Have I found a loophole?!

P

P.S.T.

Active member
I've been so irritated and stressed out about music copyrights. I would not complain if you could just go to BMI, pay them 5 bucks per song in a Wedding DVD you sold or something similar. It's ridiculous that I can't use the music a client wants for their wedding video yet the access to a license seems impossible. So anyway, I remembered watching a news report about 7 years ago. It was about a man who started a little business at home when iPods became extremely popular. What he did was take people's original CD collections, transfer and organize their music into the iPod. Doesn't seem like there was an issue. So, the light bulb went off. What if, for legal reasons, I were to require the client to bring ORIGINAL CDs of the artists and "store" them on their wedding video? The copyright laws only allow one personal copy of the original CD. To try and sell multiple DVDs would be out of the question but I feel like maybe this is a loophole.Technically, I'm getting payed to backup their music. What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
P.S.T. said:
I've been so irritated and stressed out about music copyrights. I would not complain if you could just go to BMI, pay them 5 bucks per song in a Wedding DVD you sold or something similar. It's ridiculous that I can't use the music a client wants for their wedding video yet the access to a license seems impossible. So anyway, I remembered watching a news report about 7 years ago. It was about a man who started a little business at home when iPods became extremely popular. What he did was take people's original CD collections, transfer and organize their music into the iPod. Doesn't seem like there was an issue. So, the light bulb went off. What if, for legal reasons, I were to require the client to bring ORIGINAL CDs of the artists and "store" them on their wedding video? The copyright laws only allow one personal copy of the original CD. To try and sell multiple DVDs would be out of the question but I feel like maybe this is a loophole.Technically, I'm getting payed to backup their music. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Using the music in a video such as a wedding video is not merely copying such as when you rip a CD over to your iPod. It is using the someone's intellectual property to create a second, derviative, copyrightable work which is then sold to your client. The commercial value of the work you are doing for your client is enhanced by incorporating the work of another party and the owner of the music deserves a piece of your action, as it were. You have the right to select who will benefit from your work when you accept or reject a client booking and so too do they have the absolute right to decide who can and who an't use the fruits of their labours. And just as you put a value on your own work when you set your own fees, they too have the right to charge you whatever they feel is appropriate in exchange for that permission if they decide to give it to you.

If the wedding couple themselves personally took a CD they owned and put a song from it on their own wedding video to watch in their own home, doing the actual copying themselves, that would be a personal copy. But when a third party such as yourself does it for them, he is selling them the copy and that is a commercial use of the material, not a personal copy at all. "Personal use" means by and for the personal enjoyment of the person who is actually doing the copying.

Reverse the situation. Suppose a band likes one of your videos and wants to put it on YouTube with one of their songs as the soundtrack to advertise a new CD they have coming out. Before you answer too quickly, suppose the band was a genre that you can't stand or represented a political view that you felt was deplorable, would you want your work associated with them? Or suppose you simply felt it cheapened the value of your artistry? Don't you think you would have the absolute right to have the final say yes or no to their offer and to charge them whatever you felt the traffic is worth in exchange for your permission? How would you feel if they used it without asking your permission, without giving you credit, and without paying you a dime?
 
does the zoomlicense allow for online distribution of the highlights package? I know you are supposed to be legal and above board in all respects, but it seems to me this is the only situation where you are likely to get caught.
 
Using the music in a video such as a wedding video is not merely copying such as when you rip a CD over to your iPod. It is using the someone's intellectual property to create a second, derviative, copyrightable work which is then sold to your client. The commercial value of the work you are doing for your client is enhanced by incorporating the work of another party and the owner of the music deserves a piece of your action, as it were. You have the right to select who will benefit from your work when you accept or reject a client booking and so too do they have the absolute right to decide who can and who an't use the fruits of their labours. And just as you put a value on your own work when you set your own fees, they too have the right to charge you whatever they feel is appropriate in exchange for that permission if they decide to give it to you.
Click to expand...

+10

I can tell you as a life long musician it hurts when people take your music without permission. I know it seems like a harmless thing to do for many people cause you never meet the person that writes or composes the music, and it's so easy to download a song from the web. But it is stealing. It's the same dishonesty as walking into a store and sticking an item in your pocket without paying. So looking for a loophole in order to profit from the use of copyrighted music is the same as stealing as far as i'm concerned, besides this is what bottom feeder lawyers do. They look for loopholes in the system, then say, "see we dont have to have ethics or integrity, because of this loophole right here. Yeah we dont care about the people we hurt or rob because of the way this paragraph is written, should have worded it differently." cmon man. dont stoop to that level, your better than that.
 
Thanks for the site. The problem is that there's such a small list of songs. I don't steal music, I'm willing to pay. It's the headache of having to explain to customers that I can't use copyrighted music. There's thousands of videographers who will sync whatever music is requested and I don't know how to compete against that.
 
Frankly, even the record companies don't care, if they did, they would've bothered to sue someone for it by now to make an example out of them (lord knows they've done it with pirates). When was the last time anyone's every gotten more than a cease and desist or just had their video taken down from youtube?
 
randomname said:
Frankly, even the record companies don't care, if they did, they would've bothered to sue someone for it by now to make an example out of them (lord knows they've done it with pirates). When was the last time anyone's every gotten more than a cease and desist or just had their video taken down from youtube?
Click to expand...
Word I've heard from IP attorneys is that it happens far more often than you think but non-disclosure clauses in the common settlement agreements means it doesn't often go public.
 
