Poll - How many requests for this song

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

No offense, but if you don't do weddings you don't really understand the difficulty of the situation for videographers.

I really do understand and sympathize ... but the difficulty you face isn't an excuse to ignore both the letter and the spirit of the law. The difficulty comes in large part not rfrom the licensing system but from your fellow videographers who also use the same excuses to ignore the law - if no one did it, the B&G out there would quickly discover it just ain't gonna happen and the issue of being a competitive disadvantage would disappear in no time at all. And for that to happen requires self-policing within the wedding video industry lead by a cadre of ethical producers who have the courage to just say "no" and demand that their peers follow suite. It'll never get better if everyone just winks at it.

And I'll venture to say the music industry isn't going to be motivated to cooperate in establishing a licensing system until they can feel they're dealing with a group who is as professional as they view themselves to be, something I don't think is happening now. Until you demonstrate a willingness to play by the same rules they follow when they play with each other, they ain't gonna be interested in playing on the same court with you.

I think it is a safe bet to say you would be very angry if another videographer copied a clip of your work and used it in a production of their own without your permission - lets say they use it as a wedding scene in an indy feature they were doing or as part of a documentary on the wedding video industry. Unless you are honestly willing to say that it would be perfectly legitimate for them to do that and it's okay with you, IMO a sense of fairness requires you to apply the same attention to other's music rights in the conduct of your video business as you would expect others to apply to your video rights in their conduct of their business. If it's not okay for someone to use your creative work without permission , it's not okay for you to use someone else's - end of story. The fact it's hard not to because of customer demands, doesn't excuse it.

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Steve House

The difficulty comes in large part not rfrom the licensing system but from your fellow videographers who also use the same excuses to ignore the law - if no one did it, the B&G out there would quickly discover it just ain't gonna happen and the issue of being a competitive disadvantage would disappear in no time at all.

The problem with that logic is that someone WILL always provide that service, and those that don't will just go out of business. It's "pie in the sky" logic.

Originally Posted by Steve House

I think it is a safe bet to say you would be very angry if another videographer copied a clip of your work and used it in a production of their own without your permission - lets say they use it as a wedding scene in an indy feature they were doing or as part of a documentary on the wedding video industry.

I guess honestly that wouldn't bother me, as long as my footage was credited somehow. Having someone else use my work (as long as they don't represent it as their own work) only benefits me by giving me more exposure. Now, if someone takes a clip, and represents it as their own work and doesn't credit me, then yeah, I'd be angry.

The thing is, in my situation, I'm not only NOT representing the song as my own work (everyone in the world already knows it's not), I'm also crediting the artist on the DVD. BUT, that's not all. I'm also purchasing the song for the project, so the artist is gaining exposure AND making money. It's pretty much win-win for the artist.

In your example, I'm only getting exposure, and I'd honestly be fine with that.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

...crediting the artist on the DVD. BUT, that's not all. I'm also purchasing the song for the project, so the artist is gaining exposure AND making money. It's pretty much win-win for the artist.

...

That's just it - you haven't purchased the song. The only thing you purchased is a license to listen to it plus (perhaps) a piece of CD substrate plastic.

[James Klatt]

I have never been approached about that song.

"The letter of the law". Give me a break! If somebody else used my work to enhance their art I would be so flattered I wouldn't know what to do. It would be the ultimate compliment! Don't assume that all people are like you, and would be offended.

Besides, the record companies rip off the artists infinity times the impact of some old wedding videographer. They try to squeeze them for every ounce of money they can. They(artists) mostly make their riches on concessions of merchandise and ticket sales. I have many friends who are involved in the music business as their sole source of income. I asked them about this once. They could give a shi*t! They are worried about their nasty and tricky contract.

[Travis Cossel]

Originally Posted by Steve House

That's just it - you haven't purchased the song. The only thing you purchased is a license to listen to it plus (perhaps) a piece of CD substrate plastic.

I never claimed to have purchased the song. As you seem to keep ignoring the other points I make, I'm going to assume that you have no argument against them. I'm finished discussing this topic in this thread.

Apologies to the original poster.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

I never claimed to have purchased the song. As you seem to keep ignoring the other points I make, I'm going to assume that you have no argument against them. I'm finished discussing this topic in this thread.

Apologies to the original poster.

Message 17, 8:31pm, 14 Jun

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

The thing is, in my situation, I'm not only NOT representing the song as my own work (everyone in the world already knows it's not), I'm also crediting the artist on the DVD. BUT, that's not all. I'm also purchasing the song for the project, so the artist is gaining exposure AND making money. It's pretty much win-win for the artist.

[Travis Cossel]

When you spoke of "purchasing" a song you were referring to purchasing it with the rights to use it, and I never claimed that. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Travis Cossel

When you spoke of "purchasing" a song you were referring to purchasing it with the rights to use it, and I never claimed that. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

Just as a point of interest, it's not the recording artists rights or publicity that are really involved to any great extent here. There are two or three licenses required in order to legally use a particular recording in your production. The first is the synchronization license which typically comes from the owner of the publishing rights to the lyrics and score and which gives you permission to use the words and music in conjunction with your images, another is the mechanical license allowing you make and distribute copies of the product, and another is the master license which is typically granted by the record label that released the CD you're using and gives you permission to reproduce copies of a specific recorded performance. So if you want to use a recording of "Happy Birthday" sung by Neil Diamond you have to get the first license from Summy-Birchard Music (AOL/Time-Warner) and the other from the record label that released the CD or whoever now owns the rights to that CD that you're using. Even if you record yourself performing it so master rights aren't an issue, you would still need the sync license if the recording is going to be used in a commerical video, which a wedding or event video you're getting paid to produce for a client certainly would be. (And those sync and performance licenses for "Happy Birthday" alone bring in about $2 million a year to AOL/TW according to what I've recently read).