In your opinion would this be an infringement (in Canada) based on the fact that levy for blank medium compensates artists.

As Craig Seeman pointed out:

--> Not quite the same as giving someone the right to record the music and sync it to video and then distribute. Playing music to be listened and covering those rights don't cover other aspects. <--

I am curious if you think that it is justifiable (in Canada) to use copyrighted music in a wedding video if the customer has purchased the original music (Canadian context). Since in Canada anyone who purchases a blank medium already pays a levy, et la: "As well, copying a musical tape for private use is not considered infringement, because a royalty payment to the owners of the song was paid when the blank audio-tape was purchased (section 82)."

If a videographer provides the videography service by filming the event and then by editing, etc. while the music copied/integrated in the video (already possessed by the customer) is done for free (at no charge) and it is for personal us of the customer is it fair to say there was no infringement? (Based on the documents listed below)

The music exists as its own entity on the same medium as the video, while a money transaction took place for the service of filming and editing the video the music already owned by the customer (holder of an original copyrghted copy) was copied for the customer for their personal use on that same medium holding the video (free of charge).

The quote I mentioned above is in the second link, the third link is the whole "Canadian copyright act ~100 pages"

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/copyright_act/cdn_copyright_ov.cfm
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/copyright_act/music_copyright.cfm
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33760

Best Regards,

Christopher.
http://animaimage.com

The levy on media in Canada is meant to compensate the artists for the inevitable act of *personal copying*. That is burning a song for personal use in a mix tape or CD or copying to your hard drive or iPod. It is not meant to indemnify someone for using the song commercially.

Commercial meaning for profit. If you give away your wedding videos... no sweat. Otherwise, its an infringement.

It has to be the person who is making the copy who keeps the copy. This is not in your case. Also, it's for personal, non commercial copying.

Graeme

Thanks for all your input gentlemen.

I came to the conclusion that RIAA and all alike can do unmentionable things to themselves and I will be on my way. I will be buying music from places like magnatune, freeplaymusic and other "sane royalty" or "royalty free" outlets.

Best Regards to all,

Christopher.

Christopher, it's not as if you can't buy the rights to use music legally. Royalty free is just another legal avenue for certain types of music.

Yes but at what cost?

Integrating RIAA costs into a small-time wedding video production business would leave the operator with negative profit.

-Christopher.

Let's get something straight. The RIAA is the enforcing arm. In order to obtain the rights you are actually talking about different bodies like Harry Fox, ASCAP or BMI. They are the bodies that license music, not the RIAA.

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/ ('http://www.ascap.com/licensing/')

More correctly -

"Integrating world famous musicians and their chart topping mega-hits into a small-time wedding video production business would leave the operator with a negative profit"

Makes perfect sense.

As a small time independent filmmaker , I have to stay within my budgets.

If I can't afford to hire a world class DP, I do it myself.

Can't afford to buy top of the line lighting equipment, then I make do with what I can afford, or scrounge up.

Can't afford the rights to a world class music track? Then I must compose one myself, or use royalty free or public domain pieces.

Just because it's easier to "use" the products of the labor from professional musicians in our productions doesn't make it right. At least, not without permission. My son recently showed up for an indy shoot. The director promised 50 bucks pay for extras... He never paid. That's the same thing as stealing the money from his pocket in my boook.

I'm not here to sing the praises of the RIAA... I'm just defending the concept of protecting one's intellectual property. If I want mine protected, I have to respect others.

Yes right Richard, Keith.

Agreed, all the power/best of luck to the licensing bodies and the enforcers. I don't want to or need to use their highly priced services/property and I wish them well. I guess I would rather support small independent labels/musicians composers.

-Christopher