event music copyright issue

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Oliver Neubert

A chocolate brand in Germany patented a color!

Those in Europe will probably be aware of EasyGroup who own Easyjet. Their company branding & logo is all orange & Orange the Telco tried to prevent them starting up a mobile phone company called naturally enough EasyMobile that used the colour orange in their branding. BBC NEWS | Business | Orange colour clash set for court What made this particularly hilarious is that Easygroup itself is very protective of the common English word 'Easy' & pursues other companies who try to use Easythis or Easythat as their company names.

[Sam Houchins II]

I have a problem applying the reasoning/definitions/purposes of a synchronization license to the specific application of videotaping a live musical performance. In this case, there is no "synching" involved. It is, unfortunately to my perception until you guys educate me, hardly any different in purpose/accomplishment for the copyright holder than a phonorecord created with a mechanical license of a licensed or exempted live performance. There is no more risk to the artist's work being associated with unseemly images than was allowed by the performance license or exemption allowing the performance in the first place. There is no more copying than what could be covered by a mechanical license (which is MUCH easier to secure). Since there is no reference/definition of the terms mechanical or synchronization licenses specifically in the Copyright Title 17 law, I'm left to flounder with individual sites' definitions... which again, seem to miss the specific example of video taping live authorized musical performances. Bottom line is, I'm suggesting a mechanical license seems like it ought to be made to be allowed to fit such a need as to record and make/distribute video copies of a legal, live musical performance, if no adiitional images are to be synched with the music

3. WHAT IS A SYNCHRONIZATION LICENSE...
Often referred to as a "Synch" license, a Synchronization License allows the user to reproduce a musical composition "in connection with" or "in timed relation with" a visual image, e.g., motion picture, video, advertising commercial.

For example, if you wish to use the song, "Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing" on a beverage commercial, you must first obtain a Synchronization License from the copyright owner of the music....Signature Sound: Music Clearance & Licensing- 11 Most Asked Questions

Synchronization License
Music Publishers issue licenses as copyright owner or his agent, usually to a producer, granting the right to synchronize the musical composition in timed relation with audio-visual images on film or videotape.
BMI.com | Music Licensing | Types of Copyright

Perhaps the remining issue would be the creation of a new, derivative work, which is a guaranteed, secured right of the original copyright holder.

[Steve House]

The term "synchonization" goes back many years to the early days of the first "talkies" where movie sound tracks were distributed to the theatres on separate media (disks) from the film and the two were played together in synchronization for the performance. Today the term hangs on even though the technology to get the sound track in sync with the image has changed. When you shoot a video of a music performance, the sound of the music is recorded in synch with the pictures you're recording. When you edit, you make conscious decisions of how the soundtrack lines up with the picture, what images are on screen while a certain set of notes is playing - it's been "synched" even if the picture is just a static shot of the band that is playing the music, If you lay in background music under a dramatic scene, the music is explicitly placed in the soundtrack in exact relation to the picture, it's been synchonized. If you play a theme as the credits roll, again the music has been consciously positioned with respect to picture - they're synched. The images the license talks about are not ADDITIONAL images beyond those of the performer(s), they're having ANY images of anything at all appear along with the music. Essentially it boils down to, for all practical purposes, with very few exceptions, if music is part of the soundtrack of a film or video, no matter what role it has in the soundtrack, it has been synced to the picture and you need the synch license from the copyright holder (publisher or composer/lyricist).

Mechanical licenses deal with distributing audio recordings, solely as audio recordings, without any accompaning images. When a band records a song, the mechanical is what allows them to make and sell copies of the resulting CD. Mechanicals have almost nothing to do with film/video soundtracks.

[Sam Houchins II]

Thanks for the history lesson, Steve. Learning the "why's" of things helps it sink into my brain and for it to stick there.
As I've poked around and read, it appears to me that video has been sorely left out in the cold as a medium to have access to the use of music. Why congress should feel that they should compel copyright holders to allow musicians to record/distribute their songs in audio format, and yet not equally allow for that recording to be on the soudtrak of a video still escapes my reasoning synapses. Especially, as expressed above, when there would only be images of the performers themselves legally performing the music, or in the case of a wedding, recording an event where the music was legally being played.
I so appreciate those in the know who've taken the effort to beat it into our heads the legal rights and wrongs so we can come to grips with it and adhere to it.
Perhaps congress will someday extend the usage exemptions to a fairer, larger circle of media to include video. Again, to compel audio reproductions, but to exclude video is where the unfairness gets me. If audio recording/distribution were as equally uncompelled, then there would be no inequity to my mind. I still just don't see how the one can be justified and the other condemned.
God bless...

