Very high price for using music
 

A client of mine wanted to know what it would cost to use "start me up" from the Rolling Stones in a 15 second animated trailer as background music.
This trailer would be projected on a cinemascreen a few times in about 4 hours time during a business event.
That would be the only use, so no distribution on dvd or internet.

To my big surprise EMIMUSIC who you have to contact for these matters said it would cost at least 5 digits in euro (more then 13.200 dollar)

Is it normal that such big amounts are charged for such a limited use of music? Anyone any experience in these matters?

Of course it's normal. Frankly, I'm surprised it's that low.

For big names (i.e. The Rolling Stones), Perrone is absolutely correct. And it's unfortunate that the greed has blinded record labels to the use of proprietary material on a smaller scale (as there's still money to be made).

"Cheers" DVD's (for example) have been re-edited without music that was used on the original episodes because greed forced a revision. And given how much CBS is making off those DVD's, there's certainly room for that. But for a corporate project like you described, it's ridiculous. Aside from Christian music houses and lesser known personalities, it's generally not worth the headache/expense/hassle.

Wish I could offer a more positive response, but my experiences are similar.

Brad

Well they said, "at least" 5 digits but didn't gave me an exact number. the person that would come to speak at that event is a sport-athlete who uses "start me up" as warming up song at every event she performing her sport. Can't imagine she has to pay tens of thousends euro to play that each time??

When used for a commercial that airs on tv or on a dvd that will be copies more then 1000 times, then I could understand, but for a silly trailer that is only shown at a small business event? That's just plain greed as I see it.

For the event it doesn't matter because now we will just use a much cheap replacement song, not Rolling Stones for sure. :)

Blame Bill Gates - for real. Microsoft licensed Start Me Up to introduce Windows Vista to the world, paying a cool $1M in royalties for the privaledge. I believe it was the highest royalty ever for use in a commercial.

A public performance of a song or such as singing it or playing a recording of it before an audience is a whole different royaltie structure from taping a performance of it or otherwise incorporating it into a video soundtrack. The performance license is very reasonable and is administered through a rights society such as ASCAP or BMI and a single performance is just a very small fee. But a sync license to incorporate the same song into a film or video soundtrack such as your client wishes to do is whole different animal, even if the ultimate audience is relatively small. The audio visual work that the song becomes a part of is a separate copyright entity while a performance of the song is not. After all, that animated trailer theoretically COULD become the basis of a series a commercials airing nationwide or the cornerstone of an employee orientation or training program worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the company where the song is not just random noise but rather an intrinsic element instrumental in giving the production its value.

How time flies. It was Windows 95, the first version of Win with a "Start" button. I was there at the time.

Interesting story about that here: http://web.archive.org/web/200712140...es/016913.html

I really like "Malcolm in the Middle", it is one of my favorite TV series. I bought Season One on DVD many years ago. No other seasons have been released on DVD and I am told by a friend at Fox that no other seasons will ever be released on DVD or Blu-ray. Same issue, they cannot afford the music rights.

Strange since the series is on TV all over the world in syndication on a daily basis, but it is true, broadcast rights are very different than home video rights, which are typically MUCH more expensive.

The Rolling Stone thing doesn't surprise me at all, that does sound cheap. I once licensed a Madonna song for a corporate internal video and we paid $32,000.00 for a one time use license.

Dan

Several years ago, I shot and edited footage for vignettes at a manufacturer's Years of Service awards ceremony and my client wanted to use a pop song by a Canadian artist (no, not Bryan Adams, Rush or Celiné...)

This is back when most Royalty Free music (at least the stuff I had at my disposal) was still needle drop and required a license fee (and was fairly poor and sounded VERY "synth-y"). The client was insistent on using the pop song. I said "Well, since I'm liable if I include it, you go ahead and get the license and I'll include the song when I see the paperwork".

We edited the videos around the song the client wanted and I used it as a reference track, expecting to have to pull it out at the last minute.

She showed up one day with a registered letter from the Artist's management giving the go ahead. The cost? $4k. She said it wiped out HER part of the budget but that it was worth it.

