Wedding Videographer Sued For Use of Commercial Music

Status
Not open for further replies.
Youtube does not condone it, they just cannot police every posting. They look to users/viewers to report any violations.
Click to expand...

Well, there are some shenanigans going on.

Case & point (and I believe this was touched upon somewhere in the first 5 pages.) Let's say I make a skateboarding video and use a song from the band….Clutch. Yes, that'll do. Youtube gladly hosts it, AND they give the viewer the option to buy that track on iTunes OR Amazon. If it's not ethical, then why is it allowed, to the point of making a profit?

Back to the original article/topic: No average couple wants some generic, royalty free crap in their wedding video. And that average couple is not Tony Romo and Candice Crawford. They're Freddy and Arlene Kaputnik from Sheboygan, Wisconsin. They want "their song" and IMO, they should get it. My caveat to what I've just said is that the wedding video should be enjoyed in the couple's home and not blasted all over the internet.

And if the hipster videographer wants to make some kind of promo day in review for the web…THEN I suppose he should use that crappy generic royalty free library. Or suffer the consequences, if there are any.
 
For linking music within Youtube, you need to look into how that was made possible. Believe me, money was changed hands for that, and non-exclusive rights secured by Youtube. They did that as a pre-emptory move to help mitigate being sued at every turn. But if you have music that they didn't secure the rights to, and the original artist finds out or someone complains.........your vid is zapped.
 
1. I am a wedding videographer and I don't offer Tom and Cindy Kaputnik from Sheboygan, Wisconsin "their song" because I don't own the license for a music bed and neither do they. And I won't use some one else's artistic creation without permission or license. I don't get the job.

2. I am another wedding videographer, and I don't give a damn and include the song, and get paid handsomely. Tom and Cindy view the video privately.

Doesn't seem right that the "don't give a damn" steals a song and gets paid, does it?

And how does viewing the video privately make a difference?
 
Doc Bernard said:
For linking music within Youtube, you need to look into how that was made possible. Believe me, money was changed hands for that, and non-exclusive rights secured by Youtube. They did that as a pre-emptory move to help mitigate being sued at every turn. But if you have music that they didn't secure the rights to, and the original artist finds out or someone complains.........your vid is zapped.
Click to expand...

I looked through YouTube's FAQs and help forum to find the answer to this. The iTunes links are not added by the users. The links are added when some one is caught using copyrighted music without permission, but rather than having the video removed the copyright holder asks that the iTunes purchase link be added to the video. For content creators that use their own music, which they also have for sale in the iTunes Store, there is actually no way to add one of those pop-up link buttons.

Record companies are catching on to the potential, but in a backwards sort of way. It still does not excuse the copyright infringement, and it still does not make that unauthorized use legal or something that everyone should start doing. It does, however, expose a potential of low-cost licensing for online content creators that the record companies may one day fully realize.

The way to change the system is to utilize other legal means that demonstrate the vast potential, not to keep stealing and hope that the record companies will follow suit. They won't follow suit... but they will file a suit. There are now several ways (as has been mentioned already) to get high-quality music on the cheap (and sometimes for free) through Creative Commons and other sources. If folks start using those methods more and more, the major companies might just wake up and smell the coffee. They're not going to change until they actually see some one else benefiting/profiting from this new licensing concept.
 
David Saraceno said:
1. I am a wedding videographer and I don't offer Tom and Cindy Kaputnik from Sheboygan, Wisconsin "their song" because I don't own the license for a music bed and neither do they. And I won't use some one else's artistic creation without permission or license. I don't get the job.
Click to expand...

Which brings us to an interesting question:

When Tom and Cindy buy a CD with their song and listen to it, while they play the wedding video, that´s perfectly legal right?

But when Tom and Cindy give me the CD they bought and I underlay the video with their song, it´s illegal, despite it is the same thing, they watch the video and hear their song.

So using copyrighted music in a video is legal, as long you play it simultaneously from a CD player.

In a perfect world it would be legal, if I use a song in Tom´s and Cindy´s Video, when they bought the CD.
Cause it is legal for them to copy the CD on a MP3 Player or any other medium - why not under their wedding video?

Also what happens when Tom has MovieMaker and underlays my video with the music he bought on his computer?

Frank

For the record: Youtube has a deal with (at least one) record company, that they can delete the video themselves, if their music is used, so YouTube doesn´t have to watch every video.
 
