I had a bride forward me an email that she was sent from the vicar of her upcoming wedding regarding music copyright. In the email he states that church musicians, as a matter of course, charge double for their services if the wedding is being video recorded - I ask myself why?

Even the Royal School of Church Music suggests they charge more if the wedding is being filmed but I cannot see any reason for this other then fleecing the couple.

RSCM -Music for church weddings (http://www.rscm.com/info_resources/wedding.php)

Pete

Pete, this is nothing new, they have been charging double for the organist etc in many churches for at least 15 years. I had one wedding in 2009 at a church near Ely. where the total extra charges levied by the church because it was being videoed was exactly £500 on top of the usual wedding charges. It amounted to £12 per minute based on the length of the service. I wanted to take it to the local media, but the couple didn't want to cause a fuss!!!!

Roger

It certainly is a ripoff by the Church but surely the bride pays the inflated fee, not you???

I have never seen that (well brides have never told me about it) Catholic Churches here tend to settle for CD music and I encounter organists only at Anglican Churches. They tend to charge a lot for weddings here ...I did an Anglican wedding and they wanted $280.00 to ring the bells for 2 minutes as the bride walked outside. What amused me was the 4 bell ringers were volunteers so they did it for free!! What was the $280 for then? Wear and tear on the bells.

Luckily our Church to Civil ratio has now dropped to 20% Church and 80% Civil which suits me too!!!

It's sad that Churches are ripping off brides ..maybe that's why brides choose a civil venue (often with a priest but not in a Church) over using a Church ...it ends up cheaper! You can get a nice venue here for $399 - $500 (public venues are even cheaper) yet Anglican Churches (I saw the bill for one) ask for $1300.00 Gosh when I got married all you had to do was make a donation to the Church Fund to have the priest and his building ..it's more of a business nowdays!!

No I don't pay it Chris - I did once have a bride who politely asked if I pay the fee that the church charge for allowing the service to be filmed - I very politely told her no - It's plain in my Ts & Cs

Pete

It is NOT a rip-off. Tell me, if the bride took her wedding video, where perhaps in the background one of the guests was famous, and sold it to Hello magazine for ten grand, would that be fine? You'd feel well and truly used, wouldn't you?

Musicians are very similar to video makers. They give a price for the use of their hard work and years of practice. A live event is transitory. when it is done, it's finished. If it is recorded, it becomes a permanent product, out of the control of the musician.

Outside of the wedding industry, there are negotiated agreements with Equity and the Musicians Union. I am allowed to shoot a very limited amount of video featuring musicians - a small amount is allowed for news type programmes without any special payment. However - using perhaps an entire song from the show means extra payments are required. Even a short outside broadcast for children in need means a payment for each one MUST be paid. They can donate it back if they wish, but the use of their performance is controlled.

I'm amazed the wedding area cannot understand this? They are skilled in copyright clearance for much of what they do, with limited manufacture licenses and other licenses through associations, yet are blinkered to the rights of performers.

I am also a performing musician - I play in a tribute band. We get decent fees, but when we turn up and there is a video crew there, we say NO. If I play a bum note, or one of the harmony vocal lines gets messed up - nobody notices, but the last thing I want is it being on a DVD somewhere. When these events are planned in advance, we include editing rights in our contract - so we will then provide the video people with a properly mixed and balanced recording they can sync to - BUT - we retain the rights, and want a share of the profit. If it's for a cause we support, then maybe we might settle for a deal on the DVDs sold - but if we see people making money we refuse unless it's arranged in advance.

Rights are everywhere - and if I book a wedding (as I'm doing at the moment for my son), I do NOT just assume the harpist will be happy with being recorded. They might, or might not.

So would you be happy with the bride selling the video you produce? Or would that be infringing YOUR rights?

I agree it is ridiculous and yes it is a rip off of the worst sort.

Jeff - can explain what rationale you have for thinking it's a rip off?

Do you not believe in having rights to control what people do with your property? Or indeed, being paid for what you do?

If you tell the copyright agency you will only duplicate a few DVDs, and agree the price, but then duplicate ten times that amount, is it unfair they ripped you off by asking for more money?

Paul, your analogies do not come close to fitting this situation.

I simply stand with the majority on this one, the church or organists are being opportunistic and it's a ripoff.

No rationale needed, it's just wrong.

I"m with Jeff as well, the musicians get paid by the bride to sing their songs, the videographer gets paid by the bride to document her day, this documentation includes covering the musicians performance and add that to the video of the bride. The videographer is not making any more money from recording that music performance, he has a fixed price to record the day which includes everything that happens during that time, no matter if someone sings live or not.

If the videographer would use the musicians performance as a track for a trailer which will be placed online for marketing purpose, then I would agree he has to pay the musicians extra for it, even if they already had been paid by the bride, the videographer would be using their music to promote his own product to a very large public online with the only purpose to attract new clients.

If he however only delivers to the bride only her closest friends and family get to see that, there might be someone in the family that gets married as well and chooses the videograpger based on that video but the purpose of the musicians music that was used is not to advertise the videographers work, it's only a part of a documented day with just one client who owns the product.

