How are videographers dealing with copyright restrictions?

[Chris Harding]

This is certainly a spirited discussion and allows us to vent of feelings. Of course, you do realise that nothing will come of it sadly.... I think appeals have been made to the music industry over and over for a simply pay per use system but it's fallen on deaf ears. Pity! lot's over money to be made there.

Unfortunately law becomes more and more complex over the years as lawyers find more loopholes in legislation!! Soon you will have to be careful who is in the extreme background of your shot too ...someone might just drive down the road in their vehicle and be in your wedding shot and demand an appearance fee!!! It's really a pathetic and sad world now with all the takers and few givers...I used to do school photography concerts in my early days but now you have to get individual student permission, convince the police you are not a child molester and make sure the school only plays elevator music during the show ..all too hard for me!!

I wonder if photographers have any copyright issues at weddings???

Chris

[David J. Payne]

I know this doesn't relate to the online debate that's going on but I have just spoken to MCPS and they have told me that if you want to make up to 5 copies of a DVD you'll need one licence (as well as PPL) but if you want to make for example 1 bluray copy and 1 DVD copy (or any combination up to 5 copies) you'll need to buy 2 licences with no discounted rate because you're producing 2 different formats.

How in the world is that remotely fair?

[Ken Matson]

Obviously - with a reasonable system, the artists/publishers/RecCos could make money and videographers could be clean and everyone wins ... everyone of course but the lawyers ... so if "greed" is the argument, then it is the greed of the legal crowd.

I think a fee of something like $1 / copy for non-broadcast purposes should make everyone happy - even a $1 for sync rights + $1 for master rights (which you have to have to use a particular artist's version of a song) would be reasonable and make ton's of money for the artists and publishers. We could afford to do it and therefore would.

But having said this - a little math shows that even then you couldn't afford to do, say a dance recital video, where there might be 25 or more songs on the DVD and you need 100 copies. There would have to be some sort of different rate/rule for recordings of a "performance" using songs as opposed to syncing "Created" video to a song - not even sure I know how you would define the difference or what the rate should be.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by David Payne

I know this doesn't relate to the online debate that's going on but I have just spoken to MCPS and they have told me that if you want to make up to 5 copies of a DVD you'll need one licence (as well as PPL) but if you want to make for example 1 bluray copy and 1 DVD copy (or any combination up to 5 copies) you'll need to buy 2 licences with no discounted rate because you're producing 2 different formats.

How in the world is that remotely fair?

It's not fair & I don't think that it's correct although quite typical as every time you ring MCPS & speak to a different person you will get a different answer. The licence refers to 'Product' with a capital 'P' not a DVD or Blu-ray or CD or tape. Your 'Product' is what you create & sell to your customer so a production that ran to two or three DVDS only requires one licence.

[George Kilroy]

It has been mentioned here before that in the UK the matter has been resolved by the agencies who police copyright protection for the main music industry getting together and coming up with a licensing agreement for the likes of us who shoot personal and amateur/school productions.

However this didn't come about by an altruistic act on behalf of the music industry but as a result of lobbying and liaising by organisations in the UK set up to promote 'event videography' as an industry with professional standards. It took many years and a few attempts to get to the position it is now where we can pay a reasonable fee (starting at £12 for 5 copies) for permission to both record in actuality as well as sync to physical media, though not for the internet. This can be bought for up to 1,000 copies (@ 32p each).

I guess it is a matter of each territory getting organised enough to get their authorities to look at the UK solution. I don't think that individuals trying to circumvent, ignore or come up with their own justification for their rights will change matters. And as others have said in a highly litigious country you are always at risk.

You can see details of the UK system here:

Limited Manufacture Licence (LM)

[Paul R Johnson]

I'd consider a blu-ray disc to still be a DVD - it's digital, has video on it and is round. The LML doesn't actually ask that much about the actual carrier of the media from what I remember - have I missed that bit?

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

I'd consider a blu-ray disc to still be a DVD - it's digital, has video on it and is round. The LML doesn't actually ask that much about the actual carrier of the media from what I remember - have I missed that bit?

That was exactly the point that I made earlier that they refer to a 'Product' & not to a disc or other specific physical medium.

[Don Bloom]

It's funny. About once a year we have this discussion and over the years nothing has changed. In the UK the laws and restrictions are different than Aus and the USA. Everyones opinion of what should happen is the same as it was the last time- say a year ago, but especially for those of us that live and work in the USA, I can't see how anything is going to change, The music industry is large and powerful, the video industry isn't. Even the almighty WEVA can't or perhaps won't try to do anything to change the situation. Why should they? They would have to be more of a lobbying organization than a gladhanding and awards organization.
Don't get me wrong. I belonged for 1 year, saw what they did and decided to stop belonging. My choice and for those that might still belong great. If it works for you I'm happy.
Since the working event/wedding videographers of the USA have no real organization to lobby the music industry nothing will change. Why should it. The music industry goes along merrily and randomly going after wedding videographers that use 1, 2 or 3 songs for their clients private (generally) use and while many argue that's stealing and perhaps it is, I don't think any of us wake up in the morning and think about the different ways we can screw the music industry out of their $.02 by using a song that the bride and groom have either on a cd or their iPod anyway and they wanted to have on their wedding dvd so they could listen to it for the next (hopefully) 50 years. Don't laugh, I have albums of my favorite groups from the 1960s. So let's see...Oh yeah, those are 50 years old and believe it or not, I still listen to them. Yes, vinyl, 33 1/3rd RPM ALBUMS. Scratches and all.
I have no problem reading these yearly discussions and in many ways find them enjoyable since each time we have this discussion we get some new input. I'm only saying what I'm saying to the folks in the USA since we seem to have the most restrictive laws. Yes it would be GREAT if we could stike a deal like those in the UK or AUS have but the chances of that IMO are slim and none and slim is heading to the train to get out of town. So what choices do we have. Either we use royality free (nothing wrong with it) or we cheat and steal. Is it wrong, yeah, but do 100s if not 1000s of wedding video producers do it? Of course. Is the music industry not only making it hard on us? Yes. Are they losing hundreds of thousands of dollars? Yes! Will it change? Not in my lifetime.
Just one mans opinion.
Enjoy the rest of this discussion ;-)

