In the UK almost every church makes a charge to couples to have their wedding filmed. This can range from a nominal £20 up to £150 on top of the fees charges anyway by the church, and some will even double up the total bill to allow a video camera in the church. This is usually reasoned as being a copyright fee for the organist.

I have knowingly lost weddings at churches where the couple considered the fee to be excessive so they did not have a video. One in particular was at an internationally know church where they were charging £250 for copyright payment to the organist. That was on top of the fee he was already charging the couple to play at the wedding anyway.

Is this the case in churches where you operate, and if so what sort of charges are levied?

This has been brought to my mind by this newspaper article.
End of 'Ryanair' fees for church weddings where choirs and organists are extra | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006039/End-Ryanair-fees-church-weddings-choirs-organists-extra.html)

Hi George

This sounds very much like an Anglican thing....and it's coming pretty close to extortion!!! The organist is probably playing public domain music anyway...The Bridal March and such...I could maybe see the point if the organist had especially composed a unique piece for the bride!!!

I have never seen it here and more often than not the music in the Church is a CD from the bride...I have probably done only two or three that had an organist....!!

Soon couples will be looking elsewhere for ceremonies than Churches !! I often do outdoor/indoor weddings here with a Minister doing the ceremony so it doesn't have to be in a Church. Most of our Summer weddings are done by celebrants.

Hopefully this idea will NOT catch on!!!!

Chris

Hi Chris.

When I started it was quite rare for churches to ask for a fee, but it really has caught on here, I don't know of any church locally that doesn't make some charge for having the ceremony recorded.
As I think you might know we are able to buy a licence here in UK which permits the recording of copyrighted material for use in wedding productions. I always present that at church rehearsals but, even though many vicars will look at it, they still charge the couple.

I have only once known a vicar to relent. At the rehearsal the bride's father was not happy at the prospect of paying out another £85 for the video, especially as I had shown the licence. He took it up with the vicar, questioning how my licence for including all the music I might record on the day was less than £20 yet the church was asking £85 for the half dozen tunes in church, which incidentally the playing fee for the organist had already been included in the fee they were paying, and the recording was covered in the terms of my licence. At first the vicar said that's just how it is, the Parish Council had agreed to add that amount to weddings that were filmed. The father expressed that he wasn't happy with that and would have his solicitor check the legality of it. The vicar then said if the father felt so strongly he could leave the video fee out of the payment until after the wedding and the vicar would consult with the Parish Council and organist. They never got back to him.

I'm not surprised that many couples are opting for civil ceremonies at hotels or country houses. In my experience, or at least those weddings I do get, the imperative for a church wedding is either a strong faith connection with the church or more often upholding a family tradition of grandparents and parents having been married there.

If you read the article I linked to you'll see this is not just a personal gripe, as churches seem to be pricing themselves out of the wedding market by adding and increasing charges for everything, including couples placing their own flowers in church.

Over the last five years my ratio of civil to church weddings is 5:1

That's one of the problems with copyright. Because of lobbying by the record companies and movie companies, people are using any excuse to slap the term "copyright" and charge to make a buck or in your case a pound :) It might be completely different is someone was going to shoot the wedding and sell 1000's of copies or if a videographer wanted the organist to play the tracks numerous times for audio recording and/or video angles. So here's a question for you. Does the couple still have to pay if Uncle Joe is stilling in the pew with his home video camera? I shot my cousins wedding at the Flamingo in Vegas. The chapel wanted a fee if I was to be standing using a tripod and other equipment, but if I sat down the whole time I didn't have to pay a fee. They bought the video that the chapel produced and then I did a quick "rest of the story" video.

David I'm sure it varies from church to church, but my experience is that once video is mentioned they will charge the fee.
One of the usual notices given by the vicar at the beginning of the wedding, usually before the bride enters, is that nobody other than the official photographer and videographer should use cameras during the ceremony. I have known a vicar to stop the wedding and ask someone to stop and at one last year I have got a shot of the vicar pausing just before the exchange of vows, looking into the congregation and wagging his finger and shaking his head at someone who raised a camera, then continuing.
They had paid a fee for me to be there so at least I had a good view of that.

