Great topic, I've been looking into doing private work and this issue alone is discouraging. You know whats funny, is that event videographers feel they are somewhat the only ones, well I went skydiving and I paid for a video and guess what they used U2 and I can tell that there is no way they had a license for the music or even a sync license. Technically it seems like these laws are being broken every second we sit here and write about this issue. Who knows how many broke the law by the time I get done writing this .....

Mike,
Being a skydiving photographer, I'd first submit that skydiving photography is an "event" too.
That said, the law is being broken every second of every day somewhere in the world. That doesn't make it right. Much of law-breaking is tied to myths of what is legal and what isn't. There isn't a week go by that I don't hear:
~It's OK because it's just one copy
~It's OK because the customer provided the music
~It's OK because I bought a CD for every DVD copy I made
~(My favorite) I only used a small piece of the music, and Fair Use says that I can use up to 10% without being illegal (wish I knew where that came from).

Lots of myths, lots of misunderstandings. Bottom line, the model in the US will change at some point, but until then, stay legal by using royalty free content and then you have nothing to worry about. Not now, not in the future.
BTW, there is a real push in the skydiving world (admittedly led by me) to abolish the use of copyrighted works.

Glad to hear that and I agree with you a lot on this. I'll definitely look into the royalty free content. Thanks again.

...
Until then, I can't stay in this business if I'm going to have to tell my clients, "Nope. Sorry. I can't use your favorite song in your wedding video. It's illegal. Yes, I understand you have the CD. Yes, I'm sorry you own all 12 of that artist's CD's and have paid to go to every concert. Yes, I know every other videographer in town will do it. Okay then, have a nice day. Give me a call if you change your mind".

Yeah, right, lol.


Actually you CAN stay in business and refuse to break the law, but I'll admit it's going be swimming upstream for a while. You need to become an activist for a truly professional industry and do all you can to insure every other wedding videographer and all the trade organizations get on board and as an industry just flat refuse to condone violations. Frankly I don't understand why wedding and event videographers as a group aren't as rigid about this as people in broadcasting and the feature production industries are ... it's almost as if they're saying en masse "We're not real professionals like they are so all that big-business legal stuff doesn't really apply to us." It's embarrassing! I'd like to give the W/E shooters a lot more credit than that. Even the smallest of small-town radio stations makes sure it has its ducks in order with their ASCAP and BMI licenses, for the life of me I can't understand why event and wedding videographers are equally diligent in staying on the right side of the law. Sure it's more complicated, but dealing with complicated problems is what being professional is all about.

WEVA has annual awards, for example ... how about if WEVA said that "All videos submitted for consideration for awards and all video exhibited at any WEVA sanctioned trade show or event requires written proof of license for all music." How about if WEVA said "All member videographers are subject to audit and may not use the WEVA logo or make any public claim of membership in WEVA unless they can prove by written license that all music used in all productions from their company has proper licensing." How about if they said "Any member found to be using copyright material without license in any web-based advertising or demo reels must immediately cease and desist using any and all references to WEVA membership in their promotional materials and advertising and are barred from participating in any WEVA affiliated wedding shows." Figure out whatever sanctions could be applied to scofflaws who don't give a damn, toss 'em out of WEVA, file complaints with the BBB for unethical business practices, whatever, but it would screech to a stop when every professional videographer in town worth hiring that the B&G call says "Sorry, no can do, won't break the law for any amount of money because no matter how much you pay me, it's a pittance compared to what it will cost me." But when the venues where people in the business congregate all give it a wink and say "Sure, we know it's illegal but ...." it's going to be damned hard to be ethical about it and go against the flow.

I have a feeling if WEVA took that stand, and actually enforced it, then that might be the end of WEVA. I could be wrong, though. (EDIT: I would also add that the average bride doesn't really care if you're a WEVA member or not. They hire based on what your work looks like and your rate.)

As for why most videographers don't take a stand, I think it has to do with the history of wedding videography. My guess is that it started with hobbyists who never even thought it could be illegal to use an artist's song in a wedding video (I know I didn't realize it for the longest time). As more and more hobbyists became full-timers, the trend to use the clients' music in their videos strengthened, and eventually clients came to expect that from videographers. This is all just guesswork from me, since I've only been in the business about 4 or 5 years, but it seems to add up.

I guess all I know for sure is that every videographer in my market touts "using the music the couple chooses" as a service that they provide. They present it as a strongpoint. So when a guy like me comes along, and doesn't even know any better, and starts up a business doing videography, it's a give that I need to offer that service as well, especially when couple's are asking me for that.

Then I find out that technically it's not legal, but that there's no system for doing it legally, which is why everyone else is just doing it. The couples that come to me don't know about this backstory and they could care less if they did. They just want a videographer that will make a highlight video with their favorite song. Saying "no" is basically the same thing as handing them a piece of paper with your competitor's phone number on it.

It's a pretty crappy scenario.

I have a feeling if WEVA took that stand, and actually enforced it, then that might be the end of WEVA. I could be wrong, though.Possible. I am not a member of WEVA myself (and I don't make wedding videos), so I don't know what lobbying power WEVA has. Given enough influence, though, I think the smart move would be for WEVA to talk to the big music companies and make an arrangement that benefits everyone. Something along the lines of WEVA collecting the fees and issuing the permits for the use of music in wedding videos, and writing a monthly check to the music companies.

No individual wedding videographer brings enough money to the table to make it interesting for the music industry to even start thinking about a solution. But when you combine them all, maybe it can be an attractive solution to the industry, as well as to videographers. Isn't this what associations like WEVA should be all about?

[Disclaimer: Again, I am not part of WEVA, I don't know much about it, so this may be completely unrealistic. Maybe someone else knows if this has already been tried...]

- Martin

I agree with Martin. I am always in search of good royalty free music that doesnt sound too "studio or garageband" manufactured. I know myself and others would gladly pay a one time fee for music used in a video provided it was of sufficient quality. The problem is that most of the Brides we deal with want a particular song or at least a certain feel of music. The only thing we do right now is make sure that they provide the song. I really don't think there is a parallel comparrison to our field and the film industry when it comes to the project budgets and of course the net profits. Give me us a realistic avenue to purchase the music and I'm on board. Stock20.com is my favorite so far but they really need to increase the library volume more consistently.

...
Then I find out that technically it's not legal, but that there's no system for doing it legally, which is why everyone else is just doing it. The couples that come to me don't know about this backstory and they could care less if they did. ...

I have a problem with using this as the justification. To take an extreme example, and I don't mean to equate videographers with dope dealers, but there's a consumer demand for crack, there's no system in place to obtain it legally, so does that justify an enterpreneur ignoring the law and going into business to satisfy that demand illegaly? While the severity of the issues aren't comparable, the principal involved is the same IMHO.

I agree with Martin. I am always in search of good royalty free music that doesnt sound too "studio or garageband" manufactured. I know myself and others would gladly pay a one time fee for music used in a video provided it was of sufficient quality. The problem is that most of the Brides we deal with want a particular song or at least a certain feel of music. The only thing we do right now is make sure that they provide the song. I really don't think there is a parallel comparrison to our field and the film industry when it comes to the project budgets and of course the net profits. Give me us a realistic avenue to purchase the music and I'm on board. Stock20.com is my favorite so far but they really need to increase the library volume more consistently.

