Hi all,
Been a long time since posting. Decided to go ahead and register an LLC with my wife, figured since I do all the videos at church (Audio/Video Ministry leader) and for family weddings and such I might as well do a little freelance to fund some new equipment and get more experience. Right now I'm using our church's GL-1's/tripods and editing with Premiere/Encore. I'm not looking to jump to career mode anytime soon, but I do enjoy it and wouldn't mind having a self sufficient hobby <G>.

Anyway, I got an email from a local pageant director (statewide pageant) asking for a quote so I've been clarifying some needs with them and they basically just want the 2.5 hr event filmed single camera, minimal editing (down to 1.5-2 hrs), smooth shots, and decent audio (can't really mic anyone, but they say I can tap off the hotel sound system for overdub later)...that's about it....oh, and cheap.

All the physical stuff I can do...estimating is what I suck at. Can't seem to find much in the way of comparison shopping around here (Baltimore), everything's wedding events that don't quite match up. I pride myself on my attention to sound and smooth motions, and am comfortable with moderate editing skills, but am still definitely "starting out." I don't mind giving these people a good deal for the exposure and probably throwing in some small extras at no charge, but really don't know what to quote them overall.

Can someone give me some pointers? From what I've read on the many other similar threads I'm thinking maybe $500 total, but honestly that's just a guess. I won't be renting anything at this point, either. Oh, I also get the proceeds from any DVD/VHS sales, which I will most likely be duplictating myself.

Thanks, any advice appreciated,
Jeff

I would say the best way to figure it out is to estimate how many hours it will take to finish the entire project. Count hours that it takes to meet with the pageant coordinators, time it takes to set up, shoot the pageant, take down equipment, and then how long you think the final edit will take. Then multiply the number of hours total by an hourly rate you think you deserve. I'm fairly sure most videographers would never go for anything less then $20 an hour.

An audio suggestion I think would work well is to use a shotgun mic. You could buy a high quality shotgun mic for close to $200. I have an Azden SGM-2X and it works beautifully. A good recorder is also necessary. Currently I just plug into the mic outlet on a GL2. A shotgun could pick up all the audio from the announcer and some ambient sound coming from the crowd.

Good Luck

The above advice for calculating your estimate is good.

Is the pageant commission paying you directly for the production? I ask because I filmed a pageant once where the deal was that I got an ad in their directory (which I spent 2 hours designing), several mentions during the show, and they would not allow audience members to use camcorders during the pageant. My money would be made from DVD sales and I was obligated to provide the pageant commission with a DVD for free.

I took the job and ended up having all of my requests broken. My ad did not make it into the directory even though I delivered it directly to the commission director. I was not mentioned once during the pageant (even though each of the male 'escorts' were thanked individually). And I saw plenty of people using camcorders during the event.

Needless to say, when I spoke to the commission next I stated that I wasn't going to be working on the video unless I had a certain number of guaranteed orders from the pageant girls. When it came down to it no one placed an order, but yet the commission still requested a video from me.

Imagine how angry that made me. Here they broke every promise and left me with no way to compensate myself, and they were asking me to DO MORE WORK and give them product for free.

The moral of my story? I would recommend you put together an estimate for producing a video, and then give the commission duplication for near your cost. This would allow you to receive some payment up front and would put the burden of DVD sales on the pageant.

Patrick,
Yeah, I do have access to an Azden SGM-1X that we use for our church video skits that will do okay; lavs too, but I don't think I'll have opportunity to employ them. I also have the ability to hook up my personal laptop or Yamaha AW16G (digital 16 track recorder) to the hotel's system, according to the director, but I'll need to personally verify that feasibility. If not, I could use a room mic with the recorder (set up near a speaker maybe). It would probably be best to use the recorder and take the mixer output feed and add a room mix on another track. Then I'd have the PA output, room sounds, and GL-1 audio to play with.

Travis,
You bring up some excellent things to consider, thanks!
I believe payment would come from the pageant as a company (it sounds like a pretty well known gig with the National pageant coming to Las Vegas, at least a lot of my work friends have heard of it). This is something I'll have to ask about. Is an upfront deposit standard for these?

Regarding DVD/VHS copies, they want me to be able to take orders for copies at my chosen (fair) rates for guests/contestants within a reasonable turnaround time (2 weeks preferred, but as long as it's reasonable). I can do duplication and printing of small runs myself (I print on inkjet CD's with clear jewel/thin jewel cases).

I do not know if camcorders would be allowed but that's a good question. There is a note on the ticket buying site that says, "There will be no flash photography during the Mrs. Maryland United States Pageant." Would it be unreasonable for me to request that camcorders be added to that?

I'll have to ask about advertising and "mentionings", hadn't thought about that. I did notice that on the pageant Hompage they mention the photo company as their "official photographer", so I could probably at least get a mention there.

Thanks for the tips, always appreciated.
...now I gotta figure out a contract...

Jeff

All I can say is that I have lost money on all projects based soley on tape pre-sales or post sales alone compared to the time and gear invested. Unless you can get pre-sales (cash or checks), not just orders, that will satisfy your bottom line, I wouldn't do it and I don't anymore after only one time. There was no deception in that project though. I knew what the risk was and I try to be open minded and will try anything once because you never know. Also, never take someone's word that oh, all the mothers will buy a copy after the fact. They will either put it off and forget about it or there's also the possibility of copies being made by the parents. If I shoot any event now, I charge the typical flat rates for production (gear, labor, etc.) and post services (editing, duplications, etc.). The producer is responsible for making their money back however they have to but myself and my crew gets paid our rates no matter what. This is the way it should be. We shouldn't have to work on commission because it's bad enough that we're already contractors working project to project! I think you just have to do a few of these to learn when to stay and when to walk away.

I totally agree. I used to produce dance recital videos as well, but I made all my money from the DVD sales. It was a major hassle and pain in the butt and I probably got paid around $1-5/hour when it was all said and done. I tried all sorts of different approaches, but nothing worked.