Hi George

Wedding Reception Centres are very popular here and they cater for the ceremony, photoshoot and reception...they have pristine gardens, one or two neat gazebos for the ceremony and a reception hall too.

As you can appreciate, it makes our job a lot easier too..drive to the venue, offload the gear (free parking of course!!) and do everything on site before going home at midnight!! We even have a few resorts that do a package so the bride and groom have accommodation so for me there is just one trip and no extra travelling at all!!!

As far as I know (from what brides have mentioned) the Churches here "appreciate" a donation for holding the ceremony and the "usual" is AUS$300 ... I have an idea the organist is extra!! That's a pretty fair price for a ceremony and there certainly has been no extra payments demanded for photo and video but with the lax attitude obviously guests can take photos and videos if they wish to...in fact the only real restrictions are that us official vendors cannot venture past the front pews except for the register signing.

Hopefully Churches there will realise they are losing weddings and come to their senses!!!

Chris

My experience here, in Arizona (USA) is that churches ensure that their facility is ready for the ceremony and they often have a staff member help coordinate with the Bride or Bride's family and vendors. There is occasionally a modest fee or an expected donation.

My wife (an ordained minister) often performs religious ceremonies outside the church. We've done ceremonies in back yards, a Hilton Hotel, Golf Course, VFW, and most recently an out of town wedding at a turn of the century (built in 1895) hotel in Flagstaff, Arizona. Like the churches, each of these venues had some kind of fee with the exception of the back yard weddingsof course - and on them the FOB's were out plenty!

We have never seen a fee charged for copyright usage or for shooting video.

Wouldn't the organist or church own the copyright of the performance (barring a work for hire contract)? Just like you own the copyright of your work, why shouldn't the copyright holder of the performance be compensated? Likewise for the venue.

Hi Jim. I understand what you say and I fully support that, who doesn't want to get paid for the service they provide.
I was prompted to raise this by an article in one of our national newspapers today. It has been a slight irritant to me over some years as I know that the ever increasing fee does put many off having their wedding videoed. Now I know it's not a god-given right to have your wedding videoed but this additional doubling of the organists fee, over and above what the couple have to pay in church fees to get married (£300 to the church), effects only videographers, so that is my vested interest.

Just to put it in context:
Firstly the organist is being well paid by the couple for playing at the wedding (the average for playing is £100, that's on top of the £300 church fee), neither organists or choir attend a wedding without getting paid, unless it's a favour to the family, they don't perform any extra or better because it's being videoed.

The organisation that controls copyright in UK have negotiated agreements with the Church of England to issued licences for recording music in copyright played at a wedding. I know that this copyright is different to the copyright the organist claims for his/her performance on the day.

The charges they make have no reference to the way the recording will be used, i.e. friends and family viewing only and are on the whole completely disproportionate to the number of copies that will be made and the number of viewings. I have never seen a sample on the internet that includes the as-recorded organ music, nor public events where people go to watch wedding videos.

I know that there are some renowned professional organists that play in churches who may feel justified in asking for a large fee, but on the basis of my experience they are few and far between. Judging by the number of bum notes I hear I think they may use the fee as a deterrent to being recorded.

It is a bit like me charging to make the wedding video, then saying "I'm doing charge you for the work involved but if you're going to show it to anyone else I will double my charge"

Just a footnote. I've never had a professional musician, be it singer, instrumentalist or quartet that has played at a wedding demand such a fee, nor bands that play at the reception, including some well known recording bands.

Good points and I'm not advocating, just raising a potential rationale. As money gets increasingly tight folks are going to look for revenue where they can find it.