True, but consider the point of view of the owners of the music. Is there any complelling reason they OUGHT to make it available to small users at low cost? It's their property just like your work is your property. Would the fact you'd really like to have a F900 camera but can't afford the $100,000 price tag create any compulsion on the part of Sony to reduce the price? What is different about a current song that commands a $50000 license fee when used on "So You Think You Can Dance" that means the owners should feel obligated to make it available to you for $10? I think it would be NICE if they did, don't get me wrong, and I'd certainly support any efforts to create such a system, but it's very hard to make a compelling case that it OUGHT to be done and until it is done, there's no case at all that can justify being a scofflaw. Expediency ain't good enough.

True, but consider the point of view of the owners of the music. Is there any complelling reason they OUGHT to make it available to small users at low cost? It's their property just like your work is your property.

I see no compelling reason, other than to offer the potential wisdom embedded in this question:

Would you rather have $ 100 from 100 customers, or $ 1 from 100,000 customers? From that perspective, the artists are "losing" $ 90,000.

The apparent "wisdom" of that thought seems obvious, (at least to me), but also seems to elude many "artists." Maybe because they're artists, not bean-counters or business managers?

Martin, I totally agree, and I think WEVA has made some pushes in that area. It would be awesome if they managed to implement a system. It would finally give me a good reason to join WEVA.

Steve, I wasn't trying to provide justification, more like explanation. I also don't think your "crack" example makes the point you want. Let's face it, crack is illegal to everyone, and there are major efforts in place to police it. Music usage isn't illegal across the board. If you have the money (ie, a large enough project) then you can get the rights. The problem is that for a videographer making 3 copies of a video that maybe a dozen people will see, he's not making enough money for an artist to be interested in negotiating a usage deal. Because his project is so small time and essentialy harmless to the artist, he's also not worth pursuing in a legal sense. It's like a catch-22.

Denis, you make an excellent point. I think the music industry is missing a nice opportunity here. The vast majority of videographers would gladly pay a yearly fee to gain legal-use rights to music, and there are A LOT of videographers out there. That's A LOT of additional money that the artists could be making. For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened yet. I'm assuming that it will eventually, though.

...

Steve, I wasn't trying to provide justification, more like explanation. I also don't think your "crack" example makes the point you want. Let's face it, crack is illegal to everyone, and there are major efforts in place to police it. Music usage isn't illegal across the board. If you have the money (ie, a large enough project) then you can get the rights. The problem is that for a videographer making 3 copies of a video that maybe a dozen people will see, he's not making enough money for an artist to be interested in negotiating a usage deal. Because his project is so small time and essentialy harmless to the artist, he's also not worth pursuing in a legal sense. It's like a catch-22.

...

But we're not talking about legal music usage, we're talking about copying without permission and then selling the copies for a profit, which is, in fact, illegal across the board. There is really no difference between that and say the corner computer shops who sell PCs loaded up with pirated copies of Windows and other software. It's not limited to 3 copies of a song on a video seen by a handful of people either - if you're a successful video firm you may end up selling hundred of copies of a single popular song over the course of a season and that's really no difference between that and making clones of the CD as a commercial venture and selling them under the counter at your corner 7/11 store. It's absolutely not harmless to the artist because it dilutes the value of the song as a piece of commercial property. The public gets bored very quickly - the more exposure a song has, the more the people hear it in different places, the sooner they get tired of it and the sooner the market value drops as it's replaced by a shiney new tune that has caught the publics' ears. While it's in the artist's interest to secure airplay of the tune, it's not in the artist's interest at all to have it cropping up around every corner.

for music from the Harry Fox agency. I've been told they handle a vast majority of that for a large portion of the music industry. Poking around their site, and "testing" their online process (as it existed at that time) to make copies of, I think, one of the older Beach Boys songs, I found that they had a minimum amount of 500. There was no way to "order" or "purchase" an amount below 500, as if they couldn't be bothered.

Wouldn't it be nice if that could be argued to serve as tacit approval for anyone willing to use less than 500 copies? Or, less likely, is there already legal precedent for that? (I doubt it).

Once, I was given what I strongly suspect was copyrighted, recorded music to overlay the soundtrack of a play I once shot; far from complete songs, but longer than I understand "fair use" to cover. I burned it to DVD and gave it to the client. It was a single DVD that the client said they would use to burn copies themself, one at a time. However, when I did the credits, I listed everyone except myself, for fear of infringement reprisal.(didn't want my fledgling business name associated with the recording)...didn't even use a lead-in. I also recently learned that the client has made so many copies, that they now want another "original" to make even more. And, I've been hired back to tape this year's performance, which will almost certainly be under the same circumstances. (It was for a non-profit, so my motives were at least altruistic, even though that wouldn't exonerate me). What to do, what to do.

I'll probably do the same as last year and miss out on all that free publicity on the hundreds of copies they'll likely make. Which raises some questions:
if the client makes the copies, and distributes them, does liability still rest with the videographer? Does it matter if the copies are distributed free, or "at cost" and without a profit? (Cost being the amount fo money to purchase the blanks and ink).

But we're not talking about legal music usage, we're talking about copying without permission and then selling the copies for a profit, which is, in fact, illegal across the board. There is really no difference between that and say the corner computer shops who sell PCs loaded up with pirated copies of Windows and other software. It's not limited to 3 copies of a song on a video seen by a handful of people either - if you're a successful video firm you may end up selling hundred of copies of a single popular song over the course of a season and that's really no difference between that and making clones of the CD as a commercial venture and selling them under the counter at your corner 7/11 store. It's absolutely not harmless to the artist because it dilutes the value of the song as a piece of commercial property. The public gets bored very quickly - the more exposure a song has, the more the people hear it in different places, the sooner they get tired of it and the sooner the market value drops as it's replaced by a shiney new tune that has caught the publics' ears. While it's in the artist's interest to secure airplay of the tune, it's not in the artist's interest at all to have it cropping up around every corner.

In your "crack example" there is no scenario in which using crack is legal. With music usage, if you have a large enough project with a good budget, then you have options open to you to make it legal. That is why I was saying that your "crack example" is a poor example.

I also think that comparing what videographers do to copying and selling music CD's or pirating softare is a poor example. With music and software piracy the client's goal is to gain music or software that he didn't previously own. 95% of my clients already own the music they are requesting on their DVD, but regardless of that, I STILL BUY THE MUSIC for every single project. So whereas with music and software piracy the artist or company is losing out on potential sales, they are actually gaining sales in the videographry scenario because I'm buying the music. Furthermore, with music and software piracy there is an alternative. Go to the store and buy the music or software. In the videographer scenario there is no alternative.

Now you may say the alternative is to contact the artist or publisher of the song and negotiate the rights, but that's a ridiculous suggestion because there's very little profit on a wedding video and the artist doesn't have enough to gain to make drawing up a bunch of legal paperwork worthwhile.

Finally, I have to disagree that the added exposure that videographers give artists is hurting them. Most artists are struggling every day to find new ways to gain exposure, not limit it.