My advice is this:

Your contract should be set up so that you are paid for your production costs, and that includes HALF up front, HALF upon completion.

If they want to also allow you to sell copies of the DVD at your own rate, that's fine, but don't count on that alone for your profit. Also, don't for one second think that anyone will enforce the no-camcorder rule. I can't tell you how many events I've done that were supposed to be camcorder free but they weren't. It won't be a priority for them, and if you're counting on DVD sales for your payment, you will be sorely dissapointed.

As an example, the dance recitals I did for a few years pulled 200-300 parents, and for each recital I averaged about 10-15 DVD orders. Of those, roughly 5-10 would back out for whatever reason. In the end, I tried to do pre-orders and got only about 10 people. One of them cancelled a check on me because they changed their mind afterwards.

When you're making only a handful of dollars off of a DVD, 10 orders isn't worth the time.

I understand what you guys are saying. I'm not basing a lot of the cost on sales, but I might give them some wiggle room as well, since this is a first "official" outing and I'd like the experience (good or bad <G>).

One idea I also had about sales was to offer them a donation per sale towards their organization, kind of like a fundraiser to offset the main filming/editing costs. That would give them incentive to announce the sales and push for participation. What do you think, ever tried that?

One thing I AM worried about is music. I know I can get royalty free music, but as I recall pageants are rather musical, from theme music to talent competition phases. How do you guys handle the obvious copyright issues? I've heard conflicting reports and need some clarification (i.e. recording taped accompaniment is a no-no, but live musician accompaniment is okay to record).

Thanks,
Jeff

The donation idea is interesting, and would give them more of an incentive to help you sell the DVD's. I also understand your position. You need the experience and the project for your portfolio, so you will probably charge less as a result. However, I do still think it's fair for some amount to be paid in advance and some amount afterwards. Even if it's just for your time filming.

Regarding the music, I don't worry about it myself. I may be wrong, but if I'm recording an event then it is up to the event producers to deal with music copyright issues. Ultimately it ends up being your own personal choice. I edit wedding videos using my clients' music all the time. Legally, this is wrong, but there is no feasible system in place for videographers to get music rights. So, I resort to just buying the music and using it. However, if I was filming an event where they were playing music through their own sound system I wouldn't even give the copyright issue a second thought. Again, that's just me.

I'm pretty strict about following laws, but this is one area where I think the laws don't work and most musicians could probably care less.

I do agree with the deposit idea, thanks for bringing that up.

Regarding wedding video music, from what I've read (although I'm no lawyer), if the client buys the music for a wedding video and they retain the ownership of the music via CD/iTunes/etc, then it falls under their fair use criteria. Not quite sure how that extends to their family and friends, though <G>.

The only thing I could find via Harry Fox (emailed them), and subsequently ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC was regarding Synchronization Licenses, but that seems to refer to adding music to videos rather than just happening to record a video of an event containing occasional music. The next closest thing discussed responsibility of the venue owner for obtaining copyright licenses for any music played or performed in their venue, so it looks like the old adage is still true: it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission <G>.

Things that make you go hmmm....

Jeff

Yeah, it's really unfortunate. I would have no problem getting permission to use music in a wedding video if there was a logical and sane way of doing it. But the fact of the matter is that it's not worth a company's time to deal with me, so they don't bother setting up a system I can use. That leaves me in a crappy situation.

So yeah, the way I look at it now, as long as I purchase the music or the client provides it (and I don't make copies to distribute), then nobody is going to care.

By the way, there have been many discussions in the "Taking Care of Business" forum on this issue, and from what I have seen, it IS technically illegal to use music in any project and redistribute it, even if the client provides the music and you only give a copy to the client. It's crazy law, man, crazy law.

This way of making a living or just making money is a hard sell no matter how it's done. Believe me, after a few times of doing it, you will be able to make up your mind real fast whether to continue or give it up and that will be based on your return compared to your input. It just takes a few times to see a pattern for this type of service to decide.

As far as the legality of using music, I wouldn't take any chances although it's unlikely that you would ever be persued because it's just not worth their time and you would be one of thousands or more for them to track down. And then when they do, what are they going to get? I have recorded many events with copyrighted content including locally produced events using music and lyrics and then major recording artists. I simply created a short and to the point disclaimer that I have all clients sign that are using copyrighted content. I don't know how legally accurate it is but it shows that I made an effort to not violate anyones copyrights and it is better than nothing. I agree and think it's the responsibility of the producer of the event to maintain these rights and clearances but the following just covers me just in case:

By signing this document I acknowledge that the media provided as audio, video or electronic file to be altered by editing, duplication and/or broadcast is to the best of my knowledge authorized for editing, duplication and/or broadcast and not in violation of ANY copyright infringement of its authors or creators. I assume all responsibility and DO NOT hold (YOUR COMPANY NAME) responsible in ANY way for ANY liabilities resulting from subsequent discovery of copyright discrepancies of ANY kind.

I shot a concert series with some huge names a few years ago and decided to post just one song from each artist with streaming video on my website for a demo of my event production services. Well, I got a call from the event producer saying that I had to remove that content immediately because Sony music wasn't too happy about it being posted. Now, I was not selling or distributing that music or video, I was just using it as a demo to show what I could do as far as video production. I immediately took it down which is all they really wanted. I think the event producer made it out to be more than it really was but I wasn't going to take any chances because Sony could have made my life miserable. For some reason record labels are real particular about allowing content to be played on the internet. I've been told it's because they can't accurately track who is using it, where and how it's being used and possibly sold. I just think it's a big unknown that they haven't figured out how to conquer yet. All I have to say to them is good luck with managing that. However, they are not as picky about their music or videos being used on television though, specifically cable. Comcast said that the use of music or video is covered under a blanket license that they pay which apparently covers use by people who use music or video in their local access programs. So it looks like you're covered if it airs on cable. I would still check just to make sure what is or is not covered specifically.