I think that the Church exploits the deference that much of the British public give to the clergy. Most people would not take issue with a vicar in church, especially over fees when planning a wedding. Not in the way they might negotiate a charge at a hotel.

Whilst I'm broadly sympathetic I think a little confusion has come into this thread.

The main one is the story which started it which was that the Church of England is going to double the fees it charges for weddings and standardise what's included. That will mean, for example, that the organist's fee is now included which is good in that it will restrict the growth of primadonna organists who demand more if they're on camera!

On the other hand it will allow the generally pisspoor quality of organ playing which is exhibited in the Church of England to remain unchecked. If anyone wishes to contest the fact I have countless examples, most of which never reach the clients because we overdub an excellent French organist we recorded some years ago.

Unfortunately the Church of England isn't a corporate body and much power rests and remains with the Parochial Church Council (PCC) which runs the individual or groups of churches. It isn't yet clear whether the central body will force all churches and their PCCs to accept the standard fee and that alone. Fine words and inaction are a honed skill of the Church of England.

More importantly, the interesting thing is that although the church is doubling the fee, it's likely that they will still allow some churches and PCCs to restrict what photos/videos can be taken or if they can be taken at all. In other words even though a bride pays double she may still not be able to have her wedding recorded. It's an odd way of encouraging more people to get married in church at a time when the number is already in steep decline.

However, all this is quite separate from the recording of live performance licence and the synchronisation licence for use of copyright music etc. These are and will remain separate.

What most people outside UK seem to be unaware of is that the Church of England (and probably all churches using a printed form of service), owns the copyright in those words.

Depending on how you shoot/edit the video, would the church music not come under the fair use exception for incidental music? Besides, If you edit it out or use a different song or recording (in Australia we can get a licence to use the original music for wedding videos) for the final video then I do not see where there is any breach of copyright.

My guess would be that they have very little legal ground to do this but, as you said, nobody is going to argue with a vicar in his own church.

Edit: Phillip, you posted while I was typing - are you saying that the Church of England owns the copyright to the words of the service and therefore has the right to charge a fee for the recording of those words? If so that makes more sense, perhaps not morally, but certainly legally. But that's a whole other debate!

Tis true, we've known fees to range from £0 to £500 to allow us to film the day. The argument is always that its for the organist, even if they dont have one. More annoyingly is that we dont actually show any of the organist playing or use their audio, its just not our style. As Philip says, we have heared some awful organists and its a shame to say this happens more often than not. Bum notes, out of tune yet they still command a fee. I know if our work was of that quality a refund would be demanded.

Depending on how you shoot/edit the video, would the church music not come under the fair use exception for incidental music? Besides, If you edit it out or use a different song or recording (in Australia we can get a licence to use the original music for wedding videos) for the final video then I do not see where there is any breach of copyright.

My guess would be that they have very little legal ground to do this but, as you said, nobody is going to argue with a vicar in his own church.

Edit: Phillip, you posted while I was typing - are you saying that the Church of England owns the copyright to the words of the service and therefore has the right to charge a fee for the recording of those words? If so that makes more sense, perhaps not morally, but certainly legally. But that's a whole other debate!

That's exactly what I'm saying John. Regarding your other point of using different music the key is the word "synchronisation" - plus AFAIK we don't have a fair use exception. The UK PPL licence which permits unlimited use of commercial music (without listing or specification) covers that.

Finally to enlarge on the question of the quality, the tuning of the organ should be the responsibility of the PCC and covered from the fee. I recorded a brass band in a church in France and the organ was out of pitch, though in tune with itself. The Assistant Bandmaster had an electronic tuner and measured the difference - and then re-tuned the entire band at the rehearsal so the two pieces the band was playing with the organ were worth recording. The quality of the playing in British churches is due to the dearth of competent players and churches have to take what they can - or (increasingly these days) invest in a juke box.

