Will this work? Music licensing

Chris Harding · February 10th, 2010, 06:04 AM

Hi John

It's still quite a fair bit of money to pay unless you are doing bulk weddings with a team of cameramen!! If you consider that not everyone wants to use commercial music if can add to your overheads!!

I condition my couples to use Royalty Free tracks and they are normally quite receptive!!

If you only do a couple of weddings a year where the couple insist on commercial music the "one-off" event fee of $51 is a better bet. However it's still cheaper than Singapore!!! and there is no reason why you cannot add licence fees to your bill if they insist on using commercial music.

Chris

Chris Luker · February 10th, 2010, 11:34 AM

Two different licenses.
One is to be able to record a cover of a song- compulsory license in the US. Anyone can record any song that has been published. Just pay a fixed per copy (# of CDs made) fee to the publisher.

The second is the sync rights for picture. This, you have to get the person/company that holds the copyright to the song, usually the author but not always, to make a deal for syncing their song (even if it's a remake) to moving pictures. You also need the actual band/person that recorded the song to sign off on their performance, and most likely the person/company that holds the copyright to the actual recording of the performance.

It would be great to get a compulsory license thing going in the US, but that will be very hard to accomplish. The right to refuse the usage of your work to be associated with, say the KKK or NAMBLA, is important to artists, as it should be.

Noel Lising · February 10th, 2010, 12:18 PM

Hi Chris L, so basically it is back to square one. There is no way around it. It was worth the shot, hopefully a system will be in place soon where Wedding Videographers will be able to afford a synch fee.

Thanks for all the input.

Dustin Whitaker · February 10th, 2010, 01:36 PM

I'm shooting a documentary involving a local ballet company who is performing a dance to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. The music will be performed live by a cover band.

Specifically, I am hoping to use "The Great Gig in the Sky" and "Brain Damage"

Is there any difference in my situation then in what is being talked about (using a song from a cd on a DVD)? Sync rights, etc....

I wanted to get as much info before going to the company with questions on their licencing powers since I'm sure they're paying something for the use.

Patrick Moreau · February 13th, 2010, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noel Lising

Thanks for the input Chris, I know Still Motion mentioned company called Etiquette, you can purchase license (online/synch to video rights) for .99/song. You get to choose from 4 different artist. My question is if a local artist in the Philippines has recorded her/his own version of a popular song legally, can that artist sell/license that song to us for a fee?

withetiquette currently features 6 artists and just under 40 songs. all are $99 each for a license that lets you use the music in your films as well as online (website, blog, vimeo).

we believe that by fostering a relationship with independent artists, everyone involved wins. the photo + cinema industries have access to affordable original music, and the musicians have an avenue to share their music and fund the creation of new music.

P.

Rochelle Morris · February 13th, 2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Hi Noel

It appears that wedding videographers in most countries seem to use commercial songs quite freely in their samples and I'm pretty sure that they cannot have paid the huge royalties that are normal practice!!

Over here you can actually get a licence to use commercial songs on your wedding DVD (a single event costs just over $50) However tthe system is so badly flawed because, although you can put the songs on the DVD it can only be used by the couple privately and it only covers DVD's not online video. According to our APPRA you can get a licence for the wedding DVD but if you want to put samples online (server, youtube, vimeo etc) you are not covered.
Even here it seems that videographers are using online wedding 'demos' containing commercial songs and it's pretty certain that they would not be paying huge royalty amounts to overseas publishers for 'internet broadcast' I think worldwide as long as you don't abuse the system publishers turn a blind eye to this minimal music use.

Maybe Rochelle has a comment as PR person for AVPA ??? or you might want a comment from someone at WEVA to clarify the situation.

For me, it's probably safer to use Royalty Free tracks in your productions and know you are in the clear

Chris

Chris, I'm going to have to speak as an individual rather than a representative of AVPA. This topic has been debated many times among our producers and it's a worldwide issue.
In relation to Royalty free music, AMCOS has Production music that is of high quality and has recently changed their fee structure. We have purchased some music from there for online use and it can add up. I have yet to find out more about the changes, and will make the enquiry soon.

Soundtracks make a difference to a clip and to your business image. It's a risk that producers take when they chose to incorporate licenced music for online broadcasting - I can advice you to do the right thing and build up a music bank of paid music. The problem of online clips is that a bank of music isn't infinite.

I'll make the effort to enquire about the AMCOS deal this week - any aussie can email me directly and I can pass on the details

Chris Harding · February 13th, 2010, 06:56 PM

Hi Rochelle

Your comments are much appreciated. I really thought that APPRA were going a great route with their blanket licence for wedding videographers until I discovered that it only applied to the actual DVD!! It's a business fact that we need to show brides online samples and those cannot contain any commercial songs unless thousands of dollars and months of tracking down publishers are completed!

