Not to beat a dead fern, but I'd like to hear the opinions of the DV info community on the thoroughly-discussed, frequently-disregarded issue of licensing music for use in film and video. I'll skip a dissertation on the Law, what the law mandates, and what the laws surrounding rights and privileges actually state. If you care, you've already looked into it. If you don't, you'll either do it soon or never touch the books. I'm even going to skip a treatise on the ethical responsibilities of the business-filmmaker (same scenario: if you care, you're doing your best to uphold the law's request). Intro complete.

Here's my blurb (hopefully, the origin of your feedback): I'm tired of running across videographer-types in my community who skirt the licensing costs (and rights acquisition) for their projects. And not just projects, but demo reels. I can accept that people play shady business in all industries "behind the scenes," but many companies (I'm talking wedding-types) seem to waltz around the risk and use whatever, simply citing the artist in copy or in the video. I recognize that no one wants a title card full of licensing proof, but I wonder: how many of these companies are legitimately using the creative enterprises of other artists for their own gain (and without compensation to the artists)?

I can't help but feel I'm entering a spiraling conversation on human nature; maybe this conversation goes nowhere, or maybe my thoughts are too jumbled to be clear. I'm part of a small start-up that is carefully climbing its way into a particular niche we'd like to occupy in our community. Weddings help pay bills, and there's no need to ignore that. But clients want their favorite music, minus the cost. So, when "established" wedding-type companies create a precedence by using popular music with no adherence to licensing, filmmakers like myself suffer because we refuse to use music without rights to do so (the catch here is that none of our clients have wanted to pay licensing costs; I understand the client has a large role in this). So, why not go to the guy who gives you what you want? The situation irritates me.

I'd like to rekindle a conversation that is extremely relevant in our industry as digital filmmakers and videographers.

Moved from Open DV to Taking Care of Business, where we have a myriad of existing discussions on this topic (but which one to merge it into...?)

Well, let me put it to you this way: the very specific reason I don't do weddings AT ALL is because of the legal implications. If I made an extra $15-20k a year and had to lose sleep at night over whether I would get sued by either: an overzealous music industry making examples out of grannies and videographers OR an industry protecting electronic intellectual property rights, I wouldn't deem the cash "reward" adequate for my loss of sleep.

Just like videographers undercutting each other, I feel that videographers that use either illegal unlicensed music or software without regard for the legalities of their actions are ruining it for everyone. There is no elegant solution, at least in North America but that doesn't make theft right either. I'd love to see the day when there is a sliding scale for music usage licensing (although I'd support much higher license fees than most wedding clients or videographers would likely support) AS LONG AS the recording artists themselves (and the FINANCIALLY INVESTED business parties that support them during development) reap the financial benefits.

I know that magazine television shows can use whatever music they want in news stories - as long as there is no money changing hands or any products being sold. I know this because my husband used to edit for WJZ tv in Baltimore and that was one of the things he did as an editor. He worked as a segment director on Howard Stern's first pay-per-view special and there was a short that Howard wanted him to shoot based on a sketch they did on the radio show. They used a particular piece of music on the radio but would have had to pay rights for it to use in the pay-per-view show. So it was legal to use it on the radio show for the skit without paying, but not legal to use it on the pay-per-view special. I suspect that wedding videos, because they are viewed only by the private family come under fair and free use statutes - like the use of music in broadcast magazine stories does.


Your kinda like the dance club owner who wants to avoid paying recorded music in his club. When the music companies come up with a payment scheme that reflects the economic realities of someone using a song in their wedding video or demo reel, then you can reasonably expect people to pay for it. But right now, there is no bridge available from the music to the end product in those cases.

I'm with Shawn. Once I became aware of the illegal nature of music expected in wedding video, I stopped shooting weddings (actually that reason came second to the fact I didn't want to work weekends!) So now I diligently make sure my productions are 100% legit.

Whenever this topic comes up, you'll typically get a response that basically says "If I don't understand the law, I won't follow it." Of course, nobody actually says that, but they'll offer excuse after excuse and point to other venues/industries where copyright music is used (nightclubs, news, store background, etc.) and assume because X does it, I can too.

I do get tired when I see other projects from local videographers and the client is just gushing over them, and all I can think is "your video violates at least a dozen copyrights..." I'm talking about business video too, not wedding video. I've paid over $1k to build my royalty-free music library, and Joe Blow Video pays 99 cents on iTunes.

I know that magazine television shows can use whatever music they want in news stories - as long as there is no money changing hands or any products being sold. I know this because my husband used to edit for WJZ tv in Baltimore and that was one of the things he did as an editor. He worked as a segment director on Howard Stern's first pay-per-view special and there was a short that Howard wanted him to shoot based on a sketch they did on the radio show. They used a particular piece of music on the radio but would have had to pay rights for it to use in the pay-per-view show. So it was legal to use it on the radio show for the skit without paying, but not legal to use it on the pay-per-view special. I suspect that wedding videos, because they are viewed only by the private family come under fair and free use statutes - like the use of music in broadcast magazine stories does.