Anyway, I agree with Travis that this licensing thing is just a mess but they created it so it's up to them to manage it. I have heard so many different versions of what you have to do to be able to use copyrighted content that I don't know what to believe. It seems like they are in a contest to see who can make it the most difficult for all of us to legally use their content. I was told that if you pay an organization like BMI or ASCAP their flat rate annual fee, which is only a couple hundred dollars or so, that you are covered for all that they represent. At least it shows that you made an effort. It seems like they would create a very clear and easy way for all of us non lawyers to pay a fee and be done with it. Just think of how much money they could make if it was that easy. I think the reason that alot of us honest people don't even bother is because we don't know how or where to begin to pay them.

Yeah, it's really unfortunate. I would have no problem getting permission to use music in a wedding video if there was a logical and sane way of doing it. But the fact of the matter is that it's not worth a company's time to deal with me, so they don't bother setting up a system I can use. That leaves me in a crappy situation.

So yeah, the way I look at it now, as long as I purchase the music or the client provides it (and I don't make copies to distribute), then nobody is going to care.

By the way, there have been many discussions in the "Taking Care of Business" forum on this issue, and from what I have seen, it IS technically illegal to use music in any project and redistribute it, even if the client provides the music and you only give a copy to the client. It's crazy law, man, crazy law.

Yup, it's illegal to make even one single master copy containing copyright music and hand it to your client without obtaining proper rights and clearances. It's not a technicality, it's as illegal as holding up convenience stores, and individual videographers and companies run afoul of the law every day. If you haven't so far, it's pure blind luck and nothing else. No offense intended but the attitude of "I need to use it to be competitive and since it's too much of a hassle and too expensive to do it legally, I'll just do it anyway and the legalities be damned" seems to me the ethical equivalent of "I need money for new equipment and since the bank won't give me the loan, I'll just take my AK47 down there and take it from them." Call me crazy and old-fashioned but the attitude currently popular in society that says the only arbiter of what's right and what's wrong is whether you can get away it and if you can get away with it then it's acceptable to do it drives me to despair. Sorry, but a person's sense of personal honor should motivate him to adhere to a higher standard, even when it is inconvenient to do so and/or when their contemporaries may ignore the ethical issues.

You never know when it will spring up to bite ya. I heard tale once of a couple who played their wedding DVD for friends at a party they were hosting. One of the party guests' date for the evening just happened to be an intellectual property attorney on the staff of a music company who just happend to own copyright to one of the couple's favourite songs that had been used in their wedding video. Mr Wedding Videographer was treated to a surprise visit from Mr Process Server in just a few days.

If a company is disinclined to deal with you in licensing their music, use alternative music that you can license. If the client wants you to use unlicensed copyright music in violation of the law, explain to them why you can't do that. If they insist, decline their business and send them down the street to deal with Shady Joe's Video Emporium & Auto Chop Shop. Doing the right thing really is that simple.

As I understand it, rules about the capture of music in a pageant or other event video would be little more flexible. If the music *was* the soundtrack, such as might happen in a video of a dance performance for example, it is considered an integral part of the video work and requires the appropriate licensing. But if it simply audible as part of the general background ambience, such as snatches of music from the band or DJ at a wedding reception that just happens to be audible in the background during interviews with the guests, then it not a problem. So if you're showing the pagent evening gown competition with the contestants walking the runway as the music plays, you'll need the licenses. But if you're getting a B-roll interview of the show organizers while the evening gown competition goes on behind them and you overhear music mixed with crowd sounds, applause, and other general ambience in the background, it's considered incidental to the video and licensing would not be needed.

I agree with you about willfully inserting music into a project and using it for profit without paying for its use. But I still say that the licensors sure don't make it easy to know what to pay and how to pay them and even though it doesn't make it right, it kind of encourages that attitude that you described. I don't feel sorry for the licensors one bit because they created the rules so they need to manage them better and make it clear and concise. If I was a copyright holder and I knew how much more money I could make by others using my content under licensing, I would be making it real easy for the masses to do it. I also agree that anyone that uses content without proper clearance is just asking for it. Look what happened to me and I wasn't making a dime for it's use. I had my content used without my permission to sell someone elses product. In fact it was the former owner of a camera stabilizer product talked about on this board quite a bit. I simply contacted them and offered to let them to continue to use it if they would send me some upgrades to the system for compensation. I thought that was fair since they had used it for several months to sell their system without paying me, much less asking my permission. They said no, so I told them to take it down and they did. They were shady anyway and no wonder they had to sell the product line to someone that knew what they were doing. The new owner of the company did contact me and did ask permission to use my content.

... I simply created a short and to the point disclaimer that I have all clients sign that are using copyrighted content. I don't know how legally accurate it is ... but the following just covers me just in case

By signing this document I acknowledge that the media provided as audio, video or electronic file to be altered by editing, duplication and/or broadcast is to the best of my knowledge authorized for editing, duplication and/or broadcast and not in violation of ANY copyright infringement of its authors or creators. I assume all responsibility and DO NOT hold (YOUR COMPANY NAME) responsible in ANY way for ANY liabilities resulting from subsequent discovery of copyright discrepancies of ANY kind.

... However, they are not as picky about their music or videos being used on television though, specifically cable. Comcast said that the use of music or video is covered under a blanket license that they pay which apparently covers use by people who use music or video in their local access programs. So it looks like you're covered if it airs on cable.

I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that your disclaimer will do nothing to protect you. Since you are the one incorporating the music into the video, it is up to you to insure that you have poper clearances. And BTW, clearance and license for a public performance or broadcast IS NOT the same thing as the synchonization license that allows it to be matched to images in a film or video, the mechanical license that allows the original recording to be copied over onto the video soundtrack, or the reproduction license that allows copies of the resulting video to be distributed.

