Legalities of use of music in wedding videos

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Keith Forman

"I agree it's time for a change of some sort. At the same time, I'd expect the creators of the works to rightfully say "If you want to use my work, you have to pay me for it.""

The problem with that is, the musicians only get a few pennies from the sales or lease of their music. The only ones getting the big bucks, are the ones who hold the license- ASCAP, BMI, and the rest of the corporate fatcats.

Actually ASCAP and BMI don't hold the licenses - they are clearing houses for rights clearances, taking care of the paperwork and keeping a fee for their trouble.

[Greg Boston]

I was wondering where Mike was going with the patent examples but I like that idea. Music should re-enter the public domain after a shorter time period. But I still think that ASCAP and BMI should be forced into a policy change that allows the smaller business folks a chance to legally use copyrighted music in their video productions. As it is now, they seem to enjoy forcing the little guy out of the game. Again, Apple's iTunes is a great example of getting folks to go legit. They are rolling quickly toward their 500 millionth song download.

Hmmm, it won't be easy.

-gb-

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

Hmmm, it won't be easy.-gb-

Ah, you are the master of understatement, and you are sure right.

Mike

[George Ellis]

Actually, ASCAP and BMI will tell you that this is not their problem. They only do performance rights. I know. I was told so when I said they should talk to their peers to solve the issue.

[Brent Warwick]

Originally Posted by George Ellis

Actually, ASCAP and BMI will tell you that this is not their problem. They only do performance rights. I know. I was told so when I said they should talk to their peers to solve the issue.

Well, the first organization who makes it their problem stands to secure a big win for everyone involved. One very simple fact is that even though it's cut-and-dry illegal, videographers are using copyrighted works in their productions. Another simple sad fact is that videographers will continue to use copyrighted works in their productions. And the last simple hopeful fact is that many videographers are standing at the doorway begging for a simple way to hand someone money to legally use those works. I'm one of them, and I know most everyone frequenting these forums stands with me.

I've lost business because people want me to sync their precious moments to copyrighted works and I gently explain to them that it's not legal to do so, but there's a plethora of legal music out there they can choose from. "But that's our wedding song!" or "But that's the song that was playing when we first met!" So they thank me for my time and proceed to videographer B who doesn't have a problem using the song.

One argument I've heard is that artists may not want their music used in your cheesy photo montage. My counter argument is that the same artist might not want some stripper doing a pole-dance with their song playing in the background. But there's nothing stopping the strip club from playing it as long as they belong to ASCAP and BMI. Providing the song to the ASCAP or BMI catalogs gives up a certain amount of control of how the song is used. The same must be expected of a video licensing system. The main difference is that (with proper licensing restrictions) a smaller audience will be viewing the work. Who besides the wedding couple will ever see the video?

"But it isn't fair that you use another artist's work in your productions to make money!" Well, every nightclub on the planet makes money by playing copyrighted music that they've legally licensed. The first nightclub that only plays royalty-free music will be out of business by daybreak.

The bottom line is that the only real difference between now and after the advent of an Australian-like licensing system is that a new influx of money will come streaming in the direction of the artists and publishers once the powers that be step up and make it feasable.

-Brent

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Brent Warwick

One argument I've heard is that artists may not want their music used in your cheesy photo montage. My counter argument is that the same artist might not want some stripper doing a pole-dance with their song playing in the background. But there's nothing stopping the strip club from playing it as long as they belong to ASCAP and BMI.


"But it isn't fair that you use another artist's work in your productions to make money!"

The bottom line is that the only real difference between now and after the advent of an Australian-like licensing system is that a new influx of money will come streaming in the direction of the artists and publishers once the powers that be step up and make it feasable.

-Brent

Point #1---Yes, maybe they would not want it used in some "cheesy" way but, this is not really a reasonable request in todays society. There is way too much music available to just arbitrarily call it all classic art. Even if you think it is art, what prevents someone with money from buying, say the Mona Lisa, and hang it in his or her strip joint. Even if they wanted to, Haas Machine Tools, in California, cannot stop someone from buying one of there fancy $50,000.00 CNC, (computer numeric control), machining centers, new or used, to make molds for dildos! More than ever before, music is now just another tool. It is used just like other tools, to perform a function, i.e. emphize a point, add punch to a video, or provide a soothing background. And, that is just what the normal layperson or videographer wants to USE it for.

Point #2---Yes, of course it's fair that those who buy your music, put it to commercial use and make money with! It has been going on forever. Look at radio stations. That is exactly what they do. They buy the use of the music to attract an audience and the try to sell them things between songs. If Glenn Elliot wants to buy a piece of music for a fee and use it in a wedding video, that's just normal business. Again, most music needs to be viewed as just another tool used to make both the artist and the buyer money.

Point #3---I think you are right, that the artists may just end up making more money. Nothing would prevent the next "American Idol" from making a big hit, selling records and going on tour. Then he or she can sell the rights to Glenn Elliot. But, the little guy who can't get his stuff even heard, can put it on the market and maybe make a buck or two, and maybe even get discovered!

If my old memory serves me correct, it has happened somewhat like that at other times. How about the 60s I think, when Freddy "Boom Boom" Canon was hired to write and sing a song as a radio commercial for Palisades Park. I think it went high on the charts and he became a hit. I could be wrong, but he may have struggled with his music up until that point.

Anyway, good points Brent. Let's hear from others! Chris, you suggested this thread turn!

Thanks all,

Mike

[Chris Davis]

I'm just a noob here, but here is an answer I want to believe (this came from a lawyer, but as far as I know, has never been proven by legal precident...)