I bow to your greater knowledge in this matter Philip. As you may well know this area of copyright is a real minefield even for those with a grasp of the legalities. Maybe you will be able to clarify whether or not the MCPS LM covers the recording of hymns and other Church music. I thought that I understood there had been an agreement made with the Church of England to include that in the licence. What the organist, and sometime choirs, charge is a fee to allow their performance to be recorded which I guess the shorthand for vicars is to call it a copyright fee. That sounds a bit more authoritative and legally required and is less likely to be challenged than saying the organist wants to be paid twice for the same work.


The other point that I raised in my opening post is whether this is a practice in other countries, so far it seems not.

George, I don't think it's greater knowledge, more like a mix up.

I think you're right about people including vicars confusing fee with licence fee. Certainly some churches charge for being there, eg the Alice in Wonderland church at which Lewis Carroll was once vicar charges for the association. Another we know charges extra if the camera rests on a view including the organist. It's Ok to pan over him, extra to stop!

I believe the MCPS LM does cover the live music - as does the other one which also confuses the PPL cover, though whether the CofE has agreed probably makes no difference if you're in a Unitarian or Catholic church.

I find that charges in Catholic, Unitarian, Methodist and others are much more reasonable, £10/20 pounds or no charge at all at some. My experience is that they are also much more accepting of my presence and far more likely to allow me a greater say in how and where I operate in the church than most Anglican clergy, who are happy to take the fee then tell me to squeeze into a dark corner and keep quiet.

Just skipping back a few weeks, I wonder how much the BBC had to pay to film in Westminster Abbey.

George, I agree - though as if to prove me wrong I'm preparing for a wedding at a Unitarian Church whose pastor wants full permission and sight of my licence and insurance!

According to 'Christian Copyright Licensing International' if a church conducts wedding where a video camera is used to record music you need either a CCL license or a Wedding Video-Recording Licence (WVRL) license.

They recommend the WVRL if a professional is filming.

their website (Wedding Video Licences : Prices & Application (http://www.wvrl.co.uk/licence-prices-application.cfm#)) gives you options of what copyright materials you want to include in the video.

If you're making 1-5 copies of the wedding DVD:
a license that covers commercial music (recorded on location and dubbed afterwards) & Hymns and worship songs sung during the service the license fee is £25.53 inc VAT. (which doesn't seem too unreasonable)

I've never heard of WVRL before today's searching, but they seem to act as an agent between the videographer and PRS/MCPS.

The only license I was aware of previously is The Limited Manufacture Licence offered directly from MCPS. This license includes:

"Recordings of private events such as: weddings, christenings, bar mitzvahs, family holidays and funerals, which are sold or given away to family and friends associated with that event."

Again for 1-5 copies (with less than 25 mins music) the cost of this is:
MCPS only £7.50


(There is an option for both MCPS and PRS joint license. MCPS license covers the 'mechanical rights' ie. Recording / duplication and the PRS covers public peformance, So for wedding video's I would imagine you only need MCPS)

I hope this makes a small amount of sense, it's a very complex area.


I think it's horrendous that churches are asking for money to cover this - especially as I would suggest that they have never provided a legal license to anyone - therefore you may still be liable for copyright infringement.

(additionally please note the above only applies to the UK!)

Further reading:
CCLI : Welcome : Christian Copyright Licensing International (United Kingdom) (http://www.ccli.co.uk/main.cfm)
PRS for Music (http://www.prsformusic.com/)
Wedding Video Licences : Welcome (http://www.wvrl.co.uk)

In addition - whilst browsing the websites of other videographers here in the UK a few seem to have signed up to organisations such as ' The Association of Professional Videomakers '.

Now to me these orgs seem like a massive waste of time (and money) for the use of a meaningless logo and a listing on their directory - surely they could act on behalf of their members in looking into these issues?

Especially as these issues are only ever going to increase!

Chris, The CCL are a self-appointed agency acting as a go between for videographers and the PRS. You can register with PRS and buy these licences directly from them.

