How are videographers dealing with copyright restrictions?

[Sebastian Alvarez]

It all comes down to one word: greed.

[Chris Harding]

Sebastian

The bottom line is that it's a bit pointless trying to wage war with such a determined organisation so in a nutshell dont!!

Keep all your online samples free of copyright music and make sure that your brides know they cannot upload their wedding video to the web without getting sued!! Keep the copyright music completely private for the bride's eyes only and you should stay out of trouble.

I always upload a royalty free ceremony clip for the couple and give them the link so they can add it to social media sites....that way you ensure that your video on the web is 100% legal!! AFAIK even the Australian and UK licences ONLY cover the DVD's not stuff you upload to the web...the Aussie licence is ONLY for a maximum of 20 DVD's and private viewing only.

Chris

[Deborah Gallegos]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

If you read the criticism section of the Wikipedia entry for ASCAP you can learn a few interesting tidbits about the organization.

That they're evil?

:)

Deborah

[Chris Harding]

Hi Deb

Soft targeting is not the way to go about things..they should rather be concentrating on the real bad boys in countries that rip actual CD's and distribute millions of counterfeight copies for consumers..that is what the body should be trying to eliminate as that DOES cost the music industry millions in lost sales.

Targeting the "one man show" that may use a song once in a video is unlikely to make CD sales go up at all but bringing down the real multi-national duplicating syndicates certainly will help. Sorta like robbing a 90 year grandmother at the crosswalk as it's easier than bringing down real crooks.

In fact if you think about it, there is a pretty good chance that the couple have especially bought the artist's CD for their wedding and when the vision is added, probably others watching it might think.."Gotta have that CD" .... I think we are more than likely doing more promotion than anything else for them..gosh, maybe they should start paying us for advertising their label and artist!!!

Chris

[Sebastian Alvarez]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

In fact if you think about it, there is a pretty good chance that the couple have especially bought the artist's CD for their wedding and when the vision is added, probably others watching it might think.."Gotta have that CD" .... I think we are more than likely doing more promotion than anything else for them..gosh, maybe they should start paying us for advertising their label and artist!!!

I'd be happy if they just left us alone and like you said, go after the real bad guys. Seeing a well edited romantic video with a good song online will probably make many people buy that song or the whole CD. So with this system, basically we are punished and intimidated because we provide free publicity to the artist. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Deborah Gallegos]

I completely agree with you both, Chris and Sebastian.

I've long been following copyright and patent laws and the madness to which they've descended and how far they've come from their original intent and purpose.

I've been trying to tell everyone I know about SOPA, PIPA, and now ACTA, and not a single person had ever heard of these things before I mentioned it to them. Of course, SOPA/PIPA got most of my friends' attention when Wikipedia, etc. did their blackout. But, they had no knowledge that this sort of thing was in the works beforehand.

Basically, I feel our government is in the pocket of the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc. because they are clinging to an antiquated business model and expect the government to allow it to continue by propping it up.

All this doesn't bode well for videographers. :(

Deborah

[Chris Davis]

Originally Posted by Sebastian Alvarez

It all comes down to one word: greed.

I disagree with that. If it were all about greed, they would create a system to allow videographers and other professionals to pay a fee (as in the UK and Australia.) This is a revenue stream waiting to be tapped. If it were all about greed, they would be tapping it.

I personally believe it's more about changing attitudes and markets. This market did not exist 30 years ago, and it's not a market the record companies sought to develop. It simply developed independently, and much like downloadable music, will require a paradigm shift for them to monetize. Corporations move slowly. They were forced to adapt to deal with illegally downloaded music, and have done so and are making a profit from it. Eventually they will recognize the potential for licensing of music on the micro level.

The reason I don't bother with it anymore is because it comes down to profiting from someone else's work without compensation or permission. I wouldn't appreciate it if someone were to use my work without my permission, so I won't do that to others.

[Jeff Harper]

Chris, videotaping an event that happens to have copyrighted music being played by a DJ and then being paid to produce DVDs of that event is not profiting from someone else's work, not by a long stretch.