Alex H. said:
They won't follow suit... but they will file a suit.
Click to expand...

That was very nicely done, sir. :)

Postmaster said:
Which brings us to an interesting question:

When Tom and Cindy buy a CD with their song and listen to it, while they play the wedding video, that´s perfectly legal right?
Click to expand...

Yes, because they are playing the music from their CD, which they purchased. It has not been "copied" from the CD, hence the "copy" right Gods have not been angered.

But when Tom and Cindy give me the CD they bought and I underlay the video with their song, it´s illegal, despite it is the same thing, they watch the video and hear their song.
Click to expand...

But here's the thing: you didn't buy the CD, they did. Furthermore, even if you did buy the CD, you bought it with a warning on it somewhere that said something about "unauthorized duplication."

So using copyrighted music in a video is legal, as long you play it simultaneously from a CD player.
Click to expand...

But if you're playing from the CD player, you're not using it "in" the video, you're using it "with" the video.

Cause it is legal for them to copy the CD on a MP3 Player or any other medium - why not under their wedding video?
Click to expand...

Assuming that IS still legal, because certainly the record companies having been trying to change that... it's because they bought the CD in the first place, and thus it falls into a very grey area of "authorized duplication," if that makes any sense. (And since we're talking copyright law, it almost certainly doesn't.) If they take their CD or MP3 and give it to you for their video, or to their neighbor to put on his MP3 player, or to their Luddite neighbor to copy onto cassette because he still doesn't even have a CD player... then we're back to "unauthorized."

Also what happens when Tom has MovieMaker and underlays my video with the music he bought on his computer?
Click to expand...

In this scenario, when he puts it on YouTube, HE gets sued instead of you. :D
 
Oh, and by the way... I agree with those who say that copyright law, at least in the US (which is the only country I have experience with), sucks.

(And this is a topic you do NOT want to get my wife started on, ever since the day when she tried to copy the only existing photo of her great-grandparents at a camera store and was told she couldn't because the copyright on "professional" photos is 125 years regardless of whether the person who took it or any of his descendants are even still alive... But I digress.)

The thing is, and I'll be the 20th person in this thread to say it, regardless of how much it sucks, and how inconsistent you think it is... it's still the law. Analogies never work in this argument, but I'm increasingly thinking of it like speeding. Yeah, it may be inconvenient that the speed limit is only 55 when you think you need to drive 80 to get to where you're going "on time," but the cop that pulls you over doesn't care how late you are, all he cares about is that you were doing 80.
 
OK, I've got this figured out!!!

1) Client must own copy of music track.
2) Viewers on Vimeo must own the track, too (wedding couple gives the track out as as a thank you gift).
3) Video starts with countdown leader.
4) When "2" is reached, press play on mp3/CD.
5) Enjoy a... perhaps not perfectly synced video?

It's kind of like Dark Side of the Rainbow- listening to Pink Floyd while watching Wizard of Oz.
 
Postmaster said:
Which brings us to an interesting question:

When Tom and Cindy buy a CD with their song and listen to it, while they play the wedding video, that´s perfectly legal right?

But when Tom and Cindy give me the CD they bought and I underlay the video with their song, it´s illegal, despite it is the same thing, they watch the video and hear their song.

So using copyrighted music in a video is legal, as long you play it simultaneously from a CD player.
Click to expand...

Not even close.

I like the scenario groveChuck mentioned: sitting at home, listening to Pink Floyd while watching (a muted) "Wizard of Oz" on the boob tube. The "Wizard of Oz" film makers did not use the music in their film (would have been impossible without time travel, but let's omit that for argument's sake). You are listening to a record (remember those?) that you legally purchased, while at the same time watching a Betamax that you legally bought.

Now, if the current copyright holder/publisher of "Wizard of Oz" decided to release a copy of the film on DVD with Pink Floyd replacing the sound track, and they did not have permission from Pink Floyd's publisher, that would be illegal. They are selling an unauthorized copy of Pink Floyd's album as part of their film. They are making money off pirated music.

Same with the question about Tom and Cindy. They hired you to produce their wedding video, and the DVD you gave them is the product of that transaction. If they decide to mute the TV and play one of their CDs, there's nothing the publishers can do (or even should do). BUT, if you use their aforementioned favorite song in the DVD that you produced, you have sold that music and profited from it. That's a very different scenario.
 
