Recommended song for stylish wedding video clip

[Robert Mitteg]

Hello,

I edited a short video clip where the couple are in a beautiful landscape making stylish postures in slow motin. I would like to add background music but I'm not sure about which song fits best. It must be a modern song but elegant. But it must be somekind classical at the same time. What song would you recommend me ?

Something like Millenium song from Robby Williams. Not that song, but same style more or less.

Thanks!

[Bjorn C Hagert]

Sounds like your customer don't have a clue what he/she wants. If your customer fed you this - be aware - he/she will quite possible not be satisfied. I walk away when I get those briefings.

Basically you must use the original Millennium song or the customer will not be satisfied.

For what it is worth:

Pop
Slow
Swans - Prefab Sprout - Andromeda Height
Angel - Euritmics
Eternal flame - Bangles
Caravan - House Martins
When ever god shines his light - Van (Morrision)

A bit up-tempo
It must be love - Madness
In our lifetime - Texas (Used in Notting Hill)
Stuck in the middle with you -Steve Miller (Humours)
Sugar Baby Love - Rubettes (Just had to add that one)
Hey Ya - Outcast (Takes a lot of guts to use that)

Classical
La Primavera (Spring) Allegro from Vivaldi the Four Seasons.
Concerto No. 26 in D Major K.537, Allegretto - Mozart

[Craig Seeman]

The ugly truth is that using copyrighted music in wedding videos is a violation of copyright law. Some might feel it's for "personal" use but if the videographer/editor is getting paid than it's a violation of the copyright law.

In Australia there's a means for wedding videographers to pay an annual fee to use music in wedding videos but that doesn't exist in the USA (yet).

[Peter Jefferson]

really?? the USA doesnt have this??
shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit...
its only 40bux... for 5 copies (hence the reason i dont offer more than 5 copies

[George Sam]

What if the customer provides the music? Would that entitle them to use what they own as part of their wedding video or photo montage?

Usually, I get the original CD from them and they tell me they want to use this song or that song.

[Craig Seeman]

As Peter points out, Australia has a reasonable answer to to using copyrighted music in wedding/event videos.

BTW the rights can involve the owner of the music (sheet music/lyrics), owner of the sound recording and synchronization rights to use the music in a video production.

George, owning the CD is NOT the same as "owning" the copyright to the music, the sound recording or the synchronization rights.

Even if the bride hands you as CD or mp3, she doesn't own the copyright. She has the right to listen to that CD but not to authorize you to sync it to video. She doesn't have theright to distribute such video with a song on it anymore than she'd have the right to make copies of songs from the CD and hand them out. The arguement for personal use probably wouldn't hold up in court since you, as the videographer and editor are getting PAID to use the song and the publisher, record lable, artist or whomever else who owns the various right isn't getting paid. It's compounded if you start sending out demo reels to potential clients with copyrighted music because you're now distributing it. Even worse, post it on the web and you've made it available to the masses!

The RIAA going after music downloaders, they're not selling songs, heck the downloaders often aren't even distributing them!. Imagine the motive the RIAA would have going after wedding videographers who MAKE between $50,000-$100,000 or more by offering and even advertising that they'll use copyrighted music!

The whole thing is a time bomb waiting to explode. The fact that people are rarely prosecuted for this or, "everybody" does it won't hold legal weight. I'll bet 12 year olds downloading mp3s weren't expecting the RIAA to go after THEM. Maybe the distributors but not the kids. Well they went after the kids.

See link to article below.

http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=8881

[George Sam]

Thanks Craig for the detailed response.

Where do we draw the line? I mean, DJ should stop spinning copyrighted songs as inevitable there will be tons of people taping the event and the song can be recorded and in turn distributed as well. Radio stations should stop airing commercial music as people can tape those songs and also pass to others. TV should stop using commercial songs as people can make copies and distribute them. Who is at fault? The DJ that played the music, the Radio station that aired the song, the TV station that used a song for a show? Or the person that actually used the copyrighted material and distributed that? What is meant by distributing? Real tricky!!!

I am not disagreeing with you and that is the reason why there are sites where you you pay a yearly fee for great quality royalty free music. Sometimes using a commercial song just gives you that impact and it's very recognizeable when people are watching it. It is a very tricky and scary issue indeed. I wonder how many videographers actually cover themselves by really buying a right to use a commercial song for their videos.

My train of thought was that at least I AM trying to be more careful and as you said it probably won't hold very well in court if a bride hands me her CD and says use this for my video. I guess the idea is that what is the difference between that and making a copy of that song in MP3 format for herself to listen on a PC or iPOD? Though if they do want to make additional copies of that DVD for her friends and family, I can see your point.

Not disagreeing or agreeing just that it is very sensitive area and would indeed be a great idea if we had something similar to what Autralia has for their videographers. *Sigh...

[Craig Seeman]

Hi George,

Radio stations get/have rights to play music. Some (Many, Most?) wedding halls actually pay to cover the rights to perform and or play copyrighted music.

Not quite the same as giving someone the right to record the music and sync it to video and then distribute. Playing music to be listened and covering those rights don't cover other aspects.

In the USA there's no affordabe means for event videographers to pay for the rights. Certainly rights had been negotiated on the documentaries I've worked on. I wish an organization like WEVA would take this on. The solution in Australia is certainly reasonable.

I've used royalty free music, Soundtrack and things like Smart Sound to create music.