Typically, a wedding video is not intended for public performance. Therefore, if the owner of the wedding video (the bride and groom) own a legal copy of the music in question (in other words, a CD) then there is no copyright violation.

So if a B&G asked me to include a specific piece of music in their video, I would purchase the CD, use the music in the video, and give the CD to them along with the video. If they choose to pitch the CD or sell it on eBay, it's their problem.

As far as using copyrighted music in business videos, I just don't do it.

[Patrick Jenkins]

On the surface that sounds fine, but the problem is that your financial wellbeing could potentially be linked (farfetched or not) by a lawyer to you using well-known music (which then people would be emotionally connected to) in your production. You're making money using an asset you shouldn't legally be using - probably similar to using pir8'd software to make money (maybe).

'Would your work have the same impact had you not chosen that piece of music?' That type of thinking...

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Chris Davis

I'm just a noob here, but here is an answer I want to believe (this came from a lawyer, but as far as I know, has never been proven by legal precident...)

Typically, a wedding video is not intended for public performance. Therefore, if the owner of the wedding video (the bride and groom) own a legal copy of the music in question (in other words, a CD) then there is no copyright violation.

So if a B&G asked me to include a specific piece of music in their video, I would purchase the CD, use the music in the video, and give the CD to them along with the video. If they choose to pitch the CD or sell it on eBay, it's their problem.

As far as using copyrighted music in business videos, I just don't do it.

Unfortunately, from what I've been reading lately, there are a number of cases involving exactly this scenario - the videographer either used the B&G's personal copy of the CD or he purchased a copy of the disc and gave it to the couple as a wedding gift after copying off the song they wanted. Our very own DSE discusses this and other issues in his article right here in the main site -

http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/busin...yrightfaq1.php.

I've read that in every case where this has come to trial it was held by the court that this was not a valid application of the "fair use" doctrine and the videographer's involved have consistently lost big time, losing their businesses along with all their other assets in the judgement. It's worth noting that purchase of a CD at retail only converys a license to listen to it. While the law specifically permits one to make a backup, it would be hard to argue that the copy on the video was made solely for purposes of backup of the CD in the event of loss or damage to the original disc. Beyond that, the rights converyed in purchasing the CD do not include the "synchronization rights" that allow you to link the music to the video images - those rights are a category in their own right.

[Mike Teutsch]

Chris, Patrick, Steve,

Good input and just why this thread is here. Keep it coming guys.

Mike

[Steve House]

I'm wondering about the details of this "Australian System," how it works exactly, who created it, and who manages it? FWIW, AFAIK there is nothing in the law that I know of that requires a copyright owner to license his work through BMI or ASCAP, they are private business entities offering a service on the open market and copyright owners are free to use their services or not as they see fit. Their line of business may be performance licensing at the moment but they could begin to offer synchronization licenses overnight if they wished tp do so and their client copyright owners wished to have their works included - it's only a new product line and doesn't require any changes in the law for them to begin offering it. The fact that they don't can only be explained by the conclusion that the owners of the works in question don't want them to do it, and as owners of the work they are perfectly within their rights.

As I understand the law, copyright involves the ownership of a piece of intellectual property. Like any other item of property, the owner has total control of if, when, and under what circumstances that property is sold, licensed, or used. With the exception of the doctrines of imminent domain and in cases of breach of contract, the law can never compel a property owner of any stripe to sell his property to anyone. So if the copyright owner would like to offer synchronization licenses or to be included with a group of other properties under a blanket license arangement of some sort is he perfectly free to do so right now without any changes in the law being required. Likewise, any change in the law that would compel a copyright owner to license his work when he does not wish to do so would be tossed out post haste under the common law standards that hold a property owner cannot be compelled to sell.

[Chris Hurd]

Steve, see http://www.ag.gov.au/DigitalAgendaRe...ecommendations -- it's a version of fair use which they call fair dealing.

Anybody here belong to WEVA? I'm tempted to pony up the membership fee just so I can pose these questions to 'em. Surely this topic has been thoroughly broached by that org?

[Brent Warwick]

Originally Posted by Steve House

Likewise, any change in the law that would compel a copyright owner to license his work when he does not wish to do so would be tossed out post haste under the common law standards that hold a property owner cannot be compelled to sell.

But that's almost exactly what ASCAP and BMI do. Remember it's not just the artist that owns the property, but also the publisher. While either/both could elect not to have the song belong to the ASCAP or BMI catalogs, once they agree to license it to either of those organizations, they give up the stipulations under which that song can be played. They lose control of their own property in a sense.

[Jimmy McKenzie]

The trickle down element has landed here from the beaurocrats in Ottawa who skim a fee from every piece of blank media sold at retail to recompense the authors of musical works in a purely knee-jerk reaction sort of way as an answer to the proliferation of peer to peer file sharers. So I pay musicians a fee every time I produce my creations and burn 'em to disk. Fair? Where's my dispursement as an artist!

Will you see a retail style clearing house for one time use, not for broadcast sync to video licensing for the little guys? Not anytime soon. The rights holders (publishers) just aren't set up for it, nor do their philosophies subscribe to it.

2 options exist.

1. Tread carefully and stay below the radar as you quietly eek out a living by using music tracks without paperwork as described above, and your clients will never need to hear your dissertation of copyright etc.

---or---

2. Get really good at your abstract non ceremony park,hotel,parking lot,drunk guest impromptu acts of bravery camera work and make kick ass reels that allow the use of royalty free, no needle drop fee music beds.

I use option 2.

[Peter Jefferson]

well for some reason, my detailed post about licensing coywritten material (audibly and mechanically) seems to be lost.
head off to http://www.apra.com.au/music-users/a...t_licences.asp

for info on how it works