I don't use any commercial tracks anymore as all my packages include hosting an online video for the couple so licence-wise I'm not covered!! I do have an adequate SmartSound library which does the job nicely but it would be great if one could get around all the legal 'mumbo-jumbo' and use a couple's favorite song without fear of copyright infringement.

It's silly really, as using an artists song in your online video is only likely to increase sales for the publisher and they should be happy with extra exposure. If publishers could work out a simple one-off method of controlling copyright then things would be so much easier and they would have more income. Personally I don't think that commercial song usage will ever be controlled effectively..publishers are way too greedy and there are just too many instances on line to try to police.

Chris

Paul R Johnson · February 14th, 2010, 09:54 AM

I've often thought that what is always being argued about is not the actual use of copyright material, but the copyright holders right to say no. I'm in favour of allowing the 'owner' to say no - but if they're happy, for it to be used. Quite how this could be policed is a mystery. I just get amused by somebody who claims the right to do whatever they like with somebody else's product. As if their right to use was stronger/more valid than the person who actually created it?

February 10th, 2010, 11:34 AM	#17
Chris Luker Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Woods Cross, Utah Posts: 310	Two different licenses. Two different licenses. One is to be able to record a cover of a song- compulsory license in the US. Anyone can record any song that has been published. Just pay a fixed per copy (# of CDs made) fee to the publisher. The second is the sync rights for picture. This, you have to get the person/company that holds the copyright to the song, usually the author but not always, to make a deal for syncing their song (even if it's a remake) to moving pictures. You also need the actual band/person that recorded the song to sign off on their performance, and most likely the person/company that holds the copyright to the actual recording of the performance. It would be great to get a compulsory license thing going in the US, but that will be very hard to accomplish. The right to refuse the usage of your work to be associated with, say the KKK or NAMBLA, is important to artists, as it should be.

February 10th, 2010, 12:18 PM	#18
Noel Lising Major Player Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 789	Hi Chris L, so basically it is back to square one. There is no way around it. It was worth the shot, hopefully a system will be in place soon where Wedding Videographers will be able to afford a synch fee. Thanks for all the input. __________________ Noel Lising

February 10th, 2010, 01:36 PM	#19
Dustin Whitaker New Boot Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 6	copyrighted material performed by live band I'm shooting a documentary involving a local ballet company who is performing a dance to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. The music will be performed live by a cover band. Specifically, I am hoping to use "The Great Gig in the Sky" and "Brain Damage" Is there any difference in my situation then in what is being talked about (using a song from a cd on a DVD)? Sync rights, etc.... I wanted to get as much info before going to the company with questions on their licencing powers since I'm sure they're paying something for the use. Last edited by Dustin Whitaker; February 10th, 2010 at 01:37 PM. Reason: clarification

February 10th, 2010, 06:04 AM	#16
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Hi John It's still quite a fair bit of money to pay unless you are doing bulk weddings with a team of cameramen!! If you consider that not everyone wants to use commercial music if can add to your overheads!! I condition my couples to use Royalty Free tracks and they are normally quite receptive!! If you only do a couple of weddings a year where the couple insist on commercial music the "one-off" event fee of $51 is a better bet. However it's still cheaper than Singapore!!! and there is no reason why you cannot add licence fees to your bill if they insist on using commercial music. Chris

February 13th, 2010, 06:56 PM	#22
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Hi Rochelle Your comments are much appreciated. I really thought that APPRA were going a great route with their blanket licence for wedding videographers until I discovered that it only applied to the actual DVD!! It's a business fact that we need to show brides online samples and those cannot contain any commercial songs unless thousands of dollars and months of tracking down publishers are completed! I don't use any commercial tracks anymore as all my packages include hosting an online video for the couple so licence-wise I'm not covered!! I do have an adequate SmartSound library which does the job nicely but it would be great if one could get around all the legal 'mumbo-jumbo' and use a couple's favorite song without fear of copyright infringement. It's silly really, as using an artists song in your online video is only likely to increase sales for the publisher and they should be happy with extra exposure. If publishers could work out a simple one-off method of controlling copyright then things would be so much easier and they would have more income. Personally I don't think that commercial song usage will ever be controlled effectively..publishers are way too greedy and there are just too many instances on line to try to police. Chris

February 14th, 2010, 09:54 AM	#23
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,045	I've often thought that what is always being argued about is not the actual use of copyright material, but the copyright holders right to say no. I'm in favour of allowing the 'owner' to say no - but if they're happy, for it to be used. Quite how this could be policed is a mystery. I just get amused by somebody who claims the right to do whatever they like with somebody else's product. As if their right to use was stronger/more valid than the person who actually created it?