wedding + copyrighted music = ???

The guy who claims the "30 second rule" (that it's okay to use copyrighted music on the internet) was the same smooth talking teenager that was begging for 30 seconds of luving in the backseat of his car - "you can trust me, darling..."

But then again, may that same teenager now works for the RIAA! Either way, those oral contracts aren't worth the paper they're (not) written on...

Regards, Michael
 
The other issue you face is recording the music being played at the wedding, for example the first waltz etc. Usually I would lay the original track over the top and clean it up. But even without doing that you are still recording music protected by copyright.

Then theres the other question. A standard CD isnt authorised for public performance, essentially if you were to follow the letter of the law, the bride and groom could not play the music they want at the wedding.

Your choice to use it or not, but I do. Now for a wedding demo reel, something used to attract clients (a commercial purpose), I certainly wouldnt use music that I havent obtained rights to.
 
ncje said:
The other issue you face is recording the music being played at the wedding, for example the first waltz etc. Usually I would lay the original track over the top and clean it up. But even without doing that you are still recording music protected by copyright.

Then theres the other question. A standard CD isnt authorised for public performance, essentially if you were to follow the letter of the law, the bride and groom could not play the music they want at the wedding.

Your choice to use it or not, but I do. Now for a wedding demo reel, something used to attract clients (a commercial purpose), I certainly wouldnt use music that I havent obtained rights to.
Click to expand...

any recommendation if i want to buy royality music in dvd ?
 
Sodomy is illegal. Marajuana is illegal. Speeding is illegal. Drunk driving is illegal. Urinating outdoors is illegal. Not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign is illegal. Syncronizing copyrighted without a sync license is illegal. I'm not saying it's okay to break the law because other people do- but at any given moment..

The big problem with doing it is that if you ever make a ton of money (I know- utterly ridiculous concept, but if..) your name or your company's name on that
media is kind of a smoking gun.

We now return you to sex, drugs, and rock and roll.
 
BenB said:
Basically, if the client asks you to use music, and gives it to you on CD, you can use it, for the same reasons you don't need release forms when shooting the footage.
Click to expand...

This is so wrong for so many reasons....it's as illegal as burning off legally purchased mp3s onto a CD or onto an MP3 player. While people may not get chased for doing it, it's still illegal. A personal music CD is purchased for personal use only and only one copy may exist. I have no idea what lawyers you use but they must be smoking something....

Just because you don't get caught it doesn't make it legal. First of all you have to obtain a license for syncing the music up to the footage. You buy a license depending on how many copies of the DVD you'll make, so say you charge the couple for 2 DVDs you'll have to buy the license to sync the music onto those 2 DVDs. This license usually won't give you the right to stream it online (a difficult to get and expensive license) nor create more copies of the DVD. And if you want to show that DVD in public (for example an expo) you have to apply to get performance rights, the same as any bar or club. And it's illegal for the couple to rip the DVD and re-distribute it to friends and family, even if they're not profiting.

And D.Js have to apply for performance rights too and if they don't they're either hoping to get very lucky or they haven't been to see an expert on copyright law (and yes, copyright lawyers have a very very difficult job and a regular lawyer just won't cut it).
 
For what it's worth... In Ireland you can buy a licence which covers you for 20 weddings. It costs about €200. It's a pain in the a## though. It covers you for songwriting copywrite only, you need to get another freaking licence to cover recording copywrite, so that's about €400 in total. Plus theres a mountain of paperwork, plus you are required to allow an inspector go through your work if he wants to make sure everything is tickety-boo. I'm happy enough to pay for the music.. it's the bull that comes with it I don't get...

:violin:

Am I ranting?

I'm ranting, amn't I. Damn it.

Damn it...
 
It is not a gray area, it is illegal to use copyrighted music. You could argue otherwise but if prosecuted, you would lose.

That said, the wedding video copyright nazi's are usually paranoid hacks. Unless you are doing HUGE weddings and selling multiple copies, nobody would ever care. Not the labels, not the artists...not the publishers. I am NOT a wedding guy but have done weddings for 3 well-known musicians/celebrities...all had copyrighted music in their final edits...




ash =o)
 
If my clients want copyrighted music in their DVD I have them sign a waiver in the contract excepting full responsibility.

And anyhow,

If all this silliness was true...The very act of filming a couple dancing to music being played at the event would be "Syncing". Thereby making wedding videography an illegal trade...

Poppycock!
 
Having them sign something "accepting all responsibility" is fine and dandy, but that doesn't necessarily make it legal. You can sign a contract with MTV where MTV contracts you to drive 90mph through a school zone, but when the cop stops you, do you think he's going to give the ticket to MTV? You, as driver, will get the ticket.

