basically yup..
Irrespective of the music's point of origin, the fact that it is sold to, then registered (for protection) by the buyer/publisher, means that it is then protected under the australian laws, therefore, as most, if not all publishers/distributors here are registered with AMCOS (theyd be silly not to be) would then fall under the licensing umbrella. did that make any sense?? LOL

Not directly, but people have implied that a change in the copyright law is needed to create such a license or to allow such a license. I'm trying to point out that there's nothing in the present law that prevents such a system and so the only thing a change in the law could do that the present laws don't already allow is to make it mandatory that such licenses be offered.

A wedding videographer right now can obtain a license to use any piece of music he wishes, as long as the rights holder is willing to license it. It appears to me that the issue is whether one can get a blanket license for some reasonable amount for a small business owner to pay - say, $500 per year - that allows them a limited license to use any BMI or ASCAP tune or continue on with the present system that requires you to negotiate synchronization rights on a tune-by-tune basis directly with the copyright owner and perhaps pay many thousands of dollars to use one single cut of popluar music or a hundred bucks or so to use "Happy Birthday." There's nothing in the law right now stopping you from legally using "Nessun Dorma" sung by Sarah Brightman if you wish, it's merely going to be very, very expensive to legally do so. All you have to do is have your lawyer call her lawyer <grin>.

This is a good thread on a reasonable premise. That 'small guys' like wedding and event photographers, should have the same ability to use great music just like the 'big guys' do, at a much much MUCH reduced rate, because fewer people are going to see it. Right? I mean, I'm just trying to see how the arguement is put forth to the publishing companies.

You can license "We've Only Just Begun" once for thirty thousand dollars to a film company for the use in the new romantic comedy. AND/OR you can license it for thirty dollars to a thousand wedding videographers"... that's the line of reasoning, right? It would be an AND not an OR, right? I mean, the film companies aren't going to turn around and say to the publishing companies and artists... "Hey, why should I pay you 30 grand, when the guy down the street pays you thirty bucks... you're crazy" The licensing agency and artist wouldn't be LOSING the thirty grand sale, right?

That's what I think the industry might be afraid of. Not saying it's a reasonable fear... just saying that might come into the arguement. Got to look at all angles if you want to go forward, and I think it's worth going forward.

I was watching the movie "My Favorite Year" the other day, with the director's commentary running. The director, Richard Benjamin, commented during the opening credits how they came to chose Nat King Cole's rendition of "Stardust" for the credits. He made the comment "Of course, you couldn't afford it nowadays..." and a similar comment later in the film about another piece of music. Nora Ephron chose to use all those classic love standards in "Sleepless in Seattle" because they were cheaper than the modern love standards. She revolutionized the industry. Now OLDIES are worth as much as new tunes. Even Lucas complained that a third of his budget on "AMerican Graffitti" was music rights. It has not ALWAYS been expensive to license music, and it's always been a sliding scale to get a piece of music, based on it's (and the artists's) popularity.

My point being... I think the industry WANTS to be able to negotiate the price one piece at a time, instead of giving someone, anyone a 'blanket' fee to get any piece on a list. Remember. The model everyone is quoting as a license fee in America is not synchronization rights... it's playing/broadcasting rights. ONce the song goes out on the radio... it's gone. Once its' synched to the movie... it's permanent.

I think the Australian model is a good one to look at and put forth. It's just an application of the current "needle drop" and "royalty free" type of model that we subscribe to now, applied to the most popular and valuable music in America, right? Who could argue against that?

I agree - in terms of the monetary value the music contributes to the product it's being used in and the number of "listens" it's going to get, I think it could be reasonably argued that the license to use song XYZ in a wedding or event video is worth far less than a performance license for the same song to a radio station or your corner bar and would not result in market saturation. After all, once the honeymoon's over and the novelty wears off how many times will the video get shown? One could argue that the music is an audience draw for a theatrical release but how many people watch John and Mary's wedding for the music? So how can we present that to the clearance houses to motivate them to get off their duff and offer it?

ASCAP and BMI already operate under that very premise. If you're a niteclub, your annual rate is X. If you're a radio station, it's Y. If your a dance studio, it's Z. Dance studios for example would be allowed to produce three paid shows per year using copyrighted music, as long as the attendance was less than a specified number. If the needs of the studio exceed that, they're given a greater rate.