Your kinda like the dance club owner who wants to avoid paying recorded music in his club. When the music companies come up with a payment scheme that reflects the economic realities of someone using a song in their wedding video or demo reel, then you can reasonably expect people to pay for it. But right now, there is no bridge available from the music to the end product in those cases.

Your interpretation of the reason behind your husband's experinece is, I believe, incorrect. The music could be played on the radio show because that was a performance covered under the ASCAP blanket licensing. But when synchronization to images as a soundtrack in a video show is NOT a performance but rather the music is being incorporated into a derivative work carrying it's own copyright. That requires separate synch and master use licenses over and above the broadcaster's ASCAP performance license. The important part is not that the show was to be pay for view, it's that the music was being used in as part of the soundtrack of a video program and that's a different license than merely broadcasting it as music.

It is the act of copying the music and incorporating it into a new production where it is juxtaposed with images that makes it illegal to use unlicensed copyrighted music in a program you create for and sell to a client. The fact that they are viewing it for their personal use in the privacy of their home does not mitigate that. After all, the purchaser of a pirated movie DVD from under the counter at the corner convenience store is also watching it for personal use in the privacy of their home. You, the videographer, have still made the copy and transfered it to a third party. It no longer falls under the personal use of the person who made the copy. Sorry, but such uses are not covered under the fair use doctrines and AFAIK courts have never ruled that they do. And the whole Napster thing made it clear that it makes no difference whether money changed hands or the copies are transferred for free.

how many of these companies are legitimately using the creative enterprises of other artists for their own gain (and without compensation to the artists)?

I'd like to rekindle a conversation that is extremely relevant in our industry as digital filmmakers and videographers.

I'm in Aus and have a licence to use most music for this purpose, but NONE of that licence fee goes back to the artist - it goes to the licensing body. I don't know anyone that's been asked "which songs have you used?, we'd like to give those bands some extra cash" I guess that makes me legally correct but morally incorrect.

You're not 'rekindling' - this subject has been done to death, and there are still a couple of current threads. I'm guessing that the majority of people reading these and not replying are engaged in the activity anyway - rather than beat them over the head with the moral stick, I think your time (and all of us) would be better spent discussing a campaign to change the law.

Some brides are asking to have their stuff posted online or doing it themselves. YouTube has a process to identify pirated music and remove it rendering a posted video useless. Maybe some videographers continue to use popular music without license because they haven't been get caught, yet. The supporting text information on an internet video posting might identify the production company who did the deed!

YouTube has a process to identify pirated music and remove it rendering a posted video useless.Not only does the automated system remove the audio from the posted video, it sends an email to the rights holder or their representative (usually the record label.)

I will not be surprised in the future if videographers start receiving invoices and/or legal papers from the RIAA when they start using such technology in a web crawler.

I'm in Aus and have a licence to use most music for this purpose, but NONE of that licence fee goes back to the artist - it goes to the licensing body. I don't know anyone that's been asked "which songs have you used?, we'd like to give those bands some extra cash" I guess that makes me legally correct but morally incorrect.

Actually, through random surveys and some complicated statistical models, part of your royalty fees are distributed to the artists and rights holders. The details are available on the ARIA/AMCOS website.

Interestingly, the ARIA/AMCOS videographer license only allows distribution on DVD, VHS and CD-ROM and does not allow posting on the internet.

I've written ASCAP and BMI to see what kind of licenses they have for such use and how much they cost. All of the material I can find on line addresses public use of the songs. None of it addresses the use of a song in a video designed only for private use. ASCAP does have a license for video services, but I haven't found any information yet about that contract.

We'll see what they have to say.

Who knows, maybe there's hope on the theoretical horizon.

Not long ago, it was simply impractical for rights holders to both protect their intrinsic rights to benefit from their creative work AND license their work to individuals without significant overhead and hassle.

Then Steve Jobs changed everything.

I'd argue that it wasn't so much the iPod as a stand alone hardware device (there were other MP3 players around when the iPod made it's debut) - but rather the COMBINATION of the player, the internet tethered Mac, (then quickly the PCs) and the iTunes Music Store Software Service all working as a SYSTEM to allow the simple, easy and satisfying ability to pay a fair price for LEGAL downoading of a tune - with royalties properly shared - that made the whole thing take off.

Perhaps someday rights holders will wake up and realize that if they'd just get their butts in gear and sit down and establish a similar service where for TEN or even TWENTY times the iTunes 99 cent model, they could grant a limited use license to sync their IP to derrivitave works like wedding videos and corporate shows, they could generate yet another MASSIVE legal income stream.

I'm not hopeful, however. Once Jobs succeeded so massively with his vision of "let's make it easy to do it legally and honor the rights owners) all the "also rans" jumped right back to their typical approach of looking at the problem not thinking of how to ENCOURAGE legal, licensed use of their property - but rather how to keep their legal teams well employed OBSTRUCTING, as well as they can, all uses except those they hold in tight control.