Which raises some questions:
if the client makes the copies, and distributes them, does liability still rest with the videographer? Does it matter if the copies are distributed free, or "at cost" and without a profit? (Cost being the amount fo money to purchase the blanks and ink).

My understanding is that you would still be partially responsible, since you don't have permission to "sync" the music with footage.

When it comes to copyrighted music, I draw the line if the project is beyond the scope of personal use. In other words, I'll do a wedding highlights video for a couple or a photo montage for someone's grandma, but if a company comes to me and wants to use copyrighted music in their promotional video - no way. The client's intent becomes entirely different at that point.

I haven't seen these points mentioned yet, so I'm going to chime in.

Yes, it's admirable and virtuous to want to do "the right thing" when it comes to music licenses. However, the music industry as it exists today does not seem to make it possible to do the right thing in this particular situation and still be competitive in the wedding videography field. The music industry has an archaic business model that consists of trying to make as much money as possible on huge volumes to consumers, while charging obscene amounts for obscure things like synchronization rights, performance rights, and blow-your-nose-to-the-music rights. The music industry wanting to make money is not a good or bad thing, just a reality to deal with.

The Internet will hopefully change all this in time (look at what iTunes has already done to change the landscape for mainstream music consumers). For now the debate will continue to rage on, and the options will range from using stock music, to buying the tracks on iTunes, to having clients sign probably meaningless contracts, to ignoring the risks altogether.

This is somewhat a debate about morals, yes, but it is also a debate about best business practices. On the moral front, I leave you to make your own decision. There's nothing wrong with following your conscience before the almighty dollar, and it seems right to want to give the artists their fair share whenever possible. Remember, however, that concepts such as synchronization rights are not part of the ten commandments. :)

On the business front, it's really a simple cost/benefit analysis. The only thing that matters is whether you're going to get sued and lose. I would suggest that for now, the likelihood of getting sued is fairly low. Although the RIAA does not seem to care much about its reputation, I think that even they would not want to take the PR hit from suing newlyweds. If a lawsuit actually did happen, my guess is that the risk of losing would be fairly high, and the damages awarded would be moderate (4-5 figures, not including lawyer's fees).

But, I am not a lawyer. So I would also suggest that you talk with a lawyer about the best way to manage these risks. If you are running a business without having a lawyer as a resource, you're asking for problems beyond just the RIAA...

Hope this helps,
-- Elliot

...

Finally, I have to disagree that the added exposure that videographers give artists is hurting them. Most artists are struggling every day to find new ways to gain exposure, not limit it.

But with rare exceptions, the music the B&G want is not from struggling artists seeking recognition, it's from top-line name talent who have more than their share of recognition already. Their talent is in high demand and that's why permission to use their work is so pricey. Think Shania Twain needs your help in gaining recognition? LOL

...
On the business front, it's really a simple cost/benefit analysis. The only thing that matters is whether you're going to get sued and lose. I would suggest that for now, the likelihood of getting sued is fairly low. Although the RIAA does not seem to care much about its reputation, I think that even they would not want to take the PR hit from suing newlyweds. If a lawsuit actually did happen, my guess is that the risk of losing would be fairly high, and the damages awarded would be moderate (4-5 figures, not including lawyer's fees).

...-- Elliot


Buit they're not going to sue the newlyweds, they're not the party that made the illegal copy. They're going to come after YOU as the person selling pirating copies of the work because you are the one who actually did the deed.

The argument that if there were easy and inexpensive ways to license the music everyone would do it doesn't wash but since it's not, well, we can just go take it anyway. That's the excuse of the burglar - "I can't afford that bling but I've got a right to have it." We can assume because of the lack of interest on the part of the music publishing industry in establishing a such as system that the music is difficult to license and expensive because by and large the owners of the property don't want it to be used that way. It's their property and they have that right.

But with rare exceptions, the music the B&G want is not from struggling artists seeking recognition, it's from top-line name talent who have more than their share of recognition already. Their talent is in high demand and that's why permission to use their work is so pricey. Think Shania Twain needs your help in gaining recognition? LOL

I think you misread my post. I didn't say "struggling artists". I said most artists are struggling to gain exposure. Yes, even the big-name artists are always looking for new ways to promote themselves. So, yes, I think if I create a highlights video to a Shania Twain song it helps Mrs. Twain. Why? Because the couple now associates that song and artist directly with the most beautiful day of their life.

Case in point. When my wife and I got married I used Green Day's "Time of Your Life" for the highlights (the song is actually titled "Good Riddance", but SHHHHH! d;-) ). My wife was never into Green Day, but after hearing the song and having it a part of our wedding, she now has actually gone to a Green Day concert, listens to their music on occassion, and points out "Time of Your Life" to anyone and everyone if it comes on the radio. It's now "our song". That can only be good for a band like Green Day, who certainly isn't a "struggling artist" either.

The argument that if there were easy and inexpensive ways to license the music everyone would do it doesn't wash but since it's not, well, we can just go take it anyway.

I don't think you're giving the vast majority of wedding videographers due credit. I would bet that at least 75% of videographers would readily adopt to a system where you pay a fee for rights to use music. We want the peace of mind.


We can assume because of the lack of interest on the part of the music publishing industry in establishing a such as system that the music is difficult to license and expensive because by and large the owners of the property don't want it to be used that way. It's their property and they have that right.

Actually, I don't think you can make that assumption either. There was pretty strong demand for a system like Napster (which I didn't use) for quite a while and the music industry didn't do anything. But after a while they recognized the profit potential and now you have systems like iTunes. I think eventually they will create something for videographers, but not until they recognize that there are profits to be made.

I don't think you're giving the vast majority of wedding videographers due credit. I would bet that at least 75% of videographers would readily adopt to a system where you pay a fee for rights to use music. We want the peace of mind.
....

I agree - I think they would too. What I take exception to is the attitude that since such as system doesn't yet exist and they can't afford the licenses or can't negotiate the admittedly formidable hurdles to getting licenses to popular songs with the present system (and licensing IS possible, just a real PITA and prohibitivley expensive), they're going to go ahead and use the music anyway and hope nobody catches them. I think that is the wrong thing to do.

I agree - I think they would too. What I take exception to is the attitude that since such as system doesn't yet exist and they can't afford the licenses or can't negotiate the admittedly formidable hurdles to getting licenses to popular songs with the present system (and licensing IS possible, just a real PITA and prohibitivley expensive), they're going to go ahead and use the music anyway and hope nobody catches them. I think that is the wrong thing to do.

It is the wrong thing to do AND perhaps the only thing to do.

I was in business for just over 3 years when I first learned that using music a couple provided was not legal. By then I had already quit my other job, and invested nearly $20k in my new business. My options were limited. Switch to using stock music only; a move I'm pretty sure would end my ability to stay in business. Quit the business and walk away with $20k in debt. Or stay in the business and do what every other videographer has been doing for decades.

If the end-all of your argument is that using the music is wrong, then you've made your point and we've all agreed with you before you ever made it. My point is that for those of us ACTUALLY IN THE SITUATION, the decision of what to do is not that simple.

Buit they're not going to sue the newlyweds, they're not the party that made the illegal copy. They're going to come after YOU as the person selling pirating copies of the work because you are the one who actually did the deed.