The same must apply to sync licenses. If you're a wedding videographer, you're allowed to use up to X songs in a video, limited to Y copies made of each video with annual sales less than Z. Dance recitals would be interesting: as many as 40 copyrighted songs in one show and sold to about 50-100 people. Different rate? It would take some time to hammer out the details, but if it was based on the existing ASCAP/BMI and the Australian sync license methods, it could work.

The thread is dieing!
 

At this time, this is a dieing thread. How about some thoughtful input for change. Not just another place to get a license, or what ASCAP and BMI should do, but some changes to the copyright laws!

The location change may have something to do with it, but I think much more it is that most are afraid to respond. Let's make some posts here.

I am working on a post to help define the direction of this. When I do post it, respond, have some guts. Remember, this is a Digital Video forum, not a recording artist and producers forum. We should be looking to our interests and that of the public in general.

Think about it! Chris said that maybe we could make this forum an instrument for change, (can't get to the exact quote, but something to that effect), how about we really do it!

Mike

"Remember, this is a Digital Video forum, not a recording artist and producers forum. We should be looking to our interests and that of the public in general."

AS if there is a difference???? Copyright protects the AUTHOR of a work. Music, video, written, filmed... we are all 'authors' in the laws eyes.


Mike, there is no need to change the copyright law. Zero. Nada. Zip. The copyright law simply states the types of rights that reside with the creator.It also allows for penalties for theft and mis-appropriation of those rights. The "author" has the right to do with them as they please. There is absolutely NOTHING in the copyright law that says this cannot be done.

What is needed, is an appeal to the licensing agencies for a structure for licensing the songs at this level. Basically, that comes down to an appeal to the licensing agencies greed. "Hey, here's an utapped potential for lots more money for you and your artists... why not tap it?"

You seem like an earnest fellow, why not write a letter to BMI/ASCAP and ask them about it?

It's not an important issue to me, I don't do wedding videos. And that seems to be the biggest market for this. And I license music I use on a needle drop or buy out basis anyway.

I thought the idea of incorporating in Australia was an interesting one. What are the legal issues surrounding this idea?

For example at what point does U.S. copyright law have jurisdiction? If the production was shot in the U.S. but edited in Australia, but then sold in the U.S. would the Australian company be liable under U.S. law? What if the production was shot in the U.S., edited in Australin then given (like 5 copies)free of charge to the B/G?

But what changes in the copyright laws would you suggest that could help resolve the issue? There is nothing in the LAW as it stands that prevents one from licensing the synchronization rights to any music he wishes. The issue is really one of affordability more than availability. Want a license to use music from Phantom of the Opera in your wedding business? I'm sure Weber or whoever holds the copyright would be more than happy to license it to you - but will your clients go for the 250 kilobuck bill you'll have hand them for their wedding coverage?

There is nothing in the law as it stands that prevents the clearance houses from offering limited use blanket licenses for music to be included in wedding and events videos, etc, in exactly the same way they process performance clearance licenses now, should they wish to do so. I was chastized in an earlier post for suggesting people wanted to make offering blanket synchronization licensing mandatory but since it's already permitted under the law, that's the only sort of legislative action I can see that would affect the issue we're facing. Either that or change the law so as to remove synchronization and mechanical as rights separate from performance rights and lump them all together as one so that use in weddings, events, recitals, concert videos, theatrical perfrormance incidental and diegetic music, dance performance videos, etc would be covered by the existing ASCAP and BMI clearances. But I can't see the copyright holders of much popular music and the rights holders for arrangments and performances of even otherwise public domain traditional, classical, and jazz music, etc, going for that, not with the political clout the RIAA has these days.

One potential change in the law that might work is to get the right to use, or to commission the use on one's behalf, music from a recording one has purchased in a personal video that will not be shown publically or sold included under the doctrine of "Fair use." But the recording and movie industries aren't even happy with an individual's right to duplicate materials that you own for your own personal use. Right now it's legal for you to buy a CD and then make a backup or make a copy to take with you to play in your car or to rip it onto your MP3 player. But mark my words, those rights are under attack and they're not going to be happy until you have to buy a full-bore retail copy for each player you intend to listen to the disc on - one for the living room, one for the bedroom, one for the car, etc. Want a backup? Buy two copies! In fact, if they can figure out how to do with music CD's what was the original idea behind DiVX DVDs (and what they're doing right now with some online music sites), have the recordings self-destruct after some number of playings or elapsed time period, they'll do it. Their notion of heaven is where you have to pay them a fee every time you hear the song and they're going to stay as close to that as they can get. Heck, they'd even charge a licensing fee for letting you sing it in the shower if they could figure out how to administer it! So I'd be very surprised if any change to the copyright laws that grants even the most limited rights to consumers beyond what already exists would be tolerated.