I'm all for competition in business. Funny tho, how when one team shows the world that encouraging legal use is actually more profitable than an attitude of discouraging illegal use, nobody's ready for that.

Silly, really.

I'm not the right person to chip in here as I've never made a wedding video BUT I use music all the time in my productions.

Here's a true story.

In 1970 I was asked by Barclay's Bank UK to make a film about student life at Warwick University. It was a film that had actually been conceived by one of the under grads. and i was bought in to complete his concept. The kids were all listening to the Beatle's "Abbey Road" LP which had just come out. "Why not use Beatle's music in the film?" I asked. "You'll never get permission." The doom seekers replied.

I wrote a handwritten letter to the Beatles' publisher, Dick James. He replied saying that "he had spoken to the Beatles" and we could use their music from "Abbey Road". He suggested the standard UK MCPS rates - about $500 for unrestricted, all tracks, use.

O.K. Things have changed. Today you'd need a more formal contract from the publisher and clearance from the record company. But these deals are still possible - maybe not for Beatles' music but there's plenty out there.

For my new documentary Pinot: Escape from Wall Street (http://www.pinotescapefromwallstreet.com/) I wanted to use some jazz music. One email to the publisher and I was in. I suggested a fee that was affordable. We wound up chatting on the phone. He forgot to send me a contract. After a few weeks, I rang again. He halved the agreed price.

These days, if I making a corporate I use music from Digital Juice. Their discs are dirt cheap and the music is excellent.

Don't steal. A friend of mine used "Sound of Music" clips for a salesman's conference video - he thought it will only be seen once by a few salesmen. His client was so delighted with the video he entered it into an video award competition. You can guess the result.

Stefan Sargent (http://stefansargent.com)

I've written ASCAP and BMI to see what kind of licenses they have for such use and how much they cost. All of the material I can find on line addresses public use of the songs. None of it addresses the use of a song in a video designed only for private use. ASCAP does have a license for video services, but I haven't found any information yet about that contract.

We'll see what they have to say.

ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are performance rights organizations and do not deal with the sort of licenses videographers and filmmakers need - their licenses deal with radio and TV airplay, concerts and stage productions, club and DJ performances, music-on-hold, etc. Harry Fox Agency used to clear sync licenses but they no longer do. Now you have to deal directly with the copyright owners and there are two different licenses you must obtain. First you need a "synchronization license" which comes from the copyright owners of the words and musical notes, typically the composers and the music's publisher. If you want to use the song "Stardust" you get the sync license from the estates of Hoagy Carmichael and Parish Mitchell or whoever the rights have been sold to by them. That entitles you to use the lyrics and melody they created and incorporate it into your production. But note, that DOES NOT give you the license to use any particular recording - the sync license by itself would only allow you use it by making a new recording. Now if you want to use the classic recording of "Stardust" by Frank Sinatra and the Tommy Dorsey Orchestra, you also have to obtain a Master Use license from the copyright owner of the original recording, usually the original record label or its corporate descendants. The fees for all this are negotiable and the copyright owners are under no obligation to grant a license at all if they don't wish to. At the present time, the most practical approach is to go through a musical rights clearance service of which there are a number around, as they have good databases of just who to contact for what song. Whether any of them would want to deal with wedding videographers is anyone's guess.

Jon,

It sounds like you're frustrated - because others might benefit financially from breaking the law, while you feel you suffer financially by following it.

Well, yes... that's generally true for most illegal activities. The fact of the matter is, crime DOES pay. The chance for getting caught at breaking almost ANY law is statistically low - from speeding to robbing banks.

It's also true for the illegal use of copyright material.

Now, speaking as someone who is married to an IP attorney - I can say with certainty - that there are people out there, LOOKING for violations. Actively pursuing individuals who 'steal' IP in various stages. It's not a pretty picture when you're caught red handed.

Laws are like locks. They won't stop a serious thief, they are there to keep honest people honest.


Honestly.

Here's a true story.

Please, tell me another! :) I love Production Diary... When I get DV magazine, I turn to the back page FIRST.

Please, tell me another! :) I love Production Diary... When I get DV magazine, I turn to the back page FIRST.
So do I!

No Prod. Diary in this month's DV Mag. as it's a NAB Special issue.

After last year's NAB, I'm not going, probably never will go again. End of an era.

Thanks for praise. Always welcome. Always grateful.

Stefan (http://stefansargent.com)

I spoke to a couple organizations today that do sync rights. Basically, it's a grey area. There isn't any legal precedent for this kind of use. None of the existing legal criteria quite match up. The wedding video is work for hire, the song is a very small part of the video, the bulk of the work is done by the videographer, the work isn't being copyrighted and it's only for private viewing with no charge involved. There is some thought that it may be permissible under Fair Use statutes - I think under the 4th pillar. One of the people I spoke with is trying to hunt down an article they saw on the subject. If they find it, I'll let you know. But in the meantime, it hasn't been to court so no one really knows.