I understand that, but I still maintain that the likelihood of a lawsuit is fairly low, because wedding videography is not a business with a few large players that can be easily sued for large amounts of money, and RIAA lawsuits for the sake of making an example of the little guy are an unquantifiable risk at this point.

The argument that if there were easy and inexpensive ways to license the music everyone would do it doesn't wash but since it's not, well, we can just go take it anyway. That's the excuse of the burglar - "I can't afford that bling but I've got a right to have it."

That's one viewpoint that I can see the merit of, but I also have to acknowledge that there are equally good arguments for other view points. I don't think this is the place to convince people of particular views. This is because it detracts from a focus on the primary topic - making great wedding videos for people - and because it gets into legal issues that none of us are really qualified to make authoritative statements on.

I think this *is* the place to help videographers understand the consequences of their music decisions. Beyond that, it's just a pointless bunch of noise.

Best,
-- Elliot

New Rule: If wedding videographers 'must' pirate music, then they have to use a crappy 22 khz, low bitrate, compressed mono version of the Bride's favorite song.

Some random thoughts for you all...

if the B&G are the "producers" and you are just the camera op and editor, being paid to memorialize the event for the couple, I'd think you've got a reasonable position. Does anyone sue the camera op or the editor? Perhaps caution in titles is in order... it's nice to be the "producer", until the buck (or subpoena) lands on your desk...

You aren't going to ask if the couple has a valid marriage license, whether they have warrants out for their arrest, what "cousin Vinnie" does for a living, or if there are any other legal irregularities about their little event are you? SO if they say here's the music we want our video to have and imply they own it, who are we to say they don't have the right to use it?

"don't ask" or spell it out in the contract - "B&G producing the event are responsible for providing any materials/songs/pictures to videographer, and are responsible for any clearances/rights to use said materials. In no event is the videographer responsible for the procurement of or failure to procure said clearances." B&G agree to indemnify videographer from any liability resulting from use of materials provided. (at least your legal bill is paid...)

If there's music playing in the background while you're shooting, the music is incidental to the video...
Whole nother ball game if YOU provide the music. You'd better have the rights...

I'd suggest if you produce a demo for "public promotion" you use something "generic" that doesn't have copyright issues, otherwise you ARE using someone elses work to promote your business... Danger.

If you produce 5-10 DVD's for the couple (What if you do more? Is there a "cut off"?) for PRIVATE non profit use for their personal viewing and remembering of their special day, it's hard to argue that video is somehow being produced for a "profit" from its exhibition. I think most copyright issues ultimately revolve around whether someone makes a profit from someone elses work... when you do a wedding video, you profit from YOUR work shoting and editing (see above), not particularly from the use of a specific song the couple says is "our song" (it's obviously not "their" song, but you get the idea...).



If one really thinks about it, how many bar bands do "cover tunes" that technically violate the performance rights of an artist, and how many artists are complaining that they somehow lose money when their tune gets blasted out one more time because people LIKE it???

Fame, "popularity" (and taking public office) tend to dilute the legal protections one has (anyone else sick of Paris???)- the more popular you are, the more difficult it is to argue that somehow that very popularity dilutes your economic standing.

The practical problem here is that the relatively small number of copies that the average videographer will produce for the couples' private viewing pleasure are typically so small as to be a rounding error... Yes it would be nice if every artist could get a couple pennies EVERY time someone used their work, but I suspect that the "inventor" of such a system will die a pauper...

SO, until that system pops into being, be careful how you use someone elses work... Until then, Travis's approach of buying a copy for each DVD produced from whatever music service sells it at least shows an attempt to compensate the artist - and in fact compensation... diluting any argument that the artist somehow was damaged.

For what they're worth... some ideas, best not to get sued, maybe this will help y'all be safe out there!

Some random thoughts for you all...

if the B&G are the "producers" and you are just the camera op and editor, being paid to memorialize the event for the couple, I'd think you've got a reasonable position. Does anyone sue the camera op or the editor? Perhaps caution in titles is in order... it's nice to be the "producer", until the buck (or subpoena) lands on your desk...

...
"don't ask" or spell it out in the contract - "B&G producing the event are responsible for providing any materials/songs/pictures to videographer, and are responsible for any clearances/rights to use said materials. In no event is the videographer responsible for the procurement of or failure to procure said clearances." B&G agree to indemnify videographer from any liability resulting from use of materials provided. (at least your legal bill is paid...)

...
If you produce 5-10 DVD's for the couple (What if you do more? Is there a "cut off"?) for PRIVATE non profit use for their personal viewing and remembering of their special day, it's hard to argue that video is somehow being produced for a "profit" from its exhibition. I think most copyright issues ultimately revolve around whether someone makes a profit from someone elses work... when you do a wedding video, you profit from YOUR work shoting and editing (see above), not particularly from the use of a specific song the couple says is "our song" (it's obviously not "their" song, but you get the idea...).

...!

Not true at all. You are in business to shoot, edit, and assemble an event into a final product, creating a program - the wedding video - which you then sell at retail to the B&G, and you make a profit, your livelihood, from its sale. You are far more than a merely camera operator who points his camera where the director tells him or an editor cutting footage at the direction of a producer, simply following the directions of someone else who is responsible for the creative content. You are the producer, the creative force who is solely responsible for the content - the only role of the B&G is that of paying customer purchasing a customized piece of merchandise that you're offering to sell them.

Profit from exhibition or not doesn't enter the picture, or even whether its exhibited publically or not. It would be just as illegal if you gave them the video for free - just like it's illegal to go buy an audio CD and make copies on your computer to give to all your friends.

The B&G (or anyone else) can themselves make copies of an audio CD for their own use as they wish. What isn't legal is for a duplication house to take accept the CD that the couple owns from them and make a number of copies for them, charging a fee for the copy. The owner of the CD isn't violating the law but the duplication merchant is. The same rules apply if they bring you a CD, or you purchase a CD for them, and then copy the music to your video and then sell them the copy in the form of the wedding video you're selling them. You're in same boat as the duplication house making copies for a fee.

Your suggsted contract provision does nothing either. Sections of a contract that are contrary to law are void on their face. You can't give a drug dealer $1000 on his written promise that he'll bring you a quantity of coke the next day and then sue him in court for violating your contract if he doesn't deliver. The driver of a getaway car doen't get off by having his bank robber partner sign a waiver that he'll accept responsibility if they get caught. In the case of using unlicensed music in the video, as the merchant and working professional in the business of producing videos for sale you can be presumed to know the law and it's your responsibility to decline an illegal request from your customers just as it is the responsibility of any merchant in any industry.

What is especially interesting to me is that most still photographers who cover weddings follow the law with regard to respecting the copyrights of other photographers - try taking prints you purchased from wedding studio A over to wedding studio B and see if they'll make copies for you, fat chance! - and surely the demands from the wedding party on them to bend the law are just as strong as they are on videographers. As I said before, it's no wonder the wedding still shooters look down their noses at video people as not being fellow "true professionals" when they're on the scene - look at all the threads here about how often video people get no respect and little cooperation from the wedding planners, the still photographers, even sometimes even the officiants and the venues - threads such as prohibitions against wireless mics indicates the venue doesn't really care about the quality of sound in something they think of as a trivial product, compared to the way they'll often go out of their way to help the still shooter get good coverage. Look at the threads talking about how much more the still shooters get away with charging. I think it's at least partially because all too often the wedding videographer really does act more like a hobbyist than a business and media professional in the conduct of his business and certainly in the handling of requests to use music illegally, something filmmakers and working videographers in other specialties wouldn't even THINK of doing, it's too often true.