An addendum ... but we ARE recording artists and producers. it is only the recording medium and perhaps the scale of distribution that is different. Try to tell any of the "above the line" people in a film production that they aren't creative artists! <grin> A recording is a recording whether it is video or audio, the result of our creative work and a source of our livelyhood. But remember, every argument that we make why we should be able to use someone's music under XXX conditions for our purposes applies equally to others who wish to use our video production efforts for their purposes. What's good for the goose is definitely good for the gander and we shouldn't ask for privileges that we ourselves would be unwilling to grant to others regarding our own work.

I am all in favor of a streamlined process by which people who are interested in licensing their works to videographers are able to do so. I think, however, that it is several orders of magnitude more complex than some people are thinking so I wanted to mention why.

1. ASCAP and BMI handle songwriting rights only. When the laws were written songwriters had all the power, performers had none. Consequently, if I play Nirvana's version of "The Man Who Sold the World" on the radio or in my nightclub, David Bowie (and his publisher) gets paid, Nirvana gets nothing. This is all done under a compulsory licensing setup with a fixed fee. I can cover "The Man Who Sold the World" today, and I don't have to ask anyone... I just pay a fixed fee and go.

In the years since the arrangement was made, performers developed power. Any new agreements would have to involve not only approval of the songwriter, but also of the performer - in all cases a completely different entity (even when a band is performing originials - the performance rights include musicians who are not the songwriter, the songwriting rights include the publishing house).

2. Given that any arrangement would have to be an opt-in arrangement, rather than compulsory, the start-up would be something like this:

- decide on a rate scheme that everyone will accept, which probably means a tiered system so that David Bowie can be payed more for his songwriting than I am, and Nirvana can be paid more for their performance than I am.

- contact every single songwriting copyright holder and then every single performance copyright holder that has songs in the mainstream and ask them if they'd like to opt in.

- record all that, register all that, track it, accept payments and pay the copyright holders.

- police it, so that now since the public knows it is sometimes legal to use a smash hit in your wedding video, it doesn't just become an open license for everyone to do it for free. Also police it so that the songs that people did not opt-in for use are not used, and that the ones who opted-in at different rates are paid at the right amount.

And really that's just scratching the surface.

3. Because performers have been left out of the royalty structure on so much, they are not going to be generous on this one.


Anyway, those are just some of the majors. I am not saying it can't be done, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying it isn't happening this year, and if we started today it isn't happening the year after next either.

Grassroots Music Copyright Campaign
 

[QUOTE=Mike Teutsch]At this time, this is a dieing thread. How about some thoughtful input for change. Not just another place to get a license, or what ASCAP and BMI should do, but some changes to the copyright laws!

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am new here, thank you for this thread. I agree, change needs to happen and I am more than willing to do whatever I need to do.

So here is my input...let's take some action!

I am a WEVA member, but WEVA doesn't seem to be interested in lobbying. We will be in Vegas for a nat'l conference in 2 weeks though so I will talk to some people then.

How do we start a grassroots campaign to allow for wedding & event videographers to use copyrighted music? This is very important to me as I don't want to be doing anything illegal (or unethical) and I feel that favorite songs really do add such an emotional appeal to each wedding video.

I think that is what needs to be relayed to Congress, not just THAT we use copyrighted music but WHY we use copyrighted music.

I used my great-uncle's favorite Frank Sinatra song in a montage for him, it meant so much to them, and he died 6 months later. A wedding videographers work offers such joy to each client ~ I feel strongly that this issue needs to be resolved.

Thanks,

Emily Auer

Emily,

First, welcome to the boards... it is nice to have new faces (?). As you will see below, I disagree with you on this issue but I always welcome thoughtful debate so thanks for participating.

Emily, Mike,

If you are talking about a change to the copyright law then you are talking about creating a system that takes away a copyright holder's right to control his own intellectual property because you would like to use it to make money. While it is only an intellectual excercise to discuss it, because it is never going to happen, I'll go on record against it.