Noa, two thoughts. I'd look at the cost of syncing the video playback machine with the CD player player and then paying only performance rights. Syncing two machines can't be considered copying. Secondly, if the event is a closed door company event and no further use will be made of the combination how will the licensing authorities know? I'm not suggesting you break the law - because I don't think that playing two separate machines at the same time is breaking the law - but it is realistic.

Dunno about the law in the UK, but synchronizing playback of audio from another recording/machine is the very essence of what SYNCHRONIZATION RIGHTS covers. You can kinda tell from the name, no? You can be sure the lawyers aren't going to argue the fine points of how many frames out of sync it has to be to "not count".

Richard, first I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the same basic tenets apply to USA and UK. However, my understanding of the essence of synchronisation is that it's the combining the two media to form a new item. Merely legally performing a discrete and complete medium whilst another medium is playing is surely not what the term synchronisation - as used in the licences - means?

It would be interesting to have a better brain than mine look at this - for example, if a dancer performs in public to a piece of music on an original, commercially obtained CD is that synchronisation? It certainly would be if a recording was made of both events but merely performance - assuming the performance rights were paid for?

I recall some years ago that a European AV company made a keynote programme for a big conference at which the music was performed live by a symphony orchestra. The synchronisation was via a click track played into the conductor's headphone. As far as I recall, the report mentioned a side-merit to the technique was that no synchronisation rights were payable - though of course you did have to factor in the cost of a symphony orchestra!

It's an interesting point because, as my posts here and elsewhere will indicate, I have always believed in fulfilling my legal responsibilities throughout my 30 years in the business.

I have been dealing with weddings primarily some years ago and then it's simple, here we are allowed to use commercial music without any paperwork or paying license cost as long as the dvd is for the couple's personal use.
When I went more into events I noticed what a world of difference this can be for using music and I have been using programs like Sony cinescore to create background music, at least my clients found it good enough for their purpose.
My current client also said something like what you are suggesting Philip but we eventually decided not to make it too complicated and risk getting a severe penalty, since there is absolutely no budget for these type of licensing we will have to look into much cheaper alternatives.
But it's good to know that it's "normal" to charge these amounts.

Back in February a client wanted some specially composed music for the start of a DVD for sale - we did the edit, but she paid extra for 30 seconds of something 'special & unique'. This request was only made when the subject of copyright clearance came up, so we suspected it was purely a cost factor making the decision. I did a very quick, and not very time consuming piece of music and charged her a small amount.

I saw the DVD being played a couple of weeks ago, and this music was missing - replaced with the original pop song she wanted to use. I'm not expecting any re-orders of this one, so are not going to make a fuss - and if the copyright police come knocking, I'm happy with my original evidence - but it's sneaky, isn't it!

It may be more liberal in Belgium but I have to wonder if the interpretation that it's okay there to use commercial music in a wedding DVD without licensing because it's for the personal use of the couple it is actually correct, After all, a wedding DVD is a commercial product being manufactured and sold by a vendor of commercial media services. The only thing that really makes it different from a copy of a movie made to be sold at the video store is the potential customer base is much, much smaller, just one or two customers instead of potentially hundreds. Virtually every commercial CD or DVD made is sold for the personal use of the purchaser.

Here in North America, if the couple actually makes the DVD themselves, actually physically taking the raw video footage and creating the finished program from it, and they choose to use a piece of copyright music such as a popular song, if it were to come to court it probably would be considred copying the music for personal use and thus legal. But if a third party such as a wedding videographer makes the final production, the copying of the music is not truly for personal use because although it will be for the personal use of the couple, it's not for the personal use of the person doing the copying. The videographer is copying the music into another production and HIS purpose is distribution and/or commercial sale of the copies. After all, every CD I've bought is for my personal use - the logic that copying music into a wedding DVD is okay because it's for the personal use of the customer would say that the store I bought my music CDs from should be able to buy one copy of release CD from a record label and make as many copies in their backroom as they like for resale since all those copies are only for the personal use of their customers. If I copy a commercial music CD so I can take it in the car without risking my original, it's legal because the copy is for my personal use. Likewise if I rip a CD I own onto my MP3 player to take my tunes with me, it's okay because it's also copying for my personal use (but I can't borrow a friend's CD and rip it for my own use later).. But if I make another copy and give it to you, THAT copy is not for the personal use of the person physically doing the copying of a CD that he personally owns and so is illegal. Certainly if I make a copy and SELL it to you there's no question it's illegal unless I've licensed it and selling copies of the content to his client, including the music that was used or performed, is what the wedding and event videographer does with every client for whom he shoots a video.

