Are you switching to Royalty Free Music?
 

I know this goes on and on, but what are you doing now, are you using the music the bride and groom ask for, or are you using royalty free?

It was said about a year ago (I believe) that if you did not use the music the B&G asked for, you would probably not be getting much business.

I have still been using music of their choice but keep seeing more and more about royalty free music in video.

We do use royalty free music in our portrait slide shows, but wedding videos still pushing for their music.

I made the decision about a year ago to never conduct business in a manner I know is illegal. About the same time I stopped actively pursuing wedding business, because I knew I'd have to explain that decision to every single bride (and because I wanted my weekends free!)

So I'm pretty picky about what kind of consumer-oriented business I will take. If I shoot an event, like a play, I make sure they have secured the rights to record the event, or I don't do it.

It has not been a problem at all with business work. Occasionally a business will ask "Can you use (insert band name here) for our sales video?" I say "no" and explain why, and no one has turned me down because of it.

Chris, great points and I appreciate where you stand.

Weddings is a tougher venue, and although I will not make light of using copyrighted music, I will point out a few things before everyone throws stones.

Many who say they would never use copyrighted music, I wonder if they follow other laws as well.

for instance, although software can sometimes be loaded on two computers, they are single user license. This means even if your out of the office no one else can use the software Period. I was on the phone for some time with Adobe about this, I have so many legal versions of Photoshop, but they are one user, registered to me, no one else can use them.

Not saying what is right or wrong, just saying that some who flame others for doing something are doing something just as bad, but ignoring it.

One friend asked me if I ever broke the speed limit, he was making a point that very few can say they do not cross the line somewhere.

Chris, great points and I appreciate where you stand.

Weddings is a tougher venue, and although I will not make light of using copyrighted music, I will point out a few things before everyone throws stones.

Many who say they would never use copyrighted music, I wonder if they follow other laws as well.

for instance, although software can sometimes be loaded on two computers, they are single user license. This means even if your out of the office no one else can use the software Period. I was on the phone for some time with Adobe about this, I have so many legal versions of Photoshop, but they are one user, registered to me, no one else can use them.

Not saying what is right or wrong, just saying that some who flame others for doing something are doing something just as bad, but ignoring it.

One friend asked me if I ever broke the speed limit, he was making a point that very few can say they do not cross the line somewhere.

this subject has been rehashed a number of times in different forms but I guess that just proves it's a real issue.

I recently applied for the Australian AMCOS/ARIA Domestic Use Video Licence - that allows me to use any music controlled by AMCOS/ARIA (the majority of commercially available recorded music) for weddings and similar events. I think both Australia & England have similar licences but the U.S. / Canada do not.

That means I'm legal but the money gets sucked into the bureaucracy and as far as I can tell, the bands or artists don't get a cent. I talked to a mate who said he has never been audited or asked which music he used.

It's a pity we can't simply get the artists to open a PayPal account and we could deposit $1 every time we used a song. That way the artist would get the money and I'm sure a limited use contract could apply, of course it's the record labels that own the copyright isn't it.

its becoming a big thing over in my country. We have no options to pay for the rights as our application is considered a reproduction. Hence the need to pay royalties to several bodies for one song.

In the long run, I guess the industry will be skewed towards royalty free songs. I only wished we had an affordable and one stop shop to pay royalties to.

A single user software license doesn't mean that only the original purchaser is allowed to use it. Someone else can use your computer that has Photoshop on it. "Single-user" means that it's installed on only one machine and only one person at a time per license can use it - you can have a hundred people taking turns but as long as you don't have it installed on two machines so two users can be working at the same time under the one purchased license, you're fine.

