Weddings & Music

[Michelle Genrich]

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper

The legality of using copyrighted music without either permission of the artist or paid consideration can't be argued, it's illegal. That being said, the general rule of thumb for years has been that if you're passing out a handful of wedding DVD's the FCC generally isn't going to look your way. That's not to say there haven't been cases of wedding guys getting busted, but they are few and far between and I've only heard it told as a "friend of an aunt who knows this guy" kinda thing.

When doing corporate jobs, and especially when doing broadcast work such as commercials avoid using copyrighted music at all cost. This is generally when you get in hot water.

Recently I've started questioning how smart it is of me to have samples up on my website because now it's out there and openly known that I'm using it in my weddings. Before the internet, the FCC would have had to go into someone's home and watched their wedding to find the offense, but now we're plastering our illegal use all over the place for any and all to see. I'm beginning to question my sanity on this one, but I don't want to lose the huge benefit of having samples of my work on the site.

I have to admit, I do lose sleep over this issue and it's always gnawing at the back of my brain, but my videos wouldn't be 1/4 of what they are without the music. If the FCC comes down on me, I lose my business which is my livelihood, and I could potentially lose much more. I don't wanna think about it anymore, pardon me while I go edit to another legally protected piece of music.

**EDIT**
I've often wondered where the heavy hitters, the Still Motions of the world are on this issue especially since they are pulling in larger sums of cash than a lot of the rest of us and therefore may be a bigger target for the FCC or whatever regulatory board is up in their neck of the woods. I know Patrick and the boys (and girls) use protected music like most of us, but how do they feel about the risks, and what steps if any do they take to insure against losing everything to a FCC shakedown. This thought isn't limited to Patrick but to anyone who is running a sizable event biz and practicing in the dirty little secret of wedding videos.

The FCC at this time has nothing "or almost nothing" to do with what is broadcast musically over the internet. If you really want the rights to use someone's composition, you need a license with ASCAP and or BMI if you're using a composed song they are representing. To broadcast digitally over the internet, you'd also need a license with Sound Exchange as they represent the publisher and band of the recording being used via digital broadcast.

I've had a "live band" website for 3 years and since I do all the recording, hence am my own publisher. My only licensing needs are with ASCAP and BMI. I sleep at night because I don't have to worry about the $150,000 potential lawsuit per song times the amount of runs.

To be truly legal to broadcast music over the internet, you'd need about $2000 a year for licensing fees.

When it comes to making and distributing copies of music via DVD, you'd need a mechanical license with the Harry Fox Agency www.harryfox.com I think it is somewhere in the range of $90 per song but you may want to check further into that.

I think I'd rather pay $180 to have two songs on a photo montage/highlight video than risk the Copyright Royalty Board breathing down my neck via the various royalty agents with busted noses showing up at my door.

It's confusing but maybe I can help someone out with this as I learned the hard way (threat by royalty company to be sued for millions)

[Stelios Christofides]

but isn't the client's responsibility for the copyrighted music who owns the DVDs and not the videographer? after all the various film clips that are posted on the Internet (especially You Tube) belong to the owner of the DVDs, maybe the bride and groom.

Stelios

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Stelios Christofides

but isn't the client's responsibility for the copyrighted music who owns the DVDs and not the videographer? after all the various film clips that are posted on the Internet (especially You Tube) belong to the owner of the DVDs, maybe the bride and groom.

This reasoning only works if it's the client who edits the footage. If you (the videographer/production guy) edit the footage to copyrighted music then that's on you, not the B&G. It's the production company's responsibility to know the law and avoid breaking it, not the client, just as it's any other professional's responsibility to know the regulations of their profession.

Again, the differentiation between using that music for a wedding video and some random video you just toss up on youtube is that you've gotten paid to do the wedding video. It's generally when money is involved when you draw the ire of lawyers & regulators.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Stelios Christofides

but isn't the client's responsibility for the copyrighted music who owns the DVDs and not the videographer? after all the various film clips that are posted on the Internet (especially You Tube) belong to the owner of the DVDs, maybe the bride and groom.

