A possible music aquisition loop-hole? at DVinfo.net

Nicholas Foster · September 1st, 2004, 08:40 PM

I'm currently starting a video company, yes that means weddings, and was reading all the posts about the legalities of putting copyrighted music in the vids, when i had an idea.

If the bride/groom want the song "All My Life" on their video and also want ten copies of it, that is illegal because you are profiting and the RIAA is not getting theirs. Its obviously out of the question to pay for the rights, so what do you do? What if you went to I-tunes and paid for 10 copies of the song at 99 cents each, put it on the video, and then deleted the songs from your comp. Have your dues been paid? Would that work in a legal sense?

Jeff Donald · September 1st, 2004, 08:58 PM

No, purchasing music from the iTunes music store doesn't give you license to reproduce the music as you describe. In fact the license states that the music can only be copied to 3 separate devices, such as a laptop, desktop and iPod. Sorry.

Peter Moore · September 1st, 2004, 09:40 PM

Unfortunately not, because you still don't get synchronization rights from iTunes. When you add music to a wedding video you're creating a new derivative work in violation of the copyright. iTunes doesn't give you license to do that.

But that's good creative thinking. ;)

Dylan Couper · September 1st, 2004, 09:53 PM

Too bad, its not a bad idea to sell rights that way.

Peter Moore · September 1st, 2004, 10:30 PM

It's not, although synch rights should cost much less than $1 per copy.

I really wish there was compulsory licensing for sync rights like there is for plain old audio recordings. Then again, I can understand why the copyright owner should have control voer what his music is associated with visually. As always there are competing interests, and as usual the copyright owners' are what get protected.

September 1st, 2004, 08:40 PM	#1
Nicholas Foster Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 47	A possible music aquisition loop-hole? I'm currently starting a video company, yes that means weddings, and was reading all the posts about the legalities of putting copyrighted music in the vids, when i had an idea. If the bride/groom want the song "All My Life" on their video and also want ten copies of it, that is illegal because you are profiting and the RIAA is not getting theirs. Its obviously out of the question to pay for the rights, so what do you do? What if you went to I-tunes and paid for 10 copies of the song at 99 cents each, put it on the video, and then deleted the songs from your comp. Have your dues been paid? Would that work in a legal sense?

September 1st, 2004, 08:58 PM	#2
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	No, purchasing music from the iTunes music store doesn't give you license to reproduce the music as you describe. In fact the license states that the music can only be copied to 3 separate devices, such as a laptop, desktop and iPod. Sorry. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 1st, 2004, 09:53 PM	#4
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Too bad, its not a bad idea to sell rights that way. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

September 1st, 2004, 09:40 PM	#3
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Unfortunately not, because you still don't get synchronization rights from iTunes. When you add music to a wedding video you're creating a new derivative work in violation of the copyright. iTunes doesn't give you license to do that. But that's good creative thinking. ;)

September 1st, 2004, 10:30 PM	#5
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	It's not, although synch rights should cost much less than $1 per copy. I really wish there was compulsory licensing for sync rights like there is for plain old audio recordings. Then again, I can understand why the copyright owner should have control voer what his music is associated with visually. As always there are competing interests, and as usual the copyright owners' are what get protected.