Church Rip off?

Noa Put · June 18th, 2015, 10:59 AM

I still don't get it, they ARE getting payed to sing at a wedding, why do they want to charge extra if they are being recorded and lets say the couple pays them extra for that, do we as videograhers have the same right to charge extra as well for including the musician in our video as they are benefiting from this exposure as well, should we also have the right to say to the bride, sorry, we won't record the musician if they or you don't pay extra? To me it sounds rather silly and just a way to get more money, am I alone? Just because a Union or society supports that thought doesn't make it right as they are probably are getting their share as well so ofcourse they don't mind :D It is strange though as I never have encountered this behavior from any musician I have recorded (and i place a recorder in front of them every time and often even get a direct feed from their mixer) but I guess they want to keep being hired (and paid like any other vendor) at weddings.

Jeff Harper · June 18th, 2015, 11:08 AM

IMO it's opportunism, pure and simple.

Paul R Johnson · June 18th, 2015, 11:53 AM

Last year, I was running a show with two big, expensive illusions - a flying magic carpet, that flew over the audience, and a gigantic gorilla. The carpet needed 5 people to work it, the gorilla 4. The person in charge of these teams worked for me, and did these sequences as part of her job. The others belong to the venue, and are paid (and I sign off their time sheets) for each show. These two effects are considered 'on-stage effects' and this means each person got a wadge of money for each sequence - 160 payments per person. Each sequence lasted two minutes, and again, I had to sign these off, even though that person was already being paid for each show.

This is another accepted system, agreed with the unions - BECTU in this case. It's good for the crew, and expensive for the production company - but even as the person who has to pay it, I don't consider it a rip-off. It's simply business.

I'm very happy with people not agreeing with musicians getting better pay for wider use, but it doesn't mean they should not get it. As said, many don't mind - but when people don't ask, they get fed up and feel unappreciated.

Jeff Harper · June 18th, 2015, 12:14 PM

Considering that filming of weddings is normal, not an exception, for an organist or other church musicians to be resentful or reluctant to be recorded or to want extra pay for it is nonsense.

They should not have to be asked if it's ok to be recorded, that's idiotic because it's the nature of weddings that they are recorded.

If they are weird about being filmed they should find something else to do on Saturday afternoons.

George Kilroy · June 18th, 2015, 12:20 PM

"do we as videograhers have the same right to charge extra as well for including the musician in our video"

Well the answer to that is yes of course you have the right to include any terms in your contract, so long as they are legal. The reality would be that if you did you'd probably loose some commissions as I'm sure couples wouldn't want to pay that fee, or ask or expect the musicians they hire to, on the other hand some musicians do exercise that right to ask for more and seemingly get it, so who has the best business model? I have come across it a few times in churches, and even had one angry soloist confront me after the wedding demanding that I didn't use the footage as she had not agreed to be filmed. As well as that I have had a few musicians decline to be recorded in civil venues as they'd not been informed before hand that they would be recorded - the implication being they'd have asked for more money.

A couple of occasions I've been asked not to film the groom's/father's speech as they insisted that he'd be too nervous if they knew that they were being recorded. I respect their right to refuse in the same way I'd expect to be respected when I'm filming. One instance was a church with a very sophisticated AV system I was asked to connect my main camera into their system to relay the footage to large screens and for it to be recorded for the church's own record. I refused as I didn't want all of my framing and focusing watched by the congregation nor allow the footage to be kept and used by the church for their own purposes.

As videographers we sometime become so immersed in our work that we loose the bigger picture and forget that even though we see the tremendous value there is for the B&G not everyone is as enthusiastic or even comfortable being filmed. Being invited to or asked to contribute to a wedding doesn't take away the right to refuse or insist on some sort of reward for agreeing to be filmed. I never felt it my part to take up the battle against additional fees on behalf of the clients. I stated that any fees or charges were the responsibility of the client, it's not my fight.

George Kilroy · June 18th, 2015, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Considering that filming of weddings is normal, not an exception, for an organist or other church musicians to be resentful or reluctant to be recorded or to want extra pay for it is nonsense.

They should not have to be asked if it's ok to be recorded, that's idiotic because it's the nature of weddings that they are recorded.

If they are weird about being filmed they should find something else to do on Saturday afternoons.