Same thing holds with your comment on cable (and the same would be true for over-the-air broadcast) - their license allows for their airplay of the music but does not cover your incorporating it into the material they're airing. If you go down to the store, buy a CD, dub it into a video, and give it to a station to air, they're covered by their ACAP/BMI license that allows to air the music but you're not covered and a separate license is required for the act of dubbing the same music from the original distribution CD over to the medium on which you gave it to the station. Ironically if station itself does the dubbing in-house to prepare the final program - copying from CD into computer memory or tape for an automated broadcast system, for example - it's not an issue for them. Doesn't seem logical, but when did the law ever?

I agree with you about willfully inserting music into a project and using it for profit without paying for its use. But I still say that the licensors sure don't make it easy to know what to pay and how to pay them and even though it doesn't make it right, it kind of encourages that attitude that you described. I don't feel sorry for the licensors one bit because they created the rules so they need to manage them better and make it clear and concise. If I was a copyright holder and I knew how much more money I could make by others using my content under licensing, I would be making it real easy for the masses to do it. I also agree that anyone that uses content without proper clearance is just asking for it. Look what happened to me and I wasn't making a dime for it's use. I had my content used without my permission to sell someone elses product. In fact it was the former owner of a camera stabilizer product talked about on this board quite a bit. I simply contacted them and offered to let them to continue to use it if they would send me some upgrades to the system for compensation. I thought that was fair since they had used it for several months to sell their system with paying me. They said no, so I told them to take it down. They were shady anyway.

I agree completely - but just keep in mind that the rights to the music are the personal property of the copyright holder and they have the absolute right to be as fair or as unfair, as easy or as difficult about the use of it as they wish, as you have to your own personal property. I have no right to come up to you and demand that you allow me to use your camera for $5 a day, which is all I want to pay for it. You can let me use it or not let me use it as you see fit and no one else has any right to a say in the matter, including me. It's exactly the same with popluar music - whether the licensing system is fair or makes sense is not the issue. It exists and non-compliance is not an ethical option.

If you're not a lawyer, you may need to consider it because you sure do sound like one. I totally agree about the terms and actions of end users being legal or illegal, period. I still think that the industry or artists are doing themselves a disservice by not making it easier for us TO PAY THEM!! Hahaha! Just think about how much more all of the one hit wonders could be making on their one or two songs that are still in use today by independents like us. They may not be making great residuals in sales and are surely being hurt by free file sharing and bootleggers but they could probably make up some of that if all honest independents like us knew how to pay for the rights to use their content in our productions. It needs to be as easy as paying a bill.

If you're not a lawyer, you may need to consider it because you sure do sound like one. I totally agree about the terms and actions of end users being legal or illegal, period. I still think that the industry or artists are doing themselves a disservice by not making it easier for us TO PAY THEM!! Hahaha! Just think about how much more all of the one hit wonders could be making on their one or two songs that are still in use today by independents like us. They may not be making great residuals in sales and are surely being hurt by free file sharing and bootleggers but they could probably make up some of that if all honest independents like us knew how to pay for the rights to use their content in our productions. It needs to be as easy as paying a bill.

Oh I agree that's the way it should be and if anyone in the music industry asks me I'll certainly tell them so! I think they're being incredibly short-sighted and overlooking a potential low-maintainance revenue source, while protectionist fiascos like Sony's recent root-kit bruhaha and the huge deal surrounding digital rights management for hi-def DVDs and broadcasting are just plain stupid and self-defeating. It's just that until they see the light and open up more accessible licensing, we don't have the right to go ahead use their materials anyway. Ethically we can't just ignore laws that we happen to disagree with.

On the other side of the coin, even the existance of more liberalized licensing schemes won't be any guarantee. If we claim to value individual property rights, I don't think that copyright holders should be compelled to participate in them even if the low-cost limited use licensing we envision for wedding and event videos etc were to come about. Owners of valuable property like the "Theme to Titanic" should not be compelled by any such laws to allow their product to be used for weddings, etc, if they didn't want it to and even if such licensing was a legally recognized plan they probably would withhold licensing to exactly the songs people most want to use, simply because their popularity makes them a valuable commodity on the market. Indeed, there is nothing right now that prevents a copyright holder from offering good music for license inexpensively and easily -take a look at magnatune.com for some current examples - it's simply that they perceive it's not in their commerical self-interest to do so and I do think their right to limit its use based on that perception, right or wrong though it may be, trumps our desires (and our client's desires) to use it.

I think the bottom line is that because we've had so many years where we could turn on the radio and listen to music supposedly for free, we've gotten the idea that the songs themselves don't cost anything and when we buy a CD we're paying for the physical object that contains them. Software licensing is probably a more accurate reality, where the physical object itself has little or no value and the market value comes from the ideas it carrys and the permission to use the output generated by those ideas in our own lives.

The clause one really wants in one's contract is an indemnification clause. Anyone can sue you for things you did and your agreement with the client that they won't hold you responsible for their copyright violation just dosen't matter much if a third party sues you -- Steve is right.

What you can do is ask the client to indemnify if you are sued, that is, to assume all costs associated with your defense in any legal matter arising from your work on their behalf.

I would not undertake this work without a release from every performer I video taped in my hand, because every performer has rights to their performance and their image. This is even trickier when minors are involved. Annoyed parents could sue you for misusing their child's image if you are selling DVDs. A very touchy subject these days. If the pagent people get releases from participants I would ask for copies and indemnification.

All this underscores the need to get the advise of a good lawyer when drafting contracts when precision counts.

As to the money all those artists might make if they licensed their work to every small time video producer . . . it's a supply and demand sort of issue. The value of the music is, in part, by whom and when it is performed. If anyone gets to use a piece its value is reduced. They would much rather sell rights to a few who can pay a lot than many who can pay little.

I agree that using the music is illegal. I also feel that the music industry has done virtually nothing to create a usable system for videographers to obtain licensing, and to me that shows that they don't really care. If you think about it, Napster wasn't around very long (in the free state) before the powers-that-be got together and figured out a way to offer music online for a nominal fee.