Best to just stick to the music available from Zoom, where you can get legitimate licenses to copyrighted songs for very little cash. Check out http://www.weva.com/cgi-bin/newsreader.pl?storyid=3636&type=i
 
Greypawn Films said:
If my clients want copyrighted music in their DVD I have them sign a waiver in the contract excepting full responsibility.

And anyhow,

If all this silliness was true...The very act of filming a couple dancing to music being played at the event would be "Syncing". Thereby making wedding videography an illegal trade...

Poppycock!
Click to expand...

Is this a legitimate way of clearing yourself from any/all music copyright liability when rendering video services for a client? I mean are we supposed to just turn away clients who want a particular song in their wedding video that we can't obtain rights to and let the next Joe Shmoe who's willing to risk it get the gig?
 
Last edited:
krazywake said:
Is this a legitimate way of clearing yourself from any/all music copyright liability when rendering video services for a client?
Click to expand...
Of course not.

I mean are we supposed to just turn away clients who want a particular song in their wedding video that we can't obtain rights to and let the next Joe Shmoe who's willing to risk it get the gig?
Click to expand...
Well, that's the question. You can cheat and run the risk of getting caught, people do it every day. That was the basis of music downloading and Napster, too -- until the RIAA started suing.

Or, you can go to Zoom and get the songs legitimately, properly licensed, with no drawbacks other than it cost you maybe $2 or $3 to license it.
 
And then, a corporate client of mine wanted a particular track on a presentation video created to deliver to their branches. Now I suggested an alternative as to not inflict on copyright and at that point I was told 'well their previous video producer did it so if I couldnt.... ' .
 
Noel Evans said:
And then, a corporate client of mine wanted a particular track on a presentation video created to deliver to their branches. Now I suggested an alternative as to not inflict on copyright and at that point I was told 'well their previous video producer did it so if I couldnt.... ' .
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at and wondering. I'm just getting into this field and am very curious as to know the best methods of risk assessment and protecting yourself (and your business). It just seems like a slippery slope :-/

Zoom looks/sounds like a good service (I just registered after reading this thread). Up until now most my stuff has been for website use and I've been able to find cheap videoblog type licensing for some obscure, yet still semi-decent tracks for only a few bucks ea. from websites like rumblefish.com and soundclick.com
 
Hi all,

To rekindle the imaginary "30 second rule", check out this ongoing post discussing MC Hammer's www.dancejam.com plans.

And as far as Zoom's great plans go, it's been 18 months and they still haven't left the launchpad with the caliber of music we'd use in commercial productions. Maybe someday, but don't hold your breath gettting them to sign up major labels.

Warm Regards, Michael
 
krazywake said:
Is this a legitimate way of clearing yourself from any/all music copyright liability when rendering video services for a client? I mean are we supposed to just turn away clients who want a particular song in their wedding video that we can't obtain rights to and let the next Joe Shmoe who's willing to risk it get the gig?
Click to expand...

Will it work to keep yourself in the clear? Not as far as I know. Any contract to perform an illegal act is void on its face and you can not contract away your personal culpability for violating the law. You can see examples almost every day on the TV judges shows where some idiot comes into court suing for the return of money they gave the defendent to buy drugs for them after the promised product wasn't delivered or some such nonesense.

The ethical dilemma you pose is certainly a difficult one - the RIGHT thing to do, IMHO, is absolutely clear and that's to risk losing clients instead of violating the rights of fellow hard-working professionals. Of course that's easy for me to say since my livelyhood doesn't depend on weddings. But you're absolutely right - there's always someone who out there who just doesn't care about the law who'll step in to fill the demand and they'll get a portion of your business. The only real solution will be when WEVA and similar professional organizations stop looking the other way and start to establish real sanctions with real teeth against the violators - such as enforcing a rule that no member who is shown to use copyright music in their client's videos without proper licensing would be permitted to enter any organization sponsored competition or award show, any sponsored bridal show, or use the organization's name and logo on any promotional materials. The only way to stop it is for wedding professionals who care about legality to band together and get the scofflaws either to change their ways or drum them out of the business. And a likely fringe benefit of such a movement would be that the music industry itself would begin to see the wedding industry as the legitimate media professionals they are and more importantly, a potential source of revenue, rather than thinking of them as a bunch of pirates, and so be more amenable to the introduction of reasonable cost, limited use licensing such as our friends in Australia enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Well I appreciate the link to Zoom. It will be an excellent resource for expo events, but I agree with Moonlitnite that clients are not going to be impressed with synthesized music. They want the songs that have meaning in their relationship, for example a song that they danced to at Prom or maybe a song that was playing on the radio when he proposed. These songs hold a significant emotional attachment to people.