It's mainly for couples who have been directed by their videographer to sort out the copyright licensing themselves. They did contact me, and no doubt many others some years ago with dire warning that I must have one of their licences to record in any church. I never came across a church who had heard of them. It may be different now.

Incidentally these PRS/MCPS LM licences that I referred to earlier are the ones that I do show at wedding rehearsals but they are never accepted as a substitute for the 'copyright' fee.

Maybe there should be an established fixed fee for filming in church. That way it would be understood at the outset and we could incorporate that into our pricing structure as we do the PR/S/MCPS licence. That way we would have a commercial transaction with the Church and would be justified in expecting a bit more cooperation from the clergy who often have a dismissive, arrogant and even hostile attitude towards filming.

Over on another forum someone has started a campaign to try to improve the image of videographers in the eyes of clergy who either severely restrict or even refuse the filming of weddings. Maybe they should be pressing for reciprocity whereby we agree to operate with decorum appropriate to the occasion and they respect our integrity and technical requirements.

Incidentally these PRS/MCPS LM licences that I referred to earlier are the ones that I do show at wedding rehearsals but they are never accepted as a substitute for the 'copyright' fee.

So having paid an additional 'copyright fee' have they ever provided you with a license agreement?

Assuming it's the videographers responsibility (as a bridge/groom I would expect the videographer to know/understand/organise this as part of the fee I'm paying him/her) what would the church provide? - I'm assuming at least they would provide a recipt?

I never get involved in that transaction. I make it clear from the initial enquiry that the fees the Church charge are strictly between the couple and the Church. I'd be happy to incorporate it but for one thing the fees vary so much that it wouldn't be possible to accurately add it to my prices. As has been indicated in this thread they can vary from nothing to £500.
I've never been given any sort of documentation regarding this agreement to film from either a couple or a vicar.

My booking form includes a declaration that must be signed by the client to confirm that they have sought and obtained permission from the Church to film their wedding and that any fee requested by the Church will be paid as and when required. I add the details of the LM licence and that I will show this to the vicar at the rehearsal or before if requested to do so.

George, I admire your ingenuity in suggesting that churches charge a fixed fee for the permission to record and thus put themselves on a business footing whereby they'd be contractually bound to deliver their part of the bargain.

Sadly my experience of the church is that few vicars and even fewer PCCs have enough business experience to understand the implications of a contractual relationship. I've sat on two PCCs in my life and most of their forward planning even in matters like their biggest resource, the church building, seems to rely on the belief that their God will provide.

But we could live in hope.

I had a wedding here in New Jersey just this past weekend where the church will not allow videographers inside. They have their own camera setup and charge the bride $85 for a copy of the DVD.

I had a wedding here in New Jersey just this past weekend where the church will not allow videographers inside. They have their own camera setup and charge the bride $85 for a copy of the DVD.

Now there's a Church that has embraced a business approach.
Perhaps the eventual result of my earlier suggestion Philip, might be to keep us out of churches altogether.

There's still no one in countries outside of the UK reporting a charge for being allowed to film in church, as opposed to the Church insisting on doing the filming.
Incidentally there is one very close to where I live that does have their own installed AV system and whilst they do not refuse to let outsiders film weddings they do request that a feed is given into their cctv system. I have only done one there but most couples opt for the disc the church gives them for free, so asked for a reduced price. That's why I've only ever done one there, many years ago.

George, maybe they could put on a buffet in the vestry and get the verger to play some records while the guests chug back the vino sacro and we'd all be looking for something to do on Saturdays!

It's sad to hear how a lot of churches have become places of business rather than places of worship, reverence and celebration. Sign of the times.

The only reason people still hold their weddings in churches is out of tradition . . . some of the most beautiful weddings I've attended have been in places other than churches.

George, maybe they could put on a buffet in the vestry and get the verger to play some records while the guests chug back the vino sacro and we'd all be looking for something to do on Saturdays!

