I'm in contact with the owner of a dance institute that will have a dance recital in a few months and I need to know how much to charge for this. Basically there will be three recitals for three different age groups of children and teenagers, of which the first two are about two hours together and will be sold in one DVD. The third recital will be two and a half hours and will be sold as another DVD.

My equipment for this will be two Canon XF100s and it will be edited in Edius, the pro version. The total recording time will be about five and a half to six hours, and obviously it will take a lot of time to edit since it's multicam.

For what she tells me, there would be approx. 125 parents purchasing the first disc, and about 90 purchasing the second one. Of course I would have to produce all these discs, which means cases, printable media, a good quality paper for the covers, and most expensive of all, ink.

What is a good base price to charge for each of these discs? I want to give this person a good price because I can get more business from her, both for more recitals as well as other types of events, but at the same time I don't want to end up working for almost nothing.

Separate from this, am I supposed to charge tax on each of these DVDs? I live in North Carolina, if that's of any help. I plan on going to the tax state agency on Monday to find out more, but I wanted to get an idea from other videographers because when you go to government agencies in my experience you can either get a helpful person or one that will basically expect you to know almost everything and you have to pry the information out of them.

It's a physical product, so I think you'll have to charge tax? At least that's the general interpretation of "sales tax" in most locations.

I'd suggest that doing 90+ discs you look into mastering and outsourcing the copies. I'm looking into that for a similar job, and having done one that went from "a 'few' copies" to nearly 100... I don't particularly want to burn and print that many again if possible, though it's right on the margin. If I'm delivering a full DVD/case/liner, I'd definitely send it out. Even if the cost were lower in materials, the TIME to produce all those copies is substantial!

As far as charging, you may or may not charge up front for the actual shoot, but you'll definitely want to set up how the disc sales will be handled, and usually the discs will sell for $25 and up, see if you can get a feel for what the going rate is, as I'm sure local economies affect how many sales you'll get. $30-35 is pretty common from my research. Have a way to take orders that day, and probably a "afterthought" web order form.

IF I take on any of these, I'd slap together a simple order form that I can put on a couple small laptoips to manage the orders, and give some sweet "multiple copy" discounts so that they buy for the friends and family that can't attend - your incremental cost should be negligible if you ousource the end product production.

That should give you some ideas!

If she tells you 125 - then expect that number to drop considerably if you try to get too much. Don't underestimate how long it takes to print discs and the case inserts - If I'm doing less than 50, I'll probably print them myself, but more than 50 I'll pay a printer. If I go above this figure it's probably simpler to also get them duplicated by a firm who specialise in this too. I don't think we can really advise you until you've found out how much the production costs. If they also cost more than USD15 - about 10 UKP - then people won't buy them, they will buy one and then burn a copy for their friends - a real pain!

If this is a hobby business, then your time may not matter, so just your costs and a bit of a profit. Here in the UK, we don't have sales taxes as you have them in the US - unless you turn over around $100,000 then our VAT @20% doesn't get added.

Yes, you will need to charge sales tax. Or, you could sell them wholesale to the dance studio, in which case I believe they would be responsible for charging/collecting the sales tax. In this case you get paid for a set quantity by the studio and they have to contend with retail sale. Under no condition would I go the consignment route. With the quantity you have been given I would have them duplicated. I use discmakers.com which has done a good job for me. You can get them to duplicate, print on DVD and jacket, case and shrink wrap for about $300 per 100. You can also design your artwork online. Here is a link Short-run CD, DVD, & Blu-ray Duplication Products by Disc Makers (http://www.discmakers.com/selfservicequoterbeta/Products.aspx)
As for price, if you are selling to the studio $10 each and they resell for $15-$20, sounds about right to me.

Yes, you will need to charge sales tax. Or, you could sell them wholesale to the dance studio, in which case I believe they would be responsible for charging/collecting the sales tax. In this case you get paid for a set quantity by the studio and they have to contend with retail sale. Under no condition would I go the consignment route.
As for price, if you are selling to the studio $10 each and they resell for $15-$20, sounds about right to me.