The musician has no right at all to charge double for this in such a case. It just would be a shameful attempt to charge extra money, I"m glad I have not encountered musicians with such narrow vision during my weddings, I always place a zoom h1 in front of them if they have been hired to sing during the wedding and tell them it's only for the couples video, I never have met someone who was not ok with that.


If you tell the copyright agency you will only duplicate a few DVDs, and agree the price, but then duplicate ten times that amount, is it unfair they ripped you off by asking for more money?

I also don't see what the number of requested dvd's has anything to do with the musicians performance in case of a wedding video, like I said the price charged by the videographer is for his own product which is the documentation part of the day as requested by the couple, if the couple requests extra dvd's it's just that, extra costs for the time spend to print all these, I don't see where the musician is loosing money from this, they already got paid for their performance and the video videographer is not making any more from their singing but only from his own work.

I"m also sure if a musicians would have that kind of attitude where I come from (when they would promote their services to sing at weddings and charge double if they where videotaped) they would not be hired at all, no couple would be that stupid to waste their money, they would just play a simple music cd during the service and pay the standard fee for that.

Like Paul I am also a gigging musician and have been for all my adult life, however I am in agreement with the other views and not with Paul's. The musicians at a wedding are paid to do a job and they are purely incidental to the video. The video is a record of the day for the family and is for their own use, not as a commercially marketed video. I am perfectly happy to remove the music from the video as it makes no difference to my pricing. however the couple have paid for the music and it is part of their day. If copyright is the issue with the music, then the same argument could be applied to the flower arrangements, the cake, the table decorations, the best mans speech, the layout of the room, the frontage of the venue and everything else that is involved. That is clearly ridiculous for something which is for personal use. To reverse the situation, perhaps we should be charging a promotion fee to the church, venue, musicians etc

If I play a gig and my act is the main attraction, then any video taken of that gig may be potentially marketable, which makes it a totally different scenario in my opinion. I filmed a wedding a few weeks ago and the Bride"s Grandad was the lead singer of the Foundations (Build Me Up Buttercup) He performed an hour set in the evening for his Grandaughter and was delighted that I filmed it. There was absolutely no question that them or I had to pay copyright as it was for family use only. If I intended to market that section of the video, it would be a completely different situation and commercial rights and copyright would be expected to be observed.

Roger

I had a bride forward me an email that she was sent from the vicar ...

Even the Royal School of Church Music suggests they charge more if the wedding is being filmed but I cannot see any reason for this other then fleecing the couple.

Vicar implies a Catholic church, yes? The same people that brought us the concept of buying an indulgence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence)? They are just raising money off the people they think will pay. Not very Christian of them, I'll admit. But it does fit perfectly with their long and storied history.

Vicar implies a Catholic church, yes? The same people that brought us the concept of buying an indulgence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence)? They are just raising money off the people they think will pay. Not very Christian of them, I'll admit. But it does fit perfectly with their long and storied history.

Incorrect assumption I'm afraid Bruce, a vicar would normally be an Anglican cleric, the Catholic Church has priests in the UK.

Roger

Just wondering, how much do you think Westminster Abbey charged for the video part when Prince William and Kate Middleton got married? Oh, and the bell ringing??? That must have cost a pretty penny! (Or is that pence?)

It’s mind boggling that there would be a surcharge for filming because there is absolutely no impact on the facility what so ever. If they don’t charge for the photography then it’s akin to discrimination. All a video is, is a series of stills (non-interlaced) put together. Oh, and with a wee bit (Kings English here!) of audio thrown in.

So I’d really agree with Peter Rush’s post of “Why?”
The facility use was paid for. So the answer to the question is it’s surely a profit center.
Who knows where the money goes? In the Priest’s or minister’s pocket? Is it all reported to the “higheri-ups”? Not that this really matters. It would be interesting to know their rational.

With regard to the music part, copyright is a major issue here because it tends to be very controlled. Try posting something on Vimeo for instance, and they run it through their checking system. I ran afoul of this several months ago and only used a soundtrack that was provided in FCP X. They came back to me and said their system marked it as being copyrighted (or words to that effect). I replied that the copyright holder better have deep pockets because it was one of Apple’s FCP X soundtracks and I’d be pretty sure it would have been checked for copyright. So the systems for checking is working although obviously not perfect.

The author and publisher of the music will copyright it. They’ll use words on the sheet music like:

©Copyright 1926 by [whom ever] Used by Permission
©Arrangement Copyright 1960 by [whom ever]
All Rights Reserved Including the Right of Public Performance for Profit [and sometimes, I think, even including not for profit]
Sole Selling Agent [name, Inc.]
International Copyright Secured
Copyright Renewed

One of the major copyright controlling outfits in the US is ASCAP and they can be very aggressive in collecting fees. Don’t ask me how I know.

I don’t know how the professional musicians deal with playing something that was copyrighted - if they pay royalties or not, or if they play only the zero royalty when not-for-profit songs. The radio stations, I believe, have to keep a log of everything they play.