Noa,

They're obviously quoting you the pie-in-the-sky fee that they would like to charge you. Why not haggle with them? Make them a more appropriate offer and see what happens. Perhaps the economy is tight for them as well?

Either that or they really are a dinosaur relic business from times past.

Andrew

That might work if this was an ordinary song from a relatively ordinary band, but this is an iconic recording from an industry legend group. They can pretty much write their own ticket, get whatever they ask for, and walk away without any regrets from any offer they don't like. I think it was a Stones song that Conan Obrian used during one of the shows his last week on the Tonight show that set NBC back something in the order a million dollars to air one 30-second clip.

Have you got a source for that? I find it hard to believe that Conan's people could justify spending $1M for 30 seconds worth. On a business level, there's got to be a significant payoff in order to justify that kind of expenditure and the entrepreneurial risk that goes with it.

Andrew

When I started filming weddings I contacted SABAM who decides over these matters and they confirmed to me that music for weddings do not require any additional licensing fees, as long as the dvd was intended to be used in "familiekring" which is literally translated as "familycircle" so within their own family. They of course expect that the music used on the dvd was bought legally but I don't need to inform sabam about it.

My clients budget was much too low, even to negotiate prizes.

Apart from the therapeutic aspect of messing with the mind of a record exec., the experience could be valuable for next time this sort of thing comes up.

Just sayin' :-P

Andrew

Adam, you are of course correct. Wow, has it really been that long? Thanks, I'll enjoy the article.

Did you make sure they understood you were in the business of producing and distributing wedding DVDs and not just making one for your own personal use? Over here there's a major difference between copying for your own personal use music that you have purchased and copying for distribution or resale to a third party, which is what a wedding videographer is doing. Not saying you are wrong, I have no idea what Belgian law is (and doesn't EU law actually govern?), but if you asked "Is it legal to copy music from a CD I own onto a wedding video?" it would be natural for whomever you talked to assume that you're talking about copying a CD you own onto a DVD you were making of your own wedding, not a DVD you're making as a commercial product that will then be sold to a third party (your client, the couple).

For his sketch about "Bugatti Mouse" the rental on the car, the rights to put Mickey Mouse trademark ears on the car, and the rights for a single play of the Stones "Satisfaction" reportedly came to a total of $1.5 million. The rights to use 10 seconds of the Beatles "Lovely Rita" as Tom Hanks' walk-on music in the last show cost a reported $500,000.

Yes I was very clear about that.

You're lucky to be able to legally work in that more relaxed climate then. This side of the pond, it doesn't matter if you're doing a wedding video, an employee morale booster or training video, an indy dramatic or doco film, or a local TV spot or show, you have to play by the same rules as the major networks do for network brodacast and or the Hollywood movie studios do for mainstream theatrical release. You might not have to pay the same prices - that depends on the whim of the copyright owner - but you do have to have the same licenses. If you want to use Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" recording in a wedding video you're shooting for a client you have to obtain the exact same type of rights James Cameron bought when he licensed it to use in "Titanic."

As a musician I can't help thinking the whole tenor of this thread is missing something - the song has nothing to do with business presentations and should IMHO never be used as such. Why? Because it demeans the music. Every time a band allows there stuff to be used on an advert or suchlike it destroys the music for ever more for me as I then always associate it with the (normally) useless and totally unrelated product. I wouldn't blame the Stones for charging whatever they want but really they should never allow it to be used for anything (and maybe they don't have the full rights to refuse?)

An idealistic view perhaps but I hate the way we see creative endeavors as products whose worth can only be measured in exchange value. The culture 'industry' was a term invented as a damning critique of the way we have commercialised anything of artistic value, yet we now use it without thought.

Not sure if the rolling stones, u2 or other topselling bands care? some have a private jet that needs to be fueled.. Isn't it all about the money in the music industry?

That's why they call it "Show Business."

