Should I worry about copyrighted music?

[David G. Smith]

I've done tons of wedding videos, have always used royalty-free music, and have never once had a disappointed client. You shouldn't have to rely on popular, copyrighted music to carry your video.

The you must not have shot the "First Dance" or the "Father Daughter Dance" for them, I have never had a wedding client that would accept putting canned music over those.

Interesting angle there combatentropy, you are right about copyright being an arbitrary right. This current state of, "The life of the author plus seventy years", or the "Mickey Mouse Law", is crazy. It is my understanding that the Disney Company lobbied hard for that, and spent tons of dough doing it. They just are not going to let that mouse fall into the public domain.

 

[adelphik]

The you must not have shot the "First Dance" or the "Father Daughter Dance" for them, I have never had a wedding client that would accept putting canned music over those.

I was talking about music from CD's or iTunes that is specifically synched to the video in post. There's no way to get around including the songs recorded during the ceremony or reception.

 

[simonpwood]

I was talking about music from CD's or iTunes that is specifically synched to the video in post. There's no way to get around including the songs recorded during the ceremony or reception.

Yeah, but that's the point. Technically, recording the song as played by the DJ in real life and editing that into your video is just as illegal as if you bought the song on itunes and synced it in post.

Its an impossible situation (unless those new schemes like Zoom actually work and are legal). Either way I'm glad I don't do wedding videos!

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

As long as you are using music for a family it's okay but you cannot use music without permission and pay if it's commercial and to be shown as such in a public fashion.

 

[HeyAndy]

Editman,

I'm doing this voluntarily "for a friend(s)" so I don't get anything.

 

[HeyAndy]

What about songs from independent artists? Is it the same issue?

 

[adelphik]

Yeah, but that's the point. Technically, recording the song as played by the DJ in real life and editing that into your video is just as illegal as if you bought the song on itunes and synced it in post.

Its an impossible situation (unless those new schemes like Zoom actually work and are legal). Either way I'm glad I don't do wedding videos!

I know. Technically, showing the faces of all the guests on videos, public or private, isn't legal unless you have their permission. But I wasn't talking about that -- I've never heard of anyone getting sued because of the song during the first dance.

I love wedding videography. It makes me a ton of money.

 

[combatentropy]

As long as you are using music for a family it's okay but you cannot use music without permission and pay if it's commercial and to be shown as such in a public fashion.

This is true in a practical sense but not strictly a legal one. Are we talking about what you can get away with or what is totally legal according to today's copyright laws? Want to know the legal limits of copyright? According to the letter of the law of copyright:

You cannot put a song by someone else in your video, even if you are giving away the video for free, even if you are showing it only to yourself and no one else, even if you recorded the music "accidentally" as it played over a loudspeaker.

Sound contrary to common sense? Well, it is.

There is a clause in copyright law called Fair Use. It means, basically, let's not make copyright so onerous that we all go crazy. And that's about as specific as it gets. From copyright.gov:

The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

In other words, if you get sued, the judge may rule it Fair Use, but we can't guarantee that. Either way, you're still gonna have to pay some lawyer dues.

My takeaway?

1. You probably won't get sued.
2. But you also probably won't get struck by lightening. Some people, however, get struck by lightening. The result is often disasterous.
3. If you ever get a chance to sway lightening --- I mean copyright --- law, please do. Write your congresswoman or -man. Spread the word to your friends. Intellectual property law* should be restrained.

* If you really want to see a nefarious side of "intellectual property" law, look into patents.

 

[Doc Bernard]

What about songs from independent artists? Is it the same issue?

Yes it is....but it is so much easier to get permission from them. An email sometimes takes care of everything.

Don't get discouraged, HeyAndy. All we are trying to do is make sure you don't start thinking it is okay to just take someone else's work and use it without asking. Because once you start down that slippery slope, the stains will be on you for a long time to come if you have any interest in doing videography as a pro. And if you shoot the most amazing wedding video ever, you will not be able to use the completed work for your reel if it has that music with it.

 

[Boncrek]

I've done tons of wedding videos, have always used royalty-free music, and have never once had a disappointed client. You shouldn't have to rely on popular, copyrighted music to carry your video.

Where do you find your royalty-free music? Would love to learn more bout this.
I personally haven't found any royalty-free tracks that actually sound good but maybe there's hope yet
Links to sites ya'll use would be much appreciated.

 

[TheReverend]

http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp

Doesn't do sync rights anymore :/

 

[Gregg Juke]

Has anyone mentioned Limelight? I wonder if they handle sync rights(??)