IMHO, there is a clear ethical difference in accidently exceeding the speed limit and willfully breaking the law in order to earn income. The rationalization of "I can't satisfy my customer's desires unless I break the law, and it's all the law's fault for making it illegal for me to give my customers what they want" is more appropriate to a drug dealer than it is to a creative professional. It says you feel earning your income takes priority both over the law and over the fair treatment of your fellow creatives whose property you're taking without fair payment. After all, who's it gonna hurt? is the argument. Well, it hurts the composer, publisher, performers, recording engineers, and all those others who also have to pay their rents and put food on the table through their talents, just as you are trying to do with yours. They make their income essentially by selling licenses or collecting royalties on the songs they've written and/or recorded, just like you make your's shooting videos and selling them to your client. Use their product without buying the license, you're making them effectively work for free and you're treating them the same way as a client who stiffs you on your fee would be treating you. The fact they're strangers to you doesn't change the dynamic. It's no more ethical for you to simply appropriate the fruits of their creative effort without payment and use it to your own ends that it would be for them to use one of the videos you worked hard to create in a televison ad for a wedding dress without paying you for it. Let's say the bride got her dress for free in return for letting the shop use the wedding video you shot of her wedding in their advertising without asking for your permission - would you consider you had been treated fairly if you found out? For that matter, wantonly disregarding the speed limit and driving in an unsafe manner, justified by you telling yourself you just can't get started early enough in the morning to get to work on time if you obey the law, placing others at risk by your behaviour, is not a trivial offense either, contrary to what you imply.

Opinion stated, I'll back out of the discussion now. Most readers probably don't want to read yet another thread over copyright so beyond my response above I'll refrain from writing further in the thread.

There is a legal option to buying royalty-free library tracks. Music licensed under a Creative Commons "by attribution" license (cc-by). It appears that you can use this music legally in your creations as long as you give credit. I'm not a lawyer but that's how I read it after carefully reviewing the details on Creative Commons licensing here.

There are web sites like Jamendo that serve music under the CC license. Some of it is rubbish (to my ears anyway) whilst other stuff is brilliant. I have used cc-by licensed music in a number of pieces where appropriate.

Be careful though. There are some CC licenses that are more restrictive than "by". Carefully read the info on the CC site before selecting music licensed under CC. You can still go afoul of the law, but if you do it right it's another option.

This is what I thought until I actually talked to Adobe, They made it Perfectly Clear, they license the software to an individual, he can use it anywhere and on any computer he wants. That is why you can de activate it and re activate it on as many machines as you want. only two can be activated at one time. They even compared it to a drivers license, and asked if I could hand that to an employee and have them drive into town on it?

Not saying they are right, only stating what they told me on the phone.

This is the truth, let the artist get paid, and allow us to use the music.
Some feel better by purchasing a song of Itunes each time they use it, nice effort, but do not believe it would help you out if they pushed it.

Unless you're talking about a complete indy who wrote and self-published the music and recorded on their own label, paying the recording artist is only the tip of the iceberg. There's the sync licensing that goes to the composer who created the music and lyrics and publisher who published them, then the master use licensing that goes to the record label that created and owns the specific recording you wish to use. You need that sync license even if you perform and record it yourself, unless you wrote it as well.

I don't do weddings, but all my productions are either royalty free, something I cooked up in Garageband (or Acid w/royalty free loops), or Magnatune.

Then again, I'm biased, for all my BIG projects, I release the entire set of raw footage to CC-BY-NC-SA.

I spend thousands of dollars per year making sure our computers have legally licensed software, and I never speed. Yup, I'm that guy on the road doing exactly 55 MPH while there are 10 cars lined up behind him! :)

I'm not saying I've never done anything wrong, but if I find out something I'm doing is illegal, it becomes a priority to rectify that situation.

Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should do whats right, but for those in the wedding videography business are put in a tough position. If everyone refused to use copyrighted material would be much easier. When making a living in this business its hard not to give in.

I too make sure all my pc's are perfectly legal, never use software illegally. I was just pointing out that many who flame the use of copyrighted music, are doing something just as bad, but try and justify it, or even worse use ignorance as an excuse.