[Steve House]

Why congress should feel that they should compel copyright holders to allow musicians to record/distribute their songs in audio format, and yet not equally allow for that recording to be on the soudtrak of a video still escapes my reasoning synapses. Especially, as expressed above, when there would only be images of the performers themselves legally performing the music, or in the case of a wedding, recording an event where the music was legally being played.

I think one problem with your view lies in coming to grips with the idea than an event or wedding videographer is more than a simple passive recorder of the event. You are, in fact, a producer of an audiovideo work that tells a story. It may be a fictional story or it may be a representation of factual events but it goes far beyond a mere record of events in front of the camera and becomes a work in its own right. To use music in telling the story, even if it was part of the event being video'ed, is taking another artist's work and using it as an element of your own. As such, the original artist that created the music deserves full compensation for the use of his property, including the right to deny you the use of it for if he so wishes.

As for music at a wedding or a corporate event being legal, maybe so and maybe not. Did they actually pay performance royalties on all the music that was played? They are supposed to but but that's honored more in the breech than in the practice I think.

[Paul R Johnson]

I can only speak for the UK, but the various agencies here do make sure people know licenses should be in force - obviously, people take advantage, but they are legitimate business expenses. A venue local to me have been doing it for years, and the big sticker from the copyright agency is up on the office wall. The trouble is, this license is for playing music to the public on their premises, and the copyright agency just realised there is a theatre in the building. The owners, confident in their belief they were licensed, just found out that for over 15 years, they've been operating illegally. This year, the new charges will kick in - the agency accepting that it was a genuine mistake.

If you read a CD label - then the list of things you can use it for are quite limited. The fact that we do use them outside of that wording isn't justification for doing it.

[Sam Houchins II]

Originally Posted by Steve House

I think one problem with your view lies in coming to grips with the idea than an event or wedding videographer is more than a simple passive recorder of the event. You are, in fact, a producer of an audiovideo work that tells a story. It may be a fictional story or it may be a representation of factual events but it goes far beyond a mere record of events in front of the camera and becomes a work in its own right.

While you speak accurately of my aspirations, you overstate my current skill, lol. The best I can offer is in fact a "documentary" style passive recording, though steady with 2 cameras, corrected coloring/lighting, and including a good sound recording. Even this style of heavily factual/minimally creative recording of a legal event onto video is not allowed in its entirety if copyrighted material is in play.

Originally Posted by Steve House

To use music in telling the story, even if it was part of the event being video'ed, is taking another artist's work and using it as an element of your own. As such, the original artist that created the music deserves full compensation for the use of his property, including the right to deny you the use of it for if he so wishes..

I would agree (I know adherence does not require agreement, btw) wholeheartedly with this concept if it were fairly applied across the board. But for some reason, Congress has deemed it in the public's intrerest to compel those same copyright owners to allow people to pay a set, reasonable fee to perform, record, and distribute new audio recordings of those same protected works yet it has left video out in the cold. Even those same legal performances can't be recorded onto video, even if for an historical record purpose. I'm suggesting that logically, if the performance is legal, then it should be legal to videographically make an historical record of the event, and payment be made to the copyright holder again in a similar fashion as a mechanical license is compelled to be made available.

Originally Posted by Steve House

As for music at a wedding or a corporate event being legal, maybe so and maybe not. Did they actually pay performance royalties on all the music that was played? They are supposed to but but that's honored more in the breech than in the practice I think.

Seperate can of worms, lol, but since you opened it, let me stir it with a stick...
The business that typically provides space for events like weddings/receptions should hold blanket performance licenses to cover their own rears because they're as much responsible for music being played in their establishment as those actually performing/playing the music, and apparently it's actually the business that's more often than not the party sued, if there's suing to be done...
and
Personal use allows for an audience of, "a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances." I'd like it to be demonstrated why a wedding/reception would not fall under the category of an event solely attended by, "a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," and therefore allow for one of those in the, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," to either perform music for that, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," or to play personal legal copies of music for that, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances."

Thanks for you thoughts/comments heretofore, Steve.
God bless...

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

I can only speak for the UK, but the various agencies here do make sure people know licenses should be in force - obviously, people take advantage, but they are legitimate business expenses. A venue local to me have been doing it for years, and the big sticker from the copyright agency is up on the office wall. The trouble is, this license is for playing music to the public on their premises, and the copyright agency just realised there is a theatre in the building. The owners, confident in their belief they were licensed, just found out that for over 15 years, they've been operating illegally. This year, the new charges will kick in - the agency accepting that it was a genuine mistake.

