Barry_Green
Moderator
Weddings are probably the #1 way that videographers make money with their cameras. In Vegas a low-end wedding shoot might charge $800, and high-end can go for $3500.
Legal issues with wedding videos
- Thread starter FatBird19
- Start date
Alexa
Veteran
Barry_Green said:
The "high end" in California is $4k-$10k. But don't be fooled. It takes a considerable about of time, talent, and $$$$.
-====EDIT-ADD
I called the WEVA office today and was told they "weren't working on anything they knew of..." ===== this would be about some kind of blanket or anything.
then from my request they emailed me this:
WEVA OFFICIAL POSITION ON
COPYRIGHT ISSUE
Wedding videographers CAN clear music. Copyrighted material can be officially cleared and "legally" used (by obtaining written permission) for wedding productions. It is generally a tedious and laborious process because it must be done on case-by-case, song-by-song basis, as here in the US there is no music publishers "clearing house" that is able to grant "blanket recording rights." ASCAP and BMI do not have the authority to grant recording (synchronization) rights.
WEVA International takes the position that it is up to each individual wedding videographer (or their clients, per their contract terms) to secure any permits that may be necessary for material used in a wedding video. Regarding the music publishers: it is up to them, and not WEVA, to determine what is of concern to them and their interests. They, of course, are fully capable of speaking for themselves and initiating action on their behalf to protect their own interests. Wedding videos containing copyrighted (non-cleared) music have been produced for more than 20 years. The music industry is obviously aware of this situation. Presently, we are not aware of any litigation involving the use of music on a wedding video.
The 1976 Copyright Act (US Code, Title 17-Copyrights), is the governing instrument for copyright protection. It discusses the matter of "infringement" in great detail --what is (and is not) infringement and establishes the remedies for infringements. Unfortunately, there is no section or amendment specifically pertaining to "wedding videography." Consequently, a definitive resolution in this area is ultimately subject to Congressional review and judicial evaluation.
If infringement is occurring with respect to wedding videography it may be of very minor concern to copyright holders and not considered to be a case of substantial "wrongdoing" or an "actionable" offense.
On the other hand, there are many who believe that certain provisions of the Act may mean that music used for individual "home use," as opposed to use for commercial distribution, does not constitute infringement. For example, Section 107 (paragraph 1) of the Copyright Act says "...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified...is not an infringement of copyright." The Act states that several factors are used to determine "fair use." One is "the purpose and character of the use," another factor cited is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (Section 107 paragraph 2). Other related matters may come into play here as well, specifically the "Betamax decision" of the late of ‘‘‘‘70s which "legalized" taping of copyrighted works for home use.
In light of these and other factors, once again, it would be wrong for WEVA to automatically assume that wedding videographers are "violators" or even that the music industry is upset by this matter.
In short, WEVA International believes that all of us should comply with the copyright law and further assumes that its members agree. WEVA International also recognizes that the law is not as clear in this area as it should be, and it is not clear how concepts such as "fair use" will apply to wedding videography. We hope that the law will be clarified by Congress and the courts in the future, and WEVA will continue efforts to achieve such clarification.
Well...my observation about WEVA is that arguing the "fair use" concept is a veiled threat. I do believe any wedding video producer can create a video wih copyrighted music for home use. That is, his/her home use, NOT that of his/her clients.
Think about it this way- suppose I wrote a book about using DVX cams, and within the book I used large amounts of Barry's copy. I even release a companion DVD with sample I shot and samples I used from Barry's DVD. I then sell the new compilation to clients on eBay for their home use. Maybe only a few, but I still charge and keep money- maybe I even give a credit to Barry at the end.
Is that OK? I don't think so. And either is adding a musican's music to a wedding video.
Nor do I believe that because "wedding videos" are not specifically mentioned in the Copyright Act of 1976 means that it's automatically subject to Congressional review. The Act itself is pretty specific, but small-use licensing is difficult to negotiate, and most high-level artists won't waste their time with it.
