Using copyrighted music for weddings

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

The distinction between recording an event as it happens and "scoring" or "syncing" as is done in a movie for effect seems simple enough, but you do have the issue of editing...

...

Steve: you remind me of the types that intellectually would like media to self destruct 5 seconds after it's played, and then you have to buy it all over again... as a practical matter, it is possible to buy a CD, and "own" the content - SURE, there are those who want us to pay for EVERY instance EVERY time that a song is played, for EVERY possible use... it's a nice argument... but not very realistic, AND AFAIK the courts have not upheld that interpretation.

...

If the B&G give you their CD and ask you to integrate it into the recording of their day, all you've done is "format shift" the music for them, something at least in theory they have the right to do, or pay you to do for them.

Post that same thing on the internet or make a pile of copies, now you're over the line. I'd probably sue you if I was an atty <wink>. Then again there's those 54 million dollar pants - there are limits to the absurdity... but not to the arguments attys can make!



Travis: those photogs realize that their "slideshow" gets really boring really quick, and that having a "soundtrack" makes it "work better"... now they just crossed the line above where they are producing a "movie" (actually more of a "performance art" piece)... DOH@!

...

DB>)

I've never said that one should pay per use or that personal copying for one's own use should be illegal .. quite the contrary, I'm firmly opposed to such notions and a staunch defender of fair use and the right of individual consumers to make personal copies for their own use and backup. I've got a few favourite CDs, for example, that were very hard to locate - think I'm going to take them in the car with me on a trip where they're easily lost, stolen, or damaged? Not on your life! But there's a big difference between making a copy to take in the car (which is perfectly within the law, BTW) and making a copy to send to you and a huge difference if I incorporated the music from that CD into a product I wanted to sell to you to make it more to your liking.

Interesting that your response to Travis agrees that synching the music to a slideshow of still images is over the line and no longer fair use, yet you maintain that using a music track as the sound track and synching the moving images of the video in something such as "love story" segments or video montages of the B&G is acceptable. I think most of the people here would disagree that the role of the wedding videographer is that of a passive recorder of events - they're flat-out making movies and some of them do breathtakingy beautiful work. Some of the montages I've seen are wonderful examples of filmmaking and I'll be the first to acknowledge and admire the talent that's there. And that's the rub. We're not talking about incidental music where it's just a part of the background in the environment, like shots of dancing at the reception whîle a few snatches of the music they're dancing to is heard or interviewing the bride's father while we also hear the DJ's music being played in the background. We're talking about assembling a series of romantic clips into a storyline and cutting it to the music of the B&G's favourite song as the only or principal track for that segment of the show. The story of a wedding is a documentary movie that is just as crafted as "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," the only difference (aside from budget) being that the wedding video is a story of a real wedding while the Hollywood movie is fiction.

Read back over what you've written - what you've said, in effect, is that the wedding videographer crosses the line when his work makes it possible for third parties to copy the music as a result of his posting the video on the web etc, overlooking the fact that the wedding videographer's copying the music into the video's soundtrack in order to sell the video to the B&G is in no way different from anyone else making and distributing copys for whatever purpose.

[Brian Peterson]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

SO, who wants to put a company together to do digital rights management for videographers? Might be worth exploring... anyone got a few thousand spare hours?

Actually it already exists and is called Zoom http://www.weva.com/cgi-bin/newsread...o&storyid=3667. Unfortunately even with a national association and a company already set up and ready to go, the big 5 are completely ignoring their attempts to engage in negotiations.

[Neil Fitchett]

Anybody know why they are unwilling to negotiate? what's the issue? It would seem like a win for everyone. For the big 5, a new revenue stream, fewer people pirating their property, lower legal costs defending their property. For the videographers, they pay the fee, obey the law, and sleep well at night. What am I missing here?

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

What is humorous (I'm assuming now, since I haven't listened to that NPR piece for at least a year), is he talks about "as long as you're documenting the wedding and not making a movie about the wedding..."
Aside from the gross ambiguity there, it's also debatable that the wedding pros are "documenting" vs "making a movie." Does documenting include compositing, color correction, 3D titles, and professional editing? All are components of making a movie, too. Where is the line in the sand?
I look at the works of a guy like Glenn Elliot and I don't see "documenting." I see "cinematography/movie."

The line in the sand for me would be whether you are documenting a real wedding, or making a movie that contains a wedding where it isn't real, and everyone on screen is a paid actor. At that point, even the incidental background music is carefully chosen as part of the overall setting of the scene.

When you document, you have no directorial control of the elements (incidental background music included) or people in the scene except for stopping or reframing.

That's just my personal thought of where the line in the sand would be drawn. Using color correction, fx, and compositing are in my mind something that attempts, for lack of a better analogy, to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

-gb-

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Brian Peterson

Actually it already exists and is called Zoom http://www.weva.com/cgi-bin/newsread...o&storyid=3667. Unfortunately even with a national association and a company already set up and ready to go, the big 5 are completely ignoring their attempts to engage in negotiations.

