I’m relatively new here and it seems the Search functions here are kinda’ quirky so at the risk of being repetitive…

…Other than the blatant copyright infringements and pop music some people insist on using what music selections do you people use for the different parts of your wedding productions?

I’m aware of music copyrights and I certainly can’t afford a sync license so if you folks could point me in the direction of some royalty-free sources I’d certainly appreciate it. (Or even share alternatives you’ve had success with).

Thanks!

Forgot to add.

Anyone know what the chorus group for this vid is?

http://www.tulsaweddingvideos.com/video/picthis3_b.wmv

It is shocking how widespread the copyright infringement thing goes throughout the industry. I don't go down that road, so it means more work on my end to find and add music that is royalty free and still of good quality - and that will help to add emotional impact to your video piece.

As far as music beds, I have had great success making background music with Apple software like Garageband, Soundtrack, and definately SONICFIRE PRO. (a great app). I also love some of the music available through Freeplay Music....however it is anything but free, and can get pretty costly if you don't pace yourself. You can find tons of buy-out libraries for reduced rates on ebay, but you really have to do your homework to find ones that are really quality.

As far as free music...I know this take alot of work, but I have had great success by scouring sites like garageband.com and macjams.com as well as other sites linked through creativecommons.org. The bulk of what you may find at these sites are way below par for listenability, but they often offer powerful search capabilities to find some incredible pieces of music by artists who are unsigned. Some artists let you just download their pieces for free use, or a listing in credits, etc... Because they are unsigned, it is up to the artist (not a record company) to decide what the limitations of their licensing will be. Often, I contact the artist directly and work out the details of what I want to do and see it if they are game with it, and then I get documentation of their permission for me to use their song. In some cases, there may be a small fee, many times it is free. I often purchase their CD's in return and they are more than happy to oblige. I have found some amazing gems this way and ended up with highquality rare, beautiful and emotional songs that really adds impact to the video.

I know this creates more work for the editor (me), but I lay out in the contract with the B & G that I won't use copyrighted music unless they want to pay the licensing fee (which can escalate the whole project by a couple hundred dollars and even upwards of up to 500% of the whole project or more depending on the song or the record company or number of songs used. I haven't found anyone who is willing to pay the fees.

I have noted hints that the RIAA will begin stronger pursuit of those in the wedding videography business in the coming year or two, and in time, will also make example of B&G's who contract them by sueing them as well. Overall, most of the wedding videos I have seen (even those in my market who are heavy hitters in the industry) use top 40 hits and copywritten music all through the videos. This takes almost no effort at all and I know that they neither credit the artists or pay any licensing fees whatsoever.

And then I saw the fourth horse, and the rider upon it was called RIAA.
-Jon

Most brides love the tracks they choose simply because they've bought the album and have been playing it to death. They record it to CD to play in the car, and to MP3 to hear in the train. They record it to MP3 on CD to make favourite music compilations.

The fact that 6 of their favourite tracks turn up on their wedding film (maybe 4 DVDs tops) is seen as a very minor infringement - it's hardly bootlegging for profit.

tom.

The fact that 6 of their favourite tracks turn up on their wedding film (maybe 4 DVDs tops) is seen as a very minor infringement - it's hardly bootlegging for profit.Well, I hear you but I've been down this road before. Bottom line: unless it's free or you have permission then it's a violation. While what you describe isn't bootlegging per se your end product has been "enhanced" and therefore you are benefiting from somebody elses' work. (Insert favorite laywer gibberish here).

Now I have heard about videographers actually buying the music tracks in the B&G's name then synching said music tracks to the video but even these people know they are treading thin ice.

The problem is that some many videographers do it and music piracy is so rampant the B&G expect it.

I agree with all you say Rick, can't argue with a word. But following the argument means I can't record the string quartet that's playing for the guests, the hyms in church, the CD playing as the guests are greeted and seated and especially not the disco's output. This tends to make their wedding film go a bit mute for long periods.

tom.

The fact that 6 of their favourite tracks turn up on their wedding film (maybe 4 DVDs tops) is seen as a very minor infringement - it's hardly bootlegging for profit.

tom.