If you read a CD label - then the list of things you can use it for are quite limited. The fact that we do use them outside of that wording isn't justification for doing it.

The UK is very fortunate as the relevant bodies that collect fees on behalf of the music copyright holders have got their acts together & actually made it relatively straightforward for the correct licences to be purchased for recording of copyright works (live or recorded) used at weddings & other events. You purchase a hologram sticker which is applied to the DVD/BluRay disk Limited Manufacture (LM)

Unfortunately the PRS/MCPS haven't yet caught up with the Internet & there is no such straightforward licensing scheme for limited use on Internet sites in e.g. a showreel

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Sam Houchins II

...
I would agree (I know adherence does not require agreement, btw) wholeheartedly with this concept if it were fairly applied across the board. But for some reason, Congress has deemed it in the public's intrerest to compel those same copyright owners to allow people to pay a set, reasonable fee to perform, record, and distribute new audio recordings of those same protected works yet it has left video out in the cold. Even those same legal performances can't be recorded onto video, even if for an historical record purpose. I'm suggesting that logically, if the performance is legal, then it should be legal to videographically make an historical record of the event, and payment be made to the copyright holder again in a similar fashion as a mechanical license is compelled to be made available.

The key element is that a performance is not a derivative work that can carry its own copyright - performances are not copyrightable at all - but a film or video recording of the performance is.

The business that typically provides space for events like weddings/receptions should hold blanket performance licenses to cover their own rears because they're as much responsible for music being played in their establishment as those actually performing/playing the music, and apparently it's actually the business that's more often than not the party sued, if there's suing to be done...
and
Personal use allows for an audience of, "a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances." I'd like it to be demonstrated why a wedding/reception would not fall under the category of an event solely attended by, "a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," and therefore allow for one of those in the, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," to either perform music for that, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," or to play personal legal copies of music for that, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances."...

A venue or a hired DJ that provides music does not qualify as "personal use." Rather it is a commercial music service that is being offered to the general public. The fact that you have contracted with them to provide music to your personal circle of friends and family does not mean that the music becomes your music offered by you to your personal friends and family. It still the commercial distribution of music and you are just one of the presumably many clients who avail themselves of those services. If you invite people into your home and play music for them from your personal library, no problem. If one of the guests acts as DJ, still no problem. But if you hire a DJ to come in and bring HIS library, he is a commercial vendor of entertainment, the music is no longer being used for the personal entertainment by the owner of the recordings, and he needs to license the music he plays for you. The fact he is playing it for invited guests at a private gathering doesn't change that or make it the personal use of the party hosts. The licensing is not your responsibility but the DJ's. Remember that buying a CD only gives you ownership of the physical plastic disk and a license to listen to the music recorded on it - you acquire no ownership or performance rights to the music itself.

And in that same vein, when you are a videographer recording an event or wedding, whether you are a major player or just a weekend semi-pro, you become a distributor of video recordings, albeit probably with a relatively limited circulation. If those recordings contain other copyrightable work, you are effectively in the same boat as the venue or DJ above. Even if the music played was valid personal use of the event organizer or host, it's not YOUR personal use and since you're the one making the copies, your use is what counts. You can't get around it - when you make a film or video of a performance, you are making a derivative work and distributing copies of same. Mechanicals are not liceses for derivative works because audio recordings are not derivative - in fact, I believe the provisions of the statuory mechanical license specifically prohibit any substantial alteration of the orginal music. But a film or video of a performance is more than just a reproduction of the music itself and the whole is quite different from the original music by virtue of the added images.

[Sam Houchins II]

Originally Posted by Steve House

The key element is that a performance is not a derivative work that can carry its own copyright - performances are not copyrightable at all - but a film or video recording of the performance is.