To make sure everybody is on the same sheet of music it would be a good idea to cover this somehow in the contract agreement. If it was, then in Peter’s case I’d bounce it back to the sender and give the bride a head’s up. Better yet, put this on the check-list with parking and all the other “issues” that seem to crop up.

Roger (post #10) makes the point that the video is for personal use and perhaps that should be in the contract too. Otherwise, if someone posts a portion of it on YouTube (or whatever) and makes money with the commercials - who will they go after?

Hey, who knows, maybe Prince William did get a promotion fee? (okay, dream on!)

John,

copyright (in the U.S.) actually has 2 parts: the writer/owner of the song, and then there is the specific performance (the actual recording). Radio stations do have to keep track of how many times a song gets played so that the song writer/owner can get paid.

Anyway, the reason the church/organist doesn't charge extra when there is a photographer is because of one glaring difference: audio.

So, I wonder if these churches in the U.K. wouldn't charge extra if you weren't going to use any audio of their performance. I know I don't in my shorter form highlight style videos that go online (for copyright reasons).

Although my comment about us charging promotion fees was tongue in cheek, it is worth mentioning that while some venues are trying to charge for putting you on their recommended suppliers list, one of the venues that features in my wedding show videos, has taken 3 bookings directly as a result of people seeing my video at shows. That ammount to several tens of thousands of pounds as it is a very expensive venue.

I've had a similar number of weddings recommended by the venue, so it does work both ways.

Roger

John,

copyright (in the U.S.) actually has 2 parts: the writer/owner of the song, and then there is the specific performance (the actual recording). Radio stations do have to keep track of how many times a song gets played so that the song writer/owner can get paid.

Anyway, the reason the church/organist doesn't charge extra when there is a photographer is because of one glaring difference: audio.

So, I wonder if these churches in the U.K. wouldn't charge extra if you weren't going to use any audio of their performance. I know I don't in my shorter form highlight style videos that go online (for copyright reasons).

Copyright is a lot more complex than writer and performer, there are the rights and percentages for the writer, publisher, performer, recorded works owner, arranger etc. Then there are variations in scale of copyright payments depending on the licensing of the venue, the broadcasting rights and payments and all the sub payments and percentages for different situations. For example if broadcast, is it local, regional, national, international, online, and every other permutation.

Roger

It's really not a 'rights' issue at all, and I'm saddened that my attempts fall on deaf ears. To be honest, I shouldn't be surprised - music is always treated as something somehow outside of everyday black and white decisions.

The other week, somebody was quite indignant because a client wanted access to everything that had been shot at an event, and the video guy cited the terms and conditions that clearly meant his price was for the completed project, the actual stuff that went into it, and perhaps were not used, were not in the deal. people advised that maybe he should let the client have the stuff for an extra charge - and it went into all sorts of rights issues.

The trouble here is that musicians, especially members of the MU have a set of rules. The union dictates hours, minimum pay, breaks and all that stuff. I'm often on the other side in my job, trying to get the most from the guys without running into overtime and extra payments. Not everyone is in the MU, but the rates are set. The BBC and ITV, for example, have agreements set up to cover their cameramen and shooting musicians. So there is precedent here. The musicians may be part-time doing the wedding for a bit of extra cash, or they could be professional musicians who music is their job. Does that matter? If you quote a price to do one thing - maybe play while people have drinks, would that price have been the same if a DVD was being made? probably not.

Some guys charge many thousands of pounds for a wedding. Is this a rip off? Does it really cost this much, or is it just the kind of fee a wedding can command? If the bride asks for extra and you say fine, that is an extra £x is that a ripoff?

I'm not expecting people to agree with me, but I find it odd that a choir asking for a bit more because something extra is being asked for, or the bells cost extra is so bad? It's business.

If our band agree a fee for two 45 minute sets, and the promoter on the night says it's 2 x 60 min sets, we want more money. An extra 30 minutes playing doesn't really cost us any more - but we can get extra money - this, as I see it is NOT a rip off.

The local crematorium rarely have the organist any longer, he was pretty awful, but cheap, while the other one available was four times the price, but excellent. Market forces.

Weddings are not 'special' they are business. Why should one money making element be expected to give away part of their earning potential?

Sure - maybe these extra services/permissions are expensive, but that's weddings for you?

I"m thinking of charging the weddingcouple a double price when I have to add a performing musician into my video because they might get extra bookings because of their appearance in my work, does anyone think that is unfair? I should at least get compensated for every request they might get, no? :)

Paul, I really don't understand what you are trying to say, the musicians get paid to do their job, the videographer gets paid to do his, both jobs are requested and paid by the bride because she is the client, she doesn't resell the video or make any extra money from it.

The videographer is not making any extra cent by adding the musicians performance in his video yet you think it is justified for the musicians to charge double their price just because a videographer adds them in the clients video? My previous post was to point out that it goes 2 ways, what if someone else wants to book those same musicians because they have seen them in the video, does this entitle the videographer to charge accordingly at the time he is shooting the video? If I have to believe the way you see it, he does, how many clients do you think would accept that?

