You might as well have sold some drugs to cops in a police station! lol :-D
Delete the video off your site, deny deny deny or change your email, web-site, business name and run. They might just decide to make an example out of you, look at that poor woman they sued for over one million dollars! They're insane.

Paul - perhaps I can rephrase that in a way that we can both agree.

The codification of fair use within the Act cannot be taken as imposing any restrictions on judges deliberating whether a particular use is Fair Use or not. So no-one can say "that's not Fair Use because it's not listed".

The only reason that there is no specific provision relating to professional wedding videos and copyright music is because no lawyer, musician, music publisher or copyright owner has ever filed suit. There are just too many hungry attorneys out there desperate to stand up in a high profile court case and argue that a bride has the right to professional video of her first dance. That could lead to a show on Court TV. Yes Sony Worldwide Music Monolith might win $500, but they won't do it twice.

But, IMHO, wedding videographers have taken too much advantage. The Fair Use provision for Professional Wedding Video, if it is ever written, is not going to read "anyone describing themselves as a wedding videographer can ignore copyright law".

Look at what the Documentary Film Makers at the Center for Media Studies have done with their "Best Practices for Documentary Film Makers in Fair Use". They get together with a bunch of IP attorneys and law school professors and develop a set of codes and best practices. This document has no legal standing whatsoever. But any filmmaker who follows those practices can be fairly confident that:

1. he/she will find it relatively easy to get A-list pro-bono legal help
2. any judgement will be for proven damages only. There will be no penalty damages because he/she acted in good faith according to the codes and practices of the industry.

Why don't the Wedding Video trade groups follow that route? What would a "Best Fair Use Guidelines for wedding videographers" look like?

Paul - perhaps I can rephrase that in a way that we can both agree.

The codification of fair use within the Act cannot be taken as imposing any restrictions on judges deliberating whether a particular use is Fair Use or not. So no-one can say "that's not Fair Use because it's not listed". That's not quite correct. The codification of fair use in the statute provides a compulsory guideline for judicial analysis. However, judges are afforded discretion in the weight given to each factor, nor are the four factors listed comprehensive. It is reversable error if a judge fails to consider the statutory factors, but solely within to the discretion of the court as to whether any listed factor or combination of factors is or is not dispositive, as well as whether other factors should be considered as well, i.e. a judge can't simply ignore the statute but, similarly, it is within the judge's discretion to find other factors compelling provided that he has considered the statutory factors. Accordingly, a judge who decides a fair use case predicated solely upon a First Amendment analysis, without at least considering effect on the market for the original, etc., has committed error. The significance of fair use remaining an equitable doctrine is that lay people (or, for that matter, lawyers who don't practice in this area) will, inevitably, come up with the wrong answer if they attempt to analyze a fair use question solely with reference to the plain language of the statute.

The only reason that there is no specific provision relating to professional wedding videos and copyright music is because no lawyer, musician, music publisher or copyright owner has ever filed suit.I'll clarify that: there has been no reported case. There's no easy way to determine whether a suit has ever been filed addressing use of copyright-protected music for a wedding video. District court decisions are reported only if the editors of the official reporters decide the case is of sufficient interest. All appellate decisions are published except those that the Circuit Court of Appeal determines aren't appropriate for publication. Usually, the IP reporters will pick up copyright cases that aren't reported in the official reporters. However, without examining the docket for each and every district court in the U.S., there's no way to tell whether anyone has ever sued or been sued on this fact pattern.

There are just too many hungry attorneys out there desperate to stand up in a high profile court case and argue that a bride has the right to professional video of her first dance.And that's the point -- a wedding video fair use matter wouldn't be a high-profile case. There are plenty of hungry attorneys, but darn few hungry IP attorneys -- though, in California, I'm not allowed to use the term, IP litigation is a "specialty," and not something that is or should be attempted by commercial litigators. Moreover, no one will defend a case on contingency -- there's no money to be made. I'm willing to do one of these pro bono because of my interest in video. How many other lawyers not only post in this forum, but also avidly follow the substantive forums on dvinfo.net? ;)

That could lead to a show on Court TV.I got kicked out of AFTRA for non-payment of dues a long time ago.

Yes Sony Worldwide Music Monolith might win $500, but they won't do it twice. If Sony Worldwide Music Monolith sued and won, it will be considerably more than $500. Statutory damages range up to $250,000 PLUS court costs PLUS attorneys fees.