Sorry, which one would be consignment? Selling them wholesale or selling directly to the parents? But wouldn't the final amount of the tax be the same in the end? I mean, if I charge the institute a fixed amount based on how many DVDs they need, I would have to charge tax based on that amount, if I sell directly to the parents I would have to charge tax on each DVD. In the end, it would be the same, right?

I wouldn't sell them to the studio for $10, that would be like giving them away. Keep in mind that I'm not getting paid for anything else, I will only make what I charge for those DVDs. Besides, people pay $20 for a movie, they would be happy to pay at least $30 for their kids on a good quality video. If I have to set a price for what that's worth, I'd be selling them at $50 each and $70 for the Blu-ray. I just want to give them a low price for the first time as a promotion, but I don't think I could go lower than $30, keeping in mind that I will have to be there for a whole afternoon, and then several hours of editing over several days.

I use discmakers.com which has done a good job for me.

By the way, did you ever send them masters that required the copies to be made on dual layer DVDs? I can't find that anywhere on their website, and the step by step quote system doesn't even ask for that. Dual layer DVDs are more expensive than single layer ones, so I couldn't believe they would quote the same price for mass duplication for both single and dual.

I'd recommend this chart to figure out your hourly or day rate.
It includes all costs of running your business, your personal expenses, etc.
FreelanceSwitch Hourly Rate Calculator (http://freelanceswitch.com/rates/)

Depending on your state laws, generally selling a product may involve local, city, state, sales tax. Checking with your state and city agencies is a good idea.

Keep in mind the issues of copyright if they are dancing to music that you don't have the sync rights to. Also choreography can be copyrighted as well. If the music composition, performance, choreography were all done by students you should still get permission from the creators. You may also want to get permission from the students performing as well.

I once had a client who came to me with a horrible story in which a piece she composed, choreographed, danced in was, 20 years later, recreated by someone who had participated in the original event an obtained the recordings distributed after the event. The recreation achieved some financial success and there was a very ugly lawsuit counter suit.

Keep in mind the issues of copyright if they are dancing to music that you don't have the sync rights to. Also choreography can be copyrighted as well. If the music composition, performance, choreography were all done by students you should still get permission from the creators. You may also want to get permission from the students performing as well.

Recently I had the chance to talk to someone from a national company that hires videographers from several cities to do mostly wedding videos and I asked him what were they doing about the current lawsuits from the RIAA to wedding videographers, since I understood that by law you couldn't even include the songs you record with the camera's microphone without getting the rights, and since those rights are in the thousands for each song, you would have to either mute or not include any part with any music from the DJ.

He told me that they had consulted with their lawyers and it's not so drastic. He said that according to the lawyers that looked into it, the videographer would be breaking the law by adding a copyrighted song to the video to do the highlights, or some other use, but that the music captured with the cameras, as long as it is for private use, it's not a problem. I asked him if the same applied to school plays and dance recitals and he said yes, as long as it's for private viewing. I assume the thing gets complicated if you put that video online somewhere, but then it's a matter of how smart or stupid the music label is. The smart ones have an arrangement with You Tube so that when the song is detected, they place a link to buy the song, which makes the copyright owner lots more money and doesn't ruin anybody. The not so smart ones sue the videographer, making his life hell and preventing the creator of the song from cashing in big bucks from selling the song online.

If at some point I get a lot of extra money I will try to check with an attorney directly, but at least knowing that a major company that is in the wedding video business got that information from a lawyer puts me at ease a little bit. If you think about it, if you needed sync rights for every single piece of music that is played at a wedding, dance recital or school plays, it would be the end of the video business for most videographers, and everybody would hate the music labels because wedding videos couldn't exist in more than a barebones form where the beginning and end of the ceremony is muted, almost nothing from the party, DJs would have to be aware not to play any music at all when they're saying something important that will have to be on the video, such as announcing the bride and groom or their parents, etc, etc.

In the same way, parents would rarely ever have the chance to see their kids on a dance recital or school play, since most of them don't have original songs.