Steve -
First let me suggest your rhetoric reduces your credibility - labelling videographers "unprofessional" because they are struggling to sort out complex legal issues and suggesting they get no respect because of their inability to do so is frankly silly.

C'mon, get real here. The "professionals" discussing this are looking at this from a practical standpoint, and who knows, maybe this will lead to a solution... simply labeling (libeling?) everyone as a criminal with malicious intent is not helpful. If you've got practical solutions, offer them up, that will help everyone!!

Videographers memorializing a private event aren't criminals any more than someone who makes a copy of something they purchased for their own use (fair use is fundamental case law on copyright, albeit being constantly atacked and eroded by those who want the user to pay for EVERY SINGLE time they use or view a "work"). Time and format shifting are a relatively new multimedia phenomenon - and some say it shouldn't be legal, while at least some legal precedents and practical acknowledgement of REALITY say it IS. It's an evolving, complex issue, and calling everyone who doesn't see it your way a criminal is just rhetoric.

There's NOTHING fundamentally illegal about videotaping a private, not for profit event, for future private, not for profit viewing. There's nothing fundamentally illegal about offering professional services for shooting said video and editing it. The grey area is of course where the use of someone else's art or work may become involved... and it's VERY professional to discuss this rationally, to the credit of everyone posting.



You miss the simple point that a camera op and editor on a big production aren't worrying about clearances -there's a person or whole department dedicated to sorting our clearances and promotional consideration (i.e. in film "advertising"...). Watching a TV show the other night, it was pretty obvious that there was a sponsor giving the show "product" to "feature". I'm going to go out on a beefy limb here and say a musical artist would give away the rights to allow a "hit" TV show to feature their work prominently so their album would be "cross promoted". I've seen such blatant promotion more than once, and it makes sense...

To suggest that a small video operation, that can make it economically viable for a couple to have a lasting memory of their special day, is going to have a legal team to sort through and negotiate these issues is a bit absurd.

I think the B&G would rather have someone who can shoot straight and edit artfully than someone who spends all their time sorting out copyright clearances... especially since this is a one time private event on a schedule. Maybe one day we'll see Pepsi or Coke or some Vodka company "sponsoring" wedding videos... hey, the door swings both ways here... BUT until then...

If we're talking a few copies for family and friends, and as Travis suggested a copy is purchased for each DVD produced, the artist is compensated - I'm failing to see "damages", and I see a professional "solution" to a sticky problem. Perhaps imperfect, but certainly thoughtful!


I like analogies too, rather practical ones...

A couple buys a song on CD (or via the web), they have the right to play it for personal use and enjoyment, RIGHT? You produce a video designed to be played along with that "theme music" on a separate disc, and the couple pays you to create that video - the couple must simply press play on two players at the same time. Where is any law being broken? You have not facilitated any theft of copyright, but it's mighty inconvenient, so as a practical matter (using the miracles of modern digital technology), you record the two together so that they need only press one "play" button. The end result is the same, so where are the damages? Where is the "theft"? Where is the harm to the artist?? Presumably the couple will not be charging ayone to watch their wedding video, OR listening to the original music at the exact same time, SO they arguably have the right to shift formats of product they PAID for. You're facilitating the couple using their own "private property" for their personal enjoyment - not offering it for sale to anyone who comes along (and unless the couple happen to be famous, who would CARE anyway???)

NOW, here's the flip side (and I presume where you're coming from) - put that same video on the internet, and you've violated copyrights all over the place, and probably should be issued a "cease and desist" letter immediately.

There are a lot of people making their own "music videos" and "publishing" to the net without any regard to the rights of the original artist... "fair use" and "derivative work" aside, there is probably far too much of this going on...

Thus my suggestion that if you're a videographer (pro OR hobby-ist!) posting your work "in public" or for profit (including to promote your business), use buyout tracks or licensed or otherwise cleared music. The big danger is of course anything in a digital format can be illegally copied, even if you yourself didn't mean that to happen... so don't post anything you wouldn't want "stolen". If you wouldn't leave your CD sitting out for anyone to grab, don't post the same content on the internet!


Another analogy - a town decides that everyone should pay to park in a specific area... but instead of installing meters so it's easy to do, they put an obscure box on the outskirts of town, and give everyone who doesn't go out of their way to put their .25/.50/.75 in that box (did I mention different spaces have different prices... but there's no clear definition of which is which) a ticket and a huge fine becuse they are "criminals" violating the town ordinance. First, no one will go to that town, and anyone who does is nuts - the town "shot itself in the foot..." Second, while the town may have the right to collect payment for parking, thereby producing revenue, they also had an obligation to facilitate said payment in a reasonable and effective way, and their failure to do so is at the least negligence, taking the wind out of any claims they may have. Are you going to argue the town has acted reasonably, and the "criminals", who wouldn't mind paying the .25/.50/.75, but were prevented from doing so because of the lack of a practical way to do so, are terrible people and should pay huge fines??

One last practical analogy for the situation we have here... you're driving along, and stop at a red light. After sitting for several minutes, you come to realize that the light is "stuck" and after looking both ways to confirm that no traffic is coming you proceed through the intersection. You just ran a red light and broke the law, didn't you?? And I'll bet you've done this EXACT thing a time or two - the alternative was to sit there forever and hope things would change... that's not sensible either! You don't go running red lights just for giggles, you don't make a practice of it, but the "system" was broken, so you proceed "at your own risk" to get to your destination. Maybe you take that route 10 times a week, and the signal's ALWAYS broken, maybe you even call it in to whoever maintains the light... and it's still broken. Your choices are limited, so yes, you "turn to crime" <wink>, but does this make your intent criminal or malicious?? NOPE, just someone trying to get where you're going.

IP law is a major headache, no doubt, and we're saddled with a "broken", "analog" enforcement/compensation structure in a digital world. Online music in general has gone through this and arrived at some sort of "solution", so at some point this will be addressed... we can hope. Until then, as a practical matter, we must "proceed at our own risk". I believe that is the original intent of this thread, understanding that risk, and how to properly deal with it!!

Hope I haven't muddied the waters too much with such a long post , but I think the points are valid.

I actually think you make a good point about posting work on the internet. I'm going to have to mull that one over now. Although, if you post it as Flash, it seems it would be a lot harder to rip the song. Interesting either way.

Proceed at your own risk... always good advice.

And went caught in a lawsuit , simply smile and say "Well, I knew it was always possible" and politely pay up.

Travis -

I think we forget how many "potential" viewers there are out there - if you've password protected your video so maybe a couple out of town relatives can come and see it for 6 months after the wedding (and maybe buy a copy), it's one thing, but to post "public", I think you open up the doors to an infringement claim BIG time.

