Licensing Copyrighted Music Beds

[David Saraceno]

Many are posting video examples here of commercial work for weddings, SDEs, etc. with music beds of copyrighted music.

What is everybody doing to make certain that they have acquire rights to that music as music beds for videos?

Harry Fox sells mechanical rights, and ZOOM facilitates music licensing for videography so you can use copyrighted music from major labels legally in your wedding and special event video productions and photo montages.

Just wondering because this is a huge issue in the event videography business.

[davidpula]

I'd love to know too.

[Andy Turner]

This has long been a muddy water issue, but a lawyer for my old company once explained to me that if a family provided music to me that they owned (from CD, purchased from itunes etc.) that that music could then be used in a video that was made for their own personal use (picture video, wedding video, family history video etc.) The main issue is whether or not the video is meant for personal use or not. I never use copyrighted music for commercial stuff where the video is being used for the purpose of making money.

[zeroblank]

They way it was always explained to me was that if the video is and event or promo then no one will complain because its almost free exposure for the musical artist. However if you make a film and are selling multiple dvd copies and continue to make money off it then they will want a piece of that money.

This always made sense to me because the truth is if you are doing a wedding video the only people that will ever really see it is the family and friend of the bride and groom. No one is really making money off of it. Except the videographer but you can always argue that you where paid for your time and not for the product.

[MadHMC150]

the only people that will ever really see it is the family and friend of the bride and groom.

So you can't use examples of your videography as a 'reel' if it has licensed music in it? Because, you would be using it for commercial use - to get more clients. If you posted it on the net, you would get a bunch more views then just the family.

Otherwise, if its for the family and they supply the music, you are golden?

[Mike Harvey]

There was a very enlightening thread (which included input from a copyright lawyer) about this over at DVinfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/wedding-event-videography-techniques/238798-music-license-trouble-stupid-me.html).

Long story short, unless you secured the rights to the song (i.e. paid the license), it's illegal.

It doesn't matter who gave it to you, or what it's being used for. Even if the couple or family gave you the song for the sole purpose of including it in a video that will be used for purely private purposes (i.e a wedding video). The reason being that there are also synch rights and such (it is illegal to synchronize the music to other media forms I guess) that also need to be secured.

Practically speaking, in a wedding video where no part is going to end up on the web... no one will know (which was how the thread at DVi got started... the artist actually did see the wedding video on the web and got pissed, but was gracious enough to let it go if the OP gave X amount of money to a certain charity). But the fact that know one will know doesn't make it legal, it just means you haven't been caught yet.

Go read the thread. Very enlightening... but to answer your question, in the US if you use someone else's work in a video you're being paid to make... even a wedding video which will be used for purely private purposes... without getting permission, it is illegal unless it falls under Fair Use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) (and wedding videos generally don't).

[TigerFX]

The way I personally see things, the only thing that can happen to an artist if we use their music in a freely-distributed (web) production is that artist will become more popular. All the time you see people asking in comments "what song did you use" - I've bought songs I found in web videos! We of course need to credit the artist and track.

I think there is a distorted perception that people will refuse to buy a CD because they can "listen to them free in online videos", which makes no sense to me. If I truly like a song, I'm going to buy an MP3 so I can have it on my iPod/play in my playlist, etc. I'm not going to load up that YouTube video 3 times every day to avoid buying the 99-cent track!

[David Saraceno]

It doesn't matter if it makes the artist more popular.

Mike Harvey has it exactly correct:

"Unless you secured the rights to the song, it's illegal."

Waivers don't work, and the bride/groom have no rights to provide music to you that you don't have a license for a music bed for you to profit from.

The real issue, however, is the likelihood of being sued.

A friend of mine thought it was small, and $12,000 later he changed his mind.

That's why companies like ZOOM and Harry Fox are a wiser choice.

If I sound lecturing, I apologize. But when I see links here to youtube and vimeo and commercial music beds, it's an invitation to problems for the videographer

[Mike Harvey]

David is right, Allen. It doesn't matter whether it makes the artist more popular, it's their intellectual property and they have the right to do with as they please. If someone held a party at your house without your permission, even if they cleaned up after themselves, wouldn't you be a little pissed regardless of how popular it might make you?

It's not always about money, either. If I create a video, piece of music, book, or whatever... I have a right to say what it is and isn't associated with. If someone takes that creative work and uses it for something I don't give them permission for, the principle of that would torque me off. What if that piece of music was used for a film I don't agree with, or a written work in a porn mag? It doesn't matter how "popular" it might make me or my work, I have a right to creative control over my creative work. If you took my work and used it as a part of yours without my permission, that isn't fair to me, regardless of how good your work is.

Some IP holders like Lucasfilm are famous for how good they are about their IP's as they do take the view that it's effectively free advertising. So long as it doesn't diminish their IP (like a fan film with Bikini Princess Leah doing a strip tease), or you make a profit (though you can make money to recoup your costs)... they actively encourage it. But they are rare.

Remember, intellectual property is still property. And you simply can not take another's property without permission.

[MadHMC150]

Looking at videos uploaded to youtube we may have a different story. When I was uploading a video with a copyright song, youtube gave me a notice saying the digital rights have been updated. I noticed when I played back the video, a popup was now in the video with a link to buy the song. Thus, it should be legal if the artist is popular enough or had given youtube the right to release in exchange for the popup/marketing.

I also noticed one of my videos was rejected by the drm and the audio was cut out. They obviously said 'no' or aren't up with the times.

Finally, any live event recorded music has not been a problem. Im pretty sure if you are capturing live video/audio with the music playing in your video you are legally able to use the 'live' audio.

Last Q. If I purchased the song, am I able to use the music in a Video that is NOT for PROFIT of any kind?