By some of the "logic" used in this thread, it seems I SHOULD be allowed to acquire copies of footage shot by all the immensely talented videographers here and reassemble it for a VERY nominal cost (like the cost of the DVDs themselves) for a benefit fundraiser I'm holding for the Assembly of People Who Like to Kick Babies and Puppies...

What? You don't want YOUR good name besmirched by inclusion of your art in my program? Wow, are people greedy... Listen, I'll give you $50. And an IMDB credit.

<Tongue planted FIRMLY in cheek>

If it's not yours, ask before you use it. My mom taught me this when I was 3.

Well that's a different way of looking at it lol

I get what you mean though

If you 're unfamiliar with the final weeks of the Conan show, it was filled with expensive "stunts" - it was hilarious as the "Tonight Show" controversy boiled up and over the top - he had a Bugatti Veyron, Stones clips, A thoroughbred horse, and so on - basically the "gag" was to see how much of NBC's money he could spend in the final days of the show, which actually became worth watching (IMO). The "payoff" was reciting how rediculously much MOOOLAH each portion of the gag cost... take that NBC execs!

In the end I don't know how much of the acrimony was real, and how much was "high theater", but since it "took the safety off" on the show, it did make for interesting watching, and I think those last days were good for some decent ratings (which had tanked when Conan took over the show...). Even the guests cut loose, "no holds barred", and it was raw and hilarious... up until that time Conan's "tonight show" (small letters intentional) was pretty sad, again IMO...

Ahh, that makes sense. No wonder they were paying top dollar!

Andrew

Once again, at the risk of starting another copyright thread war, I'll mention our own Chris Hurd's "Carterphone" thread... basically the argument that you COULD play back the video with the song from a CD player, separate playback, but technically NOT illegal, and as noted, a wedding couple could make the copy for ther own use, again not illegal, merely a shift of digital format. But it becomes illegal once the technical innovation of a NLE/computer is used by a "professional" to achieve the exact same result... hmmmm.

Where this gets messy is where there potentially is big $$ involved, and the enforcement requirement for both financial and issues of "artistic integrity" (Geoffrey, duly noted!) requires an artist/copyright holder to prosecute infringement in some meaningful way... of course if there's "real" $$ involved, there are attorneys looking for work...

ANY artist/content creator has the need to protect THEIR "work", and profit therefrom, video dudes included, and yet in the fallout from the Digital Revolution, it's all a bunch of bloody 1's and 0's, about as difficult to copy/manipulate/media shift as it is to change your shirt...

Heck, I've just been alerted to a site "scraping" eBay listings, mine included (blatantly violating my copyright on my photos and text, and I can already show tortious interference with "my" business as I was contacted by a "confused" customer). That site is (mis)using that stolen digital information as "content" to ply their advertising site - I'll be sending them notice shortly, and asking eBay to shut them down and divest their "profits" from the theft... I've already run into another similar site, must be the new "scam"... steal content from wherever on the web, slap it into a template to make it "yours", and slap PPC ads on it...

As a practical matter, I still say that the state of the law doesn't really have an effective way of dealing with the reality of the situation, post digital revolution. One only needs to look at the "music business" and the state thereof to see the net results...


I'd also note that there have recently been some "relaxations" of "fair use" coming out of the copyright and trademark office in regards to "documentary" use... so there's some acknowledgement that strict application of the DMCA is perhaps a bit TOO restrictive. Maybe in time there will be a "hammering out" of more workable "use and re-use" of copyrighted material. There has to ultimately be a balance between content creator rights and "fair use", even within some limited commercial contexts.