You just have to wrestle with your conscience, and figure out what you want to do.

Where in the world are you getting this stuff? Your postings are a perfect example of wishful thinking in action. There are numerous legal precedents that say a license is required for all music used in wedding, corporate, and event video unless the videographer himself (or the client) is the music's copyright owner and infringement cases have regularly made it into the legal system. The wedding video is NOT a work-for-hire unless the videographer is employed by the couple as a regular W-2 employee hired to shoot video as part of his regular job assignment and paid a salary or hourly wage with taxes and social security etc withheld from his cheque (and how often have you heard of that happening?). The resulting video IS copyrighted - the copyright might not be registered with the Library of Congress but such registration isn't necessary for copyright to exist, it automatically comes into being at the moment the work is fixed in a tangible form (ie, the edited video is recorded to its final media). Whether viewing of the final program is private or public is irrelevant - if you buy a DVD of a pirated movie you'll be viewing it in private but that does not make the copying that was done by the pirate legal. There absolutely IS a charge unless the event videographer is working for free - the videographer creates the program, uses the music in its soundtrack, and then sells the resulting video to his client, which means he's selling the copied music to a third party as part of a new copyrighted work that he has created. His professional fee is for creating the content of the final program and the time he has spent shooting and editing is just an element of the creative process. (And the content of the program is copyright to the videographer unless he transfers it to the client in writing.)

Fair Use is a defence to infringement allegations when the copy is being used in certain ways, and is not a carte blanche, a priori, permission to copy. It applies principally to copies made during the course of news gathering and reporting, brief excerpts for purposes of criticism and commentary, copying for classroom instruction in a formal K-12 or university school setting, and academic research. None of the factors you cite are of issue in Fair Use and none of the Fair Use provisions would normally apply to wedding, corporate, or event video.

IP attorney Gordon Firemark has contributed several messages in this forum recently, you might do a quick search for them. He also has a series of podcasts on legal issues in video posted on iTunes and the topic comes up in a number of them. Give 'em a listen.

Steve, you're being very helpful here (and on the pre-1922 recording thread). "Fair use" is much clearer to me now. I'm producing a DVD that has a number of interviews on it--a "person on the street" type deal. If a radio happened to be playing a Beatle song barely audible in the background and that is recorded along with the street interview (in other words I had no control over that background sound) would I have to worry about copyright issues?

I need to preface my comments with "I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV." That particular situation seems to still be up in the air a bit. In general, the inadvertant inclusion of copyrighted background music has been held to be non-infringing, especially when it is clear that it is truly incidental and irrelevant to the subject of the interview. So in your situation I wouldn't worry too much. But I've read that cases have gone both ways. You do have to be a little careful how far you carry it though. If the interview happens to be about the Beatles music then it could be argued that the music in the background is a material part of the scene and needs permission. And if it's a dramatic production with two characters in dialog in the front seat of a car while Beatles music is playing on the radio, then the music definitely is a material part of the scene and needs licensing.

If a radio happened to be playing a Beatle song barely audible in the background and that is recorded along with the street interview (in other words I had no control over that background sound) would I have to worry about copyright issues?Yes, or maybe. If you were to strike a deal with a major distributor, they would almost certainly want you to clear that music. Do a search here for "fair use comic" or something like that. It includes a link to a comic that discusses fair use. They site a couple extreme examples from the documentary "Mad Hot Ballroom" - in one scene a cell phone rings. The ring tone is "Gonna Fly Now" from Rocky. EMI wanted $10k to license those few seconds. Fortunately, the producers were able to get it for a reduced rate. In a later shoot, one of the students spontaneously shouted "Everybody dance now!" (a line from the song by C+C Music Factory.) The song's publisher demanded $5k for those simple three words. The scene was cut.

Crap like this makes me want to watch the record industry die a slow cruel death (and I'm a songwriter and member of ASCAP). I met Clayton Moore, the Lone Ranger, at a ski show in San Francisco twenty-odd years ago. He wore the full costume with the exception of the mask: he had to wear wrap-around shades because the porkers who owned the LR franchise threatened to sue him because the mask was the LR's trademark and they couldn't abide the aging actor making a few bucks doing personal appearances. Too bad we live in a country where legislation favors the highest bidder (a plutocracy, I think it's called).

It's the Golden Rule in action. You know: "He who has the gold gets to make the rules."

I think it's pretty silly that a ringtone casually overheard needs clearance but that's the nature of the business these days and one ignores it at one's peril. Companys perceive that if they don't defend their rights when the violation is trivial, it will handicap their ability to defend when the violation is important. I've heard it said that if you fail to enforce your copyright or trademark even once, it can be held that you've renounced your rights with the result of it being thrown into the public domain forever.

This is why "Xerox" and "Kleenex" go after publishers who genericize the names. Yeah, you HAVE to defend against trademark or copyright infringement or risk allowing it to fall into the public domain.