Paul, I don't disagree that music copyright can be overlooked. I'm not sure your examples are quite relevant though. The choir do not own the copyright to the music they sing and in fact most churches ask for a music recording license I obtain from PRS, not the church, which covers to some degree the music the choir sings. This isn't the fee the church is asking for in Peter's example.
Now with videographers charging for raw footage example, again not relevant. I'm not recording the choirs rehearsal only the finished singing. If I do charge for raw files, its to cover additional work involved. Some behind the scenes footage I may not want seen or my camera may have picked up conversations of a sensitive area. If I'm chatting to the photographer next to a camera that is recording - I have several running during the service and speeches or reception - those conversations could be damaging to either of us. Censuring, converting files from 4k to HD is time consuming and therefore chargeable under an hourly rate. The choir takes no extra time if a Videographer has been booked. True if they sing a bad note on the day, they'd not want it recorded for posterity, but should the church charge double for this contingency.

Now I'm not saying a top quality choir shouldn't charge more, but doubling your fees just because you're being filmed can't be justified as extra for Wedding work as their original fee already takes that into account. I'm afraid in my experience, its the organists and choir most insecure over being filmed who want extra cash, usually in an attempt to dissuade the couple from having a Videographer; not wanting to just directly be unreasable and say no. Same with general church fees, those vicars happy to be recorded are less likely to throw extra fees for filming, whilst the vicars who hate being recorded are more liable to charge more. It's this lack of consistency from one church to another and using extra fees to cover insecurity about being filmed that leads to accusations of rip off.

Dang, I can’t take it anymore! Life has got too complicated.

If the church want’s to nickel and dime (um, would that be “threepence and shilling” in UK speak?) a couple to death, maybe a another option is to NOT get married, live in sin, buy a new car with the money saved, then drive off into the sunset for their honeymoon.

Heck, they can toot the horn for free instead of paying to ring the bells, listen to a fancy sound system playing “Goin’ to San Francisco with a flower in your hair” instead of paying for the choir, and with their smart phone take a video to post on YouTube with a backup in the cloud.

Just think of it, no copyright problems to deal with, and … help save the Earth in the process by reducing the carbon footprint of having everyone come to their wedding. What’s not to like?

I'm pretty sure the rip off factor exists thruout the wedding industry.

I had a bride last season who was quoted $800.00 for a plain 3 tier wedding cake. She went to our local baker and bought 3 individual cakes and bought her own stands on eBay ... total cost $150.00

The moment you say the word "wedding" that seems to attract a triple price !! I wonder what a cake shop would charge if you ordered a 3 tier cake for a "party" and then asked someone to get a price for the same but for a "wedding" ..bet the price would skyrocket!!

A choir/organist is doing nothing extra in his performance whatsoever to command an extra fee if a camera is running ....that's why the term rip off is so true here!!

Copyright clearance is not calculated on how nice it is, but by reach. More exposure equates to more money. Somebody booked to sing at a pub, who suddenly discovers the audience is bigger, and perhaps will be available for years as opposed to minutes will have a different opinion. If the local dance school buy one DVD and duplicate hundreds that's very similar.

It is music, so doesn't matter? If you have one of those contracts that allows you to use the material you shoot for future advertising, if the bride requested you to not do it, how would you feel? Cross, robbed, indignant as it's 'your' work.

It's totally fine you think it's a rip off, because somebody is being asked to pay for something they feel should be free. Many musicians don't mind. The unions feel their members are being ripped off, so they instruct them to charge more. I don't subscribe to the union way of thinking sometimes, but they are a professional organisation, and they obviously feel this is important.

Wanting more, for no compensation seems a rip off from the other end to me?

Paul, I really don't understand what you are trying to say, the musicians get paid to do their job, the videographer gets paid to do his, both jobs are requested and paid by the bride because she is the client, she doesn't resell the video or make any extra money from it.

The videographer is not making any extra cent by adding the musicians performance in his video yet you think it is justified for the musicians to charge double their price just because a videographer adds them in the clients video? My previous post was to point out that it goes 2 ways, what if someone else wants to book those same musicians because they have seen them in the video, does this entitle the videographer to charge accordingly at the time he is shooting the video? If I have to believe the way you see it, he does, how many clients do you think would accept that?

I agree with Noa - the organist is like any other paid musician on the day and I'd like to bet (I could be wrong) that the sax player/harpist/string quartet etc charge the same regardless of whether the wedding is being filmed or not. I've played in gigging bands since I was 16 (just done my farewell gig) and played many weddings but the price we charged was the same as any other gig.

what's worrying in this case is lack of justification for a double fee - The RSCM says it's ok to charge double if the wedding is being filmed but does not give a reason why - lack of justification IMO implies simple profiteering.