After all, this was what the "file sharing" services got into trouble for - it basically provided a way to "give away" free access to stuff you bought to use yourself, thereby violating the implied agreement between you and the copyright owner (you can use it yourself for "fair use", resell the one copy if you don't want it anymore) - it's not terribly different from going and making a thousand copies of a CD that you don't own the content on, and giving them away... only it was easier... it damages someone else, that ain't right. And yes, where the rights owner hasn't been paid, it's theft of some other parties hard work. No one wants that.

How many guys lent out their record for a friend to check out and maybe make one copy? Maybe the guy goes and buys his own or some other records by the same artist because he digs the tunes... that was "back in the day". Lousy casette copies of relatively lo-fi scratchy vinyl...

NOW, with it all digital and the net everywhere, a thousand people can go load up for free - I watched guys doing this, and thinking nothing of it, and found it appalling. Digital content distribution changes everything.

BUT this doesn't mean EVERYONE is malicious and has criminal intent, technology is morally neutral, it's how it's used.

SO, who wants to put a company together to do digital rights management for videographers? Might be worth exploring... anyone got a few thousand spare hours? I see attorneys... AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

<wink>

Yeah, my friends always got mad at me because I wouldn't let them make a copy of a new CD when I got one. They thought I was crazy for not using Napster when it was up and running.

Steve -
First let me suggest your rhetoric reduces your credibility - labelling videographers "unprofessional" because they are struggling to sort out complex legal issues and suggesting they get no respect because of their inability to do so is frankly silly.

I didn't label them as unprofessional. I said they are often labeled as such by commerical still photographers and others in the music, broadcasting, publishing, and filmmaking industries because the wedding videographers ignore the law that other creative professionals consider to be at the core of their intellectual property rights.


Videographers memorializing a private event aren't criminals any more than someone who makes a copy of something they purchased for their own use (fair use is fundamental case law on copyright, albeit being constantly atacked and eroded by those who want the user to pay for EVERY SINGLE time they use or view a "work").

But they're not making a copy for their own use - they're making a copy for sale to a third party, the B&G clients, as part of a commercial vienture.


There's NOTHING fundamentally illegal about videotaping a private, not for profit event, for future private, not for profit viewing. There's nothing fundamentally illegal about offering professional services for shooting said video and editing it.

Of course not, never said it was illegal, immoral, or fattening.


A couple buys a song on CD (or via the web), they have the right to play it for personal use and enjoyment, RIGHT? You produce a video designed to be played along with that "theme music" on a separate disc, and the couple pays you to create that video - the couple must simply press play on two players at the same time. Where is any law being broken? You have not facilitated any theft of copyright, but it's mighty inconvenient, so as a practical matter (using the miracles of modern digital technology), you record the two together so that they need only press one "play" button. The end result is the same, so where are the damages? Where is the "theft"? ....

The harm is in copying the music into another work without payment of the licenses that the owners of that intellectual property desire for that specific use. It's their party and they have absolute right to total control of what can or cannot be done with it. They say it's ok to listen to it, it's not okay for you to copy it and sell the copy, even if it's only one copy. It's legal for you to make a copy of a magazine article for your own use, it's not legal for Kinko's to make a copy for you.

NOW, here's the flip side (and I presume where you're coming from) - put that same video on the internet, and you've violated copyrights all over the place, and probably should be issued a "cease and desist" letter immediately.

While posting to the internet is an even worse violation, even making one copy of the song in the video for the B&G is also a violation.

Steve, seriously, you're really beating a dead horse here. No one is (or has been) arguing that it is legal to use copyrighted music in a wedding video. The real debate is over the practicality of the current law and how artists and publishers really feel about the issue.

Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Professional photographers don't look down on videographers because they use copyrighted music. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, most photographers now do music slideshows and they do they exact same thing we are doing.

Steve, seriously, you're really beating a dead horse here. No one is (or has been) arguing that it is legal to use copyrighted music in a wedding video. The real debate is over the practicality of the current law and how artists and publishers really feel about the issue.

Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Professional photographers don't look down on videographers because they use copyrighted music. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, most photographers now do music slideshows and they do they exact same thing we are doing.

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in Dave's position where he seems to say it's certainly wrong to make a thousand copies of a music CD and give them to friends or to use unlicensed music in a clip on the internet because it exposes the music to massive copying or to post copied music on Napster back in its heyday, yet he doesn't seem to recognize that copying music by incorporating it into a commercial product and then selling that product to a customer is equally the wrong thing to do. Admittedly it is a market of 1 customer and they are buying a limited number of copies, but it is selling unlicensed copies of music as a commercial venture all the same, in no way different from selling pirated copies of software, music CDs, or movie DVDs.

In a purely legalistic sense, you're right. However, that's like saying killing someone in cold blood is just as illegal as double-parking. It's a true statement, but I think most people would agree that there is a definite difference between the two.

While it is illegal to use copyrighted music in a wedding video, there is a difference between that and straight-up piracy. With piracy, you're taking an artist's music, making copies, and then selling it to people that don't already have that music to listen to. With a wedding video, I'm taking music that the couple already has to listen to, and I'm simply syncing it with footage from a personal event in their life. In fact, in my case, I'm actually still purchasing a copy of the music, so the artist is making a sale they wouldn't have made otherwise.

I'm not saying that makes it "legal", but I think there's a distinct difference between blatant piracy for profit and using music in a wedding video.

SO, who wants to put a company together to do digital rights management for videographers? Might be worth exploring... anyone got a few thousand spare hours? I see attorneys... AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

<wink>

I think this would be an excellent idea...why not make it something like iTunes..but for videographers/hobbiest etc?

Make the pricing fair and dare I say....more affordable?

My sister used to work for a big music company in New York. She has told me stories about how people used to always write letters for permission to use songs in wedding videos.

The problem is that there just isn't a system in place for the small time players to license music.

They are not going to bother negotiating with us--It requires too much man power and time for the fees they might get--they just don't do it.

So the basic answer would be "NO" for these requests.

I hope this changes, however.

Here's another interesting tidbit: I didn't realize that Rhino Records was originally a company that just makes compliations.

They go to the individual music companies with a proposal for a compliation album and the record companies might ask to see what other artists and songs will be on that album and then determine whether to grant permission and of course negotiate the final price.

Once that is done...they sell the record and they make money off of that. All you got to do is pick 15 songs!

How funny is that!

Use local, unsigned artists and bands. You'd be amazed at the pool of untapped talent out there. Many will give you all the necessary rights for free!!! I have about 15 bands signed up with me so far, 3 songs a piece, that's 45 songs currently available for my clients to choose from (length of contract -perpetual!). I also have a guy (one man band) in Niagara that has written and recorded about 200 songs and has indicated that I can use any and all, just send him the contract to sign.... Some artists and bands would like exposure too please, and will give it away, why don't you all try helping THEM out...