Videography has been around much longer than Napster ever was, yet there is no similar system in place. Again, I think it speaks to how much the powers-that-be really care about the situation.

Also, from what I've read from lawyers in the "Taking Care Of Business" section, no amount of clauses or disclaimers will protect you. In fact, in many cases a disclaimer only reinforces the idea that you knew there could be a problem and were just looking the other way. That's not from me . . that's from what actual copyright attorneys have posted here.

The bottom line for me is that I don't feel the least bit bad about purchasing a song to use in a wedding video as long as the video is just going to my client and is not being sold in mass quantities as a product. I certainly wouldn't equate it to robbing a bank with an AK-47, but that's just me. It's funny, because I'm the guy in my circle of friends and family that always gets flak because I won't let someone borrow a CD to burn. Yet, on this issue, I just think that the law doesn't work, and both sides would pretty much agree on that.

How many artists out there would really care if they knew that a fan of theirs WHO OWNED THEIR CD wanted to use a song on their wedding video. I would bet most of those artists would be honored. Just this past December I bought a CD for a song that was on it that I needed to use for a couple's highlight video. I purchased the CD from the artist's website, and even purchased the signed version so my couple could have that as an added gift. I know it's illegal for me to put video clips to the song and provide it to the client, but come on, does it make any sense? Is the artist REALLY going to care? He sold a signed CD because of it. He would have gotten NOTHING had I used some cheezy free music.

...
Is the artist REALLY going to care? He sold a signed CD because of it. He would have gotten NOTHING had I used some cheezy free music.

There are other alternatives beside unlicensed music on the one hand and "cheezy free music" on the other. Smartsound Sonicfire, buyout and needle-drop libraries, vendors such as magnatune.com (they have some outstanding music BTW), and rolling your own compositions with loops and software such as Acid are all viable and legal sources of hassle free, reasonable cost, and yet high quality music. Yep, some libraries are pretty cheezy, but not all of them are and there's a wealth of good quality producton on offer if one takes a little time to search it out.

Here are a couple of others.

www.digitaljuice.com

www.musicbakery.com

Thanks for posting those links. I'll check them out.

I've got a few "what if" questions in to a few of the licensing sites and will post what they reply. Unfortunately so far it looks like most of the stuff we'd want to do wouldn't even be covered under a licensing service's "catch-all" plan as we'd have to contact each publisher/songwriter for each song. I found a rather good article that addresses the issue at http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=8881&PageNum=1.

At this point I'm just going to have to tell the pageant that they're stuck with no copyrighted music (unless it's public domain and performed live by real musicians, situation number 2036 on the "can I use it?" list <G>). I can still offer them royalty-free, which gets better each year. Easier to do that for a wedding than an event where performances may depend on needing that exact song, but hey, if I lose them, I lose them. Better them than my house. As the above article states, "This is a powder keg I'm just not willing to sit on."

Jeff K.

I've got a few "what if" questions in to a few of the licensing sites and will post what they reply. Unfortunately so far it looks like most of the stuff we'd want to do wouldn't even be covered under a licensing service's "catch-all" plan as we'd have to contact each publisher/songwriter for each song. I found a rather good article that addresses the issue at http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=8881&PageNum=1.

...

You're right. Music rights clearance services like BMI and ASCAP deal with public performance and broadcast licensing, which is an entirely different kettle of fish altogether from the synchronization, mechanical, and reproduction licenses needed by video and film producers. If you want to play "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" on your radio show, you contact them; if you want to use it in your video soundtrack you contact Michael Jackson (I think he owns the copyright on the Beatles library now).

The real problem for me is that 99% of wedding videographers are willing to use the client's music in their video. If I decide to stop offering this service then I'm really just making the decision to no longer do wedding videography.

It's a bit of a catch-22. d:-(

The real problem for me is that 99% of wedding videographers are willing to use the client's music in their video. If I decide to stop offering this service then I'm really just making the decision to no longer do wedding videography.

It's a bit of a catch-22. d:-(

Point out to your clients that popluar music goes out of style so quickly that using it makes their wedding memories turn dated and stale just as quickly while music especially selected to complement and enhance the images will keep their memories fresh and timeless. <g>

That's a good suggestion that I'm afraid probably won't really work. My wedding video was the first wedding video I ever edited, and that was 5 years ago. The songs I used were mine and my wife's favorite songs, and the video doesn't feel "dated" at all. It feels "personal".

I guess it would be kind of like trying to sell a car to a couple that really wanted a metallic orange car. You can try all you want to tell them that the color will become dated, but if that's what they want then they'll go where they can get it, you know?

That's a good suggestion that I'm afraid probably won't really work. My wedding video was the first wedding video I ever edited, and that was 5 years ago. The songs I used were mine and my wife's favorite songs, and the video doesn't feel "dated" at all. It feels "personal".

Unfortunately for us, we're just going to have to bear with it until some organization like WEVA can get the ball rolling on a national organization to provide licensing for videographers, like Australia did in that article I found.

You could always offer to the client to make the inquiry about licensing a particular song for their video, as long as they pay the costs. When they find out it'll be at least $1000 just for the custom contract, they may change their tune (pun so not intended, but hey, that WAS funny...okay, so I'm easily amused <G>).

Another thing to point out to your clients if they say "so and so said they'll use my music" would be that if they do go with "so and so", they may be setting themselves up for liability, especially if the fine print of the contract names them as co-sharers in any liability actions.

Sucks to try and play by the rules when it seems like no one else is, don't it?...sigh....

Jeff
(integrity is what you do when no one else is looking)

Yeah, it does suck. It's kind of like driving 5 miles an hour over the speed limit. It's wrong, but we still do it because it's basically accepted practice, just like editing to the client's music. Oh well . . .

