control and profit from your own work is possibly going to be similarly diminished. Do you want people who somehow have access to your footage to have the ability to use it without clearing with you where it's going to be used or without paying you what you feel is the fair market value for your work? Let's say you post a sample of some scenic shots around your city on YouTube or Vimeo ... would you want someone to download it and use the footage in a "Beautiful North Carolina" DVD they're putting together without paying you for it or even getting your permission? How about if they're a wedding shooter and just drop it into a video they're doing for a client, perhaps using it for a scenic intro to a shot of the wedding couple pulling up in front of a quaint country cottage where they're having their ceremony? Now you spent $$ on the gear to make that shot, and more $$ on the gas to get to the location, and hours of your time waiting until the light was just right and that's worth $$ too ... I think you'd deserve to paid for the use when someone want to use the resulting clip in their own production, don't you? After all, you're not a videographer in order to give away your talent, are you? And while it may only be 15 seconds of video that they use, it cost YOU $500 out-of-pocket to create that 15 seconds once everything is factored in ... I think you ought to get some of that back if someone wants to take advantage of the great work you did (and the wedding couple thinks that opening shot just makes the whole video, sets the perfect mood for their love story!)

It's not the same thing. I don't see who would want my footage for anything, but if they do, I'd be happy to charge a small fee for it, after all, that footage was already paid for by the client who hired me for it. And if just go around shooting video of landscapes and somebody wants to include it in a commercial video for sale to the public, I would have to know the specifics to know how much to charge them, but I would make sure it's not an astronomical and ridiculous sum of money they can't afford.

The way it is now, the musician doesn't see a dime, and videographers can't do their work properly because of these stupid laws that don't benefit anyone. It's like buying a car with the condition that you can only turn left, if you want to turn right you have to pay $5000 each time, even if you only make $2000 a month.

Sebastian -- we're all on your side. Honestly.

However, there certain contemporary personalities in other
popular media (radio talk show hosts) whose names I don't
want to show up on this site in Google search returns. I'm
asking you to please respect my wishes to keep that sort
of thing off of DVi. You don't have to dive into the muck to
make your point. Thanks in advance,

Chris,

the whole Peter Gabriel thing was to make the point that in a perfect world musicians would have control of their music, but the way the system is setup now, it allows their music to be used in despicable ways such as the one I mentioned, while at the same time it doesn't allow it to be used in ways that the musicians most likely would approve of, such as a wedding video which celebrates the union of two people. I deleted the rest of the Peter Gabriel paragraph because it makes no sense without the first part.

Yes, welcome to the realities of the music industry's fixation on corporate-sponsored big business.

Sebastian, FYI in this copyright scene the musicans themselves are generally just hired help. The copyright owners are the composers and lyricists who actually write the sheet music and the publishers who publish it. It's relatively rarely that that is also the musicians who actually perform it. Most of the people that own the copyright to the music you might want to use are names you've never heard of. Similarly, the copyright on a given recording of a piece of music is owned by the label, not the performer. The performer is just a contractor hired by the label to create a "work for hire" for them. The actual musicians often have little or nothing to do with copyrights at all.

Yeah, actually I meant to say the music artists in general. Some write and perform their own music (Foo Fighters for example), some are hired to perform like you say, but it's obvious that none of them are receiving a dime for the use of their music in weddings and other events videos, when they should, but their administrators don't allow for that with their ridiculous system.

You've hit upon a good point in "intellectual property", that is usually overlooked at "first glance" (the one that says there should be a simple way to obtain licensing at a reasonable rate). While certainly licensing for innocuous an "innocent" purposes would be desirable... what happens when that use, be it of music or video or a printed work, results in some sort of "negative" connotation??

Lets say a porn producer wanted to use 30 seconds of some of one of your wedding videos because of a resemblance of your couple to his actors, and he just needed some "setting shots"... if he could just license if cheaply without your approval, can you see the potential backlash? That's the "Devils Advocate" talking, but you can't ignore the rights of an artist to NOT be associated with another work or artist... or anything else...