You may feel it is, and that is fine, but that is an absolutely ridiculous concept to me and I won't fall for the brainwashing. I'm hired to videotape events, I'm not "stealing" anything by filming an event. I'm being paid for my time, I'm not getting rich off of the back of anyone.

The argument is framed by licensing bodies in such a way that is designed to make people feel badly for some acts which are in completely innocent. Just because something is the law does not mean it is right.

How would you like to have to pay a contractor when you sell your house, just because he did the original work building your house? Does he deserve a slice because you made a profit off of his work? I don't think so. To me this is no different.

People profit off of other people's work all the time, but only songwriters, etc., are paid for life for a single piece of work. Should my web designer be paid every time someone visits my site and I make a sale? Am I not I profiting from the web designer's work? Why shouldn't they be paid like a songwriter?

Then whole thing makes no sense.

Songwriters should be paid once for their music, and that be the end of it. Once you sell your work, how can it still be yours? It is nonsense.

[Tim Bakland]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

How would you like to have to pay a contractor when you sell your house, just because he did the original work building your house? Does he deserve a slice because you made a profit off of his work? I don't think so. To me this is no different.

That sounds like a pretty apt analogy to me, Jeff. I guess the part that gets sticky is the question of who actually owns the house in the end. Unfortunately, even with seemingly simple and harmless events (such as a school production of a musical), it is never so simple -- from the copyright associated with the musical publishing company, to the commercial music played at productions and ballets... and of course the oft debated first dance and bridal march.

[Sebastian Alvarez]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Chris, videotaping an event that happens to have copyrighted music being played by a DJ and then being paid to produce DVDs of that event is not profiting from someone else's work, not by a long stretch.

You may feel it is, and that is fine, but that is an absolutely ridiculous concept to me and I won't fall for the brainwashing. I'm hired to videotape events, I'm not "stealing" anything by filming an event. I'm being paid for my time, I'm not getting rich off of the back of anyone.

The argument is framed by licensing bodies in such a way that is designed to make people feel badly for some acts which are in completely innocent. Just because something is the law does not mean it is right.

Songwriters should be paid once for their music, and that be the end of it. Once you sell your work, how can it still be yours? It is nonsense.

Excellent words, although I disagree that songwriters should be paid once for their music. I think it's fine if they get paid every time a CD with their song is sold, but it's outrageous that just by recording the first dance of a couple on video without paying a license for that song is breaking the law. I'm paid to record that, and I couldn't care less what the DJ plays. The focus is not the song, it's the couple's first dance. Same as the party, when the couple and all their friends and relatives are dancing, THEY are the focus, I don't care whatever music the DJ is playing. So the DJ plays 30 or 40 songs, that means I should ask ASCAP or BMI for permission to use those songs and then tell me that it's going to cost me about 50 times what I charged for the wedding video? That's beyond idiotic. With that reasoning, I should pay each and every guest of the wedding, because they all appear on my video and you could make the case that they are helping me make money off that video.

The point is, we shouldn't have to pay for music that goes in a video that will be seen in a private environment such as the couple's home, and we shouldn't pay even if the video goes online because that video will generate sales for that musician. And I know that musicians have the right to decide how their music is used, but with the current technology, that's impossible. In any case, if a musician or their agents find out that their song has made it into something they disapprove of, such as porn or a KKK video or similar, they can sue the producer of that video. For the most part, wedding videos are highly inoffensive and will never deter anybody from buying that song, on the contrary, people will buy that song. If I were a musician I would be happy to let any videographer use my songs for free. It's not like they're going to say that they composed and performed the song.

However, I wouldn't mind so much paying $10 for the right to use a regular song by Adele and popular artists. And if I have to pay another $10 for the use of all the background music I capture with the camera, so be it. But if they just keep suing videographers, the only ones who win are the lawyers, not the musicians.

[Dave Blackhurst]

I'll add a couple thoughts...

There's a difference between IP (intellectual property) and real property - the distinction being that you can't just duplicate a house or car at will - its tangible form prevents that. With IP, it's realtively easy to "copy", either by plagarism or by outright reproduction, especially now with it being nothing more than 1's ands 0's. And in copyright litigation, remember that there have been brutal battles over the "similarity" of one work to another...