But, IMHO, wedding videographers have taken too much advantage. The Fair Use provision for Professional Wedding Video, if it is ever written, is not going to read "anyone describing themselves as a wedding videographer can ignore copyright law". You're looking at it backwards. There's not going to be a statutory "wedding videographer exception" in the Copyright Act (at least, not unless a Senator finds out that he can't get the dream wedding video of his daughter's wedding because the videographer refuses to use the bride's favorite Manilow CD as a soundtrack). Instead, what will happen is a wedding videographer will get sued, a court will do a fair use analysis and find that particular fact pattern to be fair use. If I was arguing the case, I'd analogize to news reporting and focus on the lack of harm to the market for the original. If the videographer prevailed AND the case was reported, the lawyer for the next videographer who gets a cease-and-desist letter will, at least, have a case to cite in the responsive letter. By the time a few of these have been litigated in different jurisdictions, and a couple of them get appealed and upheld, a doctrine will emerge which will be fairly reliable.

Look at what the Documentary Film Makers at the Center for Media Studies have done with their "Best Practices for Documentary Film Makers in Fair Use". They get together with a bunch of IP attorneys and law school professors and develop a set of codes and best practices. This document has no legal standing whatsoever.Not quite. It is, for all intents and purposes, a treatise and, like any treatise, is considered persuasive, i.e. it can be cited in litigation though, of course, it is not binding in any way on the court.

But any filmmaker who follows those practices can be fairly confident that:

1. he/she will find it relatively easy to get A-list pro-bono legal helpI've previously done pro bono work on a different fair use issue for a documentary film maker. However, most law firms are going to consider documentary film-making an important First Amendment activity. I don't think they will regard wedding videography the same way.

2. any judgement will be for proven damages only. There will be no penalty damages because he/she acted in good faith according to the codes and practices of the industry. Copyright plaintiffs may elect between statutory damages and actual damages. With respect to wedding videography it would be insane for a plaintiff to elect actual damages. Moreover, merely citing the Best Practices document does not establish good faith, though it would certainly be suggestive of it. The only absolute guarantee that you won't be held liable for intentional infringement is if you get a formal non-infringement opinion letter from competent IP counsel. Even then, the letter only constitutes prima facie proof of lack of intent to infringe. As with any proof, a preponderance of evidence that rebuts the inference will overcome the presumption and you can still be found to have infringed intentionally.

Why don't the Wedding Video trade groups follow that route? What would a "Best Fair Use Guidelines for wedding videographers" look like?I've repeatedly asked why WEVA doesn't lobby Congress for a compulsory license. I don't know what that organization does but it seems to me that use of music in this fashion is a critical concern to the industry. I can't imagine why WEVA wouldn't involve itself in this issue.

If I understand the now-resolved dilemma, the OP used a recording of a musical composition in a wedding trailer. What if the composition had been performed live at the actual wedding? Is there a potential copyright infringement in that situation?

If I understand the now-resolved dilemma, the OP used a recording of a musical composition in a wedding trailer. What if the composition had been performed live at the actual wedding? Is there a potential copyright infringement in that situation?
Short answer: yes, but . . .

This has been discussed here a number of times, including in this thread. Do a search on "incidental reproduction."

Paul - ignoring the legal fine print everything I said stands - including $500 damages - which may be too high.

There are no statutory damages for non-criminal copyright infringement.

(fine print - there is a clause in the DMCA which purports to make extracting material from a copy-protected device a criminal offence whether or not the material extracted was copyrighted.)

Paul - ignoring the legal fine print everything I said stands - including $500 damages - which may be too high.

There are no statutory damages for non-criminal copyright infringement.

(fine print - there is a clause in the DMCA which purports to make extracting material from a copy-protected device a criminal offence whether or not the material extracted was copyrighted.)
Doug, I don't know where you're getting your information, but you are simply mistaken.

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(a) In General.— Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either—

(1) the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

. . .

(c) Statutory Damages.—

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

§ 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney’s fees

In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

Okay?

you are referring to cases of criminal copyright infringement - even then the statutory minimum is $200 - $750 not $250,000.

Prior to 2006 the criterion for criminal liability for copyright offences was that it caused loss or damage of over $7,000 to the copyright owner. In 2006 this sum was reduced to $800.

The notion that you can face a $250,000 fine for copying a VHS tape and giving it to a friend is complete poppycock.

Paul - leaving aside the legalistic gobbledegook do you really believe that the artist in JJ's case could have sued him for $250,000?

