Music rights question

B

badabing

Member
I'm doing a documentary for a marching band.
The songs that they perform in their show have copyrights, for which the band has permission.
My question is, do I need to obtain a synch license of the original songs?
i will only be using what the band actually played, although I believe they use a sample for a few seconds.
Thanks
 
I think you absolutely will need a license. Whether or not a synch license is what you need, I'm not sure. But there are lots of people here who can tell you.

Good luck!
 
Not quite sure if UK rules are the same where you are, but the two main rights are the composers and the recording. Here TV ads are routinely re-recorded to avoid the recording rights. A marching band is a performance of copyright material so just needs clearing. In the UK this means PRS and no need to deal with PPL at all.
 
Does anybody have any experience in obtaining or negotiating for synch rights?
This is for a school fundraiser project, and I'm worried that they might ask for more money than the whole project will generate. The part that will need the rights is from a very obscure song that was rearranged as part of a bigger piece.
lt is purely for local sale and not for any national distribution or theatrical release, etc.
Any clue what this might cost or how to go about negotiating?
Thanks
 
Last edited:
Thanks David.
I have read those threads.
I have contacted the publisher and they sent me a standard form to request rights.
However they won't even give me a ballpark figure until they review.
I'm just curious on how much they might ask and if it's negotiable.
I'm hoping they will say free!!
 
What music are they performing? I'm a fan of those marching-band arrangements of Dmitri Shostakovich etc. If the composer is long dead, that will help!
 
szegedin said:
If the composer is long dead, that will help!
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. We're not talking about the original score. Yes, music written prior to 1923 is in the public domain. But for a marching band, it's likely that they're playing a copyrighted arrangement even if it is from a composer's 200-year-old score.
 
Alex H. said:
Not necessarily. We're not talking about the original score. Yes, music written prior to 1923 is in the public domain. But for a marching band, it's likely that they're playing a copyrighted arrangement even if it is from a composer's 200-year-old score.
Click to expand...

Copyrights differ depending on the country in which they were established; in the case of classical music it is more often than not outside the US. Many of these bands do arrangements and compete on that basis. Let's hear what the OP has to say -- it's more likely they're doing Beyonce.
 
badabing said:
Thanks David.
I have read those threads.
I have contacted the publisher and they sent me a standard form to request rights.
However they won't even give me a ballpark figure until they review.
I'm just curious on how much they might ask and if it's negotiable.
I'm hoping they will say free!!
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the going rate is (could be $10, could be $10,000) but hopefully they'll cut you a deal once you tell them about the project.
 
It's always a good idea to get clearance for any music used. That said, depending on how you film and use the footage it may fall under fair use, but would require you to defend yourself should a lawsuit arise.

For a documentary, if the band is not performing for the camera and you are using the original audio you recorded live, it generally falls under fair use. For example the band is performing for a crowd and you just happen to be there with a camera. However if the focus is the music itself then you will need to get clearance.

Invoking fair use is up for interpretation, it's not defined in black and white. Getting the right clearance you won't have to worry about it, which most of the time is better to be safe than sorry.

This is for the USA, don't know about other countries:p
 
Thanks for the replies.
The show they perform is made of two pieces.
One is from the 1800s, and I have been told by the band director that it is public domain, and their own arrangement (not a copyrighted one)
The other is from 2005 that was arranged with permission.
According to RIAA the song was a gold record.
The doc is about the band kids and all the parents that volunteer and help out.
They are not performing specifically for the camera, however, the music and the performances are a big part of the story.
The film will be shown at the end of the school year for the parents, and I will make DVD copies for the band to sell as a fundraiser. If 100 copies are sold, I would consider it a smashing success.
That's how small this project is!!
 
I'm not advising you to do this, I'm just commenting that I would just go under the radar in that case. It's like going 80 in a 65 only there's less chance of anyone getting injured. The whole concept of intellectual property is imploding. This is a social opinion not a legal opinion, lest anyone blow their top.
 
I have seen problems arise from projects like this where rights were granted for single showing and limited DVD distribution, when some student or parent got the bright idea to post the video on the internet.

Good Luck!
 
David - Then what happened, they got sued by the copyright owner and had to settle out of court, or they got a cease-and-desist lawyer letter and took the video down from youtube? Post links! It is good to know where the actual speed limit is. Where I come from, everyone is driving 79 on the Thruway.