Regarding wanting music that is from a major artist/recording company:

The desire for music that is well known rarely has to do with the fact that it is BETTER than indie music, or that it got to the top because of quality or creativity. In fact, a lot of top chart music nowadays is admittedly sub-par. The point is not that this justifies infringement, I am merely pointing out an important fact: The fact that the desire for what's "hot" has much more to do with the fact that the song is KNOWN or RECOGNIZABLE than it does with the song being GOOD or of a certain quality.

This is precisely what makes music and the discussion so unique. What draws average people to music is often the fact that is KNOWN, not necessarily excellent… what I mean is this:

The reason there is a perceived "need" for major music is because music is SO distinctly different than any other form of copyrighted art (for example, it is very different from say a beautiful time-lapse clip that I may have created and that someone could potentially use without my permission). Because a different time-lapse clip could be created instead, and accomplish the exact same thing, and convey/capture the exact same emotion. With music, though, this IS NOT the case. A song in the exact same genre and style can be created, but with music, the only thing that can create the same mood/feeling/emotion is the ACTUAL particularly track itself. And it's not because the artist is better or more talented. In fact, you could make a BETTER song in the same genre, but it won't have the same effect as original track you are trying to create the feel of.

Why?

Because music has the unique ability to unlock sights, sounds, memories, and smells just from a snippet playing. If a person hears 10 seconds of a song, they are instantly transported back to a time or place in their memory. And for everyone, it is different time or place, or a different song that does this. It is not contingent on how good the song is. It could be a terrible song. It has nothing to do with the artist or the specific content in cases like this, or any quality of work. It's a psychological phenomena that is ascribed to the listener, not the creator.

So when someone says they "need" to use a certain song, or a client "demands" a certain song, it's not because that song is better than what is available royalty free. It is because it is that song, and that song only, that creates the desired emotion - and that not because of the creator, but because of the time/place that particular tune has been anchored in an individual's mind. There are people who want the CRAPPIEST songs in their videos, because it reminds them of something. If anything, it makes the video worse because the music is so god-awful. But that's the unique thing about music, and no other piece of art quite does this.

For example, if "wallflowers - one headlight" instantly reminds someone of their senior year graduation, and they were paying someone to make a slideshow/video montage of their senior year, as far as they're concerned it has to be set to wallflowers - one headlight. It's the song that was playing at the grad party, during their first kiss with their now wife, it's the song they looped on that senior year road-trip, etc. Not even the BEST royalty free track can replace this. Even if it's the same style, beat, and sound. It has to be THE TRACK. Even if the song was the worst song you could think of, some Brittany spears P.O.S. - it would "have to be that song" - not because it's a good song. But because it is a unique "key" if you will to an emotional memory of a time and a place. Music is unique like this.

So what's my point?

My point is that in many ways, this is more akin to the aforementioned story about the wife who could not photocopy the only remaining picture of her great grandfather due to a copyright law. If a wedding couple can't have music set to the ONE song that they ascribe to themselves, they are being robbed of a certain memory or connection in a sense. Which is where the argument degenerates into two points:

FIRST: Is the videographer making money off the skill of the artist that created the song? Or does the videographers work stand on its own, and it's not the quality of the musical track that "makes them money" it's the video itself. The musical track only adds meaning to the viewers. For example, the offender mentioned in the first couple posts has incredible work set to royalty free tracks. His work is fantastic, with or without copyrighted music. It's just less meaningful now to the couples who hire him, because they don't have songs that are personal to them. And a lot of those royalty free tracks are GREAT!! But they don't MEAN anything to the people.

SECOND: Isn't "the key" to this emotional memory worth paying for? Why yes, of course. The difficulty here is that YOU CANNOT PAY FOR IT. IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD. END OF STORY. When you say something like "you may have to pay for it, and it may be a lot" it reframes the argument, into someone not wanting to pay the price. That's not the case. People literally cannot pay for it. The cost is unattainable. It's why you've never seen an indie with licensed music. It's not possible. If you had the money, you wouldn't be an indie. So indie's aren't "opting out of paying" because they are cheap. Indie's don't get to use it, period. If someone is able to use it, they aren't an indie.

It can be reasonably demonstrated that the reasoning from this from record labels is flawed and out-dated. But that's not what this particular post is about - I've talked about that a lot elsewhere. I am simply pointing out the fact that certain music tracks are irreplaceable "keys" for many people, and that this often has much less to do with the quality of the track itself and more to do with the fact that it was associated with a certain time, place, or person.