[TigerFX]

Thanks guys, this is a good discussion (lol @ Mike's analogy... yes, the way you explain it is a great point).


Last Q. If I purchased the song, am I able to use the music in a Video that is NOT for PROFIT of any kind?

I'm pretty sure you can't. If it's going to have a lot of exposure I'd seriously recommend contacting the artist. I did this once for a church video played for ~1,500 people and I just e-mailed the artist's publisher, explained how many people would see it and for how long, and got an "ok" via e-mail :).

[David Saraceno]

I'm pretty sure if you are capturing live video/audio with the music playing in your video you are legally able to use the 'live' audio.

No, that isn't necessarily true.

This is called "incidental reproduction." It may fall into fair use.

However, best not to capture the whole live audio track -- not much law on the subject.

However, why risk any of this?

stock20, digitaljuice and dozens of royalty free music is available.

With STP, and other music bed creation software, why not avoid the whole issue?

[Mike Harvey]

Finally, any live event recorded music has not been a problem. Im pretty sure if you are capturing live video/audio with the music playing in your video you are legally able to use the 'live' audio.

If, say, you recorded a couple's first dance and got the music in the background... that's fine. I forget the precedent, but it's the same as recording someone and a radio or TV is on in the background. It's incidental and not a violation (whether the person playing the music in the background has permission is a different story). This is actually brought up in that DVi thread I linked to. If the point was to record the music and that is the focus of the final product... you're on shaky ground at best. As David points out, this is a gray area of the law. Whether anyone cares is a different story... but that isn't something you can control.



Last Q. If I purchased the song, am I able to use the music in a Video that is NOT for PROFIT of any kind?


Depends. If this is something that's going to get wide airplay, no... unless it falls under Fair Use (i.e parody of the song). If this is something that is for your own private use only, I believe that's fine. It really depends on what the intention is (see the Wikipedia link I posted for Fair Use). Whether it's for profit or not is irrelevant.

Understand something... none of this will prevent a lawsuit. All the Fair Use arguments in the world will not prevent you from getting sued by an over zealous lawyer. It can only be used as a defense in a lawsuit. The only thing that will prevent a lawsuit is a piece of paper saying you have permission to use it. Otherwise, even if you're in the right, your going to lose money (unless you sue to recoup your costs and win).

[zeroblank]

I should clarify that in my post earlier I didnt mean to come off saying it would be legal but rather that you "shouldn't really run into problems"


To everyone that has been knowledgeable in this thread I thank you guys for the information and maybe you can answer this question....

I have heard DJ's talk about a 30 second sampling law, basically that they can use 30 seconds of a song before getting in trouble. If this really exists does it apply to film as well?

[MadHMC150]

No one knows about Youtube? Seems its Warner (and others) that have made a deal with Youtube...

We are able to upload copyrighted music as long as they have negotiated royalties.
Here is an article: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/09/17/warner-music-to-license-music-to-youtube/



" Warner to license music in YouTube videos (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/09/17/warner-music-to-license-music-to-youtube/) by Marshall Kirkpatrick (http://www.techcrunch.com/author/marshall/) on September 17, 2006

http://cache0.techcrunch.com/wp-content/youtubelogo.png (http://youtube.com/)
YouTubehttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v6.0.0.1/t.gif (http://youtube.com/) and Warner Music Group Corp. will announcehttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v6.0.0.1/t.gif (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14885094/) a deal Monday that will put thousands of Warner music videos on the video sharing site and allow user created videos to legally use Warner owned music. YouTube is reported to have created technology that will automatically detect when copyrighted music is used in videos, give Warner the right to accept or reject those videos and will calculate the royalty fees Warner is owed. Financial details haven’t been disclosed yet, but may include a cut of advertising revenue in exchange for licensing rights. It’s also unclear who will pay the royalty fees; that payment may come out of the advertising revenue or it may be demanded of the individual users who have put Warner music in their videos. That could get interesting. Warner’s last experiment on YouTube (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/08/22/paris-hilton-storms-youtube/), the Paris Hilton channel - was widely seen as a failure.
Update: YouTube has made an official posthttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v6.0.0.1/t.gif (http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=3xDEdJmPDI0) about the deal and has said that use of the copyrighted music from Warner will be free to users.
This is big news, as the legal dilemma of copyrighted content has been the primary barrier to YouTube’s possible acquisition and has presumably cost the company in possible advertising revenues. If a similar deal can be made with other record labels, the landscape of user generated content could be changed radically. The Warner deal stands in major opposition with the position of Universal, whose CEO Doug Morris said last week that YouTube and MySpace owed the label millions. Morris indicated that a legal challenge might be forthcoming.
While it’s very exciting that a new model is being created, the caveat that Warner will have effective veto power over videos using their music is particularly interesting. In effect it’s just a technological realization of the long standing policy reality - YouTube has willingly pulled copyrighted content on request for some time. While DRM has been understood as a prerequisite for online distribution of major label content, this announcement seems to indicate a switch in responsibilities. Instead of the distributor locking down the content by default, use is open by default and can be closed at the rights holder’s discretion. It’s a very real recognition of the promotional power of copyrighted content being reused in original art. I think it’s great news.
We first covered technology capable of detecting copyrighted content in the case of video distributer Guba, who has developed a system code named “Johnny” that detects copyrighted video (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/21/gubas-johnny-will-find-copyrighted-videos-online/). We also wrote about online social network Faces (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/08/30/facescom-could-shake-up-social-networking/) (disclosure: now a sponsor) that counts all music played against an internet radio license. I hope that tomorrow’s Warner/YouTube announcement is a sign of times to come; when technology like this is used to protect rights holders’ baseline interests but in the context of widespread free use. "