using copyright music?

[gco]

I remember reading about a 12 year old getting sued back when the Napster issue was hot in the news. Obviously it was newsworthy because of his age. Never saw anything on how the case turned out but I wonder if his parents now have a second mortgage or still own the house.

 

[USLatin]

I though you just can't make money from it, and if it is for home use then it actually is ok... that's not true either?
(for this discussion, for right now I'm not mentioning the issue of a wedding video where the guy that makes it makes money but the family "had it made" for home use and not for money, just slef made home stuff vs. profit)

 

[wabbit]

I though you just can't make money from it, and if it is for home use then it actually is ok... that's not true either?
(for this discussion, for right now I'm not mentioning the issue of a wedding video where the guy that makes it makes money but the family "had it made" for home use and not for money, just slef made home stuff vs. profit)

Short answer: Personal use among friends and family, do whatever you want. Use for ANY business, you need permission(s) (non-profits are a business).

Wedding videos are professional use and have been operating outside the law pretty much since wedding videography became a profession. No one has been prosecuted or given a cease and desist letter (to my knowledge) because it simple isn't worth the music owner's time to chase them all down. Since there was no reasonable way for the wedding videographers to legally secure these rights I believe it was all just a quagmire that everyone just agreed to ignore; don't ask, don't sue. Of course it is the copyright holders choice to change this policy any time they want.

What is happening with YouTube is interesting. These are mostly personal videos but once they are posted on YouTube they are entering a grey area of a business that really hasn't been figured out yet. Remember how long it took them to get Napster under control. Meanwhile millions of normally honest people became thieves.

Notice after Google bought YouTube they started shutting down all those copyright violaters rebroadcasting TV shows, movies, etc. I have read that, even though it is STILL a copyright violation, they are focusing mainly on people that post more then 5 minutes of a show. So putting up a 2 minute Daily Show clip won't get taken down but putting up the whole show will.

Also notice that just like Napster got the music industry to start offering $.99 downloads, places like YouTube is driving the Networks to offer online versions of their shows. Once they have a reasonable alternative that they can derive profits from, expect them to get a lot tougher on people rebroadcasting their copyrighted material. The cease and desist letters will likely get replaced by someone being sued to be made an example of. And believe Google will be on the side of the copyright holders; don't think they spent a billion dollars to become a target for lawsuits.

Illegally synced music on places like Youtube will be trickier to stop since there is so much of it out there and unlike TV shows or movies that can easily be found with a word search, the music is not as easily found.

But as most discussions and interests in here involves people making their own movies and video for profit; understand that using ANY copyrighted material without permission will keep you out of festivals and no distributor will go near you. If you intend to self-distribute then you might get away with it for awhile but your popularity and success could drive enough attention to you that you will end up getting a nasty letter.

Basically if you are serious about using someone else material for your own projects, excluding hobbist, then it's time to contact a lawyer.

Cheers

 

[saneproductions]

Sorry to hijack but, hey wabbit...

I just noticed you are in seattle too.

Do you have a website/contact info in case i need to hire you?

 

[moonlitnite]

Hi Wabbit,

Speaking of wedding videographers skirting the law, what about wedding DJs? A few days ago I asked one whose been in the business 20 years what was his take? He stated since DJs were simply offering a service, they were exempted! Hmm, then I'm sure wedding videographers are offering a service, too (even if the Franchise Tax Board states otherwise, that providing media/DVD is a furnished product).

Anyway, it got me curious - are most wedding DJs members of ASCAP/BMI, generating cue-sheets, etc? And what about all the other types of DJs?

Regards, Michael

 

[tigeba]

A DJ playing music in a club or at a party constitutes a "public performance" and they are obligated to pay royalties to either ASCAP or BMI in the US. Unlike licensing content for a movie this should not involve huge sums of money and negotiations.

Generally in a club the venue takes care of this. In the case of a wedding DJ, the DJ or the company they work for would be responsible.

There have actually been a few cases recently where a cover band played a song, and the venue was not paying royalties and ASCAP dropped the hammer on them.

Link to article


FWIW, ASCAP/BMI fees go to the members of ASCAP/BMI, which generally means the artist. This is also where royalties from radio and internet "airplay" go.

 

[USLatin]

Thanks to all of you guys it all makes sense...
Wabbit, I am interested in the YouTube fenomenon and I thought about it before... I was wondering if right now Google is understaffing the "combing an approval" department that should be responsible for making YouTube a copyright infringement free site knowingly... I wonder if there is allready out there an outline of how many people should be working foing this sort of thing in relation to hits to the website or to it's memberships and finding a way to make said departments' performance as low as possible by say only giving them bad DSL connections, all of this in hope that the site will reach the highest popularity possible before they are regulated further? Internet law is a newborn that's still missing all it's teeth but I wonder if there is allready some guidelines they have to abide by?

 

[filmguy123]

I think the music companies need to get it together and offer users a realistic price to license music.

