Music rights question...again

[Don Parrish]

ABC evening news 9-8-03, quote" I thought I was safe in my home doing what I wanted" I believe he was a bus driver, first person to be sought after with a lawsuit, up to 150,000 dollars per song.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...0908_1918.html

[Rick Spilman]

Settlements are averaging more like $10-15,000, still banditry but not $150,000 per song. And of course having no direct relation with the topic being discussed.

[Don Parrish]

Music? copyright? lawsuit?

Ok. The topic was the first post.

[Jon Yurek]

The difference, of course, is merely one of scale. Giving a wedding video on CD or tape to a newlywed couple is just a bit different that trying to make an example of someone who is trading thousands of songs on the Internet (of course, going after the people supplying you with priceless amounts of free advertising is just shooting yourself in the foot, but that's a completely different discussion for a completely different time).

I would be willing to bet, however, that there's no way that putting unlicensed copyrighted music on a wedding tape that someone payed you for will fall under a "personal use" recording under the AHRA.

The folks at Harry Fox are of the opnion that 10 copies or less fall within the provisions of the AHRA provided that the bride and groom purchased the CD.

I don't see how this is possible, really. You're making a profit by the inclusion of a copyrighted work that you don't have the rights to on a recording of the wedding. How that falls under "personal use" is confusing to say the least (but then, it wouldn't be the first time the law has confused me, like why copyrights are so long now compared to when they were codified into law).

I should disclaim my statements by saying that I also would put a song onto a recording, especially if I were only going to supply it to a handful of people, and *especially* if I were not making any money from it. I just don't see how making money using a copyrighted recording is considered OK.

[Ken Tanaka]

I certainly support copyright protection and repect for others' intellectual proerty. But the RIAA can only bolster public resentment and hasten their demise by acts like this.

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/09/10/riaa/

[Chris Hurd]

FWIW, Ken's link above deals with a case of online file sharing, which is a bit different from the using-a-song-in-a-wedding-video topic we've been discussing, but I do agree with the sentiment.

[Kat Eiswald]

I can tell you guys about music rights....

I created a personal style that is very distinctive for silent film...and screws me in music rights because it is "obvious" that I can use that song and only that song. To make it even worse, my chosen composer is hitting his peak in the market right now and is commanding top dollar for film use.

After going to a seminar on the subject where I learned I was screwed, I did the crazy thing. Without going into detail, I made connections to his family. I haven't become friends with them, but I made a connection who encouraged the lead family member to watch my films. This person told the family lawyer to give me the nod for limited use on my website, and further communicated to me rates for my next film...which I was made to understand MUST be paid for. But the rate is far lower than if I had gone lawyer-lawyer without a personal appeal first.

With music, you are dealing with another artist. If you look at them as such, instead of a as commodity or adversary, you might discover a unique solution...maybe you have something to offer them in exchange. Maybe your work is the best interpretation they ever saw and WANT you to use it!

All the current legal-use issues are "Pimp issues". For the artists, the issue is aboutnot being "used" as much or more then it is about being denied money...

When a film festival promoter kept one of my films that he was required to destroy and showed it without my knowledge 2 years later at a BAR...without calling me to ask...I was enraged and pretty close to suing him,,,I felt violated for no good reason.

His response was I should be grateful for "exposure"...

My anger was for the reason that my cousin who had died after filming was in it, and I had retired it from venues out of respect for everyone who knew her. Thus I was upset for the betrayal and disrespect of me as an artist by someone who "didn't get it".

Some people might think: "Well I want (Insert famous artist here) and they aren't going to talk to ME..."
To which I'd say: "artists are artists. Try to get past the legal hardware and reach the artist."

My 2 cents.