Don't shoot the messenger. Tom, I beg to differ. In the case you presented, sure I would think it to be 'minor' at most...however, at this time, the law is not so able to differentiate - and the laws we entertain in the US are somewhat less forgiving than what I understand the ones in the UK to be. I have read many forums that document the varying degrees of the copyright application country to country, and from what I understand, Austrailia (an some others) seems to be using a very sensible system (by comparison) In the US, it may be a long time before we see movement in that direction because the RIAA has yet to see much stock in it, since they are already so bloated with cash and they have the law on their side.

While a bride with a couple (maybe 4?) DVD's with her favorite music on it to be used strictly for personal consumption should in fact be allowable (within reason -more complicated if the videographer made $500 - $1000, $2000 >>> or whatever putting it together...profit???) much of what I have seen constitutes overt infringement given the following scenario:

My sister, who is a relatively well-connected higher-margin wedding coordinator, has run many many demos of local videographers by me for my input and opinions as well as to show me what the best or busiest in the area are doing. Some of are good, a few are GREAT! and many are crap. But it is in these demos that I find the most infringement.

These demos are often circulated, handed out, and displayed at wedding shows by the dozens, and sometimes by the hundreds, as well as often posted for open review on the net. These demos are riddled with the copyrighted songs I mentioned...and far exceed your example of a bride with her favorite songs on four DVD's. It is more specifically in this arena of open distribution that the RIAA (here in the US) will be on the hunt. Legal firms representing the RIAA and copyright industry contract with companies whose sole responsibility it is to scour the internet and look for violations, and document them for possible pursuit of litigation or monetary recompense for copyright infringement. I have heard of such information by many professionals in the field and suspect it is only a matter of time before such action takes effect.
-Jon

Jon - I'm right with you. Every LP, cassette and CD I buy comes with the wording that copying in any form is strictly forbidden.

I can't even sell on this PC with Windows XP Pro on it, let alone my Storm and other programs. I can't use the Xerox machine down at the library to copy pages from a book or magazine, and I can't have my window open in case Love Me Do is heard by people out in the street.

In theory I can't videotape the film on BBC2 tonight, and if I accidentally did do such a darstardly thing I most certainly can't lend the tape or DVD to a friend.

Copyright is a minefield, and for most of us an unpoliceable minefield. I know there are some halfwits who blatently dub Celine Dion all over their wedding highlights and pop it on the web for all to see, but they could well be finding out that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

tom.

This issue has been beat to death. I hardly think that a major record label would put forth the necessary funds to litigate a small time business such as wedding videography when the amount of money made on the video would be substantially less than that incurred by the lawsuit. I have yet to hear of major label suing a small business owner over copyright infringement. I believe that the labels are searching for people that are abusing the right such as downloaders and people making an absorbment amount of money off of the songs in the video.

Just my opinion though....

i wonder if wedding dj's worry about the same thing. not only do they not pay usage rights, most of them illegally download music (i've heard the all too familiar mp3 corruption artifacts in way too many wedding receptions).

I agree with all you say Rick, can't argue with a word. But following the argument means I can't record the string quartet that's playing for the guests, the hyms in church, the CD playing as the guests are greeted and seated and especially not the disco's output. This tends to make their wedding film go a bit mute for long periods.I could be wrong here Tom but I believe what you are describing is the recording of "ambient" sounds which should be OK.

However, *that* being said I'm sure a copyright attorney could have a field day with this remark.

i wonder if wedding dj's worry about the same thing. not only do they not pay usage rights, most of them illegally download music (i've heard the all too familiar mp3 corruption artifacts in way too many wedding receptions).

Ditto here. DJ's are the worst. But the legit ones pay hefty prices. (You can usually tell by their fees).

I have noted hints that the RIAA will begin stronger pursuit of those in the wedding videography business in the coming year or two, and in time, will also make example of B&G's who contract them by sueing them as well. Overall, most of the wedding videos I have seen (even those in my market who are heavy hitters in the industry) use top 40 hits and copywritten music all through the videos. This takes almost no effort at all and I know that they neither credit the artists or pay any licensing fees whatsoever.

And then I saw the fourth horse, and the rider upon it was called RIAA.
-Jon


show us these hints you have noted. If you can't then why say it?