Regarding the organist wanting double in case it ends up all over the internet well.... that's a fact of life now. Every time the bride walks down or up the isle that is going to be on facebook before the confetti is being thrown. My professionally produced product however is delivered on DVD/Blu-Ray and unless the couple know how to rip and edit from one of those disks, that footage will not be uploaded to the internet

Pete

More exposure equates to more money.

So you would agree I could charge double as well for giving the musician exposure in my video as they can benefit from that later on? Am I not entitled for a part of what they make from that? Maybe add the venue, the makeup artist, the dj, the limodriver or whoever works at a wedding, and while we are at it, why not charge the church, some couples might pick that church because they have seen it in my video, they will be making money from that and I want my part as well! :)

I could make up a quote for the bride saying she has to pay extra for anyone appearing in my video who can benefit from that, I don't have to prove they will get extra exposure, just because I think that might happen is sufficient. Seeing how much money is involved I feel everyone in the weddingbusiness should copy this attitude and rip off the bride anyway we can and charge a surplus on top of what we are making anyway, then the couple at least will think twice before getting married as this is after all serious business.

Paul, you're trying very hard to paint this as one thing when it's not. Churches are fuly aware of copyright laws, which is why they insist I produce a music recording licence that limits how much live recording music I can have in my video and how many copies. This license prohibits online distribution for said music, which includes songs played by the dj that I am recording, harpists or any other musicians and if there's a band in the evening.

The choir asking for more money is more akin to that which could be requested by anyone on the day, the toast master, the harpist, any entertainers like magicians, the dj even and of course the band. The vast majority are fine and accept filming and even in some cases approach me for a copy of their material to help promote themselves, which I happily do free of charge.

The fact is, you perform or appear at a Wedding, you can expect to be filmed, if not from someone like me, then a guest. Not happy with that, don't perform at a Wedding. Charging extra for being filmed is just fleecing the couple for extra cash or as I suggested earlier, a potential obstacle to block couples hiring a Videographer as the choir feels insecure being filmed.

Apologies that I haven't read every word of every post...

I can see both sides of the issue. As I videographer (or if I were there bride) I can see this as a rip off.

As a musician I can see that I'm being paid for a single performance, but you wish to record that performance and enjoy it all over again, time after time without hiring me to give those extra performances for you. So from the musicians point of view they aren't getting paid for times when you are enjoying 'their' music.

If however they are amateurs like many church organists are then i do think they need to consider whether it's justified. One wedding I counted 32 bum notes from a very poor organist, yet they still wanted paying double. I suggested to the couple they took the recording back, played it to them and ask for a refund because they certainly didn't get value for money!

I had one string quartet stop playing and refuse to play again until I removed an audio recorder that was near by them (I was trying to get as good a sound as I could for the video). They told me it was OK to record "on-camera" but not on a zoom H4n. Crazy.

To me the bigger rip off is when the church themselves are charging more because it's being videoed, even when the C of E suggest that the charge for video should be no more than the actual increased cost to the church of have a camera present, which is usually nil.

Typically it's only been C of E churches (Vicars / Rectors etc) that want to charge more. It's never been mentioned in any other denomination.

I am also a performing musician - I play in a tribute band. We get decent fees, but when we turn up and there is a video crew there, we say NO. If I play a bum note, or one of the harmony vocal lines gets messed up - nobody notices, but the last thing I want is it being on a DVD somewhere. When these events are planned in advance, we include editing rights in our contract - so we will then provide the video people with a properly mixed and balanced recording they can sync to - BUT - we retain the rights, and want a share of the profit. If it's for a cause we support, then maybe we might settle for a deal on the DVDs sold - but if we see people making money we refuse unless it's arranged in advance.

This has nothing to do with weddings, if you are the client and want to have your performance recorded with intention to sell it on dvd later on, then yes, I would agree that you want every note to sound perfect and that you want to have controll on that part including get financially compensated for whatever someone else will be making from selling the dvd's, I also would agree if you would be playing at a wedding and your leadsinger was drunk that you don't want the videographer to use the music or any images of the singer barfing into a tuba in his video if that would be placed online for advertisement purposes since it could hurt your reputation.

But I can tell you with this attitude you will not be performing at weddings, that's for sure, no couple will ever hire you if you tell them you don't want to be recorded or if you want to be extra compensated because a videoguy is present, I never have experienced that in the 10 years I have been shooting weddings, all musicians where happy I recorded them and often ask for a copy of my audio recording, we even trade business cards and I put a link to their website on my website below the film I made and they all appreciate it because i give them free advertismement, even if potential clients can't hear their music on my website, they can if they follow teh link to the musicians site. I never use their music in my trailers that are online but pay for licensed music from the musicbed or audiojungle, I do let them appear in my trailers though. Only the couple gets to hear their music on their live recorded music on the dvd.

This is how it works in the weddingbusiness, you help eachother out and you network, if you cannot live with that, then weddings are not for you.

Not wanting to step into a hornets nest after having read all the posts in this thread, but I wonder if this isn't just another case of different perspectives.

