wedding + copyrighted music = ???

moonlitnite said:
....

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
Click to expand...

The performance rights organizations like ASCAP, etc, don't deal with sync licensing anyway. Harry Fox used to but they pulled back from it for some reason a while back and handed it back to the publishers.

I'm told that one of the reasons we don't hear about many suits against wedding and event videographers is that many are resolved at the cease-and-desist letter stage and those that go farther are usually accompanied by non-disclosure agreements or court orders. But I'm told by people who should be in a position to know that it is far from a rare occurance that a wedding/event videographer is nabbed for infringment and in those cases that go to court the videographer virtually never wins.
 
Steve.

Are you talking about Canada or the U.S?

Can you substantiate this with some type of professional reference that has been published?
 
Barry_Green said:
Of course not.


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.
Click to expand...


The chances of getting sued by the RIAA are astronomically low. According to their own numbers it is much more likely you will win the lottery.

Plus... I don't know of any cases where someone has been sued for downloading. I only know of cases where individuals have been sued for sharing files. (Perhaps there is a case or two or even hundreds. I just have never heard of any.)


But, here's the thing.

If you are making a commercial product for someone and you can license a song for $2, $3, $4, or even $5 why in the world wouldn't you do it?

Beyond what is purported to be a sure fire way to comply with copyrights, isn't it just basic common courtesy and respect to a fellow artist to kick the copyright owner his fair dues?

Thanks for the zoom tip!
 
If you are making a commercial product for someone and you can license a song for $2, $3, $4, or even $5 why in the world wouldn't you do it?
Click to expand...

What song are you buying for $5. Are you talking about royalty free music or top 40?

If you are talking about top 40 music, post a link because I don't have any problems paying the artist five times what I would pay iTunes, if it meant that I could use it for someones wedding!
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
Steve.

Are you talking about Canada or the U.S?

Can you substantiate this with some type of professional reference that has been published?
Click to expand...

The general principles I was discussing apply equally to the US and Canada AFAIK as our copyright laws are quite similar. There are differences, of course, such as materials produced by the government with taxpayer funding in the US are in the public domain while in Canada it is copyright by the Crown and cannot be reproduced without permission. As I said before, my information comes from general information sources and personal conversations online with several IP lawyers. You seem to demand citations from published professional sources as if only people who have access to law libraries are entitled to contribute to the conversation or may actually be able to contribute correct information. As I said, I have been TOLD by people who would presumably know that lawsuits against retail videographers are not uncommon - can I prove it with professional citations? No. Does that mean it's untrue? No. Were they lieing to me for their own purposes? Perhaps, but not very likely, there certainly would be no motive for them to do so. I can only discuss based on the best information I have at hand - if it's incorrect I'd love to be corrected. I'm not interested in winning an argument, only in learning the truth.
 
Steve... you can relax.

I am asking if you have citations because without them it is just a conversation.

I have 100% faith that you have heard these things form IP lawyers or other experts and that you find them reliable.

I do contend that the law is the law and doesn't function on hear say nor does it function on anecdotes.

And, for the record, I was merely asking about your sources so I could do some research as I am interested in this topic merely out of curiosity.

As to the law library.... the internet is replete with virtually every law known to man so it is many many times more powerful than a law library.

Virtually all legal research is done online these days.

Books simply do not keep up with the speed of the law.
 
Greypawn Films said:
What song are you buying for $5. Are you talking about royalty free music or top 40?

If you are talking about top 40 music, post a link because I don't have any problems paying the artist five times what I would pay iTunes, if it meant that I could use it for someones wedding!
Click to expand...


Barry_Green said:
...

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.
Click to expand...


Of course, you could also just buy a used copy of the disc or singe and use that as it is itself a license. Same with digital music. The use then very well might fall under fair use if you deliver the used C.D. or downloaded file with the wedding video.

Interesting legal issue.

P.S. I am not sure that this is something that has been done successfully or not. It's just an idea at this point.
 
Last edited:
Steve House said:
moonlitnite ...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...

The performance rights organizations like ASCAP, etc, don't deal with sync licensing anyway. Harry Fox used to but they pulled back from it for some reason a while back and handed it back to the publishers.

I'm told that one of the reasons we don't hear about many suits against wedding and event videographers is that many are resolved at the cease-and-desist letter stage and those that go farther are usually accompanied by non-disclosure agreements or court orders. But I'm told by people who should be in a position to know that it is far from a rare occurance that a wedding/event videographer is nabbed for infringment and in those cases that go to court the videographer virtually never wins.
Click to expand...

Hi Steve,

1. But it's organizations like ASCAP and BMI that protect their client's legal rights, not Harry Fox. Please let us know if/when Harry Fox engages their lawyers for copyright infringements.

2. Cease-and-desist and non-disclosures against event videographers??? Perhaps those at WEVA, 4Ever Group, dvinfo.net, VideoUniversity.com, trade magazines, etc, are out of the loop - this is definitely breaking news!!! Any supporting information will be very helpful - please share your substantive details...

OTOH, at any hour of any day the watchdog groups could easily do an internet search of all the PVAs, follow the links of the members, view their online wedding videos and keep dozens of their lawyers busy for a "month of Sundays." If you have doubts, please search for "professional videographer association" and see for yourself.

