Your not charging anything for this video are you? Using your equipment, in your studio, mixing it to a pre-existing program, doesn?t exactly sound like a home recording. I think you're reaching and your scenario offers little, if any protection.

Paul you've got a deal brother. Let me know via email (ezor7@yahoo.com) a few days before you head this way next time. Then I can figure out a schedule and buy ya that drink. And 'hey' if you make it this way over the summer you could possibly make it in time for a serious cajun crawfish boil in our "yankee" NC back yard (tee hee). I'm from Baton Rouge, LA and everything north of I-10 is *officially* (wink) yankee country lol. Thanks again for all your help and clarifications. Talk soon & God Bless, Roze

A very good job Paul, I just shot a wedding as favour for a friend and happy to report, that I didn't violate the copyright laws.

If I show up in southern Californa, I'll buy you a beer as well.

Sorry if everyone's tired of this subject, but I thought the recent phone call I finally had with a human at Harry Fox's client relations division (where i'd been directed to inquire about obtaining a sync license) was the break in the case needed. Summarized, he explained:

>Mechanical license is not required. Mechanical license only applies to music-only copies of recordings like making / distributing CD's, tapes, records, etc.
>Synchronization is what applies here, syncing music/song to video/images.
>Sync licenses are only obtained through direct negotiations with the publisher(s). There are no fee structures, they can charge anything they want. There can even be four publishers involved for one song. All have to be contacted, all have to agree. One can say $1 per tape, another $40 each, another say $1000 flat fee, another can say no. It also takes alot of lead time to get any answer.
>Here's the kicker... he says that for ten or fewer copies of the same video, NO license is required IF the clients (bride and groom) provide the song from their own purchased copy of the song. If you provide the song from your own pool of music, you need a sync. license.
>Showing a love story synched with the client's music at the reception is ok, no license req'd.
>He agrees this has not been proven in courts nor written in stone, but is generally accepted as the standard. He says it is an oft asked question.
>He even likened it to compiling a cd for someone else. Charging for time and material to do that is also legal as long as the client provides the music and that music's been legally obtained (purchased and owned, not "shared" from downloading, etc.) and is for that client's use. He gave as example companies (in general, not specific names) that provide that very service (music only) operating in legal parameters without mechanical licenses, applying the fair use (personal) concept.

Thank you Sam. Great to hear some actual real world commentary. I've heard the same information from other videographers who have discussed it with the Harry Fox Agency. Nice to have a confirmation.

Rick

any aussies interested in doing the right thing can contat abia/apra
licenses are relatively cheap but its been a while since ive been in touch with them...

as for copyright, heres a q to those who think its irrelevant to Weddings...

If your client (bride and groom) only wanted 1 copy on dvd, it is blatantly obvious that they will duplicate it.

Now, there is no stopping this from happening regardless of what copyright notices you put on your DVD...

But how would you feel about losing hundreds of dollars because your client doesnt want you to do it for them? Obviously if they decide to dup eit themselves, YOURE not getting paid...

How would you feel after filming and editing for 60+ hours, someone jsut comes along and duplicates your work and not pay any extra for it?

You wouldnt...

same goes with music... I come from an Audio Production background and i wouldnt want someone using my music without my permission. I dont care about the money coz the music is my love, but its the fact that somoeone has taken the time to at least ASK me to use my material which i created...

see how it goes around in a circle?
If everyone does the right thing, it can be a fun merry go round, but if people want to run a business by doing illegal shit it will be an awful spiral of legalities...

That's exactly how I feel here in the US. Unfortunately, for some reason, the system does not seem to be set up for the small time sync licenses here in the US, and the license brokers themselves have given the ok for <=10 copies.
I believe Paul stated that he has even made suggestions and inquiries for an avenue for wedding videographers to be able to get licenses, but he said they weren't interested. I totally agree with your concept, Peter, but again, apparently they're not worried about 10 or less. I ranted myself on the side of the copyright holder in a thread where I was asking about sources of music, but all that seems to be set aside now that they've told me they don't care up to that limit.

Sure would be nice if that policy was published in writing and all the interested parties who would be suing videographers would sign off on it...

Paul,

You have a beer permanently in the fridge here waiting for your next trip to Tokyo. You deserve about 10 refrigerators full of beer from each of us for all the information you pass our way. Thanks!

Hope you like Kirin!

BUMP!

Interesting thread.

Most of you guys talking don't have a clue as to what its like in the trenches (ie wedding video).

The issue is basically the same as it is in the military regarding gays: Don't ask, don't tell.