Wow. I just signed up for that and searched their database for a bunch of popular songs and artists and got ZERO results. Hopefully that will change at some point because I like the system they have set up.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Greg: exactly my point as to the event... and what Steve is saying about "producing" an event where you add non-incidental music is where the question lies... my argument is that if the B&G provide their own music to you to "add flavor" to the video for their own private and personal use, then they have format shifted their own music, and it's not illegal. If the videographer grabs a CD off his shelf... then he's made an "ilegal" copy...

Steve: It's great trading ideas, I think we're in general agreement - if a photographer or a videographer syncs a music track (which I'm presuming he owns for personal use) for a public promotional display (it's sort of "for profit", per se, but I'm not sure that would stick...), he's on dangerous ground - in my mind there's no reason he shouldn't use one of the programs out there to compose an original track that is thematically appropriate. Of course, it's the songs we recognize that "move" us... thus why the urge to use those songs is so strong...

Let's say you (Steve) have a video you made, and you want to use some of that rare music on the CD's you agree you have the right to format shift, as "ambience"... as long as it's for personal private non profit use... you're OK, right?

Now lets say you don't have the equipment, but you want a video of a special event, and you want that same "ambience", you hand the guy doing the video a copy of your CD, and say "use track #3" - you're the "producer", you're using your own music, why is the guy who just does you the service breaking the law? What you're saying is that by providing the service the videographer is breaking the law, that's where I disagree

All that said, I'll be diggin' into that Zoom site - looks like it might answer these questions, IF popular music is available, and that looks like a BIG if as of the moment, but maybe over time and with enough requests... lets all go over and start requesting!!!

DB>)

[Travis Cossel]

After having no luck searching for popular songs and artists at ZOOM, I decided to just browse through the 186 pages of artists/songs that they DID have.

I examined about every 5th page, and only found one song by an artist that I recognized (Rocky Marciano). I was very surprised, considering they are touting that hundreds of songs from "popular" artists have already been cleared. I'd say they have about zero still.

[Brian Peterson]

Originally Posted by Neil Fitchett

Anybody know why they are unwilling to negotiate? what's the issue? It would seem like a win for everyone. For the big 5, a new revenue stream, fewer people pirating their property, lower legal costs defending their property. For the videographers, they pay the fee, obey the law, and sleep well at night. What am I missing here?

The only people who can answer your question are the 5 presidents of major corporations and their lap dogs the RIAA. From there follow the money or the possible perceived lack of money in this case.

Or just plain bull headedness. One person who should be in the know or at least claims to be, told me once that "why should they raise a hand to help you, your the crook." How can you argue with that illogic?

When it comes to Zoom, someone discovered a while back that they are actually owned by an independent label that evidently has no ties to the major 5 and exists on their own. Most of the music that is approved evidently comes from their library. Evidently there are some forward thinkers out there.

Other things I have been able to piece together. Evidently they were close to signing Universal, in the hopes that with one major on board the other 4 would join. Near the end of negotiations Universal pulled out, have not ever been able to find out why. But from comments that the president of that universal music has made about other issues recently, I can guess why... Pure greed.

I believe and I have no confirmation of this that Zoom is using the music request submittal numbers in an attempt of lobbying the corporations by saying, look at how many have requested the song and if you sign on you'll make... This is my guess, but it would make sense.

My assumption on Zoom is they won't get far any time soon. In an industry where they are doing their best to make market entry as impossible as possible to reduce competition, a third party label with their own forward thinking idea isn't going to go far in getting the big guys on board. After all they have found a way to "tax" even music that is owned by the independent artist and is given away by that artist.

At this juncture I think it is also a good question as to who exactly controls the industry? The 5 or the RIAA? If you follow the money, it appears to be the RIAA! Even with the setbacks they have recently suffered, the RIAA is getting rich off of lawsuits and they have publically/proudly proclaimed that they are keeping all of the winnings from the cases to in their words "launch additional lawsuits". The RIAA is getting a double whammy, they are being paid by the 5 to fight these court cases and they get to keep the spoils, you do the math. We are just another potential revenue source for a pack of lawyers down the road. The 5 can take a few bucks from us or keep their raving dogs happy with plenty of treats. Follow the money.

