Client not happy with music limitations

[Paul R Johnson]

I had to smile this week when one of my videos was tagged by youtube for potential copyright infringement. I'm happy. Very odd you may think. I'm in a tribute band, and we play beach boys songs, and youtube identified the song, and the right recording date. Their software is getting very good now, so anyone who uploads anything now is going to be scrutinised. So much depends on what the copyright owner wants to do? Add an ad, or ban it!

[John Nantz]

Paul -
Just read your post:
"I had to smile this week when one of my videos was tagged by youtube for potential copyright infringement. I'm happy. Very odd you may think. I'm in a tribute band, and we play beach boys songs, and youtube identified the song, and the right recording date. Their software is getting very good now, so anyone who uploads anything now is going to be scrutinised. So much depends on what the copyright owner wants to do? Add an ad, or ban it!"

I'm wondering, what do you think the odds are that Google is getting some kind of kickback for spotting copyright violations? My guess is they must be making money doing it or they wouldn't be so zealous.

Now then, what about videos? Maybe those who produce videos should be getting the same kind of service as the music people?

[Robert Benda]

Originally Posted by John Nantz

I'm wondering, what do you think the odds are that Google is getting some kind of kickback for spotting copyright violations? My guess is they must be making money doing it or they wouldn't be so zealous.

They don't get sued anymore, that's what they get out of it. They dealt with a bunch of lawsuits some years ago over allowed copyrighted content.

[David Barnett]

Originally Posted by John Nantz

I'm wondering, what do you think the odds are that Google is getting some kind of kickback for spotting copyright violations? My guess is they must be making money doing it or they wouldn't be so zealous.

Not sure its a "kickback" per se, but more they probably revenue share in all advertising. I would think for all the ads shown on Youtube Google gets a 10% or 20% cut of it with the copyright holder getting the remaining. It may not be exact I'm sure someone can look it up if they want, its probably out there in GoogleLand.. Preventing lawsuits too, which was inevitably going to come, but advertising generates revenue for both as opposed to simply banning copyrighted music.

[Danny O'Neill]

Dont charge more for not getting publicity. That's just good customer service.

Upload it online but password protect it. It is annoying that we can easily licence music for disks but not online. The music industry is STILL trying to ignore the fact that the internet exists.

If you make it public then re-cut it with your own song choice and a licenced one.

[Clive McLaughlin]

I actually emailed PRSformusic there to ask point blank what I need. I explained to her that they are wedding videos played on Vimeo and on my site.

She told me that PROL is all I need to cover myself.

£60 a year for under 120,000 streams.

Thats the cost of two Music Bed Licenses.

That can't be right, can it???

[James Manford]

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

I actually emailed PRSformusic there to ask point blank what I need. I explained to her that they are wedding videos played on Vimeo and on my site.

She told me that PROL is all I need to cover myself.

£60 a year for under 120,000 streams.

Thats the cost of two Music Bed Licenses.

That can't be right, can it???

BARGAIN ... why can't it be right? you have it in writing.

Buy the PROL, print that email, print & file it in your cabinet. If a law suit were to ever arise, HIGHLY unlikely. Just whip out that document and claim you were mis-informed !

[Dave Partington]

So I wasn't so far out then :D I remembered it being something like that.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Clive McLaughlin

I actually emailed PRSformusic there to ask point blank what I need. I explained to her that they are wedding videos played on Vimeo and on my site.

She told me that PROL is all I need to cover myself.

£60 a year for under 120,000 streams.

Thats the cost of two Music Bed Licenses.

That can't be right, can it???

No it can't be right. For the reason that I posted earlier amongst others:-

The Performing Right Online Licences covers the act of communicating music to the public when you want to use music online and have already cleared the mechanical rights (i.e. the right to copy/reproduce the track) separately.

Look at the the full T&Cs for more evidence http://www.prsformusic.com/users/bro...conditions.pdf

3.2 For the avoidance of doubt, licences granted under this Agreement do not grant any “synchronisation licence” covering the initial fixation of Repertoire Works in combination with visual images to create and produce content.

I am not trying to be a smart arse but the girl at the PRS has it wrong. However if you have it in writing that it covers your wedding videos for just £60/year then good luck.

[Roger Gunkel]

As I don't upload my weddings the licensing is not something that worries me, but surely part 3.2 of the t&c is covered by the parallel application of the Limited availability licence, which gives the right to use the music in the first place. Does the addition of the PROL then extend those rights to online use?

Roger

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

As I don't upload my weddings the licensing is not something that worries me, but surely part 3.2 of the t&c is covered by the parallel application of the Limited availability licence, which gives the right to use the music in the first place. Does the addition of the PROL then extend those rights to online use?

