Legalities of use of music in wedding videos

[Patrick Jenkins]

You're obviously very talented so maybe you've comeup with a workaround that the rest of us haven't figured out. Just wondering. Maybe you'll respond here.

[David Mintzer]

Originally Posted by Patrick Jenkins

You're obviously very talented so maybe you've comeup with a workaround that the rest of us haven't figured out. Just wondering. Maybe you'll respond here.

If it is copyrighted--its not legal. That simple. THere is no answer.

[Brent Warwick]

Or move to Australia and pay the $400/year to have the rights. So the real answer is to get this system working in other countries.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Brent Warwick

Or move to Australia and pay the $400/year to have the rights. So the real answer is to get this system working in other countries.

Agreed. Perhaps the DV Info Net community should band together and spearhead this effort here in the U.S. I think just about everyone from wedding videographers on up to I.P. and Media Law attorneys agree that it's high time for a change.

[Bob Costa]

Chris, does the AU system authorize videographers to use ALL Australian artists, or only select music? Whatever I was looking at seemed to have a restricted list of music covered... And it does not cover artists from other countries at all, right?

[Mike Teutsch]

I have hesitated to respond to various threads in this forum, because I thought I was the only one thinking this way. It is definently time for a change!

I will use some of the research I have garnered, to expound more fully later.

Change needs to be discussed. Perhaps this is the thread to put it into.

Mike

[Patrick Jenkins]

His work is really, really good (which is great!) but it's a problem for me that he's a mod here (which is also great) and he uses infringing music in his work (not great). It sends a very wrong message.

[K. Forman]

Originally Posted by Patrick Jenkins

His work is really, really good (which is great!) but it's a problem for me that he's a mod here (which is also great) and he uses infringing music in his work (not great). It sends a very wrong message.

I thought it was only bad if you got caught ;)

[Greg Boston]

I think the same way Chris and Mike do. It's time for a change. Like it or not, Napster forced change on the record companies to make music available for download. Now, we have it and I can buy songs legally using Itunes or other online music stores. It works because the fees are reasonable. I have no problem shelling out a buck for a song. Now, the next step needs to happen. I know all the arguments for and against but the current system is broken.

The irony in all of this to me is that a new band or singer will start their careers literally begging to play somewhere so that their music can be heard. I think the vast majority of musicians would be happy to have their music featured as a background track for video. It's all the other bottom feeders attached to a popular band that don't want this to happen unless they can get a piece of the pie.

This discussion comes up so frequently on this board that we should spearhead an effort to make a change. I like the AU idea of an annual fee that isn't so exorbitant that a small production house can afford it.

Another good example of this principle is where the national speed limit was set at 55mph. Virtually NOBODY adhered to this law because it was absurd to drive that slow on a major interstate highway which was designed for vehicles traveling at higher speeds (ie amount of banking on curves and overpasses). So guess what, the states got tired of the federal limit and raised the speed limits, even at the risk of losing federal highway funding. Nuff said.

I'm not sure exactly how to accomplish this except to say that the research and statistics need to be gathered. A former business associate of mine was fond of saying 'he who has data, wins'.

regards,

-gb-

[Steve House]

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." Regardless of whether we're video pros or have some other "day job" we don't work for free and can't reasonably expect others to either. How would we feel is we discovered clips of our video work had been published by Sony or Canon as examples of their camera quality without our permission or any payment to us?

I regret that Glenn may have taken my comment on his music usage in the other thread the other day as negative criticism. Far from it. (Though I would join with Patrick in saying that the moderators on this board are set apart as examples of the industry whether that's their intention or not and as such need to be extra cautious to be "squeaky clean" in their professional practices and set good examples for newcomers.) Glenn's work is outstanding and I'd love to keep seeing more. But that's going to be hard for him to do if some pack of wolves - ooops, I guess attorneys is a more polite term - from the RIAA and ASCAP and BMI comes along and takes away all his equipment to settle a lawsuit. Hard to frame those lovely shots through the bars of a gaol cell and I'd just as soon he stay free and contributing.

[K. 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.

[Mike Teutsch]

Most copyright registrations are easy and straightforward to obtain, and in most cases a layperson can obtain a copyright registration for little more than the $30 and a short amount of time. And, in truth, you don’t even need to file an application at all. You can just do it anytime later if you need to. You don’t really need it unless someone tries to use your music, etc., without your permission. The filing fee for registering a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office is about $30. The US Copyright Office will, for a higher fee, do a registration on an expedited basis as well, for example if litigation is imminent. Try that with a patent!

The owner of a registered copyright has the ability to blocking the unauthorized copying or public performance of a work protected by copyright. Depending on how old a work is, whether or not copyright was renewed, when the work was published (if at all), and whether or not it is a work for hire, the U.S. copyright term for a work may be 28 years, 56 years, the life of the author plus 50 years, 75 years from the publication date, or 100 years from the date of creation.