It may be normal in Cincinnati but where I lived it was only a very small percentage of weddings that used a hired videomaker.
I'm not sure when the videographer's role in the day became the over-riding reason for the event so much that anyone who didn't want to play should find something else to do,;take their ball and go home.

Jeff Harper · June 18th, 2015, 12:40 PM

Who says its about videographer's role? I missed that comment George. The bride is the one being exploited, not the videographer.

Peter Rush · June 18th, 2015, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Kilroy

I have come across it a few times in churches, and even had one angry soloist confront me after the wedding demanding that I didn't use the footage as she had not agreed to be filmed. As well as that I have had a few musicians decline to be recorded in civil venues as they'd not been informed before hand that they would be recorded - the implication being they'd have asked for more money.

It's in my Ts & Cs that the couple get permission from all participants and pay any relevant fees - if a musician on the day objects then that's fine by me - I would tell the couple asap however in case they wished to resolve it.

Noa Put · June 18th, 2015, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Kilroy

As videographers we sometime become so immersed in our work that we loose the bigger picture and forget that even though we see the tremendous value there is for the B&G not everyone is as enthusiastic or even comfortable being filmed.

For me the bigger picture is clear, it's the couple who expects me to document every detail and part of their day, that's what I"m hired to do and paid for. Ofcourse anyone refusing to be filmed I will take into consideration and inform the couple about it the day of the wedding if I find it important enough, that could be a musician that doesn't want to appear on film but could also be a priest that objects on certain cameraplacements which could have an effect on the endresult although that rarely happens here. In that case my client is aware about it and either is ok with that or not but they will have to take it further up with the person that doesn't want to be filmed, not me. Most important for me is when I deliver and get paid in full I will not have to get into an argument with the client why certain parts of the day where not filmed, that's something I always will try to prevent.

Steve Burkett · June 18th, 2015, 02:43 PM

Those supporting that additional fees are okay aren't making their arguments for it clearly consistent.

Is it for copyright reasons, then do the choir own the copyright to the music they sing? If for their singing of it, then there's a license to cover that, which churches are quite familiar with.

Is it to acknowledge them as artists performing on the day, if so why do the vast majority of cases occur with church of England Choirs and Organists - are they more deserving of extra fees compared to bands, musicians, entertainers and any other Religious choir I may record for a Wedding. Or to be more precise, why are they more likely to ask?

Is the fee to cover feeling uncomfortable being filmed. Should one charge for that? There's plenty of examples of my being uncomfortable in my work. Do I charge extra for an awkward vicar who makes my life hell, a difficult Photographer. Maybe working whilst I'm ill qualifies. Musicians are just another vendor. Being filmed whether by a Professional or a guest is to be expected and with mobile phones and tablets dominating the guests range of equipment, its unusual if some parts of the day aren't captured by video. You don't go to Weddings and not expect to be caught on someones camera. Get use to it or don't do Weddings.

Besides those musicians here supporting this choir maybe guilty of applying their own views and experiences onto them and not considering the choir's reasons may differ from their own were they in a similar situation. A small extra fee is understandable to cover filming. If there are further concerns, a request to limit the number of copies of the video or even an instruction not to include the organist and choir music and replace the live audio for those sections with other music tracks. I've done both before for Weddings and this would resolve the matter far more directly than fleecing the couple by charging double the standard fee. There's covering your role as an artist and then there's taking the piss. Double fees feels more like the latter when other options are available.

Roger Gunkel · June 18th, 2015, 03:01 PM

Paul, I don't see your examples as being relevant, as they apply to part of a show which is a commercial product that is being sold, so any video of that product that is sold, is potentially taking money from the owners pocket.

A wedding is a totally different scenario and the end product is a record of the day and is not a commercial product. A band that has been paid to play at the wedding is incidental to the day and any music on the video is going to be in the context of the wedding with shots of dancers and general atmosphere and not a continuous commercial recording of the band's performance. If a recording of the band was made as a complete work with commercial or resale potential, then I would completely agree that a negotiated price should be agreed for the video rights. The idea that the family should pay extra so that they can see bits of that part of the day which is incidentally captured is nonsense in my opinion, and that is also from my own experience as a musician playing at weddings. The logical progress of that idea, is that the couple should sign an agreement with the videographer that any viewing of the wedding video beyond a certain number of times, or any viewings by non members of the immediate family should be the subject of extras copyright fees to the videographer.