Actually many venues (such as wedding halls) pay an annual fee for performance rights which may allow cover bands and DJs to play music for example. That's not the same as sync rights.

Yes there are arguments that if the music is incidental to what you are shooting it may be OK but that wouldn't prevent a copyright holder from suing and arguing that the music is primary and not incidental.

Also note "private" use might mean mom shooting their son/daughter but might not be someone shooting and selling copies.

Yes, I think the YouTube way of handling things is smart but the decision is in the hands of the copyright holder to accept that.

My example above is that even entirely student created pieces with their own original music and choreography can result in a lawsuit. You'd still want to get permission from the creator/owner.

My example above is that even entirely student created pieces with their own original music and choreography can result in a lawsuit. You'd still want to get permission from the creator/owner.

In an ideal world, maybe. But if every videographer that records a dance recital and sells it to the parents would have to get sync rights to about 40 songs, for starters it would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and it would take months to obtain them, so there would be no videos from dance recitals or school plays. And yes, the institute I'm doing this for pays an annual fee to ASCAP based on the number of students. When the music labels come up with a smart plan to charge videographers a reasonable fee to use copyrighted music, both captured through the mikes as well as from CDs to add to the production value, we'll all be happy to comply.

Still, as far as we know, the only case of videographers being sued by the labels is because they used a song ripped from an original CD to do a highlights video, and only when that video ended up online and went [annoying term coming] viral.

Sebastian, so this an annual event? In giving you the estimated DVD sales sounds like your client has done this before.

If so, try and find out what happened previously, who videoed it last year? Did it fall in a heap? Why?

eg: Did they deliver faulty DVDs, did they outsource them with a crappy company, not spot check each one then not replace them? not give refunds?
Did they take down payments for DVDs and not deliver? Not pay sales tax or copyright fees? Are there any legal actions pending?

Find all this out independantly, because if it IS an annual event and any of the above applies .. then it's probably the same audience as last year, and those DVD sales estimates could be way off. If the client doesn't co-operate in confirming any of this, be careful.

If you do take the gig, counter the above with positive prior advertising and personal contact with some principal dancers parents.

It'll make it hard, but take orders and get full down payment+postage before the audience leaves the venue. And I'd outsource the DVDs too. Good luck.

Cheers.

Separate from this, am I supposed to charge tax on each of these DVDs? I live in North Carolina, if that's of any help.

I can't tell you anything about North Carolina, but I can tell you how it works for me here in Minnesota.

First, you don't "charge" sales tax, you collect it. Small difference, but I like to make sure my clients know I have nothing to do with how much they're paying for sales tax, they need to take it up with the government if they disagree! :)

Second, it doesn't matter if I sell a single copy to an individual, or sell a box full and call it "wholesale". Unless they have a tax exemption certificate, I have to collect tax. Since the dance studio is probably not licensed as a reseller, you'll likely have to collect tax no matter who pays you.

In MN it pretty easy. I simply have to collect tax and track it. At the end of the year, I fill out an online form (about six questions) and pay the amount I've collected.

and most expensive of all, inkWell I don't know what printer you're using, but I've duplicated a crap load of DVDs in the past six years and I'll typically get 300-500 disks from one set of ink cartridges. Even at $50-$70 per set of ink, that's only 10 to 20 cents per disk. Just keep your labels simple and tastful. Nowadays I don't even bother duplicating more than a few copies in-house. The rest I farm out to Kunaki. They're fast, dirt cheap, and look much better than anything I can do here.

Recently I had the chance to talk to someone from a national company that hires videographers from several cities to do mostly wedding videos and I asked him what were they doing about the current lawsuits from the RIAA to wedding videographers, since I understood that by law you couldn't even include the songs you record with the camera's microphone without getting the rights, and since those rights are in the thousands for each song, you would have to either mute or not include any part with any music from the DJ.
...