US Copyright already prevents legally created derivative works from creating a new copyright that absorbs the rights of the pre-existing work, if I understand it correctly, as it's written below in the US Title 17 Copyright Law. So if the law were to legalize video recording of live performances, the mechanism is already in place to protect the pre-existing copyright. Again, I'm desiring equal compulsory access for video that audio recordings already enjoy, subject to the same restrictions the performance and mechanical licenses impose; that is, not being able to change the copyrighted work, but enjoy the same compulsory access, with set fees. I still don't see what logic can be applied to compel performance and mechanical licensing for audio only, and leave video recording (straight recording of the performance, not adding additional images apart from the performance itself) out in the cold. It's merely an historical record of the licensed, approved (via the performance rights: either through license or exemption) images as they occurred. I'm not arguing that it's allowed to do this now. I agree that it's not. I'm arguing the logic that if audio recordings can be compulsory, then the same reasoning should allow this type of actual historical video in the door as well.
"§ 103 · Subject matter of copyright:
Compilations and derivative works...
...(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

A venue or a hired DJ that provides music does not qualify as "personal use." Rather it is a commercial music service that is being offered to the general public. The fact that you have contracted with them to provide music to your personal circle of friends and family does not mean that the music becomes your music offered by you to your personal friends and family. It still the commercial distribution of music and you are just one of the presumably many clients who avail themselves of those services. If you invite people into your home and play music for them from your personal library, no problem. If one of the guests acts as DJ, still no problem.

I proposed the scenario where the performer of the music was not hired, but a member of the, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," so they would be performing amongst themselves, either by playing from their own Ipod, or singing a song or playing an instrument from amongst their own members, for their own members. I have not noted in the statute, the requirement that the performance be limited to literally in home use to be "personal" not "public,", but rather identifies the audience instead of the venue (in regards to the performance of copyrighted music).

Regarding hiring a performer or DJ and having the legalities covered, what I mean to suggest is that the task of securing a performance license may not be so onerous as might be imagined, and should already be covered without any further action needed by the family/performers; in that, businesses that regularly hire out their space for gatherings like weddings/receptions, with or without providing the actual performers (musicians or DJ's), but where music is typically performed/played, those businesses should already be carrying blanket performance licenses. If the wedding party has hired the services of a performer, just asking the business providing the space should lead to the discovery that the performance licensing is already provided.

And in that same vein, when you are a videographer recording an event or wedding, whether you are a major player or just a weekend semi-pro, you become a distributor of video recordings, albeit probably with a relatively limited circulation.

The mere copying of the music to video tape/memory is illegal, to my understanding, before you even get to the distribution stage, either by the videographer or the owner of a legal copy of a phonorecord.

If those recordings contain other copyrightable work, you are effectively in the same boat as the venue or DJ above.

Note: of course, as you know, there are differences between performing, copying (recording), and distributing. The DJ's probably just performing, whereas the videographer is copying and eventually distributing.

You can't get around it - when you make a film or video of a performance, you are making a derivative work and distributing copies of same. Mechanicals are not liceses for derivative works because audio recordings are not derivative - in fact, I believe the provisions of the statuory mechanical license specifically prohibit any substantial alteration of the orginal music. But a film or video of a performance is more than just a reproduction of the music itself and the whole is quite different from the original music by virtue of the added images.

I would love the law to allow for video to record the music, in the case where the music is not changed, and where the "added" images are limited to the images as they occured at a legal performance, and that this allowance be compulsory as is allowed for audio recordings. I still see a disparity of logic why one is allowed and the other is not.

I'm sorry if I've still missed a point you've made and either haven't rebutted or accepted it, or incorrectly rebutted it in ignorance.
God bless!

[Chris Davis]

Originally Posted by Sam Houchins II

Why congress should feel that they should compel copyright holders to allow musicians to record/distribute their songs in audio format, and yet not equally allow for that recording to be on the soudtrak of a video still escapes my reasoning synapses.

It really has nothing to do with what congress compels copyright holders to do. Congress has basically said that the creator of a work has the right to determine how that work is copied ("copyright").

Copyright music is used all the time in video - look at commercials, major video productions, movies, etc. and they pay big money for it. What does not exist at this time is an affordable method of securing music for your production.

If you want to hire a band/musician to record a version of a popular song for inclusion in your video, it can be done fairly inexpensively. I've done that before - we used "Who'll Stop The Rain" by John Fogarty. While we could not use the recording by CCR, we could make our own recording. It was just a matter of paperwork and a small check.

[Sam Houchins II]

Originally Posted by Chris Davis

It really has nothing to do with what congress compels copyright holders to do. Congress has basically said that the creator of a work has the right to determine how that work is copied ("copyright").