But defending it doesn't have to mean defending EVERY case. Which is why they pick and choose which 'small fry' to fry - up. They'll pick those most likely to be high profile cases -f or better or worse.

it's called the "golden rule" - he who has the $$$$ makes the rules.

It's not what the US was founded on, and it's more characteristic of a backward 3rd world country ruled by some despot dictator, only in the US, it's now ruled by powerful corporate interests and their attorneys. Rule by litigation is a very ugly and dangerous precedent, but it's become the standard.

One of these days maybe the REAL Golden Rule will again take precedent - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I believe that applies to BOTH sides of the "copyright debate". Respect the intellectual property of others, just as you want yours to be respected, and be reasonable in your business dealings with others, sometimes you'll get the same in return... if not, move on, there are still reasonable decent people out there!

Where in the world are you getting this stuff? Your postings are a perfect example of wishful thinking in action.


Very simply, I got it from two organizations that handle synch rights. You may disagree. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm simply reporting what two attorneys that handle sync rights said to me. End of story.

This is why "Xerox" and "Kleenex" go after publishers who genericize the names. As an interesting aside, the office next to mine is a business that owns several small-town telephone companies. The owner said he got a call one day from a lawyer for Starbucks. He was told they had the change the name of the "Starbuck Telephone Company" or face legal action.

He replied, "You first, the Starbuck Telephone Company has been around for 100 years."

He never heard from them again. BTW, the Starbuck Telephone Company is located in Starbuck, MN.

BTW, the Starbuck Telephone Company is located in Starbuck, MN.

Not for long; soon it will be Springfield, MN. I'm sure the corporation wouldn't STAND for a town "named after it"...

Jon,

It sounds like you're frustrated - because others might benefit financially from breaking the law, while you feel you suffer financially by following it.

Well, yes... that's generally true for most illegal activities. The fact of the matter is, crime DOES pay. The chance for getting caught at breaking almost ANY law is statistically low - from speeding to robbing banks.

It's also true for the illegal use of copyright material.

Now, speaking as someone who is married to an IP attorney - I can say with certainty - that there are people out there, LOOKING for violations. Actively pursuing individuals who 'steal' IP in various stages. It's not a pretty picture when you're caught red handed.

Laws are like locks. They won't stop a serious thief, they are there to keep honest people honest.


Honestly.

Richard: agreed. Honestly, though, my frustration has nothing to do with my financial consequences implemented by their misuse of the material. Rather, my frustration is with the negligence exhibited as a result of poor moral character. We're not talking kids stealing bread... we're talking less talented people stealing from (questionably, ha) talented people to bolster their own work. Now, THAT being said... we ALL do that as video and film people. Nonetheless, I think you get my point; it's about recognition (fiscal or vocal) where it's properly (and LEGALLY) due.

My IP attorney has shared similar stories, and the "end-game" does make me happy (when they DO get caught).

I'm in Aus and have a licence to use most music for this purpose, but NONE of that licence fee goes back to the artist - it goes to the licensing body. I don't know anyone that's been asked "which songs have you used?, we'd like to give those bands some extra cash" I guess that makes me legally correct but morally incorrect.

You're not 'rekindling' - this subject has been done to death, and there are still a couple of current threads. I'm guessing that the majority of people reading these and not replying are engaged in the activity anyway - rather than beat them over the head with the moral stick, I think your time (and all of us) would be better spent discussing a campaign to change the law.

Semantics aside, I'd still call it a rekindling. The move to changing the law can't happen until legit companies and artists band together (non Union style) to watchdog on companies and persons disobeying the rule. In many ways, the conversation is beat to the ground but nothing is exchanged. A fire in an empty living room sure looks great, but what's the point? Unless people sit AROUND that fire, no one feels the warmth. I feel like many conversations happen in small packs of like-minded people. More exposure on the subject means more likelihood for newcomer exposure, and this means, perchance, greater likelihood to make them aware of the implications of piracy.

Sigh. I wish I were in Australia. Snakes around here are boring (my apologies to the Rattlers and Cottonmouths, but the Aussies have us on this one).

Interesting thread. Just one minor quibble.

What on earth do ethics and laws have to do with each other? I think nothing.

Law is law and ethics is ethics and never the twain shall meet.

(Til earth and sky stand presently at God's great judgement seat - with due apologies to the good Mr Kipling)

Seriously.

Ethics, law, and justice are three separate worlds and any time they come into congruence in our society it's purely by accident. IMHO, that's our society's greatest failure. Law is supposed to be about equity and justice, instead it is about adherence to process and precedure, as if a system could EVER be devised that could replace carefully considered decisions made be wise and fair-minded individuals.

It seems to me that "ethics" is the expression of the innate goodness underlying all. In order to be ethical we have to come from love (which I define as "the experience of unconditional acceptance of what is"). I don't like the plural as it implies more than one; I think it should be "ethic." Love is all you need...