For example, wedding videographers should be able to purchase ONE-TIME sync rights to a song for a reasonable, affordable price ($50? $100?). They could set legal limits, ie, profit work under $10,000 or not for mass distribution, etc. That way they would still retain profits from big theatrical films/tv/commercials etc. plus make money from smaller independent film makers who would love to use their songs in short films for festivals, sports videos, wedding etc.

I do not see why this is unreasonable with proper stipulations (pricing determined by the use/exposure/profit/etc. etc.) I think the companies would make more money this way + get more exposure for their music.

 

[wabbit]

Yeah, I have no clue specifically how Google is handling the violaters right now but it's bound to get "better" over time. Like I was saying, since the people who are having their copyrighted material ripped off don't have a viable alternative they are probably hard pressed to make a good case of the financial damage being done to them. Once they have a solid alternative in place they can argue that X number of hits represents "X times their fee" in financial lost. At that point I would expect them to start seriously cracking down on violaters.

If you look at Google Video I think that is where YouTube is headed. Basically there will be bunch of people putting up their amatuer shorts and that video blog stuff and then there will be a seperate area to pay to watch TV show, movies, or other copyrighted stuff.

It could make for a very interesting distribution format for people who want to do high-end shorts. YouTube could let the viewer watch the first couple minutes free and then pay a nominal fee to watch the whole thing if you are interested.

The lawlessness of Napster started a revolution in music distribution, hopefully things like YouTube will open up an exciting market for video distribution.

Cheers

 

[wabbit]

I think the music companies need to get it together and offer users a realistic price to license music.

For example, wedding videographers should be able to purchase ONE-TIME sync rights to a song for a reasonable, affordable price ($50? $100?). They could set legal limits, ie, profit work under $10,000 or not for mass distribution, etc. That way they would still retain profits from big theatrical films/tv/commercials etc. plus make money from smaller independent film makers who would love to use their songs in short films for festivals, sports videos, wedding etc.

I do not see why this is unreasonable with proper stipulations (pricing determined by the use/exposure/profit/etc. etc.) I think the companies would make more money this way + get more exposure for their music.

I haven't looked into it since I don't work in that realm but I read somewhere that WEVA working with some of the big guys (BMI, etc) has started a service like that for wedding videographers. Could be just another internet urban legend but maybe someone here knows more about it.

Cheers

 

[moonlitnite]

Zoom long on promises...

Zoom long on promises...

I haven't looked into it since I don't work in that realm but I read somewhere that WEVA working with some of the big guys (BMI, etc) has started a service like that for wedding videographers. Could be just another internet urban legend but maybe someone here knows more about it.

Cheers

Hi Wabbit,

Yeah, Zoom promised but in the last few months, I don't see anything substantive coming out from top name entertainers. Watch this space to see if they respond:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=83201&highlight=zoom

And if Zoom responds in the WEVA forum (where I've also posted asking why they aren't getting clearances from the big boys), I'll post an update at the above link. Hopefully, their promises don't turn out to be marketing hype with only lower-tier music.

Regards, Michael

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

And let's not get into why they have it that way...

What about sampling a copyrighted song breifly? is there a legal "sample" size?
doesn't sound right, but heard that once, long ago

See Fair Use

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

Remember, there is no hard and fast answer per se.

 

[frmain]

Hi guys, don't know if this is useful to anyone but I can confirm that Sufjan Stevens cannot be licensed unless you're a college production or major production.

Which is a real bummer for me...but oh well.

 

[tigeba]

Hi guys, don't know if this is useful to anyone but I can confirm that Sufjan Stevens cannot be licensed unless you're a college production or major production.

Which is a real bummer for me...but oh well.

Anything can be licensed if you can convince the license holder to do it. Of course this usually comes down to money.

Have you all ever considered that in many cases the reason the price of entry is high is simply because the license holder does not want their song in movies?

Perfect example is Cameron Crowe trying to get "Stairway to Heaven" in "Almost Famous". The guy was childhood friends with them I believe, and probably had the budget and still couldn't swing it.

 

[frmain]

Well, I talked directly to Sufjan's record label and they confirmed that under no circumstances will they license to anything other than a feature production or college film, so I'm imagining the same goes for any artist that has even a smidgeon of popularity.

And yes, I have considered that sometimes the license holder doesn't want their song to be used in say, a cheesy wedding video or whatnot. But it's very frustrating when there's such a huge gap in quality between royalty free (or close to) music and music that happens to be signed.

I went through so many pages on zoom yesterday, making my ears bleed, listening to such awful useless techno/dance. Then I went through royalty free music sites and listened to dinky twittering pianos that sounded as if they belonged back in the 1970s MIDI era.

Luckily for me I know a few composers and also studied music tech so I'm sure I can convince a few friends to write me some tunes for not that much money, but it is devastating when you can just IMAGINE your product being complete with a song, and then find out that you can't use the song.

Oh well.

 

[frmain]

http://www.apra.com.au/music-users/making_records/weddings_and_other_domestic_videos.asp

I talked to Sony BMG Australasia today and they provided me with this link. Basically it's a "domestic use license". Check it out. There might be a similar thing in Europe and US too.