And regarding the videographer who made $$ on creating the video. The argument goes that they made money by coat tailing on the musical artist. Yeah, it's possible in some cases. The vast majority of the time though, these wedding video's quality have little to do with the fact the music was on a major label or that they used some band's music. The video quality stands on its own. Maybe record labels (and perhaps some musical artists) should stop being so one-track minded in thinking that the reason someone wants a particular song is because the song is just so great. Sometimes it is! But a lot of times it's simply because a memory occurred at the same time their song just so happen to be playing. And it always seems to be the "big artist" songs that happen to be playing everywhere we go in life.

Keep in mind. I have said a lot in other posts. Take what I write here ONLY as one piece to be considered - one piece of a much, much larger puzzle. I'm saying something very specific, please don't read into it. Just some food for thought on why the unlicensed-music-from-major-artists issue is an issue at all, and a couple things that make it different and more touchy than other forms of infringement.
 
groveChuck said:
OK, I've got this figured out!!!

1) Client must own copy of music track.
2) Viewers on Vimeo must own the track, too (wedding couple gives the track out as as a thank you gift).
3) Video starts with countdown leader.
4) When "2" is reached, press play on mp3/CD.
5) Enjoy a... perhaps not perfectly synced video?

It's kind of like Dark Side of the Rainbow- listening to Pink Floyd while watching Wizard of Oz.
Click to expand...

This is actually how a company called Rifftrax works. It's something that former MST3K writer and actor Mike Nelson came up with after MST3K was cancelled. Rather than provide the movie along with the MST "comment" track, and thus have to secure rights to the movie, he came up with the idea of just selling you an MP3 of the commentary that you would play along with your own DVD of, say, "Transformers." From the sound of it, it's working pretty well for him.

I doubt it's a viable business model for wedding videographers, though... :D
 
Captain Pierce said:
he came up with the idea of just selling you an MP3 of the commentary that you would play along with your own DVD of, say, "Transformers."
Click to expand...
I like the way Nelson thinks! (I could claim I came up with the idea before MST was cancelled, or even before mp3s were invented... but won't :happy:)
I doubt it's a viable business model for wedding videographers, though... :D
Click to expand...

Tom and Cindy Kaputnik cue up their wedding video and mp3 soundtrack after returning from their honeymoon- Tom on the DVD, Cindy on the mp3.

Tom says "ready... play!"
Cindy says "now?"
Tom says "yes, now!"
Cindy says "here?"
"Yes, here and now!" Tom yells.

So it plays, and by then, there's Black Eyed Peas I've Got A Feeling over the ceremony, and The Bridal March during the reception, and thus begins the end of their happy marriage... :cry:
 
filmguy: Of course couples want "their song" on their wedding video. And yes, it can be considered functionally impossible to license that song. (Although I'll bet Tony Romo has the money to do it. :grin: )

But, as I said all the way back on page 1, "The absence of a usable licensing system for copyrighted content does not excuse the use of copyrighted content without a license."

Just because you* really really want to do something that's illegal, doesn't make it right; and the "but it was their song" excuse is not going to hold water with the record companies' well-paid lawyers.

*That's a generic "you," not an insinuation that you personally are doing such a thing, just for clarity. :)
 
Captain Pierce said:
But, as I said all the way back on page 1, "The absence of a usable licensing system for copyrighted content does not excuse the use of copyrighted content without a license."

Just because you* really really want to do something that's illegal, doesn't make it right; and the "but it was their song" excuse is not going to hold water with the record companies' well-paid lawyers.
Click to expand...

I think that's the crux out disagreement for a lot of people. Malum in Se VS Malum in Prohibitum; or, put another way, just because something is against the law doesn't NECCESARILY make it wrong/immoral. And just because it doesn't hold water with lawyers or in court doesn't mean, theoretically, it wouldn't hold water "before god" if you will. The point I was making, is that morally speaking, not legally speaking, some copyright laws in SOME cases COULD actually be considered more immoral than just breaking it and using it for your personal wedding video. There's a ton of variables there and the issue is of course more complicated; I hope my post above was clear in that. Just some food for thought ;)

My 2 cents. I do suspect people will never come to an agreement here, and I know a lot of people equate morality directly with the law; but as I stated, the law is an attempt by human beings (flawed people) to codify morality.
 
I think it may be time this one came to an end. Posts have been deleted, and things are just being repeated anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top