While this may not be the best solution for all, it very well should be until the record industry gets with it.

including copyrighted music in a wedding video need not be either immoral or illegal.

http://blog.timberlinevideo.com/?p=8

that interview has been pointed to many times, and the point that is consistently missed is that it's a discussion of *incidental* music. This is not the same is ripping a CD and putting the same song in as incidental music.
The question of incidental music is ambiguous.
What is humorous (I'm assuming now, since I haven't listened to that NPR piece for at least a year), is he talks about "as long as you're documenting the wedding and not making a movie about the wedding..."
Aside from the gross ambiguity there, it's also debatable that the wedding pros are "documenting" vs "making a movie." Does documenting include compositing, color correction, 3D titles, and professional editing? All are components of making a movie, too. Where is the line in the sand?
I look at the works of a guy like Glenn Elliot and I don't see "documenting." I see "cinematography/movie."
Either way, the NPR interview is silly overall; he doesn't truly address this question, he only "talked to an attorney." There are attorneys here on DVInfo.net that don't agree amongst themselves on this subject.
It's not just a wedding issue; it's an event issue,and it's discussed in virtually every event photography forum you can find.
It's an ethical/moral issue as well as a legal one. You just gotta figure out where you want to sit in this highly fenced issue.

The distinction between recording an event as it happens and "scoring" or "syncing" as is done in a movie for effect seems simple enough, but you do have the issue of editing...

I'm definitely uncomfortable with the approach of making a "wedding music video" that uses a whole track... and I've seen that way too often, wouldn't do that myself.

I do believe that from a practical standpoint, if you are recording a private event, and what you are doing is "documenting" and "editing" that PRIVATE event, your liability should be limited. Presumably we have the right to record ourselves or someone else for pay, and if there's music playing, it's "incidental" to the event which is the reason the recording is taking place.

In other words, you are not there to record the music being played, you are there to record the individuals (privmarily the B&G and family/guests), taking part in a one time event that no one else will probably even care that much about... "so what" if music is playing in the background? It's not like a movie where everything is carefully choreographed to be "just so". The song is not going to be played thousands of times on a big screen and DVDs, it's going to be in the background whenever a private party relives their event... It's not like it's going to released as "B&G's big fat adventurous wild wild wedding" for profit - at least we hope not... no matter how great a production it is!



Steve: you remind me of the types that intellectually would like media to self destruct 5 seconds after it's played, and then you have to buy it all over again... as a practical matter, it is possible to buy a CD, and "own" the content - SURE, there are those who want us to pay for EVERY instance EVERY time that a song is played, for EVERY possible use... it's a nice argument... but not very realistic, AND AFAIK the courts have not upheld that interpretation.

One doesn't buy a CD to play it once. You buy it to have and use as you choose for PERSONAL, PRIVATE use, and if that includes "format shifting", then I think you're within fair use guidelines. Making one or two copies in various formats (.wav, .wmv, .mp3, etc.) so you can listen on the device you choose - even if that device happens to be playing a video simultaneously (you're still playing a single copy of the music you own) - should fall squarely within fair use guidelines.

If the B&G give you their CD and ask you to integrate it into the recording of their day, all you've done is "format shift" the music for them, something at least in theory they have the right to do, or pay you to do for them.

Post that same thing on the internet or make a pile of copies, now you're over the line. I'd probably sue you if I was an atty <wink>. Then again there's those 54 million dollar pants - there are limits to the absurdity... but not to the arguments attys can make!



Travis: those photogs realize that their "slideshow" gets really boring really quick, and that having a "soundtrack" makes it "work better"... now they just crossed the line above where they are producing a "movie" (actually more of a "performance art" piece)... DOH@!

Tricky stuff this IP law. What makes it so difficult is that we all agree that compensation for work is inherently fair, but since the methods and scales for compensation are so obscure, or ineffectual, we can't get a handle on what is "right". If you pay for a song to use one way, it's bizzare in this digital age to say it cannot be "repurposed" or "format shifted"... welcome to the digital age... buckle up, it's going to get bumpy!



Marco: I agree if you can use unsigned talent that wants exposure, that's great, probably an EXCELLENT approach for the videographer that wants to avoid the copyright issue altogether for posted demos and such, and has access to that resource. BUT, how many couples have "their song", and it's by some unknown artist....?

This does raise the interesting question of whether or not an artist is "harmed" by the exposure they receive by being "included" on a private personal wedding video... or would they feel honored to have their work mean so much to someone else that they wanted it in their personal event?

I presume deals are inked all the time for artists to "appear" at little or no cost/fee on a potential blockbuster hit movie or show so as to increase their exposure... it's called "cross advertising". Most movies have a soundtrack album now, and I presume the artist benefits from the sales of those (anyone actually buy 'em?).

Maybe including a little credit to the artist and info on where to get the song wouldn't be a bad idea? Credit where credit is due, and maybe someone else goes out and buys the song because they liked it on the wedding video their friend showed them...


Just some more random thoughts!

DB>)

The distinction between recording an event as it happens and "scoring" or "syncing" as is done in a movie for effect seems simple enough, but you do have the issue of editing...

...

Steve: you remind me of the types that intellectually would like media to self destruct 5 seconds after it's played, and then you have to buy it all over again... as a practical matter, it is possible to buy a CD, and "own" the content - SURE, there are those who want us to pay for EVERY instance EVERY time that a song is played, for EVERY possible use... it's a nice argument... but not very realistic, AND AFAIK the courts have not upheld that interpretation.

...

If the B&G give you their CD and ask you to integrate it into the recording of their day, all you've done is "format shift" the music for them, something at least in theory they have the right to do, or pay you to do for them.

Post that same thing on the internet or make a pile of copies, now you're over the line. I'd probably sue you if I was an atty <wink>. Then again there's those 54 million dollar pants - there are limits to the absurdity... but not to the arguments attys can make!



Travis: those photogs realize that their "slideshow" gets really boring really quick, and that having a "soundtrack" makes it "work better"... now they just crossed the line above where they are producing a "movie" (actually more of a "performance art" piece)... DOH@!

...

DB>)

I've never said that one should pay per use or that personal copying for one's own use should be illegal .. quite the contrary, I'm firmly opposed to such notions and a staunch defender of fair use and the right of individual consumers to make personal copies for their own use and backup. I've got a few favourite CDs, for example, that were very hard to locate - think I'm going to take them in the car with me on a trip where they're easily lost, stolen, or damaged? Not on your life! But there's a big difference between making a copy to take in the car (which is perfectly within the law, BTW) and making a copy to send to you and a huge difference if I incorporated the music from that CD into a product I wanted to sell to you to make it more to your liking.

Interesting that your response to Travis agrees that synching the music to a slideshow of still images is over the line and no longer fair use, yet you maintain that using a music track as the sound track and synching the moving images of the video in something such as "love story" segments or video montages of the B&G is acceptable. I think most of the people here would disagree that the role of the wedding videographer is that of a passive recorder of events - they're flat-out making movies and some of them do breathtakingy beautiful work. Some of the montages I've seen are wonderful examples of filmmaking and I'll be the first to acknowledge and admire the talent that's there. And that's the rub. We're not talking about incidental music where it's just a part of the background in the environment, like shots of dancing at the reception whîle a few snatches of the music they're dancing to is heard or interviewing the bride's father while we also hear the DJ's music being played in the background. We're talking about assembling a series of romantic clips into a storyline and cutting it to the music of the B&G's favourite song as the only or principal track for that segment of the show. The story of a wedding is a documentary movie that is just as crafted as "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," the only difference (aside from budget) being that the wedding video is a story of a real wedding while the Hollywood movie is fiction.

