Going to be filming a wedding..Music?
- Thread starter aonavy
- Start date
- Status
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...s!-You-CAN-license-music-for-your-video!-quot
Most wedding videographers will work with their clients on things like this in order to address preferences, but there's a caveat: using unlicensed, popular music for a wedding video is both a longstanding "don't ask, don't tell" practice and a recipe for big trouble in the form of a 6-figure (or more) lawsuit. So your best bet is to use royalty-free music. If the client is insistent that you use someone else's work, get permission or don't use it.
Most wedding videographers will work with their clients on things like this in order to address preferences, but there's a caveat: using unlicensed, popular music for a wedding video is both a longstanding "don't ask, don't tell" practice and a recipe for big trouble in the form of a 6-figure (or more) lawsuit. So your best bet is to use royalty-free music. If the client is insistent that you use someone else's work, get permission or don't use it.
therealmj
Member
Theres a bunch of sites out there now that license music just for weddings and small projects, anywhere from $25-200 for a single video. songfreedom, themusicbed, etc. whether it's the editor or couples choice depends on the situation. I prefer to pick the music without their input, since I'm the one telling the story through my eyes, so I would know what music would be most effective in telling that story (at least in theory). In reality, it doesn't always work that way.
Of course, the recipe also involves shooting the wedding of some big celebrity, like say the NFL quarterback of a very popular team, and then putting it up on YouTube for all to see. Unless you know of a 6-figure lawsuit over Jim Bob and Sue Ellen's wedding video.
Steve House
Veteran
They do happen but most of the time there is a non-disclosure paragraph in the court order so you don't hear the details. But that doesn't mean the suits don't happen. Most of the time it doesn't get that far as a 290 pound, 6'6" process server (and his silent partner is a big guy) slapping a cease-and-desist order in your hand is usually a pretty dramatic wake-up call. Not very likely if just the couple's video is involved and they keep it to themselves and their family but if they decide to share it with the world via YouTube then suddenly you're in a VERY exposed position.
As a reminder, stealing is stealing no matter what the chances are that you'll get caught. It's comments like the above that downplay that fact, and it is the policy of DVXUser that we promote legal and licensed music for use in all productions.
With the plethora of legitimate music resources out there, there's really no excuse to use anything else.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I was trying to recall a case recently, and perhaps it was listed here... but basically the photographer put up a wedding clip onto youtube, and for some 'strange' reason it went viral. As I recall the wedding was not a celeb wedding, and in that case many celebs pre-sell the coverage... so it is only 'paparazzi' coverage that is seen outside of that...
Anyway the case I was thinking of the photographer's clip went viral... someone somewhere detected copyrighted music... and the result was the photographer had to pay some large amount of money for music use. Perhaps it was a 'poster' case, but this sort of thing has been discussed for a number of years now at pro wedding conventions about 'don't use music without a license'... and of course back then most people were not putting their material up on the Internet.
Even the Wife and I come to near blows on this issue. She thinks that just because she's presenting in an 'educational' setting, that somehow she can use music in its entirety... My read of 'fair use' for educational purposes is that 'small chunks' for review and instruction are 'fair use'... the entire work... not fair use, except for some pretty limited situations... and breaking up the whole work with commentary or instruction would probably be a 'requirement' for the 'fair use' defense.
Steve House
Veteran
Copyright infringement is indeed a form of theft in that the infringer is appropriating another person's property for their own use without properly compensating them for it.
If you're thinking of Joe Simon, his YouTube clip was of Tony Romo's wedding and it went viral and was played on like Sports Center and high end productions like that.
From individuals to large companies, infringement happens on a constant and regular basis. Most of these never get caught. I fail to see how using She Thinks My Tractor's Sexy for Jim Bob and Sue Ellen's DVD (that you'll probably make a single copy of) is going to get you in any hot water. For privately, I don't think it's a big issue. However, probably best to replace it with stock music for your reel on your website.
Steve House
Veteran
You are correct, 'educational use' is much more restrictive than is often thought. It must be strictly for classroom instruction, in a fully accredited school, for grades K-12, junior college, or a degree-granting college or university. Want to show Titanic in class as part of a film historry course, that's fair use, But show it as a fund-raiser for your school's sailing club or to fund a scholarship program in marine architecture? That's not educational use according to the law even though it's an accredited school that's doing it - gotta license it. What to use the theme music as the background for a PowerPoint presentation used in the classroom as part of an employee training program at your employer? That's not an educational use either and it has to be licensed.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
That is an extraordinarily narrow (and increasingly irrelevant) decision considering that distributing physical media is being widely replaced by online distribution.
But it does illustrate that it is the DISTRIBUTION of copies (whether free or for $$$, and whether physical or virtual) that constitutes infringement, and not the mere act of the initial PRODUCTION, per say.
paulears
Veteran
Why are people never honest about copyright theft, attempting to downgrade the seriousness by saying it's not theft, it's infringement of copyright - which of course is accurate. However, you selected some music and used it in your product, and made the decision not to pay for it, hoping to get away with it. I see no definition of stealing that doesn't fit. Easing the guilt by playing with words doesn't work for me. I found the music I wanted to use, downloaded it and used it, hoping nobody would ever know. I stole it! Any other description is just evasion.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
I agree with you absolutely and completely. Copyright infringment is theft in the moral sense any way you slice it.
HOWEVER, in the Dowling case cited by Mr. Huff, the question was whether the government could declare the physical media as "stolen" when, in fact the defendants had paid for them and they were NOT "stolen" in the strict legal sense. IMHO this was the correct decision that limited the government to the common-sense perception of what was stolen (the content) vs. what was NOT stolen (the media). At least here in the USA, the government (in the person of local district or federal prosecuting attorneys) are known to "throw the book at you" and over-charge alleged violations in the hopes that at least SOME of the charges will be found guilty. Of course, this happens on both sides and that is the nature of the modern legal system.
Why do people constantly want to refer to it as an act that is "criminal" in the way that stealing a car is? There is b.s. on both sides of the issue.
I wouldn't even begin to imagine that most people who infringe on copyright, especially in the use you describe, feel guilty in the slightest. I know, I deal with them constantly. The fact that it's infringement literally has to be pointed out to them. They simply do not think in terms of being "guilty" of something.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
Well, the simple answer is because it IS criminal. In the same way that stealing a car is criminal. Perhaps actually worse than theft of physical goods because you can profit from distribution of multiple copies.
While interesting, that seems immaterial to the argument. There are lots of things the majority perceive that are provably wrong. That doesn't remotely resemble a valid argument IMHO.
Last edited:
Yeah, do you have evidence of a single case where someone, in the situation as described (using copyrighted material in a video for, say, a wedding) went to jail for it? Just one?
- Status