In the uk and in Australia, you can buy a mechanical license to use music in videos where less then 40 copies will be made. Its a few hundred dollars for the year.
I have written asking for them to do such a thing here. They don't. They have ignored this industry.
I for one think its BS, that people in Australia and the uk can use copyright music for weddings by any band in the world, and we cant without bs fear. It's wrong. If the music industry allows it in one place then it should be equal for all.
my 2 cents

Found this on another board.. Dated Oct. 2005.. Anyone wanna check out this other place and see what they tell you?

Leo,
Of course I have no way of verifying if this is true or not, but I spent the entire morning on the phone with BMI and ASCAP first... who referred me to Harry Fox in New York for a sync license, then Harry Fox no longer does sync licenses so I was refered to sesac.com (both by Harry Fox, and ASCAP)

I called the representative at Sesac, and they said that if I am providing less than 10 copies of music (for weddings or small events) then I acuatlly can have the end-use provide me with the music they would like in their video.
If they do not have the music, I can buy the music for them, and so long as I charge them for the music in addition to the amount of our contract. So if I make a video for $1000 and its $12.99 for the CD containing, for example, "UB40 - Can't Help Falling in Love" then I can simply charge them $1012.99 for their video and then give them the CD as well. This is because it is considered personal use and you are not responsible for what they do with the other copies...they are essentially backups.

Now if you want to film a high school graduation, its different because you are going to be distributing the video to over 200 people and you would have to contact the individual record company for a master use license. I hope this helps all of you, and I hope SESAC is a reliable source because the lawyers I contacted even couldn't really help me this much. As a side not SESAC has been in business for 75 yeras so I would hope they know what they are talking about. If they don't, I am keeping through notes and they will be hit with a lawsuit if I am.

I called the representative at Sesac, and they said that if I am providing less than 10 copies of music (for weddings or small events) then I acuatlly can have the end-use provide me with the music they would like in their video. If they do not have the music, I can buy the music for them, and so long as I charge them for the music

My apologies for beating this dead horse:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30867

All I really wanted was ideas for some "desent" royalty free tunes. :)

I did find this site that allows you to distribute their music (up to 5 copies of at a time) for $69 per year. Even "they" imply some of the scores are copyrighted and basically say use at your own risk.

http://www.pianobrothers.com/

The bottom line is until the RIAA actually sues a videographer and that suit results in a judge's ruling then the 10 copy/5 copy/personal use rule sounds pretty muddy to me. However, should that happen I would hope the RIAA puts some resonable mechanism in place to handle synch licenses for small-time videographers (which is non-existent)

I suggest somebody here volunteer. :)

I know there are some halfwits who blatently dub Celine Dion all over their wedding highlights and pop it on the web for all to see,

tom.

Wow, Tom...you nailed it! I had to laugh, because you summarized it so perfectly...that is exactly what I have seen examples of, what I had in my head while I was typing, and you described it to a T. You got a good laugh out of me.. Right on.
-Jon


show us these hints you have noted. If you can't then why say it?


Ummm, okay....whatever. I didn't realize I was bringing up a point that was being hotly debated. To me, it seemed like some pretty decent info to be aware of, so..no need to get infantile. And just for your satisfaction, I cannot show these 'hints' and make it worth my time.

Over the past year, I spent countless hours scouring the net, these forums, numerous indie forums, and music forums, reading posts and following threads, many of which included contributions by long-standing and well-respected members of these forums on dvinfo.net. I read information from musicians, videographers, producers, and lawyers. I printed a bunch of info out and studied it to learn more about the issues as it helped me devise a business plan and know the 'safe' limitations of my field. 'Safe' being restricted by a publishing industry that does not yet have a viable compass.

When I got through the rubble and knew what I felt I needed to know, I cleaned house and didn't save what I printed out.

So, David, if you feel I posted out of line, or 'chicken littled' all over the forum, I am sorry. You can either choose to use the all-powerful search feature and enjoy reading some of the more recent, and sometimes well-informed posts in these forums, ignore the issue altogether (as it is likely that nothing will change in the legal stuff for years to come after all,..and I can admit that)...or simply ignore my posts. I'm still learning after all.

In the future, I will endeavor to save my important backlinks in case I need to offer proof for industry speculation.
-Jon

I said show us, that's all. Most of us have spent time reading, surfing, calling,
without any solid answers. I figured you had some.

