Have I found a loophole?!

[randomname]

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?

Your hypothetical situation fails to make the distinction between art and a purely for-profit endeavor. Art is a part of our culture and belongs to the collective. There's also a pretty big difference between something being made for the personal enjoyment of one family and something being used to sell wedding dresses that you completely ignore.

 

[Steve House]

Your hypothetical situation fails to make the distinction between art and a purely for-profit endeavor. Art is a part of our culture and belongs to the collective. There's also a pretty big difference between something being made for the personal enjoyment of one family and something being used to sell wedding dresses that you completely ignore.

So you are saying because he's contributing to the collective culture the artist doesn't deserve to be paid for his labours whenever his work is used?

You are ignoring the fact that both the popular music industry and the wedding/event videography business are also purely for-profit endeavors. When a videographer uses a popular song in a wedding video at the couple's request, he is very much one business appropriating the inventory of another business without paying for it in order to produce his own commercial product which he then sells to his customer for profit. It's exactly the same as if a general contractor broke into a lumber yard in the middle of the night to steal the raw materials to use in a home renovation job he's bid - after all, the new kitchen he's putting in is for the enjoyment of just one family.

Art may belong to the culture but only after it has withstood the test of time ... a time that is coincidentally remarkably close the duration of copyright. Remember, the artist can freely choose to cast his work into the public domain at any time. But that decision is his and his alone to make. You have no right to usurp his rights in the matter and appropriate the fruits of his labour for your own purposes without permission.

The whole idea behind copyright is to protect the artist who is good enough at his craft to create work the public would demand so that he can earn a living at his craft and so continue to produce new works. If you use songs without licensing them, along with payment of the requist fees, it's not the evil music industry that is exploiting the artist, it's YOU that's exploiting him.