I am new to this forum, but am dealing with the same event: Pageants. I had been working with a small videography company as an independant contractor during the summers shooting and live-switching pageants in the summers. Last year I was approached by one of the pageant directors and encouraged to take over for the previous video guy who was moving on to other things. The arrangement is that the pageant state director declares that no camcorders are allowed in the pageant venue by spectators, and in exchange for that I would give him a 15% commission "donation" of my total video sales.

No problem, except that the pageant performance is cluttered with girls performing to popular songs through vocal, piano, or dance. Now I realize that a sync license wouldn't apply to what I am doing, since I am not creatively interweaving the song with my video. However, from reading this thread it sounds like if I want to do the thing legally, I will still need some form of license for each song on the final video. There could be as many as 25-30 performances on each DVD, and probably 6 different age groups. Does anyone have any idea how much it would cost me? I would have to charge like $1000 per video to make it worthwhile. Right? Believe me, the previous guy didn't look into this, or if he did, just ignored it. What should I do? I want to do the right thing, but the suggestion I've read is to not include the actual music that the girl is performing to. That seems like it would be very tacky to have a girl singing, "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" but instead of hearing her, you hear a royalty free instrumental.

I think it comes down to how closely you want to follow the law. If you want to do it legally, then you're stuck with not making a profit or with providing a product no one will want. Unfortunately, I don't see any other way around it.

I think it comes down to how closely you want to follow the law. If you want to do it legally, then you're stuck with not making a profit or with providing a product no one will want. Unfortunately, I don't see any other way around it.

Actually I view following the letter of the legalities issue as less important than is the fair treatment of fellow professionals and basic "Golden Rule" thinking. Do nothing with the product of someone else's talent and effort that you wouldn't be entirely comfortable for someone to do with yours. Honestly now, if you spent a lot of time and money to secure some some rare and fabulous footage, something that you feel really showcases your talent, would you be comfortable with someone using a copy of that footage for their own purposes without permission or compensating you for it - especially if they're using it to make money as a wedding videographer does with the music he uses? (I know, you're not selling the music, you're selling the video services - but the music you use contributes to the value of those services. You get more business if you incorporate music into the video than you would if you didn't.) I think you said you also shoot local sports - how about someone uses some of your footage in a DVD they sell in the local sporting goods stores "Best Moments of Boise Junior Football 2005?" If you can honestly say that would sit perfectly well with you then fine. But if it would upset you to be on the receiving end, then it creates the obligation not be one of those on the offending side, even when doing the right thing works to your disadvantage. You mentioned that people who have no qualms about using unlicensed music have an unfair advantage over those who refuse to do so. True enough, but operative word there is "unfair" and expediency can't justify one joining their camp.

I would not be happy to find that someone was using my content without compensating and/or crediting me for it. However, I would make the effort to make it as easy as possible to contact me so that I could be compensated, which is more than can be said for these artists or labels. I don't feel sorry for them one bit. They need to get their act together if they want to get paid.

I would not be happy to find that someone was using my content without compensating and/or crediting me for it. However, I would make the effort to make it as easy as possible to contact me so that I could be compensated, which is more than can be said for these artists or labels. I don't feel sorry for them one bit. They need to get their act together if they want to get paid.

Suppose by being difficult to contact they're saying it's not an issue of being paid or not, they simply don't want you to use their music at all? Don't they have that right? And aren't you obligated to acceed to their wishes? After all, it is their property to do with as they see fit.

What I'm saying is that if I get hauled into a court room, I don't think it's going to hurt me a bit by showing that I made an effort to pay for the use of the content and there was no obvious method to do it. Anyway, if an artist or label was to persue a case where someone used their content without paying for whatever reason, what are they going to get from the average local production company? Not much if anything, so you're more like to get a nice warning before they waste their time and money trying to get something from nothing. I think they are more concerned about not getting paid more than how it will be used.

I am new to this forum, but am dealing with the same event: Pageants. I had been working with a small videography company as an independant contractor during the summers shooting and live-switching pageants in the summers. Last year I was approached by one of the pageant directors and encouraged to take over for the previous video guy who was moving on to other things. The arrangement is that the pageant state director declares that no camcorders are allowed in the pageant venue by spectators, and in exchange for that I would give him a 15% commission "donation" of my total video sales.

No problem, except that the pageant performance is cluttered with girls performing to popular songs through vocal, piano, or dance. Now I realize that a sync license wouldn't apply to what I am doing, since I am not creatively interweaving the song with my video. However, from reading this thread it sounds like if I want to do the thing legally, I will still need some form of license for each song on the final video. There could be as many as 25-30 performances on each DVD, and probably 6 different age groups. Does anyone have any idea how much it would cost me? I would have to charge like $1000 per video to make it worthwhile. Right? Believe me, the previous guy didn't look into this, or if he did, just ignored it. What should I do? I want to do the right thing, but the suggestion I've read is to not include the actual music that the girl is performing to. That seems like it would be very tacky to have a girl singing, "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" but instead of hearing her, you hear a royalty free instrumental.

Why not just call up ASCAP and ask what their position is?
http://www.ascap.com/index.html
Couldn't find a clear answer on their site, but maybe there's an inexpensive license fee that would make it all good. :)

BTW: My wife and I regularly handle photography and video services for martial arts events where we pay a commission on sales to the event and make our profit on sales rather than upfront fees.
The key to making these profitable for us has been:
1) Website based ordering (taking credit card payments through paypal) available within a day of the event.
2) Lots of announcements and other promo info at the event so attendees know the photos & videos are being shot and are for sale
3) Crosslink on the event's website to our online store

Most of these events even permit the audience to use their own cameras, but we get choice angles (unobstructed view, standing on the edges of the fighting ring or private balcony) and of course shoot with better gear and more experience than just about every parent holding a camcorder in the air.

It's critical for us to have the ordering page available immediately after the event.
People get home, go to the event's website and follow the link to us, often the very next day. The crosslink means they don't have to remember our site, since they probably were just at the event site the day before to double check driving directions :p

We get almost all of our orders within the first 3-5 days of the event.
After that, people aren't really thinking about it anymore and/or simply decide they can live without spending the money on the pro DVDs or photos. The nice thing about having photo ordering online is the customers get previews (800x600) of the photos, so there's no surprises for them, and we've never had a return.