I will, however, applaud WEVA fo trying to create a workable licensing model, and artists can choose to participate in that organization- it's a way to make workable licensing agreements, and fair and profitable to all.
I'm not really trying to be difficult about this, but we, as creators of iintellectual property, need to understand the value of the 1976 Copyright Act- it's very much a cornerstone of our business, and I feel strongly that if I expect others to respect my property, I must do the same.
fn
PS: I found a neat music site in a post here somewhere with a sliding scale license fees, payable right at their site- very slick, nice music, a good model.
Think about it this way- suppose I wrote a book about using DVX cams, and within the book I used large amounts of Barry's copy. I even release a companion DVD with sample I shot and samples I used from Barry's DVD. I then sell the new compilation to clients on eBay for their home use. Maybe only a few, but I still charge and keep money- maybe I even give a credit to Barry at the end.
Is that OK? I don't think so. And either is adding a musican's music to a wedding video.
Nor do I believe that because "wedding videos" are not specifically mentioned in the Copyright Act of 1976 means that it's automatically subject to Congressional review. The Act itself is pretty specific, but small-use licensing is difficult to negotiate, and most high-level artists won't waste their time with it.
I will, however, applaud WEVA fo trying to create a workable licensing model, and artists can choose to participate in that organization- it's a way to make workable licensing agreements, and fair and profitable to all.
I'm not really trying to be difficult about this, but we, as creators of iintellectual property, need to understand the value of the 1976 Copyright Act- it's very much a cornerstone of our business, and I feel strongly that if I expect others to respect my property, I must do the same.
fn
PS: I found a neat music site in a post here somewhere with a sliding scale license fees, payable right at their site- very slick, nice music, a good model.
XCheck
Veteran
Very interesting discussion. I've done some dance performance videos, and the way I'd approach it is to have the client sign a waiver explicitly stating that the music in the video has been selected and licensed by them. Use only recording they provide (on a physical medium), and return it back to them.
Then the onus is on them to prove they licensed the music.
OTOH, I find it an extremely perverse idea that someone would sue a couple for copyright infringement if they chose that someone's music for their music video.
Let's think about it: here you have a girl and a boy that may have fallen in love because they both are fans of a particular style/artist. The music means a lot to them - that's why they chose it for their wedding video. They may have bought several albums from that artist. If putting their favorite song on their wedding video is not fair use, what is? As long as they legally bought the CD in first place...
Then the onus is on them to prove they licensed the music.
OTOH, I find it an extremely perverse idea that someone would sue a couple for copyright infringement if they chose that someone's music for their music video.
Let's think about it: here you have a girl and a boy that may have fallen in love because they both are fans of a particular style/artist. The music means a lot to them - that's why they chose it for their wedding video. They may have bought several albums from that artist. If putting their favorite song on their wedding video is not fair use, what is? As long as they legally bought the CD in first place...
GenJerDan
Veteran
Easy way out: get your cousin Jimmy and his garage band to cover the song. The original artist then can't say boo about it, and the copyright-holder (which isn't necessarily the performer in question) gets paid thru BMI or ASCAP from the pittance/unit-sold you pay.
How many wedding videos are generally sold? 3? The Parents and the Couple? Wheeee. A nice fat $0.07 check coming their way. :grin:
If I actually cared about any of this, I'd start a website where artists could list themselves as OK-For-Wedding-Videos. I think most would list themselves.
Really...what kind of ego-boost would it be to have someone want to make your peformance a permanent part of their life?
Of course, in many cases even the artists don't own the sync rights, so... Hmmm...maybe a list of corporate jerks, too. Embarrass them into changing their policies.
How many wedding videos are generally sold? 3? The Parents and the Couple? Wheeee. A nice fat $0.07 check coming their way. :grin:
If I actually cared about any of this, I'd start a website where artists could list themselves as OK-For-Wedding-Videos. I think most would list themselves.