While I missed your posting, I'll presume that the common situation recently where music is being used in a campaign or whatever, without artist permission, resulting in a cease and desist letter or a lawsuit, illustrates the problem, as does the one I mentioned about the composer of the piece in the anti-piracy campaign. The artist has to have some rights of refusal... there are some "uses" for which NO amount of money would be "fair compensation".
FWIW, I've seen artists so convinced of the "value" of their work that effectively they made that work WORTHLESS, but of course there are artists who can command outrageous sums for the use of their work, IF they approve of it at all.


Really what you're looking at is a two stage system - first one has to seek "permission" (rather than "forgiveness" <wink>), then a system which establishes a reasonable "scale" for approved uses. At the moment, NEITHER stage is geared to the "small" production/producer. I suppose that a simple clause added to iTunes or Amazon purchases that allowed for "limited personal" use in video (lousy phrasing, but you get the idea) would solve the problem pretty quickly... THEY would see the $$$$ and MIGHT be interested in "solving" the problem, and already have the resources and distribution in place?

As "small time" videographers, we naturally see the small market, the limited distribution, and the relatively low budget production that would normally never result in anyone being offended... but there's an "evil twin" out there, and it mucks things up significantly... and the long standing licensing schemes are all geared to THAT side of the "market".

That's as easy as putting restrictions on the licenses and how can they be used. No porn, no political gatherings, and whatever other clear problem areas you might think of, unless the artist gives permission. The worst that can happen in a wedding video is that maybe the camera work or the editing is not that great, but I doubt any wedding video, especially since it's for personal use, would include a song in a way that is highly objectionable by the composer. Still, regardless of that, DJs play whatever they want, and the videographer is there to document the event, so why wouldn't he or she be able to include the music in the video as it was recorded at the event?

Because the creator of the music is entitled to compensation for each and every time his property is used. One "listening" is worth X dollars (the royalty the DJ or venue or a broadcaster pays to ASCAP for each time the piece is played)/ Incorporating the piece permanently into the body another person's copyrightable work, regardless of how it gets there, is an additional use over and above the playing at the venue that increases the value of that new work over what it otherwise would have and merits X+++ dollars (the cost of the sync license). Your wedding or recital video would be a flop if you didn't have the music audible and so the creator of the music has contributed to the success of your video - in return he deserves a piece of the action. You might say that he's charging too much compared to what you can bill your client but he could just as easily say he is charging a fair price for his contribution to the final production and it's YOU who are charging too little for yours.

By the way, are you aware that when you incorporate music into the soundtrack of a show for broadcast, say a TV sit-com, the producer has to pay the sync and master use license to put the music there in the first place and then the broadcaster pays any royalties due via their ASCAP license on that same music each time the show is aired? Coordinating airplay with the ASCAP royalties is the reason producers normally have to submit a cue sheet listing all the music cuts, no matter how brief, that are audible during the show as part of the program's deliverables. It's just the same as you having to pay for the sync license on top of the DJ or dance school paying his ASCAP license, it's just that the sequence is reversed.

Key difference being BROADCAST...

Thus incidental or "documentary" capture of a one time event for later private use and viewing falls into an entirely different scenario, and that's what the W/E videographer struggles with. As we've discussed, there is NO legal liability incurred if a private party uses their own video camera (be it a cell phone, camera, handycam, or whatever). It makes little sense that having a "pro" document the exact same event makes it "criminal".


These aren't "big time" wide interest video productions we're talking here, with the rare exception of a video that gets posted and "goes viral" because of some unique aspect to the "content".

Short of a video "going viral" (by nature of being BROADCAST on UToob or similar), the "audience" here is in the single or likely at most double digits, and only on rare occaisions will it reach the low triple digits (the dance video in question was slightly over 100 units... most of which will get watched a couple times, then go sit on the shelf until the media degrades...).

I know that the "dream" is that somehow every production will be of such widespread interest and stunning content value that millions will "tune in", but in all practicality, that's the infinitesimal percentage, probably best expressed with quite a few 0's to the right of the decimal point...