I said show us, that's all. Most of us have spent time reading, surfing, calling,
without any solid answers. I figured you had some.

My sincere apologies for my tone....it was late, I had chugged some Nyquil to quell a cold and fever, and I just misinterpreted the tone of your statement. Sorry about that. In the meantime, I have done some more searching to see if I can find some updated threads to what I indicated and will try to post some info when I get the chance. Hope we're good. Thanks.

BTW: I checked some of the wedding videographers sites to look around. Although I commented that many of them don't spend much time on the music and simply drop in popular tunes because it is an easy win...it was clear to me that your approach to the use of the music is fundamental, and you edit with a keen sense of the musical timing. Your editing is exceptional. Good stuff.
-Jon

I don't know what the debate is. AFAIK, in North America you must, absolutely without exception, have synchonization and mechanical licenses from the copyright holder to incorporate any music into your production other than music of your own composition (or public domain) and performance. Period, end of story, no exceptions. Using a CD owned by the B&G as the source of the tracks is in no way different from using a CD purchased by you or a track downloaded from the net or a tape of something heard on the radio for that purpose. The law does permit the owner of a CD etc to copy material for backup purposes and to convert it to a different medium for personal use (ripping a CD to put it on your MP3 player for example) but if push came to shove you would be hard-pressed to assert in court that copying a track off a music CD into the soundtrack of a wedding video is making a backup for archival purposes. And according to the law as I understand it, it doesn't matter whether the video is going to be shown or broadcast publically, duplicated in a 100 unit production run to be given to all the wedding guests and family, or run off in just one single copy solely for the personal use of the B&G, if it's copyright music you must either own the copyright yourself or have a license to use it.

BTW, the wedding DJ requires a performance license to play the music at the reception (whether he has one or not is another matter - legally he should.) This is a completely different kind of license from that required to incorporate the same music into a video production.

So could the following worked...

You create your wedding video here in the U.S.

You send it out persay to your buddy in the UK for the final sound mix

You send it to your clients?

I mean you didn't do the sound your subcontractor did it with a license?

I said show us, that's all. Most of us have spent time reading, surfing, calling,
without any solid answers. I figured you had some.

Hey Dave.. Quit checking out this thread and update your Gallery I need some new ideas...:)

here Pat

www.dmbvp.com/video/bliss.wmv

the newest

My sincere apologies for my tone....it was late, I had chugged some Nyquil to quell a cold and fever, and I just misinterpreted the tone of your statement. Sorry about that. In the meantime, I have done some more searching to see if I can find some updated threads to what I indicated and will try to post some info when I get the chance. Hope we're good. Thanks.

BTW: I checked some of the wedding videographers sites to look around. Although I commented that many of them don't spend much time on the music and simply drop in popular tunes because it is an easy win...it was clear to me that your approach to the use of the music is fundamental, and you edit with a keen sense of the musical timing. Your editing is exceptional. Good stuff.
-Jon
Thanks....that's why I am so passionate about this topic. Also, if the chips do fall, I have a huge target on me :(

''BTW, the wedding DJ requires a performance license to play the music at the reception (whether he has one or not is another matter - legally he should.) ''

Good point Steve, and my point is that by videoing in the vicinity of the loudspeakers I'm copying those music tracks just as if I was feeding in a line signal. The law sees copying from speaker to mic an equal infringement to line-in copying.

tom.

''BTW, the wedding DJ requires a performance license to play the music at the reception (whether he has one or not is another matter - legally he should.) ''

Good point Steve, and my point is that by videoing in the vicinity of the loudspeakers I'm copying those music tracks just as if I was feeding in a line signal. The law sees copying from speaker to mic an equal infringement to line-in copying.

tom.

As I understand it (I am not a lawyer) whether hearing the dance music coming from the loudspeakers at the reception in your soundtrack is infringing or not is based in part on whether it is a material part of the production or coincidental. If you have shots of people dancing or your primary sound of interest is conversations and interviews with family, members of the party, etc and bits of the music are coincidently audible in the background it would probably pass. But if you have a sequence of the couple's first dance where the song is a material element of the soundtrack or perhaps various romantic shots of the couple cut together in a "love story" video while "their song" plays on the soundtrack, then you're tickling to dragon's tail.