To me that suggestion is completely absurd - as long as JJ acted contrite and reasonable $500 tops. The real damage would be to his reputation, self-esteem and peace of mind.

you are referring to cases of criminal copyright infringement - even then the statutory minimum is $200 - $750 not $250,000. No, I am not. Criminal copyright is addressed in 17 U.S.C. § 506.

Prior to 2006 the criterion for criminal liability for copyright offences was that it caused loss or damage of over $7,000 to the copyright owner. In 2006 this sum was reduced to $800.Given your spelling of "offence," I have to ask -- are you referring to UK law? If so, I have no opinion at all. You are, however, completely wrong with respect to U.S. law.

The notion that you can face a $250,000 fine for copying a VHS tape and giving it to a friend is complete poppycock.Doug, I have no intention of arguing with you. I've cited the applicable statutes -- you can look them up if you like, but I've reproduced them verbatim here. I'm an attorney who practices in this area and what I've said is the law is the law.

Plain yes or no please:

If the musician who JJ mentions had come to you and suggested he wanted to sue JJ could you in all conscience given him any assurance that he would be likely to get anywhere near $250,000?

Yes or no?

What don't you understand about this:

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(a) In General.— Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either—

(1) the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

Plain yes or no please:

If the musician who JJ mentions had come to you and suggested he wanted to sue JJ could you in all conscience given him any assurance that he would be likely to get anywhere near $250,000?

Yes or no?I can't answer that without knowing an awful lot more about the facts of the dispute. It's also an irrelevant question because I always tell plaintiffs the same thing: "Don't regard an infringement action as a profit center. If the value of the right at issue is worth more than the cost of litigation, then sue. Otherwise, don't."

Attorneys don't provide assurance of a recovery.

Your point, evidently, is that even if JJ got sued, the plaintiff wouldn't receive a huge damage award.

Maybe. Maybe not. There's no way I could predict, at this stage, what a judge or jury would do. I can tell you, however, that your assessment of potential liability is completely wrong, your assessment of fair use doctrine is completely wrong, and, apparently, you have no idea of the costs of defending a copyright infringement action.

I will tell you this. Based on the very limited facts recited by JJ, I would tell a prospective plaintiff that this set of facts presents a very straight-forward case of copyright infringement.

I'll also say this. I'm revising my offer to try to represent any wedding videographer who is sued for this on a pro bono basis. I reserve the right to reject anyone as a client. I will never represent a client who thinks they know the law better than I do.

You have no more business advising anyone on dvinfo.net about the law than I have advising them about which pro camera to buy. Don't do it.

Woman Fined $1.9 Million for Downloading 24 Songs (http://www.switched.com/2009/06/19/woman-fined-1-9-million-for-downloading-24-songs/)

Look here, this woman was fined 1.9 million just for downloading songs... she didn't even use them for a video or distribute them... just illegally downloaded them!

Plain yes or no please:

If the musician who JJ mentions had come to you and suggested he wanted to sue JJ could you in all conscience given him any assurance that he would be likely to get anywhere near $250,000?

Yes or no?

Doug -
Simply put, law is by nature worded in ways oftentimes unintelligible - Paul is sharing very openly what the law states - it's helpful for those who "think" there's a yes or no answer - with law there is almost NEVER a yes or no answer!!! Even if there WAS today, a cock-eyed decision could change that TOMORROW... because the representing attorney was not an expert in the area and got sandbagged.

I think everyone here agrees that JJ infringed (even JJ, who was most heartily sorry for his error, and things worked out OK).

Whether a suit could have been brought is simple - YES, people can and will sue over the stupidest of things, like a pair of pants lost at a dry cleaners... and the costs to ANY litigant are extreme and place great risk to ANY litigant, win or lose, unless they have very carefully protected themselves in advance (business structure, etc.). This is why everyone here on the forum was holding their breath for JJ... and relieved when it became apparent that human kindness and courtesy prevailed.


Paul's point is not whether the litigant COULD recover (keep in mind a "judgement" might not be recoverable, but is a judgement nonetheless, meaning it could ruin the defendant for a long time), just that under the statutory scheme (which is designed to provide punitive effects against gross violators, but has no protections for the "little guy" who screws up), the provision is there to for the IP holder to ASK for the maximum damages provided by law. If the defendant walks into Court with an attitude or is guilty of such gross violations (think 150 yr sentence for Madoff), the IP holder very well might get it.