SO, while we all agree that "broadcast" via the web, even if it doesn't "go viral" creates the potential of widespread distribution, and with it the legal exposure, I still argue for the "exception" when the final video is for the private use of a very small audience, interested in the DOCUMENTARY aspects of an event only meaningful to THEM. The "incidental" aspect of the likely less than pristine audio capture (due to ambient sound and acoustics) hardly constitutes "copying" - it is no more than the incidental capture of "what happened". I'll exclude those videos which are little more than glorified "music videos", as they ARE using the choice of music for effect... but as far as "live capture"... this IS NOT the same as carefully picked and chosen "soundtrack" content, which is usually carefully produced and edited to maintain sound quality and add to the visual impact!


One of the frustrating things about "copyright" enforcement is that in it's most agressive form, the argument goes that EVERY play of a song or whatever MUST be paid for and accounted for individually, or a violation has occurred... this completely IGNORES that a consumer typically thinks (with somewhat good reason) that when they BUY something, they have the right to do with it what they want, as long as they don't turn around and "mass produce" copies for a profit. I argue the fall of the music "business" came when they started to roll out "the enforcers" to sue granny because some music files were on a computer she barely knows how to use and the grandkids who didn't know better "broke the rules". What consumer wants to deal with THAT sort of "product" or "business"??

The consumer thinks "hey, I really dig this tune by this new artist, I should send my buddy a copy of it, cause he will dig it too, and probably want to go buy their album/CD or check out their show", he doesn't think "hey, I think I'll rip off this artist that I like by sending a copy to all my friends so they can listen for FREE" (OK, maybe some people actually DO think this way...). The "threat" to the artist doesn't come from the average end listener or fan (who, by nature of creating popularity for the artist causes the artist's work to have "value"), but from the mass producers of bogus/counterfeit/copied "product", or the "open" file share/broadcast type sites - of course prosecuting granny makes a "statement" (arguably one that leaves a bad taste in the consumers mind!).


I'll again note that "media shifting" HAS been upheld - the consumer has the right to transfer the 1's and 0's between various media for playback for their PERSONAL use. Again, a clear "exception" protecting the rights of the "small" against the claims of the "big", should the question arise.

The consumer wants to "purchase" the 1's and 0's and be able to listen to them any way they want, including putting them on a video for their own personal enjoyment, not sit there worrying about the nuances of archaic licensing schemes and whether somehow playing back those 1's and 0's constitute "criminal conduct" when in one form instead of another... by "enforcing" agressively against the "consumer", the IP holders do more harm than good, IMO, and ultimately that is the core spirit of the argument each time this question comes up...

There is the letter of the law, which arguably is pretty easy to violate, making EVERYONE a "criminal" and there is the spirit of the law, which ultimately is supposed to allow for reasonable "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", not to mention the profitable exercise of commerce for "producers" of things of value.

Your wedding or recital video would be a flop if you didn't have the music audible and so the creator of the music has contributed to the success of your video - in return he deserves a piece of the action. You might say that he's charging too much compared to what you can bill your client but he could just as easily say he is charging a fair price for his contribution to the final production and it's YOU who are charging too little for yours.

Steve, I don't know if you're joking, because this statement is so obtuse and illogical that you can't possibly be serious. I don't know the exact price for using a copyrighted song in a video production, but as far as I've read it's in the thousands. So lets say $3000 per song. Let's see, a wedding has the bridal march, the song the DJ plays as they walk out the aisle, about four classic songs as the first dance, and father daughter dance, then about 40 or 50 songs during the party. So if my client wants a long version of the video, I would have to include about 40 songs picked up by my microphone in the final video. So 40 x $3000 = $120,000. So in your world, wedding videos should be charged about $125,000 so the videographer is able to pay for the rights to use every damn song picked up by the microphone. Are you serious? So yes, Steve, I'm charging anywhere between $1000 and $1400, so I charge too little. Next time a prospective client calls me and asks me how much I charge, I will tell them $125,000, so I can pay all the music artists their dues. Again, let me ask you, you're kidding, right?

If the music industry starts suing wedding videographers just because of the music that is captured through the microphone, then the wedding video industry will die and uncle Joe will record the wedding on his camcorder, still get all those songs on the video and the creators will still not see a dime.