Anyways, my last point, the laws are so screwed up, I'm not even sure such a program is actually attainable. Technically you need the label's and the artist's permission and either one can say no for any reason. So every artist has to have signed off on the program and I'm sure paid to do so and the labels have to sign off.... It's a mess, that is the one fact that can be said.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

There isn't much to add to this thread, other than to say that the label has usually little/no say in who can or cannot license, approve, use, permit the use of a composition.
The publisher does, the artist does, depending on their agreement with the publisher. That's it, in most cases.
The RIAA has no control over licensing any more than the MPAA has control over who can license film clips, or than the NAB has over television licensing/radio licensing, etc.
While the process may be convoluted, it's actually quite simple.
All that said, not one person in any community in which I've seen/responded to/debated with/informed in 12 years has come up with a financial model that makes even the least amount of sense for a publisher or artist to administratively/fiscally deal with.
Australia has the best model thus far (IMO), but they have an exceptionally limited pool compared to the USA. Their model incorporates US copyrighted works.

[Dave Blackhurst]

looked at Zoom... whole lotta nuthin... good idea, but no "inventory"... back to the drawing board.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

...

Let's say you (Steve) have a video you made, and you want to use some of that rare music on the CD's you agree you have the right to format shift, as "ambience"... as long as it's for personal private non profit use... you're OK, right?

Now lets say you don't have the equipment, but you want a video of a special event, and you want that same "ambience", you hand the guy doing the video a copy of your CD, and say "use track #3" - you're the "producer", you're using your own music, why is the guy who just does you the service breaking the law? What you're saying is that by providing the service the videographer is breaking the law, that's where I disagree

...

DB>)

In the first place he is not simply assembling materials created by the B&G. He is making a movie, taking video he shot of an event and assembling it into a coherent storyline that tells the couple's personal story. Think a film of an event that the filmmaker doesn't personally control isn't a powerful story all the same? Take a look at Leni Reifenstahl's film about the 1936 Berlin Olympics!

If you take a photo from a magazine and put it into your scanner and copy it to make a neeto desktop wallpaper for your computer, you're legal. But if you take that photo to Kinkos and ask them to make a poster of it for you, they'll refuse because it is illegal for them to do that.

You said "you're using your own music" [on the CD you own]. But it's not you music, it remains the property of the publisher. All that you own when you buy a CD is a plastic disk.

[Jason Robinson]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

looked at Zoom... whole lotta nuthin... good idea, but no "inventory"... back to the drawing board.

The classical music they DID have was limited..... but most importantly..... there is no preview! How can I tell if the song might fit my need if I can't hear it? What if the version of Canon they have is horrible? Or too fast? OR uses lots of brass and I wanted a more mellow string sound?

And the meta data is lacking too. No the performer / composer are mixed up many times.

Too bad really..... I would LOVE to use their stuff! Magnatune looks like the only source of high quality classical recordings but their license costs are HIGH. An example is $17 for a song with 5 or less DVDs sold. A Wedding takes a 6 or so songs. so that is ~$100 in Music! Cutting back on the number of songs, or mixing in some Cinescore stuff could probably make the production possible.

Of course this is still better than anything available from the major studios.... that is to say they offer nothing.

jason

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Jason Robinson

...
Too bad really..... I would LOVE to use their stuff! Magnatune looks like the only source of high quality classical recordings but their license costs are HIGH. An example is $17 for a song with 5 or less DVDs sold. A Wedding takes a 6 or so songs. so that is ~$100 in Music! Cutting back on the number of songs, or mixing in some Cinescore stuff could probably make the production possible.
...
jason

That's actually pretty reasonable costs, IMHO. Look at it this way - even going illegal and buying into the (inaccurate) rationalization that if you buy the CD the song is on, you can copy it to the video, you'd be looking at buying 6 CDs (how often are all 6 songs from the same album?) at $15 to $20 a pop. $100 for music is peanuts, just add it into your rates.

In addition to Cinescore, look into the new layered music offerings from SmartSound Sonicfire. Very impressive.

[Jim Bucciferro]

Smartsound and Digital Juice produce some great buyout music and at good cost. There are always specials going on at DJ so you can get a good variety of music. Granted they are all instrumental but they are far from elevator music. I have used them extensively for montages and videos - you can always find something that fits.
Smartsound allows you to fit the music to the length of the video and their library is extensive.

Jim

[Jason Robinson]

Originally Posted by Steve House

That's actually pretty reasonable costs, IMHO. Look at it this way - even going illegal and buying into the (inaccurate) rationalization that if you buy the CD the song is on, you can copy it to the video, you'd be looking at buying 6 CDs (how often are all 6 songs from the same album?) at $15 to $20 a pop. $100 for music is peanuts, just add it into your rates.

In addition to Cinescore, look into the new layered music offerings from SmartSound Sonicfire. Very impressive.

I was comparing Magnatune's prices to royalty free music where you buy the song for $30 and have practically unlimited use of the song in an unlimited number of projects.

Regarding Cinescore, I am liking it less and less. Too clumsy for controlling the score. It really is more of a "fire and forget" sort of app. Best if you just need some background filler. I have not looked into Smartsound yet. I just signed up for their demo download so I'll see what it is like.

jason