Since we know these events and pretty much shoot with a formula based on what will be produced or sells the best, editing time is very quick, and we also have our own scripts to quickly convert and upload the photos for the website. The web store isn't even all that great or glossy, but we usually breakeven within the first 5 orders, including materials, travel and time (including post).

Why not just call up ASCAP and ask what their position is?
http://www.ascap.com/index.html
Couldn't find a clear answer on their site...............
Hahaha! LMAO!! Do I need to say anything else?

I was told that if you pay an organization like BMI or ASCAP their flat rate annual fee, which is only a couple hundred dollars or so, that you are covered for all that they represent.
I actually called ASCAP a couple of years ago and the above is what they said. At least it shows that you made an effort.

[QUOTE=I think you said you also shoot local sports - how about someone uses some of your footage in a DVD they sell in the local sporting goods stores "Best Moments of Boise Junior Football 2005?"[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't shoot local sports, but that's okay. There is a fundamental difference between your example and wedding videography.

If someone uses my footage that I've shot without any compensation to me, then yes, that would bother me. However, in wedding videography I am BUYING the music that I use, so the artist is compensated.

Also, wedding videos are sold for personal use. We're talking 3 copies on average. Selling something to the general public is completely different.

I would NEVER accept a "burned" copy of a song for use in a wedding video and I would NEVER use an artist's music (even if I bought it) in a product that was going to sell to the general public.

Well, I don't shoot local sports, but that's okay. There is a fundamental difference between your example and wedding videography.

If someone uses my footage that I've shot without any compensation to me, then yes, that would bother me. However, in wedding videography I am BUYING the music that I use, so the artist is compensated.

Also, wedding videos are sold for personal use. We're talking 3 copies on average. Selling something to the general public is completely different.

I would NEVER accept a "burned" copy of a song for use in a wedding video and I would NEVER use an artist's music (even if I bought it) in a product that was going to sell to the general public.

Sorry, got you mixed up with another poster in the thread.

Interesting you would not accept a burned copy of a CD to use as your source material. After all, it too was copied off of a purchased original so by your logic the artist, etc, has been paid and the burned disk is just a convenient way of transporting it to you. There's really no difference in someone burning a copy of a purchased CD to give to your client and you burning a copy of the song over to a DVD for them as part of the video soundtrack. Either way it is an unlicensed copy of the original song.

Actually when you go to a record store and buy music, you're not buying the music to use - you're buying a license to listen to the music. You've bought the disc it comes on but you have not bought the music itself. VERY big difference! Yes, the artist is paid their royalty but there's a big difference between paying them something like maybe $1 in royalty on the retail sales of a single CD and paying them the substantial larger fee they would be entitled to in exchange for a license to incorporate their music into your production.

When you offer video services to the public as a business, are hired to make a video of a wedding or other event and then sell the resulting product to the person who hired you, you ARE selling to the general public, albeit each edition of your product goes to a very small segment of the general public. It's sort of like the old joke about the fellow approaching a woman in a bar and asking her if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. After thinking a minute she says "Sure." Then he says "How about $5 instead?" "What kind of girl do you think I am?" "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price." It is the nature of the transaction, not the scale, that counts. If you are in business selling video services to the general public, you're selling your product to the general public even if each version of that product is customized and only goes to one customer. Whether you just sell one copy of Joe & Mary's Love Story to Joe & Mary or sell a thousand copies in a video store, you're still selling it in the public arena.

Again, the difference between your example and mine . . . In your example, my footage was used without ANY compensation. In my example, I am compensating the artist by purchasing the music (or my client is).

I totally understand that the law is against me on this. I totally understand that the fact that nearly every other videographer is doing this doesn't make it right. I totally understand that the lack of support from the music community is not a perfect excuse.

My point is that people can't compare apples to oranges. If I go to a file-sharing site and "steal" the music and use it in the wedding video, I think that's different than me going to iTunes and buying the music and using it. Both may be illegal, but there IS a difference.

I also think there is a difference between using music in a product that anyone can purchase in a store and using music in a product that is limited to a single client for personal use. The difference lies in the amount of potential profit and the distribution as well.

Also, what I meant by using a burned copy is that I won't use music that hasn't been paid for by either the client or myself. In other words, I won't go to a DJ and ask for a burned copy, or go to a file-sharing site or my friend down the street.

As for how I would feel as a music artist, I honestly wouldn't mind one bit. If a couple is getting married, and they own my CD's because they love my music, and they want their highlight video set to a song of mine, then I say go for it. They are already paying me for my music, and using my song might allow some family member to 'discover' my music and become a fan as well. Also, knowing that there is no reasonably usable system for them to use the music legally through, I would definitely not have a problem with it.

I realize that is my own opinion, and not the law, but that is where my argument comes from on this matter.

Again, the difference between your example and mine . . . In your example, my footage was used without ANY compensation. In my example, I am compensating the artist by purchasing the music (or my client is).

I totally understand that the law is against me on this. I totally understand that the fact that nearly every other videographer is doing this doesn't make it right. I totally understand that the lack of support from the music community is not a perfect excuse.

My point is that people can't compare apples to oranges. If I go to a file-sharing site and "steal" the music and use it in the wedding video, I think that's different than me going to iTunes and buying the music and using it. Both may be illegal, but there IS a difference.

I also think there is a difference between using music in a product that anyone can purchase in a store and using music in a product that is limited to a single client for personal use. The difference lies in the amount of potential profit and the distribution as well.

Also, what I meant by using a burned copy is that I won't use music that hasn't been paid for by either the client or myself. In other words, I won't go to a DJ and ask for a burned copy, or go to a file-sharing site or my friend down the street.