I know there are some folks who simulate styles and vocals of specific pop tunes but it ain't the "real thing."

Copy, past that link a posted before. I think it was an excellent article.

[John Cloy]

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Seeman :
The whole thing is a time bomb waiting to explode. The fact that people are rarely prosecuted for this or, "everybody" does it won't hold legal weight. I'll bet 12 year olds downloading mp3s weren't expecting the RIAA to go after THEM. Maybe the distributors but not the kids. Well they went after the kids. -->>>

I agree - but the fact that the lawsuits *haven't* started happening yet is interesting too. Remember that the entertainment industry also held that Beta video tapes were illegal, fought DVDs and sued to prevent the rental of VHS tapes. They lost (or were forced to negotiate reasonable licensing agreements) in all of these cases.

In fact they have fought nearly every significant technological advance tooth and nail - yet these very technologies now form the most profitable (and most rapidly growing) portions of their business.

I certainly don't want to be part of the test case that decides this issue. But I think that it needs to (and will) be resolved. I believe that many (most) videographers would happily pay a reasonable license fee to use recognized copyright media as part of their (for profit) productions. But with no (reasonable) way to do it the entertainment industry is getting 100% of nothing right now.

I don't believe that anybody will bring a suit against an individual who backs up their own video with a copy of music they already have a license for (I'm not talking about a videographer, I really mean just an individual fooling around with their home movies). I think a court would extend reasonable use in a heartbeat to a synch license when the individual has a valid personal use license (or owns) both pieces of media, isn't selling it, won't negatively impact the license owner economically and has no reasonable means to obtain a synch license.

As new technologies emerge (like the DV video capabilities we all use) copyright and license need to evolve to protect and compensate the copyright owners while encouraging the expansion of legal use.

Just my two cents...

[Bjorn C Hagert]

From what I see d/l of mp3s have not stopped at all - kids don't have that kind of money to buy music. Then there is the business of recording off the internet radio stations – who is going to stop that?

Going after kids d/l mp3s can be another good reason why the labels are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they have the law on their side. Most parents turn their heads in disgust and they are the one supposed to be paying for the music.

Then again copyright should be honoured.

Easy and reasonable fees in comparison of what a wedding video costs will be the solution. That or no music or revenue at all.

(Just compare the cost of flying – low budget flight to London costs half of what it did 20 years ago. Music albums are up 3-400%.)

[Ralph Longo]

I just had to bring this back up but from everything I have read involving "true" classical music as long as the composer/writer has been dead longer than 70 years there is no longer ANY copyright claims even for a new artist recording a version of the peice today. The most compelling reference I have is this


Most people think there is only one copyright, but there is one important thing to be understood: A recorded piece of music is actually a subject of two (2) separate, but layered copyrights.Sometimes referred to as copyright © and copyright (P)
(As you see there is no ASCII preset for (P) on the keyboard yet , it should be a circle with a P in it.)

The creation copyright of the author is most commonly understood and respected. The composer owns this right to his music.In most cases this copyright is assigned to a publisher to "sell" the song. That is what copyright contracts are about.

The other is the recording performance production copyright, which is the right of the performing recording artist(s) to their specific interpretation (production/performance) of the song/music which is recorded . However, the recording artist(s) can only use the muisc written by the composer under a copyright license ! The performing artists create the additional copyright of their performance in the recording production - on top of the composer/lyricist creation copyright. That is why those "recording rights" are called in legal terminology "Neighbouring Rights".



It looks to me that without the first layer there can be no second layer. Am I getting this wrong? I have exhausted many hours searching for an answer to this so now I come to all of you.

[Craig Seeman]

Ralph,

You need to consult a lawyer. If what you were saying were even remotely true every Symphony and Philharmonic Orchestra (at least the better ones) would have had all their recordings used, stolen etc. Add to that every famous folk musician who has recorded "traditionals."

[Ralph Longo]

I would say that a large majority of the material used by orchestras and folk artists are written by current songwriters so most of their songs under my query would not be usable they do however use some material from composers passed on earlier than 1934 (the 70 year mark) and it is only these that could be used under my argument. This is one of those questions that I came accross on accident, I do not claim to have full knowledge of the answer but I do know that some of the individuals on this forum have a much greater understanding than myself on the subject, A lawyer with copyright knowledge would cost me money so I thought I'd ask if anybody had a knowledgeable answer here.

[Bjorn C Hagert]

What Ralph says applies to Europe as well. The 50 year mark was moved up to 70 years some time ago here.

The performance belongs to the performers. Just as the footage belong to the photographer. That alos do make sence since it is a creation or, if you will, art. Simply put, you may not steal a recording even if the song is "free".

[Ralph Longo]

If you photograph an individual and do not get written permission from them you cannot get a copyright for the photograph though, it does not matter that you took the picture the individuals rights supercede your own. I tend to very logical and very analitical, what you two have said makes sense but I cannot grasp you being able to copyright something you have absolutely no claim to at all. We put in our contracts that we can do whatever we want with the footage of our weddings, if we did not the B/G would have legal rights all of the footage we shot of them if you want to get technical we should get a release form for everybody in the church or at least put a sign at every entrance that they may be videotaped. We do indeed own the footage but there is no way unless we did one of those two things that we could get it copyrighted with no available argument. I dont want sound like I am being hostile I am just thinking out loud so to speak.