Legal matters, you have to get an opinion from a lawyer. If the project is so small scale that a reasonable person would consider it silly to consult a lawyer, well there's your answer. You're not making money if it ends up on youtube. But when you are selling something, the petitioner would have a claim.
 
piman said:
For a documentary, if the band is not performing for the camera and you are using the original audio you recorded live, it generally falls under fair use. For example the band is performing for a crowd and you just happen to be there with a camera. However if the focus is the music itself then you will need to get clearance.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with this. For example, the documentary Mad Hot Ballroom (about a youth ballroom dancing program) had to get clearances for cell phone ring tones that went off during the regular course of shooting and that's about as incidental as you can get.


badabing said:
Thanks for the replies.
The show they perform is made of two pieces.
One is from the 1800s, and I have been told by the band director that it is public domain, and their own arrangement (not a copyrighted one)
The other is from 2005 that was arranged with permission.
According to RIAA the song was a gold record.
The doc is about the band kids and all the parents that volunteer and help out.
They are not performing specifically for the camera, however, the music and the performances are a big part of the story.
The film will be shown at the end of the school year for the parents, and I will make DVD copies for the band to sell as a fundraiser. If 100 copies are sold, I would consider it a smashing success.
That's how small this project is!!
Click to expand...

Since they do two songs I'd suggest just using the one from the 1800s if you can't get clearance for the modern song.


szegedin said:
Legal matters, you have to get an opinion from a lawyer. If the project is so small scale that a reasonable person would consider it silly to consult a lawyer, well there's your answer. You're not making money if it ends up on youtube. But when you are selling something, the petitioner would have a claim.
Click to expand...

Making money has little to do with it. The lawyers can go after the OP for unlawful reproduction and distribution of a copyrighted work.

Here's a link to a wedding video that got uploaded to YouTube w/uncleared music. The guy settled w/the record company to avoid going to court.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/we...-online-videos/story?id=15138195#.TvJrlyNWrn3


The speed limit is, if you use anything you do not have explicit permission to use you can be sued, taken to court and forced to defend yourself.


OP,
I would talk to a qualified IP lawyer or just not use the modern music if you can't afford to license it. Since you started this thread you don't even have any plausibly deniability of any wrong during if you use the music w/o permission and get caught (not that ignorance of the law is a viable defense for breaking the law).



I'm not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.


-Andrew
 
badabing said:
Thanks for the replies.
One is from the 1800s, and I have been told by the band director that it is public domain, and their own arrangement (not a copyrighted one)
That's how small this project is!!
Click to expand...
Somebody arranged it, so that person, or their employer or society (if there is a proper contract) own that copyright. So if it starts to make money, then the arranger could well suddenly feel entitled to the profits from their intellectual work! That's how it is with copyright - nobody really cares until money comes into it.

I've got some recordings I made of somebody when they weren't famous - but if I stuck them up on youtube, they'd sue me because my recording is mine, but it's their performance I recorded. Annoying!
 
adkimery said:
Making money has little to do with it. The lawyers can go after the OP for unlawful reproduction and distribution of a copyrighted work.

Here's a link to a wedding video that got uploaded to YouTube w/uncleared music. The guy settled w/the record company to avoid going to court.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/we...-online-videos/story?id=15138195#.TvJrlyNWrn3


The speed limit is, if you use anything you do not have explicit permission to use you can be sued, taken to court and forced to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

Great information. Respectfully differ with you however; the story is that a guy on the Dallas Cowboys put a slick wedding video that "hit the internet looking more like a blockbuster than nuptual footage. Complete with Coldplay's Fix You as the theme" If only all of us could attract that much attention from lawyers! They nailed him because they could get money from him. The law is a business.

Moving right along, the speed limit is the gap between the letter of the law and enforcement in practice. Jaywalking laws have never been enforced in Manhattan and they never will. If they were the place would be in some state! They use laws like that to tag you for something else. Joe Shmoe is not gonna get nailed for having the BeeGees in the background on his wedding vid, but that could change. It's important to know where the actual lines are because they are changing fast. Personally, I think the OP is jaywalking, but again this is a broader comment, not a legal opinion.
 
As a composer, I know that if you used my music without permission you would be sued. Bottom line... It's stealing, plain and simple.
 
David W. Jones said:
As a composer, I know that if you used my music without permission you would be sued. Bottom line... It's stealing, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Sounds pedantic but copyright violation is copyright violation, stealing is stealing. "Property" is a metaphor only recently applied to information. There is no "thing" to steal. If someone violates your copyright, you can sue them, but it will cost you money to litigate. Doing it out of anger or pride is also doable, but that's not a matter of law or economics so you don't see a lot of that from businesses. The bottom line is actually the Bottom Line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top