How are videographers dealing with copyright restrictions?

Dave Blackhurst · March 7th, 2012, 02:14 PM

Ignoring for the sake of argument those artists who have sufficient recognizability that they CAN control how their "work" is used...

There are those that argue for a royalty to be paid EVERY time a song is played (obviously absurd with "old" tech, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the concept revived with digital tech... and in radio, they DO account for every play for royalties I believe). The "customer" sees it as a one-time PURCHASE (incorrect, as it is a license, but law has upheld some aspects of a "purchase"), for their use whenever and whatever way they want to play it back (including the right to "shift" the media to a different carrier). People figure that advertising supports the over the air transmission and don't think about the "price", it's "free" for the annoyance of putting up with commercials.

That's the core of problem, there's a vastly differing perception of "value", ranging from "free" to potentially quite expensive. Even more expensive if somehow it's interpreted that you "stole" the IP and are a criminal of the highest order... despite any intents you may or may not have had to legitimately purchase and use the media and see the IP holder "fairly" compensated.

It is after all, a few chords and some words, isn't it, just how they are arranged!? I only note that for the poster who used a composer of "similar" music... still technically infringement...

As far as "change", it wouldn't come cheap, and I don't know if there is even enough interest to organize and fund a lobbying entity, or develop a sound "grassroots" network capable of supporting legislation, as it probably will take that, since much of the problem stems from laws "on the books", resulting from lobbying from the "enforcement" organizations who have sought to protect the value of IP (not that that's a BAD thing!!).

If one studies how "change" takes place in the US, it's pretty complex, and you have to get (buy) the ear of the right "representative", who may or may not draft new legislation, which may or may not pass, and if it affects the interests of someone else, it will be opposed (especially now that Corporations are people too, and can afford "representation" far more readily than an individual not part of a large well funded organization...). Law and Sausages...

The only other possibility is through a media campaign, or public outcry over the topic, and I doubt there's enough interest to even make the back page... a high profile suit with just the right set of outrageous facts might bring this up briefly, but again, not terribly likely.

I don't know how many of you heard about the composer who did the music track for the anti-pirating "commercial" (I believe the one we see regualrly on most DVD's?). His original agreement was for "local" use only, he discovered it went global, and was suing for damages... even the "anti-pirates" were caught "pirating", so the theatre of the absurd plays on...

Much as the recurring discussion here is thoughful, unless there's a real interest in the needed political action (with the requisite $$ and organization), Don hit the proverbial nail with an 18 pound sledge! Frankly I doubt the W&E "industry" has either the necessary money or interest in the effort required to get the changes even onto the radar, let alone done.

Sebastian Alvarez · March 7th, 2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

The only other possibility is through a media campaign, or public outcry over the topic, and I doubt there's enough interest to even make the back page... a high profile suit with just the right set of outrageous facts might bring this up briefly, but again, not terribly likely.

I think the right angle to approach it is to reach out to future brides, grooms and their parents. Other than videographers, they are the other group that will be permanently harmed if the music labels start suing videographers around the clock because they included the bridal march, first dance and party music. They simply will not have it anymore. They will have a video of just the ceremony where the bridal march will have to be muted, no first dance (unless they want it muted as well), and then just the toast and cake cutting, as long as there's no music playing in the background. That has to anger a lot of people. 99.99% of people that are not wedding videographers don't know about this, but if the music labels start suing videographers, people will start to notice. So it will take a lot of those people writing letters to their representatives in congress, and we should start writing those letters as well, explaining that as of now it's practically impossible to be a wedding videographer and stay within the frame of the law, not because we're crooks, but because we have draconian and absurd laws that make it impossible to do our job in a completely legal way.

If congressmen and senators start receiving enough letters explaining this problem, we might be able to shake things up and some day perhaps have a system as good as the UK has.

Chris Harding · March 7th, 2012, 08:06 PM

It a very tough situation to regulate anyway!!!

Please don't think for a moment that our licensing system is good..it's actually full of exclusions and conditions and ONLY covers record companies that have a local release and are members of the organisation.....play a song by AC/DC on your wedding video and BAM you are not covered...if a song released by Sony Music in the USA is included BAM you are not covered.