You are getting bad advice from the wedding company - in fact there have been a number of suits filed in recent months against event videographers for using unlicensed music - if you were hit with one could you afford the legal fees to defend it, even if you WERE ultimately found to be in the right?. In any case, what they are referring to is called "incidental use" of the music, where it just happens to be audible in the background while something else - for instance, reception guests recording congratulations to the couple - is being captured on the video. Remove the music and there nothing material missing from the video. But that's not the case of the music accompanying the stage performance of a dance piece. There the music is a material part of the performance, not at all incidental. By capturing the performance with its audio intact (and shooting a dance recital wouldn't make sense without recording the music), you are making a copy of the music which you are then selling to your customers, ie, the parents. It's exactly the same as if you were recording a CD of a band performing covers of popular songs and sold copies of the CDs to the audience in the lobby of the venue after the show - you're going to owe royalties and/or license fees to the music's copyright owners.

"When the music labels come up with a smart plan to charge videographers a reasonable fee to use copyrighted music, both captured through the mikes as well as from CDs to add to the production value, we'll all be happy to comply." They are charging a reasonable fee. You get to put what you consider to be a reasonable value on your own creative work when you set your rates. They get to put what they consider to be a reasonable value on their creative work when they set their licensing fees. You have the right to withhold your services from those who refuse to pay your fee because they consider it to be too expensive. Similarly music creators and publishers have the right to deny you permission to benefit from the use of THEIR work if you refuse to pay their fee when you feel it's too expensive. You're not obligated to work for what your potential clients consider reasonable when it's not up to what YOU consider reasonable. Both you and the music folks have the absolute right to set the value of your work in the marketplace and tell people who want to use it they can take it or leave it. But if you take it, you're obligated to pay for it. Remember you're not doing your videos out of the goodness of your heart, you're doing it to make the best living out of it that you can. Similarly they're not producing music out of some altruistic devotion to Art, they're doing it to make money. You'd expect them to pay you your requested fee if you shot their wedding, give them the same consideration in return.

"... it would take months to obtain them [sync rights], so there would be no videos from dance recitals or school plays." Many of the licenses schools sign with the publishers of the plays they perform (and they DO have to sign contracts with them and pay performance royalties) explicitly prohibit the making or sale of any videotapes or recordings of the performances either by the school or by members of the audience with the occasional exception of allowing the creation of a single copy to be retained by the school for archival and instructional purposes.

"When the music labels come up with a smart plan to charge videographers a reasonable fee to use copyrighted music, both captured through the mikes as well as from CDs to add to the production value, we'll all be happy to comply." They are charging a reasonable fee. You get to put what you consider to be a reasonable value on your own creative work when you set your rates.

Steve, I don't know what the situation is in Canada, but it's not like that here. Getting the permit to use one song is in the thousands of dollars, so imagine if I tell the dance institute their video is going to cost $80,000 they are going to laugh on my face. Plus the institute already pays ASCAP for the music, what difference does it make if they get a video from the performance that uses that music? It's not music piracy if the institute pays their fee and then the parents get a video from that day with their kids dancing. The music may be important to the dance performance, but it's not important to me or anybody else. The focus is on the kids' performance. Obviously there would be a difference if I sold these videos to the general public that don't have kids there, in that case I'd definitely have to charge them an assload but that would be no different from selling a movie or a documentary.

Same thing for wedding videos. Hardly any part of the wedding goes without music being played by the DJ. Sometimes it's at low volume and it fits the definition of incidental, but sometimes it's really loud and well above the people's voices, so in theory that wouldn't be considered incidental. So what, are you going to mute that? One hour of people dancing on the screen with no sound?

As far as that person told me elaborating on what the lawyers had told him, the differences are in that the video is made for private viewing of the couple and their family, and also that the videographer doesn't have a choice regarding the music the DJ plays. The problem comes when the videographer adds a song from a CD to enhance the production.

You are getting bad advice from the wedding company - in fact there have been a number of suits filed in recent months against event videographers for using unlicensed music.

That's right, but show me a testimony from a videographer that got sued for music that he captured through the mikes as part of the wedding. All I read was about videographers adding their own music to the video in post, like the famous Coldplay video. Interestingly enough, I still see some wedding highlights videos to Coldplay songs on colleagues' websites.