There clearly should be a legal exception for incidental involvement, which is possibly where the limited availability licence comes into play. Not being a lawyer I am in no position to throw any light on that.

Roger

Dave Partington · June 18th, 2015, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I still don't get it, they ARE getting payed to sing at a wedding,

... yes they are, and if you don't record them for later playback then they are being paid for what they do and you are receiving everything you paid for.

However, if you are recording them then you also get to hear / see / enjoy their performance over and over again, performances for which they are not getting paid.

It's a fine line and cleary one that divides people here.

If the bride and groom want to sell their wedding video to a TV company you would probably expect to earn something out of it too. But wait, you were paid to video the wedding, why should you get any more just because they sold your video on to someone else and made money out of it.

Dave Partington · June 18th, 2015, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

A wedding is a totally different scenario and the end product is a record of the day and is not a commercial product.

Of course it's a commercial product, you're charging for it as a business!

Noa Put · June 18th, 2015, 03:25 PM

Dave, you might want to change the name for the quote, I didn't say that.

Dave Partington · June 18th, 2015, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Dave, you might want to change the name for the quote, I didn't say that.

Done, not sure why the software did that!

June 18th, 2015, 10:59 AM	#31
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,510	Re: Church Rip off? I still don't get it, they ARE getting payed to sing at a wedding, why do they want to charge extra if they are being recorded and lets say the couple pays them extra for that, do we as videograhers have the same right to charge extra as well for including the musician in our video as they are benefiting from this exposure as well, should we also have the right to say to the bride, sorry, we won't record the musician if they or you don't pay extra? To me it sounds rather silly and just a way to get more money, am I alone? Just because a Union or society supports that thought doesn't make it right as they are probably are getting their share as well so ofcourse they don't mind :D It is strange though as I never have encountered this behavior from any musician I have recorded (and i place a recorder in front of them every time and often even get a direct feed from their mixer) but I guess they want to keep being hired (and paid like any other vendor) at weddings.

June 18th, 2015, 11:08 AM	#32
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Church Rip off? IMO it's opportunism, pure and simple. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

June 18th, 2015, 11:53 AM	#33
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,045	Re: Church Rip off? Last year, I was running a show with two big, expensive illusions - a flying magic carpet, that flew over the audience, and a gigantic gorilla. The carpet needed 5 people to work it, the gorilla 4. The person in charge of these teams worked for me, and did these sequences as part of her job. The others belong to the venue, and are paid (and I sign off their time sheets) for each show. These two effects are considered 'on-stage effects' and this means each person got a wadge of money for each sequence - 160 payments per person. Each sequence lasted two minutes, and again, I had to sign these off, even though that person was already being paid for each show. This is another accepted system, agreed with the unions - BECTU in this case. It's good for the crew, and expensive for the production company - but even as the person who has to pay it, I don't consider it a rip-off. It's simply business. I'm very happy with people not agreeing with musicians getting better pay for wider use, but it doesn't mean they should not get it. As said, many don't mind - but when people don't ask, they get fed up and feel unappreciated.

June 18th, 2015, 12:14 PM	#34
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Church Rip off? Considering that filming of weddings is normal, not an exception, for an organist or other church musicians to be resentful or reluctant to be recorded or to want extra pay for it is nonsense. They should not have to be asked if it's ok to be recorded, that's idiotic because it's the nature of weddings that they are recorded. If they are weird about being filmed they should find something else to do on Saturday afternoons. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