Now, if there are people in the industry with any brains, they gotta see how they are losing money because they have a system that may work for TV and cinema, but not for small video businesses, and do something about it.

There is the letter of the law, which arguably is pretty easy to violate, making EVERYONE a "criminal" and there is the spirit of the law, which ultimately is supposed to allow for reasonable "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", not to mention the profitable exercise of commerce for "producers" of things of value.

Exactly. Right now these ridiculous laws not only are taking money away from the creators, they are taking money away from us from the moment we can't record a dance recital for private viewing of the parents without fearing being sued for millions, if they can sue you for $150,000 per song. It upsets me to no end that I had to say no to a job that possibly was going to leave me $3,000 or more, and I would have been happy to pay a portion of that to the creators, if they had a system for me to do so in a proper way.

Now, if there are people in the industry with any brains

It has turned into a philosophical discussion:

Why would a musician license their music this way?
Why would a choreographer choose such music?
Why would an artist bother to perform to such music?

If this were art, original music would have been commissioned for the performance and copyright would not be an issue. This is not art. Instead, it is a bunch of students dancing to prerecorded music. Such an activity is a type of derivative fan art. In the United States it is not considered fair use to distribute DVDs of such a performance without permission of the original music copyright holder.

The students paying their tuition to the dance studio should suggest that the choreographer use music which permits making a video recording of the performance.

The students paying their tuition to the dance studio should suggest that the choreographer use music which permits making a video recording of the performance.

That's not very realistic. People listen to music and have songs in their head. When a dance teacher wants to create a new dance, it would take them forever to go through the royalty free music services and find one song that they like enough to work with, if they even find it because royalty free music is always inferior to the kind of music that you can't use because of all this copyright issues. Teachers have songs in their heads that probably inspired them to think about new moves for their students. A song by Michael Jackson. A song by the Beatles. Why shouldn't they be able to use those songs? And why shouldn't the parents be allowed to have a visual memory of it on DVD or Blu-ray from a professional camera instead of their tiny camcorder? It's ridiculous.

When a dance teacher wants to create a new dance

If a dance teacher wants to create a new dance they must commission original music for the dance, otherwise it is not a new dance but a derivative work based on the prerecorded music.

If a dance teacher wants to create a new dance they must commission original music for the dance, otherwise it is not a new dance but a derivative work based on the prerecorded music.

So in your world, many small dance institutes would not exist, since they can't afford a band of musicians to compose and perform music. Very nice.

Very nice.

I'm glad you like it :-) Commissioning a local composer to write new music for a new dance may not be as expensive as you think. Also, as you already mentioned, there is music that either no longer has a current copyright or has a license which explicitly permits derivative works.

I'm glad you like it :-) Commissioning a local composer to write new music for a new dance may not be as expensive as you think. Also, as you already mentioned, there is music that either no longer has a current copyright or has a license which explicitly permits derivative works.

In the real world, dance studios plays ASCAP an accessible annual fee to play whatever song they want from whatever CD they want. So that license should extend to audio and video recordings for private purposes, or at least the possibility of paying a little extra to have that extension added to it.

Key difference being BROADCAST...

Thus incidental or "documentary" capture of a one time event for later private use and viewing falls into an entirely different scenario, and that's what the W/E videographer struggles with. As we've discussed, there is NO legal liability incurred if a private party uses their own video camera (be it a cell phone, camera, handycam, or whatever). It makes little sense that having a "pro" document the exact same event makes it "criminal".

The difference is that the private party is simply documenting a personal experience while the videographer is engaging in activity in the public sphere during which he captures the music along with images and then sells the results of his work to a third party, his client. The difference between the activities of the local videographer making videos of weddings and the activities of Sony Pictures making films of stories is only one of scale, not of type. Both ar engaged in ventures involving the creation and exploitation of intellectual property. The videographer is producing a work that he is transferring to a third party - the fact it gets transferred to someone other than the person who produced it, either by sale or by gift, removes it from the realm of "private use."