Steve, I don't know what the situation is in Canada, but it's not like that here. Getting the permit to use one song is in the thousands of dollarsI don't want to put words in Steve's mouth, but I think Steve's point was not that it's cheap, but that you set your rates and if people think it's too expensive they just don't use your services. Likewise, the music publishers set their rates and if you think they're too expensive, then don't use them.

Plus the institute already pays ASCAP for the music, what difference does it make if they get a video from the performance that uses that music? It's not music piracy if the institute pays their fee and then the parents get a video from that day with their kids dancing.

Actually, the license the institute agrees to specifically prohibits video. So it is piracy.

show me a testimony from a videographer that got sued for music that he captured through the mikes as part of the weddingSomebody has to be first. Are you volunteering? ;)

It is for these exact reasons that I determined that professional wedding video cannot be done legally in the USA and I quit doing it. Now I focus solely on corporate events and production. As an added benefit, the hours are better and the money is better!

I don't want to put words in Steve's mouth, but I think Steve's point was not that it's cheap, but that you set your rates and if people think it's too expensive they just don't use your services. Likewise, the music publishers set their rates and if you think they're too expensive, then don't use them.

Steve said: "They are charging a reasonable fee. You get to put what you consider to be a reasonable value on your own creative work when you set your rates."

Well, everything I've read from colleagues says that to get a permit to use even one song you have to pay thousands and wait months for approval. So what's reasonable about that? So it's not a matter of, like you say, "you set your rates and if people think it's too expensive they just don't use your services." because no school or dance institute is going to pay somebody $100,000 to do a video of their recital, and in the remote case that it was the most expensive school in the world, no videographer would go through having to request rights to use 40 songs and then wait months for approval. It's absolute nonsense. It's not as simple as you say, because it's just not possible.

And you might think that doing wedding videos legally is impossible in the US, and I thought so for a while as well and I was about to quit, until I talked to this guy, who put me at ease because he talked to a few lawyers. So while I didn't talk to a lawyer directly myself, at least someone I know did, and asked the same questions I would have. It's never a good idea to take for granted what people say on forums, much more when it comes to legal advice, because you get lots of guesses and uninformed opinions rather than the real thing. If doing wedding videos in the US would be illegal, we wouldn't be hearing about a lawsuit against a guy who used a Coldplay song in his highlights video, we would be hearing about dozens and then hundreds of wedding videographers being sued and losing their business.

Sebastian, take some time to read through this TCOB forum here on DVi and you'll see hundreds of posts regarding sync rights, wedding videos, dance recitals, etc. I can assure you that what you're proposing is a copyright violation here in the United States. Whether or not you'll "get caught" is yet another story. "You pays your $ and you takes your chances," as they say.

I'd pay for a consult with an actual IP attorney and get their advice. I'd imagine it could be had for less than $100, and might be the best c-note you ever spent.

Actually, the license the institute agrees to specifically prohibits video. So it is piracy.

Why, have you seen the license? If not, how can you know what it prohibits?

Regardless of that, I doubt any judge would consider that piracy. Piracy is downloading music illegally, or even copying a CD from a friend. If a parent buys a DVD of their child dancing to an Adele song, and they see their child in great picture quality but the sound is rather mediocre because it's just captured through the microphones, with all the echoes from an auditorium, will that prevent them from buying Adele's CD? Not a chance. Even better, seeing their child dancing to that song will most likely send them to a website to order that CD. So where's the piracy? Piracy means that the artist loses money because a person steals, as in downloads from a pirate server or otherwise copies a song or album. Recording video of an event with kids dancing to music that their parents will see later is not piracy. Nobody is stealing anything. I'm just providing a service of video capturing and editing to the institute and the parents, as a result of which there will be several sales of CDs or digital files for the artists whose songs are used in the recital.

Within some of the many threads about this subject, it has also been noted that what you see in the news about legal action regarding piracy is only the tip of the iceberg. Respondents facing probable financial annihilation will usually settle prior to trial and those agreements will invariably require non-disclosure. Just because there aren't continuous news articles, doesn't mean it isn't happening. How much it happens to wedding / event videographers...who knows?