But Congress did not leave it totally in the copyright holder's hands to control how the work is copied. Of course, in the case of music, Congress at first not only gave the exclusive rights of the owner of a copyright to reproduce the work (copy), but also to exclusively prepare derivative works, distribute copies, and to publicly perform, display, or digitally transmit the work. First they granted the exclusionary right, then they semi-repealed some of those rights and compelled the exclusionary right holder to share some of those rights with others. I'm suggesting that whatever logic I can come up with that justifies taking away some of the exclusionary rights one has just granted a few paragraphs prior, very reasonably confers over, logically, to include todays technology/usablility of video to record a legal performance. Congress gave the exclusionary right, and then turned around and compelled the exclusive copyright holders to allow certain things, for some reason. That reason that was applied, should reasonably justify a documentary style video of a legal performance.

If you want to hire a band/musician to record a version of a popular song for inclusion in your video, it can be done fairly inexpensively. I've done that before - we used "Who'll Stop The Rain" by John Fogarty. While we could not use the recording by CCR, we could make our own recording. It was just a matter of paperwork and a small check.

In a narrower (simpler?) sense, I'm advocating for compulsory licenses to be made available to actually videograhically record the actual legal performance, not for using the music as a backdrop/overlay for a greater work. Especially in the case of a school concert or wedding/reception, there can be such a number of different works controlled by different entities, with no compulsion or set fees at all, just because video is the medium, that it becomes prohibitive if not outright denied. Yet, again, I assert that a "documentary" style videoing of the legal performance does no more to infringe on the copyright holder's property than the compulsory performance/mechanical license that would be/could be issued for the same performance, as has been mandated by Congress.

This seems reaonable to me, though again I acknowledge and emphasize that this is not how it currently is.

[Steve House]

In a narrower (simpler?) sense, I'm advocating for compulsory licenses to be made available to actually videograhically record the actual legal performance, not for using the music as a backdrop/overlay for a greater work. Especially in the case of a school concert or wedding/reception, there can be such a number of different works controlled by different entities, with no compulsion or set fees at all, just because video is the medium, that it becomes prohibitive if not outright denied. Yet, again, I assert that a "documentary" style videoing of the legal performance does no more to infringe on the copyright holder's property than the compulsory performance/mechanical license that would be/could be issued for the same performance, as has been mandated by Congress.

Put yourself in the position of the songwriters and music publishers who earns their living by licensing the use of their work. Why should he be forced to accept less than fair market value for his work just in order to make it accessible to you or to make profitable for you to shoot videos of its performance when you charge a rate your clients will accept? As an event videogrpaher you may feel your video work is worth $1000 per hour and you may have clients who are willing and eager to pay that amount because they feel you're really, really that good and worth every penny ... would it be fair for Congress to legislate that you can charge your clients no more than $10 per hour just so Joe Sixpack can afford your services when he wants you to shoot his wedding? (Alas, in these days of political correctness someone would probably argue that your high prices unfairly discriminate against the 'common man'.) That's what you are asking they do with regard to the music you wish to film - to force a price low enough that you can afford it. It's not that the present cost is unreasonable, it's just that you (or your clients when you attempt pass it through to them in the form of higher prices) don't want to pay the fair market value for the songwriter's labour.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Just to toss in a twist, look up "incidental" - this is a category that Steve didn't cover, because it's a really grey area...

If you play your own music, you're fine... check.
If your friend comes in and DJ's for you, fine...check. (But what if he's a "pro" DJ and trading services with you, or even just doing it 'cause he's a good friend?)
If you hire a DJ, he is responsible for clearances, and is supposed to have a license to "perform" for profit, for which he pays a fee... check.
If you hire out a venue, and they play music, they probably have a license... check.


NOW, and this is the twist up that we've wrangled over at length, without a conclusion that satisfies everyone... so let's not thrash it too much, OK? It's a mind bender for the "video guy", thus why it gets hashed around.

You hire a Videographer to document an event - he makes NO choices whatsoever about WHAT is performed, and is making no changes to the ambient audio, which is by nature "sync'd" to the performance (meaning whatever audio he captures is in effect just "what happened", or incidental to the visuals captured). Part of that "documentation" includes a DJ playing (hopefully licensed, but is the videographer supposed to go aroud asking "show me your papers?"). Effectively the videographer CAN'T remove the audio being captured unless he's "looping" the audio. He may make minor edits for continuity or timing, but the end result "documents an event", as it happened, just as he was hired to do.

Is the videographer responsible for licensing? HMMMMM. The "copyrighted" material is incidental to the CONTENT of the video, which is the EVENT, and the videographer had NO control over what was played (and thus captured). Really hard to argue when and how liability/responsibility attaches. Still, you see those blurry logos on lots of TV shows... incidental or not.