Read back over what you've written - what you've said, in effect, is that the wedding videographer crosses the line when his work makes it possible for third parties to copy the music as a result of his posting the video on the web etc, overlooking the fact that the wedding videographer's copying the music into the video's soundtrack in order to sell the video to the B&G is in no way different from anyone else making and distributing copys for whatever purpose.

SO, who wants to put a company together to do digital rights management for videographers? Might be worth exploring... anyone got a few thousand spare hours?

Actually it already exists and is called Zoom http://www.weva.com/cgi-bin/newsreader.pl?op=render&type=o&storyid=3667. Unfortunately even with a national association and a company already set up and ready to go, the big 5 are completely ignoring their attempts to engage in negotiations.

Anybody know why they are unwilling to negotiate? what's the issue? It would seem like a win for everyone. For the big 5, a new revenue stream, fewer people pirating their property, lower legal costs defending their property. For the videographers, they pay the fee, obey the law, and sleep well at night. What am I missing here?

What is humorous (I'm assuming now, since I haven't listened to that NPR piece for at least a year), is he talks about "as long as you're documenting the wedding and not making a movie about the wedding..."
Aside from the gross ambiguity there, it's also debatable that the wedding pros are "documenting" vs "making a movie." Does documenting include compositing, color correction, 3D titles, and professional editing? All are components of making a movie, too. Where is the line in the sand?
I look at the works of a guy like Glenn Elliot and I don't see "documenting." I see "cinematography/movie."

The line in the sand for me would be whether you are documenting a real wedding, or making a movie that contains a wedding where it isn't real, and everyone on screen is a paid actor. At that point, even the incidental background music is carefully chosen as part of the overall setting of the scene.

When you document, you have no directorial control of the elements (incidental background music included) or people in the scene except for stopping or reframing.

That's just my personal thought of where the line in the sand would be drawn. Using color correction, fx, and compositing are in my mind something that attempts, for lack of a better analogy, to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

-gb-

Actually it already exists and is called Zoom http://www.weva.com/cgi-bin/newsreader.pl?op=render&type=o&storyid=3667. Unfortunately even with a national association and a company already set up and ready to go, the big 5 are completely ignoring their attempts to engage in negotiations.

Wow. I just signed up for that and searched their database for a bunch of popular songs and artists and got ZERO results. Hopefully that will change at some point because I like the system they have set up.

Greg: exactly my point as to the event... and what Steve is saying about "producing" an event where you add non-incidental music is where the question lies... my argument is that if the B&G provide their own music to you to "add flavor" to the video for their own private and personal use, then they have format shifted their own music, and it's not illegal. If the videographer grabs a CD off his shelf... then he's made an "ilegal" copy...

Steve: It's great trading ideas, I think we're in general agreement - if a photographer or a videographer syncs a music track (which I'm presuming he owns for personal use) for a public promotional display (it's sort of "for profit", per se, but I'm not sure that would stick...), he's on dangerous ground - in my mind there's no reason he shouldn't use one of the programs out there to compose an original track that is thematically appropriate. Of course, it's the songs we recognize that "move" us... thus why the urge to use those songs is so strong...

Let's say you (Steve) have a video you made, and you want to use some of that rare music on the CD's you agree you have the right to format shift, as "ambience"... as long as it's for personal private non profit use... you're OK, right?

Now lets say you don't have the equipment, but you want a video of a special event, and you want that same "ambience", you hand the guy doing the video a copy of your CD, and say "use track #3" - you're the "producer", you're using your own music, why is the guy who just does you the service breaking the law? What you're saying is that by providing the service the videographer is breaking the law, that's where I disagree

All that said, I'll be diggin' into that Zoom site - looks like it might answer these questions, IF popular music is available, and that looks like a BIG if as of the moment, but maybe over time and with enough requests... lets all go over and start requesting!!!

DB>)

After having no luck searching for popular songs and artists at ZOOM, I decided to just browse through the 186 pages of artists/songs that they DID have.

I examined about every 5th page, and only found one song by an artist that I recognized (Rocky Marciano). I was very surprised, considering they are touting that hundreds of songs from "popular" artists have already been cleared. I'd say they have about zero still.

Anybody know why they are unwilling to negotiate? what's the issue? It would seem like a win for everyone. For the big 5, a new revenue stream, fewer people pirating their property, lower legal costs defending their property. For the videographers, they pay the fee, obey the law, and sleep well at night. What am I missing here?

The only people who can answer your question are the 5 presidents of major corporations and their lap dogs the RIAA. From there follow the money or the possible perceived lack of money in this case.

Or just plain bull headedness. One person who should be in the know or at least claims to be, told me once that "why should they raise a hand to help you, your the crook." How can you argue with that illogic?

When it comes to Zoom, someone discovered a while back that they are actually owned by an independent label that evidently has no ties to the major 5 and exists on their own. Most of the music that is approved evidently comes from their library. Evidently there are some forward thinkers out there.

Other things I have been able to piece together. Evidently they were close to signing Universal, in the hopes that with one major on board the other 4 would join. Near the end of negotiations Universal pulled out, have not ever been able to find out why. But from comments that the president of that universal music has made about other issues recently, I can guess why... Pure greed.

I believe and I have no confirmation of this that Zoom is using the music request submittal numbers in an attempt of lobbying the corporations by saying, look at how many have requested the song and if you sign on you'll make... This is my guess, but it would make sense.

My assumption on Zoom is they won't get far any time soon. In an industry where they are doing their best to make market entry as impossible as possible to reduce competition, a third party label with their own forward thinking idea isn't going to go far in getting the big guys on board. After all they have found a way to "tax" even music that is owned by the independent artist and is given away by that artist.

At this juncture I think it is also a good question as to who exactly controls the industry? The 5 or the RIAA? If you follow the money, it appears to be the RIAA! Even with the setbacks they have recently suffered, the RIAA is getting rich off of lawsuits and they have publically/proudly proclaimed that they are keeping all of the winnings from the cases to in their words "launch additional lawsuits". The RIAA is getting a double whammy, they are being paid by the 5 to fight these court cases and they get to keep the spoils, you do the math. We are just another potential revenue source for a pack of lawyers down the road. The 5 can take a few bucks from us or keep their raving dogs happy with plenty of treats. Follow the money.

Anyways, my last point, the laws are so screwed up, I'm not even sure such a program is actually attainable. Technically you need the label's and the artist's permission and either one can say no for any reason. So every artist has to have signed off on the program and I'm sure paid to do so and the labels have to sign off.... It's a mess, that is the one fact that can be said.

There isn't much to add to this thread, other than to say that the label has usually little/no say in who can or cannot license, approve, use, permit the use of a composition.
The publisher does, the artist does, depending on their agreement with the publisher. That's it, in most cases.
The RIAA has no control over licensing any more than the MPAA has control over who can license film clips, or than the NAB has over television licensing/radio licensing, etc.
While the process may be convoluted, it's actually quite simple.
All that said, not one person in any community in which I've seen/responded to/debated with/informed in 12 years has come up with a financial model that makes even the least amount of sense for a publisher or artist to administratively/fiscally deal with.
Australia has the best model thus far (IMO), but they have an exceptionally limited pool compared to the USA. Their model incorporates US copyrighted works.

looked at Zoom... whole lotta nuthin... good idea, but no "inventory"... back to the drawing board.