When I quote someone a price for a wedding video, I am not adding a monetary value based on the fact that I am going to use top 40 songs. I record the music that is played at the event through the camera. That music is typically played by a DJ who has some sort of user license for those songs. I am now interested in whether or not I am covered under that license to record that music through my camera for the purpose of documenting an event? Otherwise my options are:

A) Charge the client millions of dollars to use copy written music

B) Cover all the footage that has copy written music with royalty free synth music that has no significant emotional value to my client.

I don't mean to be smarmy but IMHO the laws should take note on the private and very personnel aspect by which these videos are made. No one sells tickets to viewings of a their wedding!
 
Greypawn Films said:
...
When I quote someone a price for a wedding video, I am not adding a monetary value based on the fact that I am going to use top 40 songs. I record the music that is played at the event through the camera. That music is typically played by a DJ who has some sort of user license for those songs. I am now interested in whether or not I am covered under that license to record that music through my camera for the purpose of documenting an event?
...

I don't mean to be smarmy but IMHO the laws should take note on the private and very personnel aspect by which these videos are made. No one sells tickets to viewings of a their wedding!
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding based on conversations with people who are IP and entertainment lawyers that you are NOT covered under any license the DJ may have (assuming ha has them, as he should). Playing the music in the venue is a performance license akin to playing a record on the radio and the DJ or the venue pays per use performance royalties through an agency such as BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc. But using that music as a soundtrack syncronized to images requires a sync license to use the song itself and probably a master use license as well to use the specific recording of the music that is your "master." The fact that your specific copy was made by re-recording it from a playback during a performance doesn't change that. Bits and pieces of music overheard in the background as you interview someone - so-called 'incidental use' - may get a pass, I'm told courts have ruled both ways on that situation, but if you shoot the couple's first dance and record the DJ playback of the music as the accompanying soundtrack you're infinging if you use it without licensing the song from the publisher and the recording itself from the record label that owns it.

As far as the idea of someone suggested of having the couple purchase the CD and when you put it into the video you're just facilitating their making a personal copy for their own use, Kinko's found out with printed matter that argument doesn't hold water. Someone brings you a copyrighted work they've purchased and you charge them a fee to copy it for them and sell them the copy - and the fact that you're charging them for the video means you're charging them a fee for the entire product, including the soundtrack - has been held to be just as infringing as if you bought the disk yourself and made multiple copies to sell under the counter at the corner convenience store.
 
So are you suggesting that wedding videos not include audio from the event should there be music in the background? I am guessing that you don't do this as a profession, am I correct?

Or are you implying that all wedding videos should be free of charge so as not to step on the toes of major labels?

If fair use states that copywritten material may be used for educational or informative purposes without infringing on the copywrite itself, then are we assuming that the teachers are working for free? Do cameramen for news agencies break the law when they create a news story that deals with, say the history of rock and roll, because they are paid as well?

I understand the difference between making an independent film using loads of music from labels illegally and then mass distributing the film worldwide.

I don't understand documenting someone’s private event and adding music to the video that they will watch in the privacy of their home. If anything I consider my pay as compensation for the time I spent working on the video.

I know it doesn't do any good arguing this. I just can't really see myself as being a criminal, only because I don't see how it can financially affect a singer/songwriter. If they are singing a love song that inspires love, and they want to go as far as to sue that couple, then they quite frankly don't belong in an artistic career! I really enjoy doing wedding videos, because you are creating a family heirloom that is going to be treasured for generations, and that brings me a great deal of satisfaction. If bringing that happiness to a couple is criminal, I'll take my chances!
 
Hello colleagues,

While not my intention, I suppose this may add fuel to the fire. Discussion of facts, alleged facts, opinion and ideas help us all. I certainly am not trying to endore illegal activities nor am I trying to be critical of others who make valid points. Okay, off we go...

It seems we can segment folks into three groups:

1. Those who argue on behalf of the laws (likely not working event videographers)
2. Those who work in the trade and follow pervasive industry practices, 99.999% of which are overlooked by watchdog organizations
3. Those in the trade and follow the letter of the law to their own financial demise

Certainly wedding videographers would love it if they could obtain music right to more songs than Michelle Feathersone's two songs ($30 annual subscription) at ReadBeardMusic. However, it's difficult to imagine a wedding videographer is going to overlay "elevator music" at the reception and do voice-overs at the event. As previously mentioned, the Zoom business model was a great business concept, having a business negotiate reasonable T&Cs with major labels on behalf of event videographers. But unfortunately, it seems to have been naive trying to get business arrangement with major labels.