GJ

 

[Steve House]

...I have written letters to music publishing companies asking for permission to put their music in my videos. No response. I've heard that the lawyer costs to negotiate a license with small fries like you are more than the royalty they could ask you for. So, they just don't return your phone calls. Except for when they do, and they say, yes, you can put this copyrighted performance of Beethoven in your memories video for the local fire department for $164,000 (actual quoted amount). Or they'll not return your phone calls but will sue you if they see your video on a bad day and they want to take their frustration out on someone. Something like that.

The second nail in the coffin was the conviction that copyright is an artificial right. It is not a natural right, like the right to life. We literally made it up. Because we believed we had to. I believe it was Queen Anne of Britain in the 1700s who first instituted copyright. That's a long time for civilization to go without copyright. So, it's not like a moral right, except insofar as you are morally obligated to follow whatever laws your leaders have instituted (which I believe in, unless they violate some other moral right).
....

Just what makes you think copyright is an artificial right? When you shoot a video, do I have the right to appropriate it for my own uses without compensating you for it? Or suppose I DO offer to compensate you for it, are you obligated to accept my offer and if so, do I have the right to dictate the amount of compensation you MUST accept?

Intellectual property such as music (and videos and pictures and books and sculptures etc etc ) represents the labours of any number of individuals. Those who are creating it have a fundamental moral right to control if, how, where, and at what cost it is to be used. Copyright is not an artificial right at all. Rather it recognizes that the fruits of one's labour are one's own personal property to use as those who create it see fit. No one else has any rights to it except as granted by the work's owners.

You complain over the $164000 quote for the use of a recording of one of Beethoven's orchestral works. Have you considered the dozens of creative professionals, the hundreds of recording professionals and other staff - from secretaries to janitors - who need to get paid in order to produce and make available that recording? The only reason the recording was created and the only reason those hunfreds of people have jobs is to generate revenue from the licensing of the final product.

 

[custerc]

The only reason the recording was created [...] is to generate revenue from the licensing of the final product.

I get your point, but at its basest level, I don't think most musicians write, record, or perform songs only to "generate revenue".

 

[nosys70]

well , you would be surprised.
yes copyright is a silly system. it does not reward work, it rewards success. You can spend same amount of time and energy and cost to make a 3 min song,
one will be a success and bring back a lot of money, while the other one will never be on charts and bring almost no money back.
So you do not reward artist's work, just commercial success, that is a bit silly since the one who get success with his song is already paid because he sells
a lot of them and success in itself is already a form of reward.
And copyright has no reason to extend so long, after all if you paint a wall, you are not paid 70 years after.
So you make a song, great, you are paid for it a reasonable amount (that can be easily calculated , adding all the charges, salary of musicians, rental of studio and
instrument, food and bed during time of creation etc...).
after if it is a big success, great, you are a celeb, you got more money from tour, advertising, derivative products, people will lend you money to create the next album and fans and paparazzi will be after you.
If it is just an average song, then too bad but everybody has been paid and you go back to work.
Just imagine if your plumber who makes the pipes in your house came every month for 70 years, asking for money for every gallon of water that goes through these pipes ?

and actually, do you think you can rent musicians, studios, hotels, advertising by saying "Uh, got no money but you will be paid with copyright...".
so currently the copyright are not paying the work done, when the song reach your ears, there are chances that everybody who made any work on that song has been paid already (probably at hourly rate).
So what is copyright money is supposed to pay ? (imagine, up to 70 YEARS after !)

 

[Steve House]

well , you would be surprised.
yes copyright is a silly system. it does not reward work, it rewards success. You can spend same amount of time and energy and cost to make a 3 min song,
one will be a success and bring back a lot of money, while the other one will never be on charts and bring almost no money back.
So you do not reward artist's work, just commercial success, that is a bit silly since the one who get success with his song is already paid because he sells
a lot of them and success in itself is already a form of reward.
And copyright has no reason to extend so long, after all if you paint a wall, you are not paid 70 years after....

The copyright on a song doesn't go to the artist(s) that perform it, it goes to the composer(s) and lyricist(s) who create it. True, that MAY happen also to be the performing artist in some cases but most of the time it is not. They rarely work for fame and public recognition - you've probably never heard of the majority of even the most successful of them. The copyright on the recording goes to the label that hires the musicians, including even the headline performing artists (yes, even the stars are hired-help, their very stardom a creation of the label's publicity machine), and the recording and administrative staff and thus is the legal 'creator' of the work-for-hire that is being produced. These aren't 'driven artists' slaving away in a garret in pursuit of their 'art expression,' these are professionals working at a job creating valuable properties in order to generate an income and feed their families.