"Law" and "justice" are human attempts to codify and enforce the inherent good and thus are subject to wide interpretation and wild distortion. Author James Gilligan says that all violence is an attempt to seek justice (from his book "Violence: a National Epidemic).

Interesting thread. Just one minor quibble.

What on earth do ethics and laws have to do with each other? I think nothing.

Law is law and ethics is ethics and never the twain shall meet.

(Til earth and sky stand presently at God's great judgement seat - with due apologies to the good Mr Kipling)

Seriously.

Hah, the whole point of this thread was to avoid that exact topic. Law and ethics have been bed mates for eternity, though I think it's a meta-reality that you observe through philosophers and not directly within. Unless you're talking Kantian philosophy, in which case it'd be a hard line not to connect the two in some deeply intertwined sense. Check our Ronald Dworkin's "Law's Empire" and "Philosophy of Law" by Feinberg and Coleman (specifically, Dworkin's piece 'Integrity in Law'). Long, sluggish reads. But I think you'd see the real issue about whether the two are related.

Much like "Chicken and the Egg; which came first?" Or, in this case, which gives the other precedence? Do laws emerge in response to ethical trends (emotional reactions, even), or do systems of ethics emerge from structures of law? Naturally, traffic and civil laws seem largely outside systems of ethics... or do they? Is it a non-issue that in Missouri we drive on the right side of the road (as well as other places where people do similar things)? I'd say no; it emerges from a mutual understanding that a system of order on the road constitutes a degree of safety and assurance that we've come to expect in traveling within our borders.

It goes on and on... I'll grant you your place, but you'll need to clarify what you mean by "law is law and ethics is ethics" by telling me how you define the two.

It seems to me that "ethics" is the expression of the innate goodness underlying all. In order to be ethical we have to come from love (which I define as "the experience of unconditional acceptance of what is"). I don't like the plural as it implies more than one; I think it should be "ethic." Love is all you need...

"Law" and "justice" are human attempts to codify and enforce the inherent good and thus are subject to wide interpretation and wild distortion. Author James Gilligan says that all violence is an attempt to seek justice (from his book "Violence: a National Epidemic).

I'll have to check that text out. It troubles me, initially. Mainly on whether the justice is innately Good, or some immediate good. I dig what you wrote, but I'm also skeptic to jump on any "love is all you need" statement. I think that comes from my hesitance to commit to a singular idea about love. I'm definitely a fan of Lewis' "the Four loves;" I imagine you've read it. If you haven't, it would be right up your alley.

As far as "ethic" vs "ethics," I think it's an issue of semantics. I don't know if the point is to imply a plural as much as it is to a subset of philosophy devoted to what's right and wrong for a being to do.

My experience in this field: some years ago I saw a documentary made in Israel about the families of the victims and suicide bombers, getting together to find a way out of the violence spiral. Very nice story I thought, until while watching I realized: They used a published CD from me( CD Baby: MOHANNOS: Nay by Day (http://cdbaby.com/cd/mohannos1)) and without my permission pasted my music under their film and sold it. The film was broadcast on BBC when I accidently saw it. I jotted down time and date and patiently waited for my GEMA to arrive in the next 2 years. NOTHING. So I inquire and find out that upon inquiry of GEMA to PRS the response was: BBC is not going to pay because it was broadcast via satellite.
I insisted over many years with absolutely no result!

This just to show, that as a legal owner of music and rights, I am not even "protected" by the copyright society I am member of !!!!!

So now what? Sue the producers ? At first I was flattered, that my music was chosen, because it is a mixture of arabian and western music, so I found it fitting to the film.
Now I feel ethically restricted to sue the producers.....

At first I was flattered, that my music was chosen, because it is a mixture of arabian and western music, so I found it fitting to the film.
Now I feel ethically restricted to sue the producers.....

I would tend to agree with you. Now, had the subject matter been something you were vehemently opposed to, what recourse would you have had? We as the unsuspecting viewer ASSUME that when an artist's music is used around a certain topic, that the artist SUPPORTS the position of the filmmaker. All a filmmaker needs to do is approach the artist seeking permission OR a licensing body to license the body of work, assuming that the licensing body is protecting the interests (either financial or ethical) of the artist.

In your case the producers made money off the film, ostensibly somewhat enriched by the inclusion of your music therefore it is only right that you receive appropriate compensation IMHO.

Keep in mind I wear two hats: one as a producer/videographer, the other as a songwriter/musician. The difference of course is that my musical material is unlikely to inspire anyone to want to include it in a film...

Now I feel ethically restricted to sue the producers.....

I sure would sue 'em... whether I agreed with the film or not. You have a right to be compensated for your creation.

We're all talking here about "doing the right thing"... or at least trying to, and then we hear (allegedly) that THE BBC is not. Wow!

Wow, the BBC... if they are not responsible for copyright violations, than no-one is... perhaps you should sue them in small claims court, if 7k is enough compensation... which it is NOT, but it would be an easy win for you!