Contrast this with a U.S. patent. It is obtained only after preparing a very detailed patent application, and then only after a patent examiner, in Washington, has determined that the patent application is allowable. Many if not most patent applications filed, never yield an issued patent. The patent application process typically costs at least a few thousand dollars and sometimes tens of thousands or more, including the fees of a patent attorney or agent, and can take a year or more to get. If you are able to get your patent it is only good for 17 or 20 years, the term of a U.S. utility patent. And, of course, this is just a U.S. patent, and not an international patent!

Again, to show the contrast, a copyright registration is granted almost as matter of course upon filing a relatively simple and relatively inexpensive copyright registration application, and you do not even need to file to be protected!

Another contrast between the two, is that if you invent something, then sell one of them before you obtain your patent, you only have one year, from the date of sale, to file for the patent. If you do not file within that year, you lose the ability to file and anyone can make and use your product or idea.

[Mike Teutsch]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress shall have the power…..“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Copyrights actually started in 15th century England, because of the invention of the printing press. For a great read on their history, check this site:

http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

First, why is the term of a U.S. patent only 17 or 20 years? The reason it is so short, compared to a copyright, is that the decision was made long ago by the government that new inventions or products were best delivered into the hands of the people as quickly as possible. In other words, if something great is invented, it is in the best interest of the general public and mankind, that it be available to everyone. This is why we progress so fast technologically and so forth.

For example, take the invention of the transistor and the silicon chip. If patent terms were very long or even indefinite, where would we be now if Texas Instruments had just said, no you can’t use our ideas? I doubt any of us would be holding those neat cameras we have today!

These rules on patents work very well for the general public and have not changed very much. I do believe that the term of a patent was only about 12 years not that long ago, and was increased just recently. This was done, I believe, in order to allow the holder of the patent a little more time to profit because of rising costs and time constraints. For example, we bash the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, but it can literally take 20 years and billions of dollars to bring a single drug to the market place. Then stand-by for the lawyers and the law suits!

Again, it was in the best interest of the general public, that patentable ideas or inventions be brought to market quickly.

Copyrights, however, are viewed somewhat differently. Writings and music are viewed more as art, without the need for them to be given to the public for general use so quickly. I think that that is where the changes need to start.

The Sonny Bone Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), of October 7, 1998, passed by congress and signed by President Clinton added another 20 years to most copyrights. Nothing like self-interest in congress!

Anyway, the length and terms for copyrights vary greatly and, because of modern technology, upholding copyrights is nearly imposable. The vary technology that gives all of these great toys like cameras and computers, makes enforcing copyrights imposable.

Someone mentioned the 55 MPH speed limit in an earlier post. It was not very practical, it was not really possible to enforce, and it was changed. But, it would have very practical say in 1920. No problem at all! Time and progress are why the copyright laws need to updated also!

[Mike Teutsch]

This is where we will open up that big can of worms!!!! I’ll start, and then let the others join in.

First, I think that the laws should be rewritten to make them easy to understand and enforce. They should be more standardized as to what they cover and protect and the length of the protection. Get the lawyers out of the game!

Second, the terms need to be shortened. The life of the author + 50 years, 100 years from date of creation, that’s ridiculous! Still probably longer than a patent, but not that long! Because we use music and such in more ways now than ever before, it has to enter the public domain quicker.

Third, perhaps all copyrights should actually be filed for. If you don’t file within a reasonable period, it is not protected. It’s about $30.00 and a little work, is that too much to ask, if this is how you wish to make a living? This would probably save a lot of confusion.

Fourth, (reference number three above) Establish a central database. Having copyrights on file for everything that is protected, would make it easier to contact the owner and get or buy permission to use his material, and protect against illegal use. A central database could even be established where you just go and buy the rights to use say, “The theme from Titanic,” in your wedding video. Have a varying fee schedule for the type of use you have for the material, but establish a set fee schedule. It does not need to be the same for every piece of music for example, but just established and written down. Isn’t there a set fee paid by radio stations for playing an artists song on the air? I think the artists may even make more money, because they would get paid for a lot of what is now ripped off!

I’ll stop for now and let others chime in. Let’s just see if maybe we can start the ball rolling toward change!

Mike

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Mike Teutsch

This is where we will open up that big can of worms!!!! I’ll start, and then let the others join in.

First, I think that the laws should be rewritten to make them easy to understand and enforce. They should be more standardized as to what they cover and protect and the length of the protection. Get the lawyers out of the game!

Why not bioengineer our bodies to heal themselves better so we can get doctors out of the game? :)