I've just hear something on Radio Four. They were discussing that report of the CofE's plans to 'streamline' the charges for weddings. Someone rang in to say that after there wedding (some years ago), they went back to the vicarage where the vicar's wife had done just that, prepared some refreshment for the guests. The memento they have is their wedding photos, three Polaroids taken by the vicar's wife.

Shallow DoF as well I expect!

One in particular was at an internationally know church where they were charging £250 for copyright payment to the organist. That was on top of the fee he was already charging the couple to play at the wedding anyway.
And best of all, usually the organist music is awful, sometimes I have to take it out and replace it with descent music on the DVD.

Here are the Church of England's own recommendations on fees for weddings including the significant paragraph:-
9. If the wedding is filmed any videography fee charged by the Church should only reflect the real expense incurred by the church by having a video camera in the building – wear and tear, etc. Given the tiny size of video equipment today it is very likely that this will be nil. In any case it can be waived at your discretion.

The reasonable and clear guide to charging for a wedding - The Weddings Project Resource Centre (http://justforvicars-yourchurchwedding.org/index.php/resources/factsheets/wedding-fees)

In addition - whilst browsing the websites of other videographers here in the UK a few seem to have signed up to organisations such as ' The Association of Professional Videomakers '.

Now to me these orgs seem like a massive waste of time (and money) for the use of a meaningless logo and a listing on their directory - surely they could act on behalf of their members in looking into these issues?

Especially as these issues are only ever going to increase!The ' The Association of Professional Videomakers ' appears to have just 20 members & is closed to new members APV Find a Videomaker (http://www.apv.org.uk/index.php?option=com_webmapplus&view=webmapplus&category=0&Itemid=102)
The churchwedfilmsociety.co.uk (http://churchwedfilmsociety.co.uk/) has 22 members

The largest videography trade association in the UK (of which we are members & would recommend) is the IOV | Institute of Videography (http://www.iov.co.uk/) who offer all the sorts of services that you would expect from a professional body (training accreditation, arbitration services, lobbying government, 2 day annual trade show & seminars etc)

I have done 9 weddings so far this season and have had a nightmare with all vicars priests and church wardens who are a complete pain and think they own the church... No wonder in England civil ceremonys are on the up and cheaper....

Soon couples will be looking elsewhere for ceremonies than Churches !! They already are. The number of weddings annually has decreased enormously over the last 30 years from about 370,000 in 1980 to 231,490 in 2009 (most recent figures available). This is the lowest number of weddings since 1895 when the population was very much less. The proportion of those weddings that are religious ceremonies has decreased even faster. In 1991 it was 50:50 civil:religious whereas now it's about 70:30. The big growth area for weddings since legislation was passed in the mid 1990s has been marriage ceremonies in 'approved premises' i.e. hotels, stately homes and historic buildings. In 2009 there were just 75,630 religious ceremonies but there were 111,240 ceremonies in 'approved premises' while the remaining 50,000 odd weddings would have been held in the official Registry Office which tend towards the dowdy & functional. Marriages in 'approved premises' accounted for 48% of all marriages & 71% of civil marriages.

National Statistics Online - Product (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=14275)

As at the end of 2010 we had, just in Perth, a total of 1250 registered civil celebrants who conduct weddings at any venue (I was married at a friend's house) but most public parks now have gazebos built with the purpose of wedding ceremonies and we have tons of "reception centres" who also have purpose built ceremony spots. Since it seldom rains 9 months of the year outdoor weddings are popular!!!

I do maybe half a dozen church weddings a year now and all the rest are civil...a big advantage is also that you have freedom of movement and they are a lot shorter!!!

Chris

One such public park gazebo.

MINAWARRA PARK By Bob Hart On ExposureRoom (http://exposureroom.com/members/DARANGULAFILM/5045de981ef84655b98c75b6f2bf0466/)