Emily, I am really glad that your great-uncle got to see your moving piece with his favorite Frank Sinatra tune. I love that type of thing, and you can do that kind of touching stuff all day if you are doing it free for your friends and relatives and no one is going to sue you for it. If you want to do it to make your services more valuable to a paying client, however, you can be sued. There is nothing ethical about using someone else's intellectual property against their will to make money.

But, guys, if you do happen to succeed in getting legislation passed that would let me use Sting's music in my videos, do you think you could tack on a rider that said I could use his house in Malibu too?

How many members does WEVA have? How many videographers in the United States? I think the numbers tell the story.

like i keep saying..
approach your local politician with the Australian model of copyright licensing for event videography..

in this thread there are posts from me with links.. head to AMCOS and look at their model. It works for everyone, and noone misses out. Laws dont need to be changed and theres no legislation which needs to be passed. Its a workable, logical system that WORKS and EVERYONE can have the best of both worlds, from the song writer, to the producer to the video guy whos using that track to sync his cuts to..

instead of jsut sitting here arguing about how its going to be done, take note of a workable system and DO something.. im amazed they dont have something like already established... i mean when u consider nightclubs, bars, pool halls, hell even telephone hold music... all these need to be licensed..

There is a means to satisfay OUR market as well as the artists themselves..
Why waste energy when its already been done for you?? the model is there.. use it.. why speculate and theorise when there is an actual working system already in place in other countries? What makes the US any different? Hell im using tracks published throughout the world and im doing it legally... thats why i pay 500 a year ... i pay them, they do the rest.. if they didnt exist, id STILL use the music due to the fact that the rest of the industry here and pretty much everywhere you go, uses copywritten music, even if it is illegal to do so....
Imagine a wedding guy teling you that you cant have your favourite song in your video, but you go and see another producer who says that even though he legally shouldnt, he will do it anyway.. who would they go with??
Go to most bridal sites online and youll see demos using cmmercial music... DO you mena to tell me know that this producer has gone to the publisher and requested permission?? I dont think so....
SO what theyr edoing is ilegal then.. yessireebob
its a catch 22 for you guys, but like i said dont waste you renergy theorising a solution when a solution is already modelled out for you..

hell anything to make money is acceptable within the music industry.. and this is just another moneymaker for them..

Peter,

I agree, the Ausie model seems to be a good one. No need to change the copyright law at all. BMI and ASCAAP just need to look at the aussie model and implement it.

By the way , you wrote " i mean when u consider nightclubs, bars, pool halls, hell even telephone hold music... all these need to be licensed.. '

They ARE licensed in the US, under BMI and ASCAAP, these people pay a fee to have the music playing in the background. So it's not a far fetched concept to ask for a synch rights licensing fee for a limited scale.

THAT"S what WEVA should be lobbying FOR, that's who WEVA should be lobbying TO (ASCAAP, BMI). Skip congress, not necessary.

Here in Canada a couple of years ago the dentists all got letters informing them they had to begin paying licensing fees for the background music in their treatment rooms, even if they were doing nothing more than playing a regular commerical radio station over the PA.

Thats right. I knew a guy whose job it was, to walk into restaraunts, malls, stores, bars, and listen for the music playing. Then make a note, and send the letter if they hadn't subscribed.

Again, there is a NEED... for low-end videographers to license popular music. What's different from the restaraunts/bars/radio licensing... is the fact that the music is being SYNCHED, and therefore a derivative work is being created and DISTRIBUTED. This has more tail end value to the videographer than the restaraunt owner.

How much.... don't know.

So Someone has to convince BMI,and ASCAAP... to convince ITs SIGNATORY ARTISTS, that a viable income stream can be had by licensing their music in this manner.

Got a sync license
 

Yes after four months of struggle i got a synch license for a song. I have a post in this thread asking for the procedure. Finally i appointed a attorney to call them regularly and bother them so that i can get it done. Finally it is.

Harikrishnan,

Great... persistence pays - as annoying as it is. Can you tell us what the song was? What the video was? What is cost?

Thanks.