Really...what kind of ego-boost would it be to have someone want to make your peformance a permanent part of their life?
Of course, in many cases even the artists don't own the sync rights, so... Hmmm...maybe a list of corporate jerks, too. Embarrass them into changing their policies.
Yes, I've had many clients tell me what an honor (in lieu of money) i would be to have my images in their magazine. Once, in fact, instead of a check for the monthly lease on my studio, I just sent a thoughtful note to my landlord, explaining that although I had no money, I was honored that month, and they, in turn, should feel honored as well. They should feel the love!
And I told my son that instead of food and school supplies, he should just feel the honor I had by having my property selected without compensation for someone else's selfish purposes.
The last company that "honored" me by running one of my image in their website and catalog well beyond the original license agreement made a substantial payment to my son's college education fund.
I realize I sound like a zealot, and I promiise I drive over the speed limit frequently and smuggle beer into movie theaters.
That typed, I think the point is still missed- the Wedding Video (hereafter WV) is a "new work", and that new work cannot legally include work that you have not created or licensed for that purpose. Therefore, you are not licensed to sell that WV that includes that music. The key word is sell- you cannnot sell, license or transfer anything that does not belong to you or you have not licensed with that understanding.
The garage band idea is just as wrong- the license to perform the music is NOT the license to record and/or rebroadcast or distribute that song. And, you are the one who'll on the hook for it.
Just an observation- lots of folks on this forum want to be considered "professional" but when it comes to professional conduct, why does everyone want to back away? Why does everyone want to find a way around fairness and respect for the intellectual property of others and provided by law?
fn
And I told my son that instead of food and school supplies, he should just feel the honor I had by having my property selected without compensation for someone else's selfish purposes.
The last company that "honored" me by running one of my image in their website and catalog well beyond the original license agreement made a substantial payment to my son's college education fund.
I realize I sound like a zealot, and I promiise I drive over the speed limit frequently and smuggle beer into movie theaters.
That typed, I think the point is still missed- the Wedding Video (hereafter WV) is a "new work", and that new work cannot legally include work that you have not created or licensed for that purpose. Therefore, you are not licensed to sell that WV that includes that music. The key word is sell- you cannnot sell, license or transfer anything that does not belong to you or you have not licensed with that understanding.
The garage band idea is just as wrong- the license to perform the music is NOT the license to record and/or rebroadcast or distribute that song. And, you are the one who'll on the hook for it.
Just an observation- lots of folks on this forum want to be considered "professional" but when it comes to professional conduct, why does everyone want to back away? Why does everyone want to find a way around fairness and respect for the intellectual property of others and provided by law?
fn
GenJerDan
Veteran
Fake Name said:
Check again. You do not have to get prior permission to perform someone's song. See all that sheet music in the (bigger) music stores? It's expected that someone is going to perform it. It is also expected that the owner will get their cut...but usually only happens if the song is recorded. It's supposed to happen when Jimmy and his friends perform it at Salty Joe's Bar & Restaurant too, but that almost never happens.
I didn't say you could do it for free. But it's a helluva lot cheaper than getting the mechanical repro rights from the original publisher/artist/owner.
There are things in place to take care of all that, "automatically".
I even got a nice little packet from BMI last year because I have music on my website. BMI was going to make sure the musicians got paid. There wasn't even any talk of getting prior permission to have the music there.
I told BMI to leave me the hell alone. I thought it was silly for me to pay BMI to pay me to have my music on my website.
I have been checking this out for the UK.
In the UK, it seems that you can pay a fee of ~£17 per video as long as you make less than 100 copies and use less than 30 minutes music. You can use ANYTHING publicly released - well that's what I was told!
Seems about fair to me. Probably actually better than buying a year's lisence.
In the UK, it seems that you can pay a fee of ~£17 per video as long as you make less than 100 copies and use less than 30 minutes music. You can use ANYTHING publicly released - well that's what I was told!
Seems about fair to me. Probably actually better than buying a year's lisence.