A wise attorney would evaluate the potential damages, the precedent value (which may be far larger than any monetary "win"), and the costs involved. BUT... if you cross a "deep pockets" IP holder or one who wants to set a precedent and sees an "easy mark", good luck, you'll be broke long before you "win" even if you're 100% right... and there ARE attorneys who will glady bill as long as the foolish client will pay to get their way, long after the economics fail to justify the litigation. If you know any unreasonable people, you'll realize they can access the Courts too... if they have the $$.

The danger zone here is that most WV types aren't filthy rich, and they would be "defending", meaning that there's no "easy out" if the other side wants to make an example.

Paul is trying to make clear the risks, for those who will take wise counsel. If you are having trouble understanding the code sections, don't feel bad, most would be in the same boat, and it should serve to make abundantly clear that the issues here aren't simple or "easy", nor answered in one word... such is "law".

Woman Fined $1.9 Million for Downloading 24 Songs (http://www.switched.com/2009/06/19/woman-fined-1-9-million-for-downloading-24-songs/)

Look here, this woman was fined 1.9 million just for downloading songs... she didn't even use them for a video or distribute them... just illegally downloaded them!

And there's the "make an example"...

The way I see it, if it is a well known artist chances are they are well to do, much much more than I am, so I have no problem using it.

I am also a musician and and spent many years playing live, recording and the like. I'd be honoured to have my music used on a video even more so to have it online where everyone could see it. Its a form of promotion. DJ's use boot legged music, they admit downloading it, yadda yadda.

I do pay for music that I use and disagree with downloading it for free.

If a well known artist wanted to use my video for their own promotion I'd have no problem. It would give me some fantastic exposure. They should be greatful for their sucess.

Not everybody sees it the same way you do, David -- there are those who prefer to protect their copyright. The argument that "they're rich and therefore they can afford to let me use it for free" is a completely invalid one, sorry.

And downloading music has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread -- it seems as though some folks are confusing the act of uploading as synonymous with downloading. It is not. Uploading is redistribution, which quite a different thing from downloading.

The way I see it, if it is a well known artist chances are they are well to do, much much more than I am, so I have no problem using it. Just so I'm clear, are you also okay with taking the well-to-do artist's car, too? ;)

I am also a musician and and spent many years playing live, recording and the like. I'd be honoured to have my music used on a video even more so to have it online where everyone could see it. Its a form of promotion. DJ's use boot legged music, they admit downloading it, yadda yadda. I'm sure you're a good videographer. But what if the videographer in question is not? As a musician, would you want your music providing the soundtrack for a truly lousy commercial video project? Or worse, what if it's the "perfect" song and suddenly, thousands of people are using it for their wedding, event and corporate videos? It's all over the place, on good videos and bad.

However, that is a moot point because the law is quite clear: copyright gives a monopoly interest in the reserved rights, save for fair uses (which wedding video might or might not be -- that's an open question at the moment).

I do pay for music that I use and disagree with downloading it for free.How do you see using the music in a video as different?

If a well known artist wanted to use my video for their own promotion I'd have no problem. It would give me some fantastic exposure.Yes, but they're the well-known artist, and you're the not-so-well-known videographer. Of course you'd be thrilled. However, there is no quid pro quo for them if they do.

They should be greatful for their sucess.So you advocate a kind of intellectual property socialism, is that right? ;)

Not everybody sees it the same way you do, David -- there are those who prefer to protect their copyright. The argument that "they're rich and therefore they can afford to let me use it for free" is a completely invalid one, sorry.

And downloading music has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread -- it seems as though some folks are confusing the act of uploading as synonymous with downloading. It is not. Uploading is redistribution, which quite a different thing from downloading.

With many sources for LEGAL downloads for purely audio use, it would seem to me that some of those sources (Apple iTunes maybe?) might be a good place to start a "pull" campaign - let them know there's a demand for audio for use with limited distribution "personal" type videos, and currently no economic model providing it.

I should think if they know or even believe the demand is there, it would BECOME economically viable for a source of legal downloads to draft an "add on" agreement that the IP holders could opt in to - they would have a pretty good incentive to do so, and if one did it, it should quickly result in LOTS of available music without resorting to a Court battle royale? I would think the incentive to the artist, plus a cut to the download site would make the $$ signs start flashing here?

Obviously an additional add-on could be created for "uploaded" video - probably with a reciprocal link so anyone liking the audio track could go right to purchase it themselves - adding revenue to the IP holder, everyone wins. (I'd think that since JJ likes the artist, and he's such a good guy, any licensing JJ works out would run along those lines, so the artist makes more sales TOO!)