It's not so much that using a computer to make the copy makes it illegal but rather who is doing the copying. If the wedding couple makes a copy of a CD they own for their own personal use, it's perfectly fine. They can play their own music along with watching their wedding video and it would be perfectly okay. But if another party makes the copy and subsequently sells or gives the copy to them, it's not. Remember, you can't legally rip a copy of a CD you own and subsequently sell or give the copy to someone else. As soon as the person doing the physical copying transfers the result to another party, it becomes illegal. That's the position a wedding videographer is in ... he not making a copy for his own personal use, which would be legal, he is making copies that are incorporated into a second copyrightable work and then selling or giving those copies to the wedding couple. If he doesn't license the music he uses, that puts him in exactly the same position as the guy at the corner store who buys the latest hit CD and burns off copies on his computer to sell under the counter, he's making copies for public distribution. The only difference is the wedding videographer is only distributing a handfull of copies to one customer while the commercial pirate is distributing as many copies as he can to hundreds or thoudands of customers. The Carterphone case, as I understand it, deals with making copies for personal use, NOT with making copies for distribution to third parties. Most wedding shooters would say that they would be at a disadvantage if they didn't use the couple's favourite music and they would be right - the music used contributes materially to the mood and ultimately the success of the production. As such, the people responsible for creating and performing the music and making it available in the marketplace certainly deserve a piece of the videographer's action

I'm not so sure you legally COULD playback a CD on a separate player as the video played on screen. That's the way movie sountracks actually WERE played back in the early days and that was the practice that gave rise to the whole notion of the synchronization license that we need today to use copyright music in our productions. The music was being played back synchronized to the picture and it doesn't matter if it's played on a physically separate playback device or incorporated into the soundtrack in the video files on the tape or DVD. In fact, for the earliest films the music was performed by live musicians in sync to the picture on the screen and then, as today, with the introduction of the synch license the filmaker licensed the musical score from the composer/publisher and paid a royalty for its use with his fiilm.

Steve, that historical perspective makes the whole question of the legality of my suggestion much clearer - and of course, the answer to the original question much simpler. Thanks.

That was never the original question, this topic has sidetracked due to my remark about using copyright music in weddingdvd's and that this was allowed in my country.

Now when I first asked about this (around 2005) I got a clear answer from the organisation that deals with these matters that this exception was made for creating and delivering weddingdvd's. Because some did not seem to believe me I inquired again this week at that same organisation and got the same answer, again, today.

Strictly taken the law applies like Steve mentioned in his post above BUT for weddings they make an exception here, the guy on the phone told me that this exception is nowhere to be found on paper (that's also why he called me and didn't want to put it on paper) but he clearly said that as long as the dvd is only used by the couple and even if I was the videographer selling it to the couple they actually didn't care and I did not have to inform them about it. He told me that they never get requests about this specific matter from other weddingvideographers about using copyright music in wedding dvd's.

Only when the wedding dvd would be made public, like when you use it as a demo on a site or to distribute it to other clients then it becomes a different matter but only for weddings where the dvd would only be used by the couple and only showed in their own livingroom it was a unwritten exception they made.

So as you see it's a grey area and that's the last thing I want to say about it, I just wanted to confirm that what I heard 5 years ago is what I heard again today. I only do make these exceptions for weddings but for ALL other productions I do follow the law to the letter.

Hi STeve

Interesting point about the history of synchronization

However, I really wonder about it - as I understand it, in order to be copyrightable something has to be "fixed in tangible form" - which would seem to exclude a CD played along with a video etc - if it were played by humans, then each time it was played it would be slightly different - ie nothing would be "fixed" in any form, tangible or otherwise.

If I happen to listen to a CD while watcing TV out of the corner of my eye, am I "Synchronizing" something? Clearly the CD is playing along with whatever is on TV - or maybe You tube or whatever.

Of course, I'm probably as wrong about this as I am about most other things.

Even without the question of *synchronization", just the "public performance" rights for a major rock anthem at a large corporate live event would be major $$$ (if the rights-holders even agreed at all).

The "tangible form" is why music or a play is copyrightable but specific performances of that music or play are not. Yet recordings of those perfomances are. Your same argument would apply to sheet music - the exact frequency and duration of each note is slightly different each time the music is played. The vibrations of musical notes in the air aren't fixed and tangible, but a physical piece of sheet music says "Here play an A-flat for 1 beat and then play a C-sharp for two beats" in music notation and that is. The sounds of the words spoken by an actor are ephemeral but the script that defines what those words will be is tangible. Perhaps your argument might have some merit if all one was doing was playing a random CD or had a radio turned on in proximity to the video but as soon as there are directions to the effect of "play the US Air Force Band recording of "Smoke On The Water" as the river-rafting scene begins" you have something 'fixed'.