You have to remember that the "arist" or creator (or more likely a faceless corporate IP rights management entity) has to retain a certain degree of control over the "product", both to produce revenue and to protect against inappropriate or unauthorized use(s). If they see a revenue stream, and/or a public backlash (like if they sued over a viral video), they'll find a "fix" pretty quickly... but that's the exception.


Think of it this way... sell your car to a bank robber, you just have to show the transfer, and you aren't liable or associated with the "criminal"... Now let's say you "sell" (actually license most likely, under copyright laws) your video or audio to someone who is using it in a "hate" video (or just a truly awful one!) - now YOUR "work" is inextricably attached to that "new" work... your only "recourse" is to go after them and stop the "use". "IP" is a lot easier to "misappropriate" and steal or damage the value of the "work". Aside from some "high profile deals", most "artists" don't see a whole lotta loot from their "art"...



Sure there is a need for a practical, understandable licensing "system", other countries seem to have managed it, but not the US...

I think "the lawyers" (and I will say there are "good" lawyers out there to whom this doesn't apply) are the culprits here - there are few "professions" where one makes money win or lose, and makes MORE money (up front or billed regularly at obscene hourly amounts) by prolonging the "job/problem" instead of finding a solution. Certainly a well crafted "solution" could be put forward relatively quickly, but as long as there is more $$ in litigation than in innovation, I don't expect to see it.

I've already posted and been indirectly referenced in this thread, and still believe the "incidental" and "Carterphone" defenses make good common sense, but common sense and how it would play out in Courts are often two distinct things. Law and Sausage, as the old saying goes. I DON'T want to make this a political debate (so DON'T go there!!!!), but you take your chances in a country run by lawyers, for lawyers (do the math on how many politicians are lawyers...), and until innovation and creativity become the most important thing economically, it is what it is.



I believe it is possible to strike a balance between fair and reasonable "use" of IP and artist rights, but I'm not holding my breath...

[Sebastian Alvarez]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

I think "the lawyers" (and I will say there are "good" lawyers out there to whom this doesn't apply) are the culprits here - there are few "professions" where one makes money win or lose, and makes MORE money (up front or billed regularly at obscene hourly amounts) by prolonging the "job/problem" instead of finding a solution. Certainly a well crafted "solution" could be put forward relatively quickly, but as long as there is more $$ in litigation than in innovation, I don't expect to see it.

That's exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned that it all comes down to greed. I'm sure the greed doesn't come from the musicians, they just want people to buy their CDs and concert DVDs, not sue small business owners because the DJ was playing their song at a party, or even because the videographer used their song for a cute highlights video.

[Jeff Harper]

Lots of good discourse here. The proper solution to these woes would likely not be found in any extreme direction, but by a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.

[Chris Davis]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Chris, videotaping an event that happens to have copyrighted music being played by a DJ and then being paid to produce DVDs of that event is not profiting from someone else's work, not by a long stretch.

In specific, I was referring to the common practice of syncing wedding highlights with popular copyright music. In that case, you are using someone else's work to enhance and add value to your own.

How would you like to have to pay a contractor when you sell your house, just because he did the original work building your house? Does he deserve a slice because you made a profit off of his work? I don't think so. To me this is no different.

Unfortunately, it is different because the law says it is different. If you employed a musician to compose and perform a piece of music for you as a work for hire, that would be more analogous to your house/contractor example.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Originally Posted by Sebastian Alvarez

That's exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned that it all comes down to greed. I'm sure the greed doesn't come from the musicians, they just want people to buy their CDs and concert DVDs, not sue small business owners because the DJ was playing their song at a party, or even because the videographer used their song for a cute highlights video.

WELL, having spent a fair amount of time dealing with "artists", I can tell you they can have some pretty wacky ideas as well, and more often than not take a degree of offense if something they say is THEIR idea is used in some way THEY don't approve... in fact I believe there are artists out there who have done themselves a great disservice by suing "the customer"... there's lots of options for "art" (most of which I admittedly don't "get"...), and if one artist doesn't want his or her "work" used, there are others happy to work with other "creatives"...