Roger

No.

It's a Limited Manufacturing licence. It licences music on a physical product.

[Giroud Francois]

you have to explain the customer there is no music limitation, if they get money the can have anything they want. The limitation is on their bank account.
Once they understand this, they understand that anything they do for not paying the musical rights is illegal, they welcome you for proposing alternative solution.
Front the lawyer point of you , you should not even mention the "if you do this , do not mention my name", because it implies you are encouraging illegal activity while perfectly knowing the case.
The customer can always say he dos not knew it was illegal and that the "guy who made the movie advised us to proceed like this".

[Dmitri Zigany]

Originally Posted by James Manford

Sick to the back of my teeth because we have to pay so much for all these songs yet people are using torrents to download illegally and millions of websites hosting pirated software, movies, games, music etc.

If anything the work we do promotes the artist! You always get people asking, that song is nice, who is it by!?

So, if I want to make a video for one of my songs, I'll just use your video footage cause it's good for you cause you'll get PR from it if people ask who's shot the footage... Thanks, that'll save me some money when it's time to make our next video!

I'm sick to the back of my teeth because I have to pay so much for all this video footage yet people are using torrents to download illegally and millions of websites hosting pirated software, movies, games, music etc.

[John Nantz]

The discussion here has been interesting, especially as it pertains to the legal aspects of using music in the audio track. Just thought I'd throw out a few more thoughts.

First, to make an assumption, can one assume that a couple who hires a videographer (or videography company) to record their wedding tend to be financially slightly better off than someone who doesn't? And if so, then would it seem that they would want to protect themselves from a lawsuit?

If a professional videographer wants to market and sell a product (wedding video) then it would seem that it would be a good business practice to also protect ones self from a lawsuit but going through the appropriate process to obtain any necessary rights to the music audio soundtrack. At first glance (and second glance), this process appears to be a quagmire. The confusion comes about based on various countries and their copyright laws and also what copyright one wants to obtain. This site has some definition of the different rights: Iamusic.com: Music Licenses & Copyrights

Selling one's services:
Part of selling is service is to show the client that they are getting a good value for their money. In the case of copyrighted music then one could show that the proper process was used and the legal rights were obtained; hence, they (and you) are protected. Sure, it will cost a little bit more but isn't it worth it to not worry about some big legal firm coming after you (your client)?

There are several ways this could be shown like by using paper or, maybe better yet, showing the rights in the product that is given to the client. This could be done via credits in the video or provided as a separate file.

Personally, I'd recommend including something in the video as a minimum. As an aside, I am also a musician and on my sheet music at the bottom of the front page there is always something that tells who the publisher is and who owns the rights to the sheet music. There is, I think, always something that says how it may be used, like not for profit, or something like that. Something like this, stating the terms of use, could be easily added somewhere in the video.

Example on one sheet:
© Copyright 1954 Robbins Music Corporation, New York, N.Y.
This arrangement © Copyright 1968 Robbins Music Corporation, N.Y.
International Copyright Secured Made in U.S.A. [this was on the printed sheet music]
All Rights Reserved Including Public Performance For Profit
Any arrangement or adaption of this composition without the consent of the owner is an infringement of copyright

At the top of the sheet:
Words by [author]
Music by: [composer]

Also note "Cue Sheets" on the above link. For a video with several tracks something along these lines might be used.

There is also a company called "Motion Picture Licensing Corporation" at this link MPLC | Motion Picture Licensing Corporation
Maybe something like this is what us videographers should be looking into.

An Internet search for licensing reveals there are numerous "organizations" that are in the "business" of "protecting" artists. Of course they all do it for some money up front and a little percentage after that, right? Somehow while writing this the word "Mafia" comes to mind only in this case it is like death from a thousand cuts.

[Clive McLaughlin]

Thats all well in good, and I'm more than aware of the reasons for being legal etc...

Truth is...

Out of my local competitors, some of us use musicbed etc, but quite a few just use whatever (including, the most popular and expensive guy).

It is a fact that if you are the same price as another guy, the client will choose the guy who is allowing them their favourite song.

I'd say nearly every client of mine queries the music part of my T&Cs.

I explain the law, and reluctantly they usually say 'oh, oh well, I suppose thats ok then'. I don't like that my client is a bit down about something even if they go ahead and book. I'd rather they were happy and excited.

Back to my local market - aside from the fact we hear about these big high profile law suits - I've no knowledge of anyone in my locality getting in any trouble for it.

What are the actual stats?

How many people on here know of somebody in their locality who has fallen foul?

If the law has to be so stringent, its a pity in can't be enforced better in order to allow a level playing field and reduce the temptation.