Quite often in life, I've run into situations where a "usual and customary" practice of charging a fee appears a "ripoff" to the person paying the bill. I've been on both sides of the equation. Sometimes the "ripoff fee" is due to policies and procedures put in place by people and committees higher up setting the rules. The person charging the fee is just following the rules, and may not have any discretion in that regard.

I'm sure the musicians want to get paid well whenever they get the chance. And most of them don't get very many chances. The musicians I know aren't getting rich.

Charging more when the performance is being recorded is much like the differing fees video producers and professional photographers charge depending upon how the work is going to be used. Think advertising rights etc. It's not exactly the same, but seems similar to me. I don't think many wedding videographers have done work for advertising agencies etc., and I've only done a little. The wedding videographer's perspective may be incomplete.

It's a given, most of the time the person paying the bills likes to pay less. The person getting paid likes to get paid more. What's fair is sometimes hard to discern. Most of the time, there's no malice involved. Just normal and customary business practices.

Also, I can see why the musicians are concerned about the recording of their performance being distributed and "heard in a bad light" if you get my meaning. Some of my corporate video clients want the raw video along with the finished production. I've had wedding clients ask for that too. That includes the shots that didn't work... I wouldn't want any of those to appear online. That's why my wedding clients don't ever get any of my raw video. Some of my corporate clients do get the raw video. The ones who understand video production.

Now, if one of my wedding clients was willing to pay me substantially more for the raw footage, I'd probably agree. That would compensate me for the risk of someone seeing some of my bad shots. Likewise, if you pay the organist more, she may not mind as much if someone hears those wrong notes (or bad reverb etc). The bride might think both me and the organist are ripping her off asking for more payment for something the organist and I already had to do as part of the job we were already being compensated for, but that's not the way I would see it. I would view it as fair to charge more for the raw footage. Likewise, I would think it fair for the organist to get paid more when the performance is being recorded as part of a production than when it's not.

Firstly I will declare my interest as a performing musician, organist even (though I'm trying hard to retire from that too), and I can only speak from a UK perspective.

I'm with Paul on this one, and so are the Musicians' Union and the Incorporated Society of Musicians.

Musicians in this country have fought hard for their working rights to be recognised against a culture which somehow assumes that their work should be given away free. A performing musician has every right to have a say in what happens to his/her performance - a recording is quite a separate issue from a live performance. I am not sure where the expectation that it should be different at a wedding comes from.

Actors would doubtless agree as well, and expect a negotiated fee for a recording to be made of their performance. After dinner speakers are not noted for their willingness to be recorded for nothing either, in my experience at least.

Having said that, I have personally had no difficulty in waiving the recording fee for (nearly) all the weddings for which I have played, and indeed when on the other side of the camera have also filmed a few weddings for friends/relations without charging them a fee, but with agreed restrictions on what they can do with the film. My decision.

But I fear that on this forum, the issue of a filmmaker working for nothing (do I hear "depriving someone else of a fee"/ "we are professionals, we don't give our work away" etc etc?) will be regarded entirely differently from expecting a musician to be recorded for no fee.

By all means ask whether musicians performing at a wedding ceremony are willing to be recorded without a fee, many probably will, but some won't and that is their prerogative, at least here in the UK.

It may be indeed be the case that it is easier to make illicit recordings in churches these days, but that doesn't make it right any more than it is in cinemas, theatres and concert halls.

I still don't get it, they ARE getting payed to sing at a wedding, why do they want to charge extra if they are being recorded and lets say the couple pays them extra for that, do we as videograhers have the same right to charge extra as well for including the musician in our video as they are benefiting from this exposure as well, should we also have the right to say to the bride, sorry, we won't record the musician if they or you don't pay extra? To me it sounds rather silly and just a way to get more money, am I alone? Just because a Union or society supports that thought doesn't make it right as they are probably are getting their share as well so ofcourse they don't mind :D It is strange though as I never have encountered this behavior from any musician I have recorded (and i place a recorder in front of them every time and often even get a direct feed from their mixer) but I guess they want to keep being hired (and paid like any other vendor) at weddings.

IMO it's opportunism, pure and simple.

Last year, I was running a show with two big, expensive illusions - a flying magic carpet, that flew over the audience, and a gigantic gorilla. The carpet needed 5 people to work it, the gorilla 4. The person in charge of these teams worked for me, and did these sequences as part of her job. The others belong to the venue, and are paid (and I sign off their time sheets) for each show. These two effects are considered 'on-stage effects' and this means each person got a wadge of money for each sequence - 160 payments per person. Each sequence lasted two minutes, and again, I had to sign these off, even though that person was already being paid for each show.

This is another accepted system, agreed with the unions - BECTU in this case. It's good for the crew, and expensive for the production company - but even as the person who has to pay it, I don't consider it a rip-off. It's simply business.

I'm very happy with people not agreeing with musicians getting better pay for wider use, but it doesn't mean they should not get it. As said, many don't mind - but when people don't ask, they get fed up and feel unappreciated.

Considering that filming of weddings is normal, not an exception, for an organist or other church musicians to be resentful or reluctant to be recorded or to want extra pay for it is nonsense.