Interesting, I've actually heard that the reason there's so much disagreement over the legality/morality of it is because there hasn't been a court case over it yet.
 
Also, to a certain extent using copywritten materials might end up helping. If labels start to see how many people want to use their music for small scale videos they may eventually realize that there's a lot of money to be made in an easy to use and reasonably priced licensing system for popular music, and I can't imagine many videographers would mind giving their clients the option between paying a little extra for the pop song they want or going with royalty free music.
 
This is what I believe. It isn't the artists, except for a VERY FEW, that care about music being "stolen". Back in the 80's and 90's you recorded your favorite songs on a tape and felt absolutely no guilt. In fact, the only crime was if you sold copied material. That was the only issue. In other words, the issue was making money off of someone else's work by mass production or mass duplication. That's the heart of this law. The other reason for copyrights is that credit should be given to where credit is due. Why is it legal to quote books with citations? That is because the credit has been given to the writer. That's the heart of copyright. Now it's become greed and power and that from mainly the producers and record companies. Music is culture. It is made for enjoyment and that includes weddings and parties. DJ's aren't selling music by volumes and they have already payed for those songs! I don't care how you put, the artist and producer has gotten their fair share. The same goes for a wedding videographer. As long as he has bought the original music they have gotten their share. We're not mass duplicating music to make money off the songs! We're making videos, a memoir of someone's special day. Why is it illegal to add the songs that have a meaning to him or her? And that's a rhetorical question. And to take it a step further, we can't even accidentally or intentionally record the songs playing through a speaker. Absolutely ludicrous is this law, a flat out no common sense law.


Research what the performing artist and perfomer/writer artist really gets from all the music sales and you will see that how unjust and unfair it is their pay but yet the copyright law is there to protect them? That's bogus.
 
P.S.T. said:
This is what I believe. It isn't the artists, except for a VERY FEW, that care about music being "stolen". Back in the 80's and 90's you recorded your favorite songs on a tape and felt absolutely no guilt. In fact, the only crime was if you sold copied material. That was the only issue. In other words, the issue was making money off of someone else's work by mass production or mass duplication. That's the heart of this law. The other reason for copyrights is that credit should be given to where credit is due. Why is it legal to quote books with citations? That is because the credit has been given to the writer. That's the heart of copyright. Now it's become greed and power and that from mainly the producers and record companies. Music is culture. It is made for enjoyment and that includes weddings and parties. DJ's aren't selling music by volumes and they have already payed for those songs! I don't care how you put, the artist and producer has gotten their fair share. The same goes for a wedding videographer. As long as he has bought the original music they have gotten their share. We're not mass duplicating music to make money off the songs! We're making videos, a memoir of someone's special day. Why is it illegal to add the songs that have a meaning to him or her? And that's a rhetorical question. And to take it a step further, we can't even accidentally or intentionally record the songs playing through a speaker. Absolutely ludicrous is this law, a flat out no common sense law.


Research what the performing artist and perfomer/writer artist really gets from all the music sales and you will see that how unjust and unfair it is their pay but yet the copyright law is there to protect them? That's bogus.
Click to expand...

A videographer is hired by a couple to shoot their wedding and make a video of the event. He agrees to do the job. The couple requests the video include a beauty montage of the bride over one of her favourite songs, Leonard Cohen's "Dance Me To The End of Love," and he does so. He delivers the DVD as requested and bills the couple $2500 for the project. How can you possibly spin that into saying the videographer is not making money in part by selling the client a copy of Cohen's work? As the creator and owner of the song, wouldn't Cohen be entitled to a fee for that new use of his labours, just like the videographer is entitled to be paid in exchange for his own work?

Copyright law is not there to stroke the artist's ego by guaranteeing him credit. It was created to insure that he can maintain control of his intellectual property and, given sufficient talent that people will buy his work, be able to make a living from it. The fruits of an artist's labours don't belong the the culture, they belong to the artist, at least for the duration of the copyright.

Try this hypothetical. Suppose you shot my friend's wedding. They paid you your fee so you've made the money you expected from the original shoot. They recently showed the video during a party at their home and I was really impressed with the quality of your work. It just so happens I've been hired to put together a new employee orientation program for internal use at a wedding dress manufacturer and the terrific segment of your video with the bride's procession would be a perfect fit to include in it. I ask the couple if I can use it and they agree, loaning me their DVD to copy the segment from. As creator of the original video, do you think you ought to have a say in whether I can do that or not? I'm charging my manufacturer client a fee for the project ... do you think you might be entitled to a piece of that revenue in the form of a license fee you charge me in exchange for permission to use the clip? If you think you're entitled to a vote on whether I can use your work and are entitled to a fee from me if I do, explain how that differs from copyright protection and licensing fees on the music you want to use in your wedding videos?
 
Last edited:
Also note that back in the day of the audio cassette, there was a tax added somewhere along the way for black cassettes that went back to music industry to compensate for songs being recorded to tape. I don't think that same concept was ever applied to blank digital media.

Michael
 
I saw my music being used on films without asking/paying me on TV! I would like to see how you react, if I used your footage without asking you and you saw it on TV....

your loophole looks more like a hole in your pocket...
 
MichaelP said:
It would be applied to encoders if they could make that work, but the cat's out of the bag now...

Michael
Click to expand...

I thought that there was a license fee paid by manufactures of mp3 devices that goes back to the developers. Doesn't some of that $ go to the music industry? Not that this would be relevant to the copyright music issue, but I was curious. I thought there was a deal cut a while back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top