Someone who paints a wall is being paid for the time and effort he puts into the job and the value of his work extends no longer than the time it takes to paint the wall. But someone who creates a work of intellectual property is being paid because he creates something new that has intrinsic value in-and-of itself - it matters not if the writing took 5 minutes or 5 months, the resulting product is what has the value, not the time involved. The 5 minute song is worth no more and no less than the 5 month song because, unlike painting walls, writing time simply isn't a factor. As for the duration of copyright, because the thing itself has value, it is personal property that retains its value for its effective lifespan and a license to use a song written 25 years ago contributes as much to the work where it is used as does a song written yesterday. Both licenses are of equal worth. A house doesn't lose its market value over time and drop to zero when the owner dies because the element that has the value in that pricing equation is the house itself. An artist that creates a body of commercially successful work has created an asset pool that continues to have value over time and just as you can leave money and real estate you have acquired through your work to your heirs, so too can you leave the collection sets that you have created through your work so they may benefit from them.

 

[Steve House]

I get your point, but at its basest level, I don't think most musicians write, record, or perform songs only to "generate revenue".

As one of the Hollywood moguls is reputed to have said years ago; "That's why they call it Show Business." No offense but I think you have an overly romantisized view of the music industry.

 

[nosys70]

"The copyright on a song doesn't go to the artist(s) that perform it, it goes to the composer(s) and lyricist(s) who create it..."
So copyright is even more unfair that way because the ones who really works are less paid than the one that just has provided the less effort , either because he is lucky or naturally gifted.
so why should you be paid for 70 YEARS to have worked 5min or 5months on the creation of a song and even more, why the one who has success should be rewarded more than the one
who produced the same but has no success.
that way you just wrongly inflate the value of a product either because it is pushed intentionally into by the power of big distribution group, or because it widly accepted at a time and at a place
by audience.
Yes copyright is pure business, it the equivalent of Capitalism trading , where people just gamble about things to gave them infinite inflated value. Money is calling money. It is not tha value of thing that count anymore, it is how many people are in the game.
the copyright problem is as big as the industry that stand behind. You never heard stories like that in the world of picture like you heard in the world of music .

 

[Steve House]

"The copyright on a song doesn't go to the artist(s) that perform it, it goes to the composer(s) and lyricist(s) who create it..."
So copyright is even more unfair that way because the ones who really works are less paid than the one that just has provided the less effort , either because he is lucky or naturally gifted.

Except in rare cases, Lady GaGa for instance, the performer is not the creator of the music, it is the composer and the lyricist who does the initial creative work. Then the performer interprets and extends that vision. If you value the work of composers and poets so low it's no wonder you fail appreciate the importance of respecting copyright.

...Yes copyright is pure business, it the equivalent of Capitalism trading , where people just gamble about things to gave them infinite inflated value. Money is calling money. It is not tha value of thing that count anymore, it is how many people are in the game.

Capitalism, where creation of new assets is rewarded, yes. Market speculation, no. Remember that even the great composers of the classics - Beethoven, Bach, etc - wrote because they were exploiting their own talents in order to earn an income from their noble patrons. As I said before, one must be careful not to over-romanticize the creative professions and the arts. One cannot be a great artist unless he has had, in the recent past, something to eat. The image of the starving artist slaving away in isolation concerned only with perfecting his craft is a romantic myth.

the copyright problem is as big as the industry that stand behind. You never heard stories like that in the world of picture like you heard in the world of music .

Copyright issues are just as important to the still photographer and graphic artist as they are to songwriters and music publishers. The battles over unauthorised use of images have been fought long and hard and lawsuits are still happening every day when a photographer discovers his work has been used without permission. And on the horizon you can expect even more rigorous enforcment of copyright on films and videos in coming years than there has been to date.

 

[Philip Goetz]

Check out "Synch Music Professionals". It is a LinkedIn group.

Additionally, in Austin Texas we have: http://www.baldillo.com/about

About Baldillo: Recognizing the underutilized talent pool of great musicians, bands, writers, and producers here in Austin, Baldillo began as a way to make these artists more accessible to various media industries. This effort has resulted in a unique and diverse catalogue of music and compositions appropriate for any type of project.
We maintain personal relationships with every artist we represent, most going back many years. These relationships are the key to the unique family environment that we have established.
Baldillo is proud to be associated with these artists who have kindly entrusted us with their "babies".