They should not have to be asked if it's ok to be recorded, that's idiotic because it's the nature of weddings that they are recorded.

If they are weird about being filmed they should find something else to do on Saturday afternoons.

"do we as videograhers have the same right to charge extra as well for including the musician in our video"

Well the answer to that is yes of course you have the right to include any terms in your contract, so long as they are legal. The reality would be that if you did you'd probably loose some commissions as I'm sure couples wouldn't want to pay that fee, or ask or expect the musicians they hire to, on the other hand some musicians do exercise that right to ask for more and seemingly get it, so who has the best business model? I have come across it a few times in churches, and even had one angry soloist confront me after the wedding demanding that I didn't use the footage as she had not agreed to be filmed. As well as that I have had a few musicians decline to be recorded in civil venues as they'd not been informed before hand that they would be recorded - the implication being they'd have asked for more money.

A couple of occasions I've been asked not to film the groom's/father's speech as they insisted that he'd be too nervous if they knew that they were being recorded. I respect their right to refuse in the same way I'd expect to be respected when I'm filming. One instance was a church with a very sophisticated AV system I was asked to connect my main camera into their system to relay the footage to large screens and for it to be recorded for the church's own record. I refused as I didn't want all of my framing and focusing watched by the congregation nor allow the footage to be kept and used by the church for their own purposes.

As videographers we sometime become so immersed in our work that we loose the bigger picture and forget that even though we see the tremendous value there is for the B&G not everyone is as enthusiastic or even comfortable being filmed. Being invited to or asked to contribute to a wedding doesn't take away the right to refuse or insist on some sort of reward for agreeing to be filmed. I never felt it my part to take up the battle against additional fees on behalf of the clients. I stated that any fees or charges were the responsibility of the client, it's not my fight.

Considering that filming of weddings is normal, not an exception, for an organist or other church musicians to be resentful or reluctant to be recorded or to want extra pay for it is nonsense.

They should not have to be asked if it's ok to be recorded, that's idiotic because it's the nature of weddings that they are recorded.

If they are weird about being filmed they should find something else to do on Saturday afternoons.

It may be normal in Cincinnati but where I lived it was only a very small percentage of weddings that used a hired videomaker.
I'm not sure when the videographer's role in the day became the over-riding reason for the event so much that anyone who didn't want to play should find something else to do,;take their ball and go home.

Who says its about videographer's role? I missed that comment George. The bride is the one being exploited, not the videographer.

I have come across it a few times in churches, and even had one angry soloist confront me after the wedding demanding that I didn't use the footage as she had not agreed to be filmed. As well as that I have had a few musicians decline to be recorded in civil venues as they'd not been informed before hand that they would be recorded - the implication being they'd have asked for more money.



It's in my Ts & Cs that the couple get permission from all participants and pay any relevant fees - if a musician on the day objects then that's fine by me - I would tell the couple asap however in case they wished to resolve it.

As videographers we sometime become so immersed in our work that we loose the bigger picture and forget that even though we see the tremendous value there is for the B&G not everyone is as enthusiastic or even comfortable being filmed.

For me the bigger picture is clear, it's the couple who expects me to document every detail and part of their day, that's what I"m hired to do and paid for. Ofcourse anyone refusing to be filmed I will take into consideration and inform the couple about it the day of the wedding if I find it important enough, that could be a musician that doesn't want to appear on film but could also be a priest that objects on certain cameraplacements which could have an effect on the endresult although that rarely happens here. In that case my client is aware about it and either is ok with that or not but they will have to take it further up with the person that doesn't want to be filmed, not me. Most important for me is when I deliver and get paid in full I will not have to get into an argument with the client why certain parts of the day where not filmed, that's something I always will try to prevent.

Those supporting that additional fees are okay aren't making their arguments for it clearly consistent.

Is it for copyright reasons, then do the choir own the copyright to the music they sing? If for their singing of it, then there's a license to cover that, which churches are quite familiar with.

Is it to acknowledge them as artists performing on the day, if so why do the vast majority of cases occur with church of England Choirs and Organists - are they more deserving of extra fees compared to bands, musicians, entertainers and any other Religious choir I may record for a Wedding. Or to be more precise, why are they more likely to ask?

Is the fee to cover feeling uncomfortable being filmed. Should one charge for that? There's plenty of examples of my being uncomfortable in my work. Do I charge extra for an awkward vicar who makes my life hell, a difficult Photographer. Maybe working whilst I'm ill qualifies. Musicians are just another vendor. Being filmed whether by a Professional or a guest is to be expected and with mobile phones and tablets dominating the guests range of equipment, its unusual if some parts of the day aren't captured by video. You don't go to Weddings and not expect to be caught on someones camera. Get use to it or don't do Weddings.