David, well... if you weren't in Oz, I'd drop by to "borrow" your widescreen and BluRay player later, OK? That is if you're a bit more well off than I... oh by the way where do you keep your root beer stash - I'm out...? Please, rethink what you're saying here, as it's not anywhere close to correct in any sense... it's just this sort of "justification" that is why things end up in Courts, because someone doesn't respect someone else's rights.


Paul - I think the question of having one's music track stuck on crappy video (or worse yet porn... you can see where this might go downhill fast) represents the one sticky situation in a limited A/V license. The only thing I would hope is that if such a license limited distribution to say 10-20 units, or multiple license purchases could go to say 100, an artist would have the reasonable assurance that any "damage" to their reputation would be limited... and offset by the aggregate licenses sold.

Uploaded video presents another challenge, but perhaps a system could be devised - would be a bugger to "enforce" for really popular songs though.

I see no way to control the QC of the derivative work. Then again they used to sell music on 8 track tape... didn't seem to hurt anything (other than the audio "quality")!

I see no way to control the QC of the derivative work. Then again they used to sell music on 8 track tape... didn't seem to hurt anything (other than the audio "quality")!Which is why copyright is an exclusive right. I've told this story here before: I know some people who spent 4 years writing a musical adaptation of "Catcher in the Rye." Once it was finished, they sent it to J.D. Salinger. He replied that he liked it, it was excellent work, but his position was that he had realized his conception of the story as a novel and he would not allow it to be translated into other media. That is his right on undercopyright, and 4 years of work by two people was for nothing. You have to consider that some composers simply don't want their music used for wedding and/or event video.

Woman Fined $1.9 Million for Downloading 24 Songs (http://www.switched.com/2009/06/19/woman-fined-1-9-million-for-downloading-24-songs/)

Look here, this woman was fined 1.9 million just for downloading songs... she didn't even use them for a video or distribute them... just illegally downloaded them!

Most of the news stories written and reported about this case have it wrong - she was not fined for "downloading" the songs, she was fined for "reproducing and distributing" the songs. She (through her use of Kazaa) made those songs available for others to download.

David, well... if you weren't in Oz, I'd drop by to "borrow" your widescreen and BluRay player later, OK? That is if you're a bit more well off than I... oh by the way where do you keep your root beer stash - I'm out...?

If David could click his mouse and make copies of his widescreen and BluRay player, and I suppose his root beer stash as well, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to do so for you. But until that day comes, your comparison is flawed.

To fix it, you have to think about what things would be like if we truly did have such an ability. Say for instance that one could simply replicate a widescreen TV at no cost. Someone still has to buy the original first. David, how would you feel to always be the one that buys the original, with everyone else always just replicating your stuff? Also, how do you think the manufacturer would feel? You'd be their #1 customer, that is until they went out of business for lack of sales.

Sometimes it helps to understand where the artists and producers are coming from when we translate their product to something that has more value to us.

Not flawed really, although the fact that one can "make copies" with relative ease and low expense creates the problem we are discussing. Just because we are talking a relatively inexpensive "item", doesn't make the loss of value to the IP holder any less objectionable, and when the copying or distribution results in hundreds of copies or potential copies, the quantity increases the loss.

Property is still property, including INTELLECTUAL property. If you don't think there are knockoffs of electronic items, think again, it happens - but it's not like it's as easy as sticking a disk into a drive and pressing "copy"... I used the analogy of rather more substantial items to press home the point of "using someone elses' stuff without permission or compensation". Pauls point is the same - just because someone leaves the keys in the ignition doesn't mean they are asking you to steal their car... (OK, maybe that's one way to "off" that old clunker...)

Just because it's EASY (or possible) to do something doesn't automatically make it legal or right - you CAN simply ignore a red light, but to maintain order, it's rather good that EVERYONE observes and respects that red light, correct? Then again, say in an emergency, there are exceptions...


SO, if you are an IP creator (and I presume we are here), even for a limited marketplace (Weddings and events of limited interest), you wouldn't want someone buying one copy, and making 100 and selling them, or worse yet someone else posts YOUR work on their website promoting their business (and yes such things DO happen), representing your work as their own.

I think we all want like to be paid reasonably for the work we do. Copyright law protects us, so we should be respectful of other "artists". "Do unto others" as the saying goes.