Stelios

Nope - it's the producer of the completed work who is responsible. If you created the finished program, you're 100% personally responsible for the legality of all of its content. Your client insists you include infringing content such as unlicensed music and it's discovered and the copyright owner chooses to take action, your client is not liable, you are, and there's no contract or waiver you have them sign that would shift the legal responsibility from you over to them. Only if your role as wedding videographer were to be strictly that of a camera operator, shooting the ceremony and reception and handing over the tapes of raw footage to the couple at the end of the day, would that argument apply.

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper

...Again, the differentiation between using that music for a wedding video and some random video you just toss up on youtube is that you've gotten paid to do the wedding video. It's generally when money is involved when you draw the ire of lawyers & regulators.

Not quite true - it is just as illegal to give away copies as it is to sell them. It is the act of copying and distribution that is the infringment, not what you do with the copy later. None of the people the RIAA have sued were selling the copies they made - they were just posting them where people could download them for free. Copy a CD you own to take with you when traveling, no problem. But give a copy to your buddy for Christmas, you're broken the law. True, commercial uses such as including copyright music in a wedding video are more likely to be discovered, but the commercial use is not the main issue.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Michelle Genrich

...
When it comes to making and distributing copies of music via DVD, you'd need a mechanical license with the Harry Fox Agency www.harryfox.com I think it is somewhere in the range of $90 per song but you may want to check further into that.

...
It's confusing but maybe I can help someone out with this as I learned the hard way (threat by royalty company to be sued for millions)

Mechanicals still don't convery the right to incorporate music into the soundtrack of a film or video production. For that you need a sync license from the publisher to use to the music and a usually a master use license from the record label if you're using an existing recording. Mechanicals refer to reproducing audio recordings for distribution as audio recordings.

ASCAP and BMI licenses are performance licenses - playing the music publically or broadcasting it. Whole different ballgame from recording it or incorporating it into a soundtrack.

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Steve House

Not quite true - it is just as illegal to give away copies as it is to sell them. It is the act of copying and distribution that is the infringment, not what you do with the copy later. None of the people the RIAA have sued were selling the copies they made - they were just posting them where people could download them for free. Copy a CD you own to take with you when traveling, no problem. But give a copy to your buddy for Christmas, you're broken the law. True, commercial uses such as including copyright music in a wedding video are more likely to be discovered, but the commercial use is not the main issue.

I wasn't saying it was legal, just less likely to land you in hot water.

[Philip Gioja]

I've been wondering recently about dancing at the reception - I usually shoot several dances, and obviously that's to copy protected music. Should we be concerned about recording that?

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Philip Gioja

I've been wondering recently about dancing at the reception - I usually shoot several dances, and obviously that's to copy protected music. Should we be concerned about recording that?

no.

(I have to type more here cause that response wasn't long enough)

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Philip Gioja

I've been wondering recently about dancing at the reception - I usually shoot several dances, and obviously that's to copy protected music. Should we be concerned about recording that?

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper

no.

(I have to type more here cause that response wasn't long enough)

Maybe so, maybe not. The issue of "incidental music" is still undecided, with some cases going one way and some going the other. If you shoot the couple dancing, the music is a material part of the scene. OTOH, if you're shooting a "congratulations to the couple" interview sort of shot with a guest during the dancing and music just happens to be audible in the background that's something else again. As I understand it (IANAL and I'm no expert) strictly speaking the first use would require clearance but the second would probably slip by as incidental and not need to be licensed.

[Michelle Genrich]

Originally Posted by Steve House

Mechanicals still don't convery the right to incorporate music into the soundtrack of a film or video production. For that you need a sync license from the publisher to use to the music and a usually a master use license from the record label if you're using an existing recording. Mechanicals refer to reproducing audio recordings for distribution as audio recordings.

ASCAP and BMI licenses are performance licenses - playing the music publically or broadcasting it. Whole different ballgame from recording it or incorporating it into a soundtrack.

Yep, you got me on that one...the sync license. I've dealt mostly with compositions and digital transmissions over the Internet during the last three years so the sync license is yet another headache to 'sync' my head into.