SOmeone has to convince ME that there is a viable income stream. I would venture to say that any town has 20-100 times as many dentists as wedding videographers. I chose dentists since someone mentioned it above as a recent target of BMI. That tiny little piece of business for BMI/ASCAP will probably get them $50 a month ($600) a year from every dentist, which is the most they could hope for from a typical wedding videographer. SO they would get 1% the revenue stream they would get from dentists if they take on this new business model. And dentists are a barely noticable blip in their (ASCAP/BMI) income.

What are there, maybe 2,000 wedding videogs in the USA? We can safely ignore hs/college students and most of the newbies who never do more than a half-dozen weddings. Maybe 25% of the pros would actually pay a license fee, if that many. (500x$600 each = $300k/year) So why would they fool with setting up a whole new business model that will likely never pay for the overhead costs of running it? Artists would never see a penny.

license cost
 

The song Paris Mambo for a salsa video.
You have to provide the following info:

How many years you wanted it for?
In what medium you are going to do the final product(DVD,website,film..etc)?
What is the cost of the project? -- I think they will quote you based on the project cost.
The company name and website of the company? Your website if its self properitery

For me it cost $500 for a 1 year license for streaming through the website and 100 DVDs. I payed my attorney $500. But its worth it. Becuase
they wont give responses for individuals. Probably the attorney will have some
links to get through the barriers they have been working so long and they know people. Basically they act as an agent.

I don't know how I missed this thread. Some very good discussion.

A couple of points (in no particular order) . . .

1. The fact that a wedding video isn't intended for public performance does not make it non-infringing to use a commercial CD for the soundtrack. Public performance is one of the reserved rights of copyright owners. However, the right to make copies and prepare derivative works are two others and both are implicated by a wedding video.

2. I've said a number of times of times that my personal (not-to-be-relied-upon) opinion is that CDs-in-wedding-videos should probably come within fair use. I'm not aware, however, of any decisions which have test it, and I don't know anyone who wants to volunteer to be a test case.

3. Copyight, like patent, grants absolute control over the protected material, subject to any statutory exceptions. This means that the right owner cannot be compelled to permit use of the protected material.

4. There are, however, statutory exceptions, i.e. compulsory licenses of various kinds in the U.S. Copyright Act. There is no reason why a compulsory could or should not be created that would allow wedding and small-event videographers to use commercial recordings; it is solely a question of the Congressional will to do so.

5. ASCAP and BMI administer public performance rights, only, i.e. the copyright owners have not authorized either agency to license synchronization/mechanical rights or the right to make copies. I've spoken with BMI's counsel in the past about working something out for wedding videographers -- there was no interest whatsoever. BMI feels (wrongly, in my opinion) that there isn't enough money to be made from such licensing.

6. WEVA would be the ideal organization to lobby for a change in the law, i.e. the addition of a new compulsory license. Many of you guys are WEVA members -- I'm not. Talk to your organization. This kind of compulsory license shouldn't be particularly controversial and could be readily accomplished (along the Australian model, for example).

Can someone give me a specific case where a video grapher was sued for using copyrighted in a WEDDING VIDEO?

Then on the same token, they must believe there isn't enough money to be had in persuing small business videographers for copyright infringement. So I guess with that mentality by the industry, it's going to continue to be a "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement. Too bad.

Thanks for contribution Paul, always good to have the 'legal ear' on the topic.

Unfortunately, it's apples and oranges.

BMI/ASCAP license public performance rights. They don't enforce other specieis of copyright infringement. Their disinterest in licensing to wedding/small event videographers doesn't mean that copyright owners won't, for their owner reasons, decide to pursue videographers.

Bring it on! I am a small time wedding and event videgrapher...I will volunteer to be a test case. :) I have even spoken to my pastor about this - he talked about the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.

And coming back from WEVA Expo in Vegas a month ago ~ WEVA has no interest in pursuing this. Everyone I talked to said they have tried, etc.

"Some may say that I'm a dreamer..." (Did I just infringe something?)

I'll give your pastor a four word lesson in religion and the law for you. Here it goes:
"Thou Shalt Not Steal"

I am with Dylan on this.

I know many people see it as a victimless crime, but it really isn't. The value of someone's song is diminished by overuse. I have said this in previous threads on this topic, but if a song gets used in everybody's wedding video for free, no one is going to want to pay to put it in a movie or TV show. So by you taking the songwriter's (and performer's) property you are potentially robbing them of revenue. Certainly one video wouldn't hurt, one might say, but certainly losing one can of tuna wouldn't Whole Foods, and I'm not going to steal that either.