I've dealt with reasonable and unreasonable "artists" - there's a give and take - you can't become popular without a method of "distributing" your work, but you also have to consider how much is reasonable to charge for licensing... and if you aren't reasonable, you'll limit the market value of your work. There is however nothing preventing anyone from being unreasonable, and I'd stand by their right to do so.

I think there's a factor of if you charge reasonably, you'll "sell" more than if you shoot for the moon on pricing or are very restrictive - there's also a matter of if the genuine article is reasonably priced, why would anyone even WANT to "pirate" or illegally copy??

I think this is where we can all agree that it would be advantageous for artists to be able to offer rights to use their song as an audio track at a reasonable price if they CHOOSE to do so. AFAIK, nothing prevents an artist (barring other contractual obligations) from doing so, and it seems to me that the answer might lie in the existing sites like iTunes... just making the capability available.

...she was not fined for "downloading" the songs, she was fined for "reproducing and distributing" the songs.Thus, the critical difference between downloading and uploading.

My brevity not intended to minimize Dave Blackhurst's excellent post above, though.

Not flawed really, although the fact that one can "make copies" with relative ease and low expense creates the problem we are discussing.
It's the difference between borrowing and copying that I was specifically addressing with your analogy. People tend to think of copying as a victimless crime, so it's important to demonstrate how the original artist or copyright holder is actually victimized by it.

It helps to translate the issue to a scenario involving items of higher perceived value, which typically means something physical like your widescreen TV example. But until Star Trek replicators becomes reality, we won't really have any comparable scenarios involving physical items. So most analogies are easily dismissed as not truly being analogous, and I feel the message is being lost.

Another guy got fined for downloading and sharing music
Student Joel Tenenbaum to Pay $675,000 in Music Downloading Case (http://news.aol.com/article/student-joel-tenenbaum-to-pay-675000-in/535370)

I've italicized what I believe to be the two key words in the case Warren links to above:

"...admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs."

What can one say about that situation...

"Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, said the jury's verdict was not fair. He said he plans to appeal the decision because he was not allowed to argue a case based on fair use."

I don't know what possible "fair use" argument he thought was viable, but the rest of the story says volumes...

"Tenenbaum admitted on the witness stand that he had downloaded and shared more than 800 songs... Tenenbaum said he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs... The recording industry focused on only 30 songs in the case."

AND:
"Tenenbaum testified that he had lied in pretrial depositions when he said his two sisters, friends and others may have been responsible for downloading the songs to his computer.
Under questioning from his own lawyer, Tenenbaum said he now takes responsibility for the illegal swapping."

Not exactly a "sympathetic defendant" IMO. Lying and admitting it isn't going to make you any friends on a jury, and admitting he was only being prosecuted for about 5% of what he was guilty of... YEESH! NO indication whatsoever he even WANTED or intended to compensate the IP holders in his initial infractions, and he tried to rub it in their face on top of it by asking the jury to "send a message"... IMO he got off easy...

It's interesting to note the "willful infringement" punitive damage multiplier -
"Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful."

Frankly it's hard for me to see how the guy WASN'T a flagrant and willful infringer, like many who seem to spout the argument that runs along the lines of "information should all be free" simply because it can be freely copied and posted on the Internet... ALL IP creators must find such positions offensive - theft is theft, even if the property is "only" intellectual property.

This is VERY different from the sort of very restricted "fair use" I believe wedding and event vidoegraphers envision...

I found this a while ago and thought I should post it here.

ZOOM :: Music Licensing for Videography & Digital Imaging (http://www.zoomlicense.com/)

They have been around for a while and offer reasonable music licensing for major labels. As long as your not going to be posting your videos online its the perfect solution for many.

And in other news...I thought this was quite interesting too:

Official Google Blog: I now pronounce you monetized: a YouTube video case study (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/i-now-pronounce-you-monetized-youtube.html)

The artist who's music was used in the video without permission saw a massive increase in music sales because of the video.

The ZOOM site is interesting and a step in the right direction. A quick look reveals that Motown seems to be the only major label they've signed; it just shows how old I am that I didn't recognize the names of any of the other acts on their list. They have about 8500 tracks available, which seems like a lot (but isn't if they don't have the track you want).

But a great idea and I hope they continue to add labels, as they say they are.

Hey guys -- I've had great luck with Pump Audio, via Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com) & click on "Music" at the top. You can also get a better selection by going right to Pump Audio's own website, but it's a little more expensive.... seems like the Getty version is more consumer-friendly in their pricing. Great stuff that sounds like actual movie scores, but waaay cheaper.

- Mickey