As for the whole copyrighted music issue... i have seen more violations for big budget stuff than small film festival stuff, for instance i wrote an article recently on a local film festival, and all the producers/directors i interviewed were very particular about getting music rights, and not using big name tunes etc... however the gigs for hire seem to use whatever they want... for instance the city i live in in northern Arizona recently commisioned a promotional video to promote local business, the budget for this was 25k, i know because i put in a bid, anyway after the video came out i was shocked to hear dozens of highly recognizable songs sprinkled throughout... and for the budget i know there was not enough money to actually license these songs! It just makes me mad, since my bid included 2k to have local musicians do the score!

So would alerting a few of the recording companies about this likely infringement of copyright be the right (ethical) thing to do? Or would failing to speak up make you an accessory?

I plead the 5th!

But seriously, its amazing that no one at the city would think to check these things out!

Hi Jon - sorry to be late responding re law and ethics.

I'm pretty much with Arthur on this - except that I don't even think that law is necessarily even attempting to codify anything based on ethical principals - rather it is codifying whatever set of rules the particular society thinks appropriate.

For example, is there any ethical issue with taping a nice looking building without paying the city of Los Angeles a fee for the privilege? Or is it a purely business decision on the part of the city to require such a payment?

How about parking - is it unethical to park without putting money in the meter until 8PM and ethical after 8PM - or is the whole parking meter thing just a way for society to get some $$$

Is it unethical for a person to be elected President of the US three times, or is it just a matter of the US having decided that we're better served by limiting terms to a total of 10 years or two elections?

Was it ethical to copy someones music after X years before Sonny Bono came along and unethical now? Or was it all about the $$$

etc etc etc.

"Law" and "justice" are human attempts to codify and enforce the inherent good and thus are subject to wide interpretation and wild distortion. Author James Gilligan says that all violence is an attempt to seek justice (from his book "Violence: a National Epidemic).[/QUOTE]

I think that objective reality (trees are trees, rocks are hard, water's wet) is perfect in every way; the universe is unfolding exactly as it should. It is our subjective ideas about objective reality that gets everything balled up. A law that conforms to objective reality, such as "it's illegal to steal because a stable society could not exist," is objectively sound and defensible. Subjective greed enters the mix and results in crazily extended copyright grants of exclusivity, which is not objectively just or fair.

I think the objective perception of objective reality (the physical universe) and the inevitable acceptance of it (because to see it objectively is to see it as perfect) is what "love" is. The reason we humans make such a big deal out of the love experience is because ordinarily we find objective reality far from acceptable. Love is rare.

I did an LSD trip when I was twenty-eight (I'm 63 now) and had my subjective mind shut down for a few hours. It was a life-changing experience. For a long time I thought I'd had a "religious experience." Now I know that for a few hours I was comparatively sane--operating largely from my objective mind--for the first time in my adult life. The objective mind is what I mean by the underlying good in every one. The subjective ego is the source of our troubles.

I think the survival of humankind depends on our ability to shed our subjective mind (Captain Kirk) and enter the epoch of objective mind (Mr. Spock). Failure to do so will, I believe, result in self-extinction.

I'm presently absorbed in a lengthy transcription of some footage, but wanted to thank you both for your responses. I've enjoyed this conversation, and will respond in a short while to both responses.

I'll play devil's advocate here (not really) and argue that copyright laws are too stringent and restrictive for non-commercial applications. Joe Sixpack isn't going to market and sell his wedding video, or Junior's birthday party DVD.

I am stating this as an artist whose work is protected by copyright (screenwriter and filmmaker). I actually make a living from receiving royalties, but I don't think anyone should be penalized for, let's say, using an excerpt of my film or using a character I created (within reason).

RiP: A Remix Manifesto (http://www3.nfb.ca/webextension/rip-a-remix-manifesto/)


J.

This is the challenge - protecting your IP rights in case something "goes big" (like a BBC broadcast!?), vs. having a "fair and reasonable" use right for small limited distribution productions.

One has to have the right to control the use of their own property, including intellectual property. Determine who else is allowed to use it and for what purpose (Hey Joe, can I borrow your mower? vs. Hey Joe, I need to go rob a bank, can I borrow your car for an hour or two?) is a fundamental right.

Obviously there need to be "reasonable" boundaries, the problem becomes codifying (written law) vs. "case law" where lawyers (with no boundaries in a court setting) argue points to the extreme, vs "real world" practical situations. And of course your dealing with human nature... and there's where problems erupt.

I'll play devil's advocate here (not really) and argue that copyright laws are too stringent and restrictive for non-commercial applications. Joe Sixpack isn't going to market and sell his wedding video, or Junior's birthday party DVD.

I am stating this as an artist whose work is protected by copyright (screenwriter and filmmaker). I actually make a living from receiving royalties, but I don't think anyone should be penalized for, let's say, using an excerpt of my film or using a character I created (within reason).