June 18th, 2015, 12:20 PM	#35
George Kilroy Major Player Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Midlands UK Posts: 699	Re: Church Rip off? "do we as videograhers have the same right to charge extra as well for including the musician in our video" Well the answer to that is yes of course you have the right to include any terms in your contract, so long as they are legal. The reality would be that if you did you'd probably loose some commissions as I'm sure couples wouldn't want to pay that fee, or ask or expect the musicians they hire to, on the other hand some musicians do exercise that right to ask for more and seemingly get it, so who has the best business model? I have come across it a few times in churches, and even had one angry soloist confront me after the wedding demanding that I didn't use the footage as she had not agreed to be filmed. As well as that I have had a few musicians decline to be recorded in civil venues as they'd not been informed before hand that they would be recorded - the implication being they'd have asked for more money. A couple of occasions I've been asked not to film the groom's/father's speech as they insisted that he'd be too nervous if they knew that they were being recorded. I respect their right to refuse in the same way I'd expect to be respected when I'm filming. One instance was a church with a very sophisticated AV system I was asked to connect my main camera into their system to relay the footage to large screens and for it to be recorded for the church's own record. I refused as I didn't want all of my framing and focusing watched by the congregation nor allow the footage to be kept and used by the church for their own purposes. As videographers we sometime become so immersed in our work that we loose the bigger picture and forget that even though we see the tremendous value there is for the B&G not everyone is as enthusiastic or even comfortable being filmed. Being invited to or asked to contribute to a wedding doesn't take away the right to refuse or insist on some sort of reward for agreeing to be filmed. I never felt it my part to take up the battle against additional fees on behalf of the clients. I stated that any fees or charges were the responsibility of the client, it's not my fight.

June 18th, 2015, 12:40 PM	#37
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Re: Church Rip off? Who says its about videographer's role? I missed that comment George. The bride is the one being exploited, not the videographer. __________________ "The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described."

June 18th, 2015, 02:43 PM	#40
Steve Burkett Trustee Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Romsey, UK Posts: 1,261	Re: Church Rip off? Those supporting that additional fees are okay aren't making their arguments for it clearly consistent. Is it for copyright reasons, then do the choir own the copyright to the music they sing? If for their singing of it, then there's a license to cover that, which churches are quite familiar with. Is it to acknowledge them as artists performing on the day, if so why do the vast majority of cases occur with church of England Choirs and Organists - are they more deserving of extra fees compared to bands, musicians, entertainers and any other Religious choir I may record for a Wedding. Or to be more precise, why are they more likely to ask? Is the fee to cover feeling uncomfortable being filmed. Should one charge for that? There's plenty of examples of my being uncomfortable in my work. Do I charge extra for an awkward vicar who makes my life hell, a difficult Photographer. Maybe working whilst I'm ill qualifies. Musicians are just another vendor. Being filmed whether by a Professional or a guest is to be expected and with mobile phones and tablets dominating the guests range of equipment, its unusual if some parts of the day aren't captured by video. You don't go to Weddings and not expect to be caught on someones camera. Get use to it or don't do Weddings. Besides those musicians here supporting this choir maybe guilty of applying their own views and experiences onto them and not considering the choir's reasons may differ from their own were they in a similar situation. A small extra fee is understandable to cover filming. If there are further concerns, a request to limit the number of copies of the video or even an instruction not to include the organist and choir music and replace the live audio for those sections with other music tracks. I've done both before for Weddings and this would resolve the matter far more directly than fleecing the couple by charging double the standard fee. There's covering your role as an artist and then there's taking the piss. Double fees feels more like the latter when other options are available.

June 18th, 2015, 03:01 PM	#41
Roger Gunkel Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: LIncolnshire, UK Posts: 2,213	Re: Church Rip off? Paul, I don't see your examples as being relevant, as they apply to part of a show which is a commercial product that is being sold, so any video of that product that is sold, is potentially taking money from the owners pocket. A wedding is a totally different scenario and the end product is a record of the day and is not a commercial product. A band that has been paid to play at the wedding is incidental to the day and any music on the video is going to be in the context of the wedding with shots of dancers and general atmosphere and not a continuous commercial recording of the band's performance. If a recording of the band was made as a complete work with commercial or resale potential, then I would completely agree that a negotiated price should be agreed for the video rights. The idea that the family should pay extra so that they can see bits of that part of the day which is incidentally captured is nonsense in my opinion, and that is also from my own experience as a musician playing at weddings. The logical progress of that idea, is that the couple should sign an agreement with the videographer that any viewing of the wedding video beyond a certain number of times, or any viewings by non members of the immediate family should be the subject of extras copyright fees to the videographer. There clearly should be a legal exception for incidental involvement, which is possibly where the limited availability licence comes into play. Not being a lawyer I am in no position to throw any light on that. Roger

June 18th, 2015, 03:25 PM	#44
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,510	Re: Church Rip off? Dave, you might want to change the name for the quote, I didn't say that.