Since we're talking about business here and not artist's rights (like some of you are trying to make an issue of) the RIAA is more focused on those college students illegally uploading thousands of copywrited songs a minute on campuses across the country. Are you so out of touch to think that the RIAA even cares about Wedding Videography? If anything it's a blip on their radar and most of them probably have seen wedding videos with copywrited music and never thought twice about it.

Bottom line: using copywrited music on wedding videos is not a form of infringement that hurts record sales. If it did we would of seen some lawsuits by now.

Mathew,

As someone who is married to an IP attorney, who went head to head with RIAA, I can assure you - the RIAA knows its happening and will get around to it eventually. Time is on their side. All they have to do is pick a couple of violators and start making examples of them.

Given that at least one industry source is saying that what most wedding videographers do is within the law, I suspect that the RIAA will continue beating up on the real hardened criminals - teenagers and grandmothers who download.

Richard, you missed my point. The reason the RIAA is making such a big stink about song sharing is not about artist's rights (yeah right) but because teenagers and others are swapping songs instead of buying them. Wedding videos don't cost them anything in sales.

Who the heck is going to care if the RIAA chases after Joe Smoe Video Productions in Wichita Kansas about using a Celine Dion song on a wedding video? At best it would make the Drudge Report. But that's besides the point....

Let me re-state: Wedding Videographers cost the record companies zilch in sales. They in no way would waste expensive lawyer fees going after those hardened criminals, your friendly wedding videographers.

Don't kid yourself, like Richard said, if there's money involved they'll get around to it eventually. A few years back, maybe 10 years ago, ASCAP sued a nursing home and won the case. The nursing home was playing recorded music (tapes) and it was considered a public performance. ASCAP didn't really enforce the judgment and settled to avoid too much bad publicity. But it got the point across and nursing homes started paying the licensing fees.

Again you're missing my point (and evidently unable to). Yes if we or the brides were selling the wedding videos to the general public then yes we would be raising a red flag. However as it is there is very little reason for the ASCAP or whatever to chase them down.

If they haven't gotten around to it yet then I doubt they have intentions to. Except if one of you guys decided to tattle tale (which it sounds like a few of you would).

You're mistaking public use for private use. Maybe there is no difference by law but there is on a subjective level.
Don't get me wrong. I understand the legal issues at hand. It's just that you guys are making it out like wedding videographers are thieves who should be tried by the law for their crimes. Their services go far beyond just putting copyrighted music on wedding videos. Trust me that the work most put into their videos far exceeds any compensation (none) they get for using copyrighted music.

Mathew,

You seem to be missing my point.

Using the music in wedding videos is illegal.

The attorneys are on staff at RIAA/BMI/ASCAP and they get paid the same whether they are litigating or not. (Believe me, corporate lawyers are paid a lot of money whether or not they are litigating)

These corporations WILL hunt down churches, old folks homes, ma and pa video production houses and anyone who BLATANTLY flaunts their illegal activities. (My wife has had to represent such folks for thinking "We are just a tiny operation, who cares what we are doing.)

Its one of the reasons I would never advocate breaking the law on-line. I think it's a bad idea.

Can you get away with it? Sure you can. I am sure there are people on this board who get away with it twenty times a day, every day of the week. I am just speaking from personal knowledge here, I KNOW of small time "infringers" who have been sued.

It's not about how much money the particular infringement costs them... it's about letting someone get away with it... its about setting precedent. Failure to enforce rights can lead to loss of rights. But I'll let Paul explain the details.

"Using the music in wedding videos is illegal."

No. You hear that sort of thing a lot around around here, but it isn't a demonstrated fact. It has never been established in court and industry representatives say exactly the opposite.

If you read the thread you will find that a rep at the Harry Fox agency is of the opinion that for private use it is perfectly legal. The folks at the Harry Fox Agency should know. They hang their hat on the provisions of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. It is possible that their view might not stand up in court but it is not by any means clear cut.

Sure, corporations are perfectly capable of suing anybody for anything. We have seen real thuggishness on the part of the RIAA of late. The likelihood of any given record company finding a copy of a wedding video and deciding it was worth their while to test in court whether the AHRA applies or not is definately not zero but I would hestitate to attempt to assign a probabilty to it too much higher than that.

I also question the suggestion that wedding videographers are "getting away with it" when it has not been established that what they are doing is in any way illegal.

Nothing new is being added here, as far as relevant content, and members are getting personal in their arguments, this thread is closed. If anyone needs an explanation for this consult the DV Info FAQ (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/misc.php?s=&action=faq) or email me, Chris Hurd or Ken Tanaka.