Besides those musicians here supporting this choir maybe guilty of applying their own views and experiences onto them and not considering the choir's reasons may differ from their own were they in a similar situation. A small extra fee is understandable to cover filming. If there are further concerns, a request to limit the number of copies of the video or even an instruction not to include the organist and choir music and replace the live audio for those sections with other music tracks. I've done both before for Weddings and this would resolve the matter far more directly than fleecing the couple by charging double the standard fee. There's covering your role as an artist and then there's taking the piss. Double fees feels more like the latter when other options are available.

Paul, I don't see your examples as being relevant, as they apply to part of a show which is a commercial product that is being sold, so any video of that product that is sold, is potentially taking money from the owners pocket.

A wedding is a totally different scenario and the end product is a record of the day and is not a commercial product. A band that has been paid to play at the wedding is incidental to the day and any music on the video is going to be in the context of the wedding with shots of dancers and general atmosphere and not a continuous commercial recording of the band's performance. If a recording of the band was made as a complete work with commercial or resale potential, then I would completely agree that a negotiated price should be agreed for the video rights. The idea that the family should pay extra so that they can see bits of that part of the day which is incidentally captured is nonsense in my opinion, and that is also from my own experience as a musician playing at weddings. The logical progress of that idea, is that the couple should sign an agreement with the videographer that any viewing of the wedding video beyond a certain number of times, or any viewings by non members of the immediate family should be the subject of extras copyright fees to the videographer.

There clearly should be a legal exception for incidental involvement, which is possibly where the limited availability licence comes into play. Not being a lawyer I am in no position to throw any light on that.

Roger

I still don't get it, they ARE getting payed to sing at a wedding,

... yes they are, and if you don't record them for later playback then they are being paid for what they do and you are receiving everything you paid for.

However, if you are recording them then you also get to hear / see / enjoy their performance over and over again, performances for which they are not getting paid.

It's a fine line and cleary one that divides people here.

If the bride and groom want to sell their wedding video to a TV company you would probably expect to earn something out of it too. But wait, you were paid to video the wedding, why should you get any more just because they sold your video on to someone else and made money out of it.

A wedding is a totally different scenario and the end product is a record of the day and is not a commercial product.

Of course it's a commercial product, you're charging for it as a business!

Dave, you might want to change the name for the quote, I didn't say that.

Dave, you might want to change the name for the quote, I didn't say that.

Done, not sure why the software did that!

... yes they are, and if you don't record them for later playback then they are being paid for what they do and you are receiving everything you paid for.

However, if you are recording them then you also get to hear / see / enjoy their performance over and over again, performances for which they are not getting paid.

Ok, so being payed for the performance at the wedding and being payed again for the client to hear the performance again afterwards, maybe charge a fixed amaount per time they watch the video because that seems fair. Maybe charge extra when their friends get invited and watch the film also, after all, if you go to a show everyone has to buy a ticket so that's sounds very reasonable?

Since the musician agreed and got paid extra to have his music listened to in my video they actually should pay me a amount for giving them exposure and possibly extra work. I did get paid by the bride for my work but not by the musician for providing him more exposure and extra work. That also seems like a fine line to me :)

Ok, so being payed for the performance at the wedding and being payed again for the client to hear the performance again afterwards, maybe charge a fixed amaount per time they watch the video because that seems fair.

Exactly how would the musician administer that? It's just not possible.

Ofcourse it could be possible, anyone who finds it normal to get paid double for a single performance at a wedding should also invoice every single person that gets to watch the clients weddingvideo, they are after all enjoying the music performance over and over again so they should pay for every single time they watch it. I mean, that is what musicians expect these days it seems. Maybe they could work together with the videographer to do a pay per view concept online with a unique key so you can be sure the couple and family/friends can only watch their weddingfilm once and pay again for another view, we want to make sure the musicians get what is rightfully theirs. :)

Of course it's a commercial product, you're charging for it as a business!

No it's not, I am providing a service that I charge for, not a product for resale. I am also giving them the rights to it, so if they choose to sell it to a TV company, then good luck to them. I have been paid for the service to record it, but it was not my wedding, I have no rights to that.

I bought my 1962 Fender Stratoscaster electric guitar for £150 in 1983. The guy who sold it to me was happy with the price,nut it is now worth around £20,000 so should I pay him a percentage of the value when I sell it.

If someone recorded me playing in a pub and it went viral on YouTube, I would say thankyou very much while I cash in on the publicity and increased income that the fame will bring to my future gigs. Hell I might even give them a cash thankyou from my income jump. If the video was sold commercially for profit, I would expect and be legally entitled to a royalty from it. As regards the weddings that I have played at as a musician and was paid for, I would also be delighted if they took pleasure in playing it over and over again and showed it to all their friends. Their is a very clear difference between the two scenarios.

Roger

No it's not, I am providing a service that I charge for, not a product for resale.

Yes you provide a 'service', but as part of that service the B+G expert an end product - the video - which is part of that commercial transaction. You know it's a commercial transaction because the Inland Revenue deem it so.

If the video was sold commercially for profit, I would expect and be legally entitled to a royalty from it.

Bingo!

In the end we have to accept that some are happy to be recorded and that recording reproduced and distributed for free and others are not. That's about the sum of it, wouldn't you agree?