BTW, we should not forget that almost all the church music at the ceremony is copyrighted, too (I invite you to check out the music songbooks in the pews)! So just because the music isn't under the umbrella of BMI, ASCAP, or the SESAC, certainly doesn't mean the videographer is not in violation of copyright laws. So recording audio during most of the ceremony is also a no-no for those adhering to the letter of the law.

Possible workarounds?

- Insist the B&G use original music with live performers
- Have the videographer provide royalty free music for the ceremony
- Use royalty free music in post, doing voice-overs for B&G, officiant, readers, etc

IMHO, none of this sounds very practical. Nor does it to those in the trade. That's why when you go to the thousands of event videographer websites and view their demos, you hear copyrighted music. And that's why when you see WEVA and 4Ever Group contestant entries and winners, they use copyrighted music.

Please don't take this as my endorsement of copyright infringement. I own thousands of dollars of royalty free music and add to my library every month. And yes, it would be great if the United States had laws as in other countries that provided us a workable arrangement to use copyrighted music. But until that happens, it seems those in the trade follow their industry practices to make a living.

BTW, neither the BMI, ASCAP, nor SESAC seem interested in taking action against conscientious videographers working with a handful of clients in his/her trade. Some would also argue that BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC are concerned with the outcome of the trial that might be remanded to a higher court, leading to changes in the laws similar to other countries. Certainly the courts would be intrigued why BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC have not agressively asserted their rights against videographers for all these years.

I welcome others to share their perspectives, feedback and especially workable event videographer arrangements that adhere to copyright laws. Fortunately, I do not depend on this domain for a living wage but am on a PVA board and always appreciate fresh ideas to share with my colleagues.

Warm Regards, Michael
 
Greypawn Films said:
So are you suggesting that wedding videos not include audio from the event should there be music in the background? I am guessing that you don't do this as a profession, am I correct?

Or are you implying that all wedding videos should be free of charge so as not to step on the toes of major labels?

If fair use states that copywritten material may be used for educational or informative purposes without infringing on the copywrite itself, then are we assuming that the teachers are working for free? Do cameramen for news agencies break the law when they create a news story that deals with, say the history of rock and roll, because they are paid as well?

I understand the difference between making an independent film using loads of music from labels illegally and then mass distributing the film worldwide.

I don't understand documenting someone’s private event and adding music to the video that they will watch in the privacy of their home. If anything I consider my pay as compensation for the time I spent working on the video.

I know it doesn't do any good arguing this. I just can't really see myself as being a criminal, only because I don't see how it can financially affect a singer/songwriter. If they are singing a love song that inspires love, and they want to go as far as to sue that couple, then they quite frankly don't belong in an artistic career! I really enjoy doing wedding videos, because you are creating a family heirloom that is going to be treasured for generations, and that brings me a great deal of satisfaction. If bringing that happiness to a couple is criminal, I'll take my chances!
Click to expand...

No, I don't shoot weddings and I have great respect for the artistry of some who do. Nor am I implying they should be done for free - but actually in terms of whether a copyright is infinged it doesn't matter anyway if you charge for the copy or not - it's just as illegal to make copies to give away free as it is to make copies for sale. That's one of the cruxes of the whole Napster file-sharing broohaha.

I'm not saying your position is morally wrong but it is illegal - the law is the law and it is unambiguous in this area. You may feel copying music into a production you sell to a client for their private, personal enjoyment shouldn't be illegal but, perhaps unfortunately, it is. I would certainly agree that the law makes things difficult for the small retail videographer and could stand revision. You need to let your conscience be your guide as to whether you feel any obligation to obey laws you personally disagree with, find inconvenient, or think are unfair to you. Personally I think being law-abiding and fair to your fellow professionals trumps being a good businessman and satisfying your clients but that's just me and probably explains why I don't want to deal directly with the general public. The law has to mean more than just what you do when you think you might get caught. But I have to ask - how would you feel if you shot a wedding that turned out so beautiful that an account rep at an ad agency who happened to see it asked the couple if they could use some of the footage you shot in a commercial spot for the wedding dress manufacturer that they were going to run on national network TV, even offering to pay THEM to use it but leaving you out of the loop? Would you feel slighted or cheated if they did that? Isn't that precisely what you do when you use copyrighted material without proper license from and compensation to the owners of the property? What's good for the goose and all that....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top