Any idea of the costs of master use and a sync license? Time involved? My licenses with ASCAP and BMI aren't too bad until it comes time to report plays and money figures. Both take a percentage of the gross regardless of a profit or loss. Reporting plays can be time consuming until a proper procedure is in place to track the plays.

Is there anyone out there who can assist with all of this and make it easier to be legal? Instead of each videographer having to do the paperwork every time a new client walks in the door?

Will the client be willing to absorb the costs for legal use of music or will it cause them to be turned away from hiring a videographer?

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Michelle Genrich

...
Is there anyone out there who can assist with all of this and make it easier to be legal? Instead of each videographer having to do the paperwork every time a new client walks in the door?

Will the client be willing to absorb the costs for legal use of music or will it cause them to be turned away from hiring a videographer?

A quick Google on "Music Clearance" or "Music Rights Clearance" and simiilar search terms turns up a wealth of information and a number of firms that specialize in obtaining clearances, Unlike ASCAP/BMI performance rights or mechanicals which are essentially standardized rates, synch and master recording rights are whatever the market and the whim of the owner dictates.

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Michelle Genrich

Yep, you got me on that one...the sync license. I've dealt mostly with compositions and digital transmissions over the Internet during the last three years so the sync license is yet another headache to 'sync' my head into.

Any idea of the costs of master use and a sync license? Time involved? My licenses with ASCAP and BMI aren't too bad until it comes time to report plays and money figures. Both take a percentage of the gross regardless of a profit or loss. Reporting plays can be time consuming until a proper procedure is in place to track the plays.

Is there anyone out there who can assist with all of this and make it easier to be legal? Instead of each videographer having to do the paperwork every time a new client walks in the door?

Will the client be willing to absorb the costs for legal use of music or will it cause them to be turned away from hiring a videographer?

I'm sorry, I can't give you any specifics, but traditionally the use of "popular" music is very expensive. We're talking in the multiple thousands of dollars for a sync license, per song. That's why the topic is taboo in the wedding industry because there is no way it's feasible to use that music and be legal.

I would think that if you're concerned with the legality of the music you use that you would want to search out a few good stock music libraries. From what I've read of your posts, that really seems to be your best bet.

To legally use the type of music you hear on the radio or can purchase on iTunes will simply cost too much money. Ask yourself, why is it that I hear that type of music on national TV ad's and not local. The answer is that the national ad's have a very large budget to be able to pay for the sync license. The same basic rules that apply to that type of production would also apply to your wedding videos. No, the wedding isn't broadcast, but many of the same rules apply.

I'm sure someone else can chime in here and give you more concrete examples of what I've outlined, and I'm sure someone else can chime in and argue over semantics, but rest assured, obtaining a sync license for a wedding video would cost you thousands of dollars per song. You want to use some nice popular music in your video? It ain't gonna happen, not legally anyway.

[Stelios Christofides]

You know guys, no composer, singer or musician is going to go bankrupt just because you use his music in one wedding DVD; on the other hand we do him a favour using his music on our wedding videos. I never worry about these "copyright" thing when I put music on my videos.

Stelios

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Stelios Christofides

You know guys, no composer, singer or musician is going to go bankrupt just because you use his music in one wedding DVD; on the other hand we do him a favour using his music on our wedding videos. I never worry about these "copyright" thing when I put music on my videos.

My word of advice... duck!

[Jeff Harper]

" I never worry about these "copyright" thing when I put music on my videos."

It will only take one music executive to see this crap, get pissed off, and have their people to start cruising video sites and fining people huge sums of money.

They fine housewives and teenagers, you don't think they will come after professionals who do it? It is easier to find videographers who break the law than to find people who illegally share downloads.

Did someone say in a previous post that we are doing the artists a favor? What a joke. Be serious. Like they need their music on our videos?

This topic is tired and worn out. This has been covered ad nauseum over and over on this board.

Many do it but it is illegal no matter how you slice it. If sharing music amongst others on the net is illegal, doesn't it make sense that using it in a wedding video is illegal as well?

To publish comments in a public forum that justify as to why it is OK is pure stupid.

It is illegal. Leave it at that. If you choose to do it anyway, please don't talk about it on this board.