As for how I would feel as a music artist, I honestly wouldn't mind one bit. If a couple is getting married, and they own my CD's because they love my music, and they want their highlight video set to a song of mine, then I say go for it. They are already paying me for my music, and using my song might allow some family member to 'discover' my music and become a fan as well. Also, knowing that there is no reasonably usable system for them to use the music legally through, I would definitely not have a problem with it.

I realize that is my own opinion, and not the law, but that is where my argument comes from on this matter.

But it's really no different from purchasing a CD, making a copy for your own use and then reselling the original on eBay. Would you consider that acceptable?

You mentioned that the wedding DVD is for your client's personal use. Fair enough, but that's not the same thing as YOUR personal use. I think there's a qualitative difference if you're Uncle Travis who shoots video as a hobby and is making a video of Niece Mary's wedding as a gift to the happy couple versus someone who is in the business of making and selling custom wedding videos for clients drawn from the general public. The first case is pretty much the same thing as playing music CDs for the family during any family gathering or buying a CD and giving it as a gift. The second is more akin to the computer retailer who offers to install an unlicensed copy of MS Office on a potential customer's computer in order to close the sale. Yes, someone paid for the original copy but the copyright owners have the right to expect to be paid a royalty for EVERY copy that's struck outside the narrow definition of "fair use" copies, not just the one master copy. So contrary to what you've claimed, they haven't been (fully) paid for their music. It's kind of like saying it's okay for a business to knowingly shortchange their customers as long as they don't try to keep ALL of the change.

Your next to last paragraph describes an attitude you feel music artists should have. Some of them do, and they make their music available for easy and economical licensing through avenues like magatunes. But others such as Madonna and Celine Dion, from what I've heard, are vehemently opposed to such usage of their product and have agressively pursued infringers. Are you saying you have the right to impose your views of the way you think they ought to feel on them by using their material whether they like it or not? Isn't that a choice they have to right to make for thmselves without you overruling it.

But it's really no different from purchasing a CD, making a copy for your own use and then reselling the original on eBay. Would you consider that acceptable?

Actually, it's quite different. If a client comes to me with a CD that they own, or if I have to buy a song for them, I don't retain the music. What you're talking about is buying a song for my own personal use, and THEN selling copies of it for others' personal use. If a client gives me a CD, and I set video I shot to a song on the CD, and then give the client the music video and their music CD back, I think that's a pretty different scenario.


I think there's a qualitative difference if you're Uncle Travis who shoots video as a hobby and is making a video of Niece Mary's wedding as a gift to the happy couple versus someone who is in the business of making and selling custom wedding videos for clients drawn from the general public.

Now YOU are making exceptions to the law. According to the law, NOBODY, not even Uncle Joe, can LEGALLY synchronize video to copyrighted music. By saying it's okay for Unlce Joe to do it, but it's not okay for a couple to pay me to do it, you're being hypocritical.


The second is more akin to the computer retailer who offers to install an unlicensed copy of MS Office on a potential customer's computer in order to close the sale.

Again, bad example I think. It's practically impossible to figure out where to go to get the proper rights AND not pay a fortune for music. With software, the industry has made it simple. Just go buy another copy of the software. If such a system were in place for videographers, we would use it without hesitation.


Your next to last paragraph describes an attitude you feel music artists should have.

It's not. You specifically asked me how I would feel about the situation if I were a musician. I was not speaking for how anyone SHOULD feel. I was just saying that if I were a musician, that's how I would feel.


I also believe that if the music industry really felt threatened by the practice of videographers using copyrighted music in wedding videos, then they would do something about it. Napster-the-file-sharing-monster was nipped in the bud pretty quickly, yet wedding videography has been around many, many times longer. The laws are there, no doubt, but it's like the law that says you cannot drive barefooted. It's just ridiculous and no one wants to enforce it.

Actually, it's quite different. If a client comes to me with a CD that they own, or if I have to buy a song for them, I don't retain the music. What you're talking about is buying a song for my own personal use, and THEN selling copies of it for others' personal use. If a client gives me a CD, and I set video I shot to a song on the CD, and then give the client the music video and their music CD back, I think that's a pretty different scenario.




Now YOU are making exceptions to the law. According to the law, NOBODY, not even Uncle Joe, can LEGALLY synchronize video to copyrighted music. By saying it's okay for Unlce Joe to do it, but it's not okay for a couple to pay me to do it, you're being hypocritical.




Again, bad example I think. It's practically impossible to figure out where to go to get the proper rights AND not pay a fortune for music. With software, the industry has made it simple. Just go buy another copy of the software. If such a system were in place for videographers, we would use it without hesitation.




It's not. You specifically asked me how I would feel about the situation if I were a musician. I was not speaking for how anyone SHOULD feel. I was just saying that if I were a musician, that's how I would feel.


I also believe that if the music industry really felt threatened by the practice of videographers using copyrighted music in wedding videos, then they would do something about it. Napster-the-file-sharing-monster was nipped in the bud pretty quickly, yet wedding videography has been around many, many times longer. The laws are there, no doubt, but it's like the law that says you cannot drive barefooted. It's just ridiculous and no one wants to enforce it.

Finding the music publisher, who probably is the one who owns the rights you need is not all that hard, it's right there on the CD. One reason there isn't a really easy way to inexpensively license popular music is in fact, control of use. If there were a site, where you could license music without submitting a script or without a lot of limitaions on use, then that music could potentially end up in a production that the rights holder wouldn't necessarily want to be involved with, porn, political commentary, social commentary, a documentary with a negative slant toward some group or person. That is one reason it is hard and expensive to license popular music.
In order to secure the license you need you must contact the publisher, and let's be honest, they are more concerned with licensing for major productions, where the return is much better.

Here is a source for free music under certain conditions. The Terms and Conditions covers alot of situations that have been discussed in this thread.

Terms & Conditions
www.freeplaymusic.com/licensing/termsofuse.php

www.freeplaymusic.com