In fact despite the licence being issued to you, you still have a 50/50 chance that a song (or even an ambient song (what wedding DJ doesn't play an AC/DC song?) makes the whole thing invalid) Here you are even supposed to apply for a licence to transfer a legal, paid for, iTunes song onto your iPod !!! I really and truely wonder who actually has bothered to get one of those???

Chris

David J. Payne · March 8th, 2012, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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.

It is my understanding that in the UK you need to do both. The PPL licence is per disc and I too just bought a batch of 100, they're dirt cheap. MCPS' LM licence on the other hand is per project and price depends on a few factors but they're as cheap as £8 each (up to 5 copies - as long as they're the same format)

March 7th, 2012, 02:14 PM	#61
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Re: How are videographers dealing with copyright restrictions? Ignoring for the sake of argument those artists who have sufficient recognizability that they CAN control how their "work" is used... There are those that argue for a royalty to be paid EVERY time a song is played (obviously absurd with "old" tech, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the concept revived with digital tech... and in radio, they DO account for every play for royalties I believe). The "customer" sees it as a one-time PURCHASE (incorrect, as it is a license, but law has upheld some aspects of a "purchase"), for their use whenever and whatever way they want to play it back (including the right to "shift" the media to a different carrier). People figure that advertising supports the over the air transmission and don't think about the "price", it's "free" for the annoyance of putting up with commercials. That's the core of problem, there's a vastly differing perception of "value", ranging from "free" to potentially quite expensive. Even more expensive if somehow it's interpreted that you "stole" the IP and are a criminal of the highest order... despite any intents you may or may not have had to legitimately purchase and use the media and see the IP holder "fairly" compensated. It is after all, a few chords and some words, isn't it, just how they are arranged!? I only note that for the poster who used a composer of "similar" music... still technically infringement... As far as "change", it wouldn't come cheap, and I don't know if there is even enough interest to organize and fund a lobbying entity, or develop a sound "grassroots" network capable of supporting legislation, as it probably will take that, since much of the problem stems from laws "on the books", resulting from lobbying from the "enforcement" organizations who have sought to protect the value of IP (not that that's a BAD thing!!). If one studies how "change" takes place in the US, it's pretty complex, and you have to get (buy) the ear of the right "representative", who may or may not draft new legislation, which may or may not pass, and if it affects the interests of someone else, it will be opposed (especially now that Corporations are people too, and can afford "representation" far more readily than an individual not part of a large well funded organization...). Law and Sausages... The only other possibility is through a media campaign, or public outcry over the topic, and I doubt there's enough interest to even make the back page... a high profile suit with just the right set of outrageous facts might bring this up briefly, but again, not terribly likely. I don't know how many of you heard about the composer who did the music track for the anti-pirating "commercial" (I believe the one we see regualrly on most DVD's?). His original agreement was for "local" use only, he discovered it went global, and was suing for damages... even the "anti-pirates" were caught "pirating", so the theatre of the absurd plays on... Much as the recurring discussion here is thoughful, unless there's a real interest in the needed political action (with the requisite $$ and organization), Don hit the proverbial nail with an 18 pound sledge! Frankly I doubt the W&E "industry" has either the necessary money or interest in the effort required to get the changes even onto the radar, let alone done.

March 7th, 2012, 08:06 PM	#63
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: How are videographers dealing with copyright restrictions? It a very tough situation to regulate anyway!!! Please don't think for a moment that our licensing system is good..it's actually full of exclusions and conditions and ONLY covers record companies that have a local release and are members of the organisation.....play a song by AC/DC on your wedding video and BAM you are not covered...if a song released by Sony Music in the USA is included BAM you are not covered. In fact despite the licence being issued to you, you still have a 50/50 chance that a song (or even an ambient song (what wedding DJ doesn't play an AC/DC song?) makes the whole thing invalid) Here you are even supposed to apply for a licence to transfer a legal, paid for, iTunes song onto your iPod !!! I really and truely wonder who actually has bothered to get one of those??? Chris