<Tangential issue - I'm deliberately leaving out "audio sweetening", as in adding a sync'd sound track, for a reason... as I listen to an "indy" commercial on a cable channel with the hook from "Day Tripper" subtly playing in the background... I doubt it's "cleared", and I've been catching a LOT of these lately... I'm sure Chase clears their music that plays in their commercials, but probably not these "little" business entities...>

I'd argue (aside from the above tangent) the answer is no... admittedly this is problematic if you're making copies of the event video for profit, but I contend that the "buyer" of the copies/services is NOT asking you to duplicate a copyrighted work (although technically speaking you end up doing so by circumstance, as does any private party who brings a cell phone or camera to an "event", and not one of them paid a license fee, nor can you argue they have to, up until it posts on You Tube, another wrench in the current state of licensing...). You are documenting AN EVENT, not "copying a work, the any copyrighted material/music is incidental.


Just to add some perspective, remember that a "sound track" is carefully chosen, little "sound bites" and audio sweetening to create an ambience in a 'big movie". Audio is a complete "department", just as companies have deparments dedicated to "product placement" so that soda can you see (and you see the logo in ANY scene) isn't generic, that laptop has the "apple logo" right side up (when it's upside down on most commercially available ones IIRC), and so on (though I saw a computer on a kids show with a PEAR logo... he he he). Each element is carefully chosen - something an event videographer can't do, isn't expected to do, and generally WON'T do!

IMO this creates a "loophole" of sorts, especially when you consider that if a licensing fee has already been paid for the "performance", the copyright holder has ALREADY recieved compensation - I know the "legal theory" is that they could or should be compensated for EVERY "needle drop" (every time anyone anywhere listens to the licensed work), but as a practical matter, this is hard if not impossible to to achieve (if you had to pay EVERY time you listened to a CD or MP3, instead of "buying" the right to listen anytime you wanted, would you buy ANY music??).

There are many aspects here, but conceptually, as long as a copyright holder is compensated from the licensing of the performance, if they did not prohibit videotaping of that specific performance, the horse is out of the barn IMO...

I don't want to have this thread get too crazy, but these aspects of copyright ARE grey areas, so it's fair to discuss. FWIW, Steve is my "evil twin" on this subject, and while we love the intellectual discourse, it's probably a bit much for most people to watch the "mindwrestling"! I appreciate Steve a LOT both as an alternative viewpont and as a worthy "adversary" - we're like the two guys at the "virtual bar" debating whether Wonder Woman or Catwoman is "hotter" <wink>!

Hope this helps put a handle on a "tricky" subject, you might also search "Carterphone" here for another thread that Chris (our host) started that adds further intellectual examination to the theoretical aspects, and might be worth the read!

[Dave Blackhurst]

Originally Posted by Steve House

Put yourself in the position of the songwriters and music publishers who earns their living by licensing the use of their work. Why should he be forced to accept less than fair market value for his work just in order to make it accessible to you or to make profitable for you to shoot videos of its performance when you charge a rate your clients will accept? As an event videogrpaher you may feel your video work is worth $1000 per hour and you may have clients who are willing and eager to pay that amount because they feel you're really, really that good and worth every penny ... would it be fair for Congress to legislate that you can charge your clients no more than $10 per hour just so Joe Sixpack can afford your services when he wants you to shoot his wedding? (Alas, in these days of political correctness someone would probably argue that your high prices unfairly discriminate against the 'common man'.) That's what you are asking they do with regard to the music you wish to film - to force a price low enough that you can afford it. It's not that the present cost is unreasonable, it's just that you (or your clients when you attempt pass it through to them in the form of higher prices) don't want to pay the fair market value for the songwriter's labour.

In a free market everyone MUST (and I do mean MUST!!) have a right to price their "services" or "product" as they see fit - the market can and will determine whether: A) the price is fair and B) whether that "property" (as in IP, service, or product) prospers of fades away.

As a practical matter, you can argue over whether a "free market" works or not, I'd say maybe it's not the "best", but others are worse... so there ya go.

As a simple practical matter, If you are an IP owner/creator, you want to be able to benefit from and "control" your creative work, and you should respect the same rights to your "fellow creators". Only fair, right? THAT should be the bottom line, and the problem arises when the technology leapfrogs the rights structure, as it has with the digital revolution. The principles remain the same, but when it's all 1's and 0's, the "control" (and thus the trail for compensation to get back to the creator) becomes more difficult, simply because the methodology to "copy" 1's and 0's is now democratized and ubiquitous.