[George Kilroy]

You're right Don, this topic comes around with increasing regularity, often prompted by news (or rumours) of someone being sued for using music. But also forums such as this are always attracting newcomers who are trying to find the correct way to go about carrying out this business. When I started one of the main concerns I had was the use of music, all couples wanted it and couldn't see the reason why they couldn't. As many have stated here they couldn't understand why if they already own the music they can have it on their video
For many years I would only use specially arranged instrumental music; One of the group of videographers I worked with was a musician who composed music with a hint of recognisable tunes.

I feel for all of you outside the UK. I guess that the advantage that we have is that we have a very condensed population where it's relatively easy for everyone who needs to to attend conventions and expos. It's at some of these over the years when we as individuals have been able to air our views to those in positions to make changes. At first the agencies such as PRS and MCPS, who are separate organisations attending to different aspects of copyright, turned up at video conventions to deliver lectures on the legalities of using music but slowly they listened to the way we work in real life situations and the licensing deals emerged.

[David J. Payne]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

I'd consider a blu-ray disc to still be a DVD - it's digital, has video on it and is round. The LML doesn't actually ask that much about the actual carrier of the media from what I remember - have I missed that bit?

when purchasing on the PRS site you have a drop down box (only one selection permitted) and on there is both DVD as well as Blu-Ray so it would appear from the purchase form that they treat them as different products, each requiring their own licence.

Having said that, it's so unbelievably stupid, it just can't be right.

[Chris Harding]

Don is right as always!

This certainly won't change in any way in most of our lifetimes so this lively annual discussion will appear again next year with the same comments the same complaints and suggestions. Guess what?? The 2013 thread will also show that the industry hasn't budged an inch either...you can be almost 100% sure about that!!


Since Don is on the verge of retiring from weddings, at least it won't affect him!!

Chris

[Tim Bakland]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Don is right as always!
This certainly won't change in any way in most of our lifetimes so this lively annual discussion will appear again next year with the same comments the same complaints and suggestions. Guess what?? The 2013 thread will also show that the industry hasn't budged an inch either...you can be almost 100% sure about that!!

I've gotten more cynical over the years, but I am not sure about things not changing in our lifetimes. With rapidly changing technology and changing ways we access to music, I could imagine something coming about. But of course, who knows?

[George Kilroy]

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

This certainly won't change in any way in most of our lifetimes so this lively annual discussion will appear again next year with the same comments the same complaints and suggestions.

Since Don is on the verge of retiring from weddings, at least it won't affect him!!

Chris

You must remember Chris that while some of us are starting to roll the end credits many here will be just bringing in the opening title.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by David Payne

when purchasing on the PRS site you have a drop down box (only one selection permitted) and on there is both DVD as well as Blu-Ray so it would appear from the purchase form that they treat them as different products, each requiring their own licence.

Having said that, it's so unbelievably stupid, it just can't be right.

I was recently told by a very experienced wedding videographer that at the beginning of the season he buys 100 licences & just ticks off one for each disc that he gives to a client & when he hits a 100 he buys another batch. That isn't how I had always interpreted the scheme as I thought that licensing was on a per project basis. However having looked at the site again his interpretation seems just as valid.

To put this all into perspective the 32p per disc/product/whatever for up to 120 minutes of copyright music is an awful lot more than is paid for airing the same songs on radio where a fraction of a penny per play is the rule. Apparently when radio stations first started playing music the record companies tried to stop them as they thought that with music available for free on the radio that nobody would want to by records any more. Eventually they must have realised that being paid a small amount for airplay was actually more lucrative as they were also getting free advertising of their product.

[George Kilroy]

Nigel, although the price per disc is more than the price per play that radios stations pay they could well be playing the same song many times so the accumulated payment could be a lot more, whereas the per disc payment is in effect a buy-out.

Another thing to keep in mind is that applying a music track to a video is not just a matter of hearing the song as you watch but it adds a strong enhancement to the visuals and effectively becomes a part of that work so the payment is towards that contribution to the overall production. I'm sure we all appreciate just how music adds mood and emotion to our images, otherwise why would we use it; the power of a music track can make or break otherwise run of the mill images.

Whilst it's the videographer/editor who will have crafted the music/visual montage I have no problem acknowledging the valuable contribution that music adds and don't mind paying for it, in the UK the charge is not unreasonable.

I do agree that the PRS/MCPS could be a bit clearer and realistic with the DVD/Blu-ray situation. They probably still consider Blu-ray to be a premium product attracting a much bigger price to the customer.