Steve, either I'm way off base or your colleagues giving you citable information are quite suspect. BTW, one of my favorite sayings in "the only thing better than being right is knowing when I'm wrong" so I'd really appreciate critical feedback if I'm somehow out of the loop.

Warm Regards, Michael
 
Last edited:
moonlitnite said:
Hi Steve,

1. But it's organizations like ASCAP and BMI that protect their client's legal rights, not Harry Fox. Please let us know if/when Harry Fox engages their lawyers for copyright infringements.

...
Click to expand...

ASCAP et al are performance rights clearance organizations. They're the ones you pay royalties to if you play someone's record on the air or in your bar or dentist office and they distribute them in turn to the publisher, artist, etc, but they don't touch recording and syncronization rights.

Harry Fox, OTOH, is a clearance organization that serves the same function but for mechanical rights, the license to use the lyrics and music in a recording you are making ... if you want your cover band to record "Eleanor Rigby" on its "Tribute to the Beatles" debut album, Harry Fox is the folks you go to to get the license. Up until about 5 years ago they're also the clearance house where you would have gone to license the song for use in a film but now you have to negotiate directly with the publisher for a sync license to use the song itself plus the label that owns the specific recording you want to use for the master rights if you don't want to record your own version for the film. If you want to use the Beatles recording of "Eleanor Rigby" you must obtain a sync license for the music and lyrics plus a master license for their specific recording.

As to whether they sic the lawyers on folks, see http://harryfox.com/public/publisherServicesAntiPiracy.jsp
 
Last edited:
Right... well in my mind.... if a professional videographer uses someone else's copyrighted work to score a video they are producing that can constitute copyright infringement. (If an individual uses this work for their personal videos it most certainly is not copyright infringement in any way.)

I am sure that there are indeed means to license these songs and the more and more I think about it, simply buying a licensed copy of the work in question and including that to the client would cover the licensing issue as the use then would almost certainly be Fair Use.

Furthermore, Steve, just because an industry group cries infringement does not in the least make it so.

The people decide what is infringement though the legislative and to a lessor degree the executive and judicial.

It's quite clear that copyright is broken but the good news is the wave of use by everyday citizens is forcing it to change into something more manageable and equitable.
 
Steve House said:
ASCAP et al are performance rights clearance organizations. They're the ones you pay royalties to if you play someone's record on the air or in your bar or dentist office and they distribute them in turn to the publisher, artist, etc, but they don't touch recording and syncronization rights.

Harry Fox, OTOH, is a clearance organization that serves the same function but for mechanical rights, the license to use the lyrics and music in a recording you are making ... if you want your cover band to record "Eleanor Rigby" on its "Tribute to the Beatles" debut album, Harry Fox is the folks you go to to get the license. Up until about 5 years ago they're also the clearance house where you would have gone to license the song for use in a film but now you have to negotiate directly with the publisher for a sync license to use the song itself plus the label that owns the specific recording you want to use for the master rights if you don't want to record your own version for the film. If you want to use the Beatles recording of "Eleanor Rigby" you must obtain a sync license for the music and lyrics plus a master license for their specific recording.

As to whether they sic the lawyers on folks, see http://harryfox.com/public/publisherServicesAntiPiracy.jsp
Click to expand...

Steve,

Yes, we're in agreement that those who seek agreement deal with HFA. But for those who infringe on copyrights, it's groups like BMI, SESAC and ASCAP who vigorously protect the artist's rights in civil court under Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 106. Here's a typical example of the watchdogs at work and you can certain google lawsuit and the respective organizations to clear up this point.

At any rate, sorry we're getting side-tracked from the main point of the thread. On that note and returning to the original post, I'm eagerly awaiting more definitive details from others regarding:

1. Today's industry practices of videographers

2. Legal action taken against videographers

3. Workable ideas and out-of-the-box resolution to the unworkable present method of operation

Thanks, Michael
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
Of course, you could also just buy a used copy of the disc or singe and use that as it is itself a license. Same with digital music. The use then very well might fall under fair use if you deliver the used C.D. or downloaded file with the wedding video.

Interesting legal issue.

P.S. I am not sure that this is something that has been done successfully or not. It's just an idea at this point.
Click to expand...

Sadly, it wouldn't be legal and isn't a viable work-around. Buying a CD does not give you master use or sync licensing. It give you a license to play the CD in a private setting and that's it. You need a sync license to obtain permission from the copyright owner to sync his work with your visuals. You would also need a master use license because you are providing the client with a copy of the master recording (within the video you created) and you have to be licensed to reproduce the master in that way.

If you gave them JUST a video (with no audio) and the original CD you bought and let them play them together live... the video from a DVD player and the CD from a CD player then that might be legal... as long as it wasn't a public venue. But, that of course is ridiculous scenario.
 
I'm not so sure you are correct.

This is not for a theatrical or public performance but for private use.

I can certainly take as many videos and sync as many songs as I want for my private use (to show friends and family).

I think the only question is can you hire someone to do that for you?

I would say if they have a copy of the CD and it goes with the new work yes.

But, if you have examples where the law has explicitly has held this is illegal, then I would love to read them.

Thanks for your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top