One of the frustrating things about "copyright" enforcement is that in it's most agressive form, the argument goes that EVERY play of a song or whatever MUST be paid for and accounted for individually, or a violation has occurred... this completely IGNORES that a consumer typically thinks (with somewhat good reason) that when they BUY something, they have the right to do with it what they want, as long as they don't turn around and "mass produce" copies for a profit. Except that they haven't bought the music. They have bought a container for the music and a license to listen to it. The license permits me to share the listening experience with you when we're physically together and even allows me to lend you my container so you can listen to it on your own, but if BOTH of us want to listen to it at the same time when we're not physically in the same location, each of us needs to buy our own license.

Steve, I don't know if you're joking, because this statement is so obtuse and illogical that you can't possibly be serious. I don't know the exact price for using a copyrighted song in a video production, but as far as I've read it's in the thousands. So lets say $3000 per song. Let's see, a wedding has the bridal march, the song the DJ plays as they walk out the aisle, about four classic songs as the first dance, and father daughter dance, then about 40 or 50 songs during the party. So if my client wants a long version of the video, I would have to include about 40 songs picked up by my microphone in the final video. So 40 x $3000 = $120,000. So in your world, wedding videos should be charged about $125,000 so the videographer is able to pay for the rights to use every damn song picked up by the microphone. Are you serious? So yes, Steve, I'm charging anywhere between $1000 and $1400, so I charge too little. Next time a prospective client calls me and asks me how much I charge, I will tell them $125,000, so I can pay all the music artists their dues. Again, let me ask you, you're kidding, right?

If the music industry starts suing wedding videographers just because of the music that is captured through the microphone, then the wedding video industry will die and uncle Joe will record the wedding on his camcorder, still get all those songs on the video and the creators will still not see a dime.

Now, if there are people in the industry with any brains, they gotta see how they are losing money because they have a system that may work for TV and cinema, but not for small video businesses, and do something about it.

The cost of a copyrighted song isn't necessarily in the thousands, every time you use music from a royalty free library such as SonicFire you are using copyrighted music and for a license fee that is just a few dollars. The problem arises when you want to use popular music by major performers. There you are wanting Ferrari performance but only can afford a Chevy price. The point is that the owners of the music have put a value on their product. You either pay their asking price or you use something else. There's no moral entitlement for you to use their work for your own personal gain.

...
In the real world, dance studios plays ASCAP an accessible annual fee to play whatever song they want from whatever CD they want. So that license should extend to audio and video recordings for private purposes, or at least the possibility of paying a little extra to have that extension added to it. Why should it? So far the only arguments I've heard boil down to "It will make it easier for me to make a few bucks shooting video."

There's a difference between the ephemeral experience of hearing some music in the environment and permanently capturing that same music as part of another copyrightable work

The cost of a copyrighted song isn't necessarily in the thousands, every time you use music from a royalty free library such as SonicFire you are using copyrighted music and for a license fee that is just a few dollars. The problem arises when you want to use popular music by major performers. There you are wanting Ferrari performance but only can afford a Chevy price. The point is that the owners of the music have put a value on their product. You either pay their asking price or you use something else. There's no moral entitlement for you to use their work for your own personal gain.

Well, the problem is that we were not talking about production music. At least in that aspect the wedding or events videographer has a choice. Although there should be an accessible license for us to use any song we want, but at least we have a way to abide by the law because we have royalty free music to use, some of them cheaper than others, but there's a lot of that.

But when we are talking about the music that is captured through the microphone, we have no choice in that. No couple is going to pay over a thousand dollars for a video where the bridal march is muted unless they hired their own string quartet, where the first dance songs are muted, and people dancing to some generic royalty free music of far inferior value and unknown to them. So in that, we don't have a choice.

Okay, we have reached the point where I have had to edit and withdraw posts from
public view because of an all-too-common problem: attacking the messenger because
the message was not agreeable. Just a reminder that above all, I expect our members
to be perfectly polite to each other even if there is disagreement.

The topic of this thread is one which has been discussed and debated many, many times
before, and just like all of those previous times, this one is going around in circles and is
accomplishing absolutely *nothing* except aggravation towards fellow forum members.
That is always my signal to close and lock the thread.

Thanks to everyone who contributed, especially to those who kept it polite and civil throughout.