Music Rights - an interesting development

[Mark Hendren]

Okay, so I know this subject has been talked to death, but here is an interesting new development.

White House wants new copyright law crackdown | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

I don't know about you, but I don't want a felony on my record for posting a wedding film edited to some popular song that I didn't pay for. I'll keep using the licensed music that I've paid for.

[Dave Partington]

It's abut time the US music guys got together and realised there is a lot of money to be made by letting you guys pay a small sum to be legal rather than nothing at all. Since you are never going to pay 'large sums' they are merely shooting themselves (and their artists) in the foot by not doing what we do in the UK (MCPS/PPL/PRS).

[Chip Thome]

The problem is as it has stood. Complying is too difficult to figure out without a legal staff and the costs are completely prohibitive. But instead of addressing the problems associated with the issue, it must be far easier and appeasing to increase the penalties instead of fixing the system.

Just my opinion and as always, YMMV.

[George Kilroy]

I don't know how people are getting away with posting their trailer and highlight videos on places like vimeo with commercial music tracks unless they have negotiated copyright licensing for internet use.

[Craig Terott]

"I don't know how people are getting away with posting their trailer and highlight videos on places like vimeo with commercial music tracks unless they have negotiated copyright licensing for internet use."

Respectfully: Probably for the same reason we all got away with breaking the law today when we drive in our cars. We probably drove over the speed limit today and thus we broke the law. How did we get away with it?

Now the flurry of responses that copyright law is more offensive than a moving violation. I say a moving violation is more offensive because it could result in someone's death.

[Stephen J. Williams]

uhh ohh! It's funny that I used the same analogy that Craig mentioned. It's accetable to drive 5mph over the speed limit... only because we know that 99% of law enforcement will let you get away with it. But there's always that 1% "usually motorcycle cops :-)" that will nail you for it. The music version of these guys would be the guys that I would be afraid of. Luckily I buy all royalty free.

Steve

[Joel Peregrine]

Hi Mark,

Originally Posted by Mark Hendren

Okay, so I know this subject has been talked to death, but here is an interesting new development....

There may be reason to believe that using a song, especially from a relatively unknown artist or band, can potentially result in more exposure and thus more sales than a needle drop fee can generate. Its a very small scale version of what happened with the music used on OC, Scrubs, and Grey's Anatomy. Those series continue to have strong soundtrack sales and have launched a lot of artists that would never have been noticed otherwise.

[Chris Luker]

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

There may be reason to believe that using a song, especially from a relatively unknown artist or band, can potentially result in more exposure and thus more sales than a needle drop fee can generate. Its a very small scale version of what happened with the music used on OC, Scrubs, and Grey's Anatomy. Those series continue to have strong soundtrack sales and have launched a lot of artists that would never have been noticed otherwise.

And there is a big difference between your song on one of those programs as opposed to the same song on Mr. and Mrs. Johnson's wedding video.

I'm sure all the artists that were used on OC, Scrubs and Grey's Anatomy were paid for the use as well.

What we need is like a compulsory license we have now for re-recording a song (and paying the author) but for video use.
Good luck with that though, most artists want a say in where their art is showcased, as they should have. Maybe something content creators/artists could opt-in to?

[Joel Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Chris Luker

And there is a big difference between your song on one of those programs as opposed to the same song on Mr. and Mrs. Johnson's wedding video.
?

I thought I made that clear, i.e. "Its a very small scale version", though its not uncommon for a trailer, preview or highlights to be seen thousands if not tens of thousands of times online. Very soon that will be the norm - delivery will not be on something you can hold.

[Wayne Faulkner]

Surely, if you're recording an event, and the event is playing a licensed copy of some music while you're recording, you're not liable for the any licensing of that music yourself?

If this were the case, we'd be unable to record anything within the public domain.

Unless of course you elect to add music yourself during editing.

[Roger Van Duyn]

"Surely, if you're recording an event, and the event is playing a licensed copy of some music while you're recording, you're not liable for the any licensing of that music yourself?"

Don't count on it! It's a completely different kind of license required. In simplest terms, the DJ's license won't cover making a video, especially if it will be shown on the internet. Google mechanical license, synch license.

As videographers, here in the USA we normally need a synch license. There are many, many, many long threads on this subject here on the forums. It's a better situation in GB. Some of the guys from your side of the Atlantic will probably chime in.

I'm not expert. I stay out of trouble by using royalty free licensed music (aka buyout).

[Wayne Faulkner]

It depends where on the Internet you put it of course, somewhere like The Pirate Bay might be a safe bet.

Seriously though, it would be interesting to hear responses from the UK, particularly as I'm considering the preparation stages of a Commercial DVD for a team sport, and whilst unintended, some short clips with stadium music in the background may feature within the content surrounding a match day.

[George Kilroy]

Wayne, here in the UK we have reasonably good schemes from PRS/MCPS to allow music to be used or added to private functions DVDs, and a more prescriptive one for amateur show productions; I don't know how it effects sport.
The problems arise when you post on the internet, as far as I know there is no easy (cheap) way to license productions which include music to be use on the internet. Part of the reason is that local licensing authorities can allow use in a region but the internet pushes the boundaries so no one country scheme can allow the use in other jurisdictions.
In reality music recorded incidentally at an event is probably one of the least areas that will come to the attention of the licensing authorities, however I'm not so sure if those where the added music is an intrinsic part of the production is not of interest to them.

Almost anyone in UK who is operating a registered business address will have been contacted by PRS at sometime during the last few years with a demand, yes demand, to buy a licence to allow the use of music to be played over a system at a place of work, even background radio, if you have even one caller to the premises. How long before they start databasing the users of videos on the internet?

[Roger Van Duyn]

[QUOTE=Wayne Faulkner;1630278]It depends where on the Internet you put it of course, somewhere like The Pirate Bay might be a safe bet.

The Pirate Bay probably isn't a good place for a videographer to post his work, if he is looking for new clients. Now if he is a hacker type, whatever that may be, with an interest in video, just wanting to show off to others who might frequent the Pirate Bay, then that's a different matter.

Someone in business wants to generate revenue to support his family, pay his bills, be able to give to charity etc., so a business person has a different purpose for posting video. The business person also has a lot to lose from litigation. Of course, a private individual can lose a lot from litigation too. And then there's the whole matter of the reputation of the business to consider.

[Wayne Faulkner]

Roger, I thought it quite obvious that my comment regarding person to person file sharing was tongue-in-cheek, and not at all serious, perhaps British humour doesn't quite travel across the Atlantic?

I'd not be impressed with someone prepared to 'show off' in such an unlikely way using The Pirate Bay, and wonder why you make this observation, and indeed the rest of your post. I wasn't aware we had a requirement to spell everything out, but I do take on board this requirement for future posts; however, your post doesn't really help along the discussion.

As it is, until we secure a Sponsor/Advertiser, the charity I'm associated with has no plans to post video onto the web, although secure web streaming is already taking place internally for other purposes relating to player development and coaching.

We do have current negotiations with a Commercial Sponsor for the Video Support element of the charity, and this may result initially in the production of a Promotional DVD and Web Media for the Sport, and afterwards, Commercial DVDs. Hence my interest in the Copyright of incidental background music actually recorded at an event.

My thanks to George for indicating the situation here within the UK, I must investigate PRS/MCPS in more depth (any chance of expanding these mnemonics?), since the charity would not want to fall foul of any Copyright or Licensing Laws, particularly as we intend to defend Copyright of our own material.