RiP: A Remix Manifesto (http://www3.nfb.ca/webextension/rip-a-remix-manifesto/)


J.

You said it yourself - you make your living off of royalties. Sure, Joe Sixpack isn't going to market his wedding video or birthday DVD. But the issue isn't Joe making his own video for his own private use and using your music in it. After all, who's to know and there's no loss to you, you've made your royalty off of the sale of the source material Joe has used. More to the point is a commercial wedding videographer earning his living by making a video FOR Joe and selling it to him. If the wedding shooter uses your work in his product, you deserve compensation - your labours are an integral part of creating the commerical value of the product the wedding videographer is selling. Take your creation out of it and the commercial value of the video drops. In a very real sense he is making money off of the sale of the (stolen) product of your labours and refusing to fairly compensate you for it.

Steve -
That's a bit of a stretch - Joe sixpack mixes it down with a song he likes vs. a videographer doing it for him... the videographer is being paid for the VIDEO, not the song. While people like to have a song they like, does it really matter what sound pad the videographer chooses?? Probably not really that much. There's LOTS of music out there...

Ultimately this is why some people have a problem with the inability to purchase at a reasonable price the right to listen to a song along with their personal video.

The entire licensing concept may well be outdated with modern digital reproduction. It's all just 1's and 0's now, creatively arranged. A videographer takes his work, maybe adds a few 1's and 0's from another artist and creates a derivative work of 1's and 0's...

This has been done in music with "samples", I've seen video montages... the real question is what is fair compensation?

Yes an artist should be allowed to profit from his/her work if people enjoy it enough (or it means enough to them) to pay for it. I think sometimes though there is an entitlement mentality that "because I created it, I can ask whatever I want for it and anyone who likes it/wants to use it MUST PAY!" I've worked with enough artists to see this sort of thinking (not to mention the mindset of corporate lawyers "protecting" "their artists") - problem is it doesn't WORK, make people pay too much, there's another artist down the street...

Making licensing/purchase reasonable and painless, and the artist benefits from more sales - sue everyone in sight, no one wants to buy your stuff - any wonder why the "music biz" went down the tubes??

Steve -
That's a bit of a stretch - Joe sixpack mixes it down with a song he likes vs. a videographer doing it for him... the videographer is being paid for the VIDEO, not the song. While people like to have a song they like, does it really matter what sound pad the videographer chooses?? Probably not really that much. There's LOTS of music out there...

..

You said it yourself - the client is paying for the video. I think you're looking at the video from the perspective of a photographer or DP who is capturing a visual record of an event. But the video is not just PICTURE with any old accompaning sounds, it's not a branch of photography; it's the juxtaposition of image and sound into a cohesive whole that is more than just a set of images. A film of anything - wedding, event, fictional story - is a classic example of where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The videographer is not being paid to just record some moving pictures; he is being paid to create a video program with music and other sounds combined with picture resulting in a new artistic expression. He is creating a derivative artistic work based in part on the creative output of another artist. Without that other artist's contribution, the work of the videographer would not exist in the same form and would not have the same impact on his audience. In fact, it is widely accepted that the specific sounds and music chosen for a production are much more important in shaping its emotional impact on the viewer than are the pictures. Replace the specific music with other material and the video is a totally different product. Remove the music all together and the resulting product is trivial and boring. The music used creates part of the value of the product the videographer is selling to his client and the creator of that value deserves compensation for his contribution.

Digital or analog, don't get the vehicle used to carry the physical copy confused with the artistic work itself. The digital revolution hasn't changed anything because the value of an artist's work doesn't depend on the container used to transport it nor the difficulty in reproducing copies. Indeed, digital hasn't obsoleted the concept behind licensing but rather it has strengthened its importance by making clear that the value of a song is in its sound and its emotional impact on the listener, not the physical object used to transport it.

You critisize the "entitlment mentality" and yet I think that mentality is perfectly valid. When you labour, you are entitled to the benefit of that labour, whether it is digging a ditch, shooting a picture, or writing a song. The results of that labour belong to you, not to the world at large.

The videographer is not being paid to just record some moving pictures; he is being paid to create a video program with music and other sounds combined with picture resulting in a new artistic expression.

The videographer is being paid to just record moving pictures. It is the editor who combines the video with music. This is not always the same person. And it's not always the editor who make the DVD that ends up being distributed. So who then is responsible for any copyright infringement. The producer who is responsible for putting all the pieces of the puzzle together. And that producer is the wedding couple who commissioned the work.


He is creating a derivative artistic work based in part on the creative output of another artist. Without that other artist's contribution, the work of the videographer would not exist in the same form and would not have the same impact on his audience.

Again the videographers work would stand alone. His job is not a derivative work. It's not like a music video where the song is playing over and over again well he's shooting.

Remove the music all together and the resulting product is trivial and boring.

Then your editor is not doing a very good job. Yes music can enhance a scene, but it doesn't become boring without it unless the editor is not doing his job.