While I'm not a lawyer, do think of the potential differences between a wedding and a dance recital. Shooting the wedding may be a written contract between you and the couple to document an event which certainly includes music but your primary purpose is to document the event for their private viewing. It may be illegal but one might wonder the extent of the damages if that's all that happened (you did not post to the internet).

The dance recital, it seems you are being hired by a party (the school or an individual representing such) and then selling to the public attending (and possibly others) and that you are being hired specifically to record dancing to music.

Again I'm not a lawyer but it would seem much harder to justify legally that you're being hired by one entity, not for private screening and you are then selling to the public which did not contract you for private screening. This may be different then if an individual parent hired you to record their daughter/son for their own private viewing which may still not be legal but the scope would seem different.

Steve said: "They are charging a reasonable fee. You get to put what you consider to be a reasonable value on your own creative work when you set your rates."

Well, everything I've read from colleagues says that to get a permit to use even one song you have to pay thousands and wait months for approval. So what's reasonable about that? So it's not a matter of, like you say, "you set your rates and if people think it's too expensive they just don't use your services." because no school or dance institute is going to pay somebody $100,000 to do a video of their recital, and in the remote case that it was the most expensive school in the world, no videographer would go through having to request rights to use 40 songs and then wait months for approval. It's absolute nonsense. It's not as simple as you say, because it's just not possible.
....

There's nothing engraved in granite that says a dance school MUST offer the public DVDs of their students performing. Their business is teaching dance, not selling videos. OTOH, your business IS selling videos and that's why licensing needs to be important to you. As far as what's "reasonable," it is the owner of the product or service that gets to define reasonable in a capitalistic society - you get to define what is a reasonable fee in order for someone to use your services, Sony Music gets to define what is a reasonable fee for someone (ie, you) to use their music. They don't get to vote on your fees and you don't get to vote on theirs, other than by not using their music if you feel its too expensive. If you feel they charge to much and that means you can't make and sell your videos and pay their fees in the process, so be it.

Some jobs aren't worth the trouble. Three years ago, when I was starting up my business, it appeared that music recitals, specifically, Senior Voice and Senior Instrumental recitals for the music department of a local university, were going to be a good market for my company. They have scores, if not hundreds, every year.

But that didn't mean that I'd identified a viable market for my services. Now I know better. Ditto for dance recitals. Maybe once in a while to make a keepsake for a friend, but not for business. In my opinion, now that I've been in business for a while, the risks outweigh the returns. Recitals are not part of my business. Likewise concerts and dance recitals. Even churches have been sued over music. No kidding!!!

We are in a very challenging business. Making the right decisions can be very difficult. Before asking what to charge, make sure the job is one that should be taken on. All the Intellectual Property issues are complex. I've discussed these issues with several lawyers, both my own, and some other attorneys. Tread carefully.

While I'm not a lawyer, do think of the potential differences between a wedding and a dance recital. Shooting the wedding may be a written contract between you and the couple to document an event which certainly includes music but your primary purpose is to document the event for their private viewing.

And how is a dance recital any different? You are documenting their kids dancing, not the music. The music doesn't make any difference to you in what you're selling, just as the music in a wedding doesn't make any difference to you. You don't have a choice on what music is being played, and you're not making a profit on the music, but on the children's performances.

Now, if you record a band's performance at a recital and then try to sell it, I would definitely say that's piracy. Your main purpose was to record the band and profit from it, without giving anything back to the band. But that's not the case here. However, if the music labels had a reasonable system in place where for example a videographer would have to pay a small percentage of the total charge in order to use those songs, like in England they pay 15 pounds per event, I'd be happy to do so.

Besides, google Dance recital video production. There are tons of companies all over the country doing that. Are all these people really stupid and risking to lose it all? What about the even bigger number of wedding videographers? Same thing.

There's nothing engraved in granite that says a dance school MUST offer the public DVDs of their students performing. Their business is teaching dance, not selling videos.

So what you're saying is that you want to deprive parents of having a visual memory of their kids dancing. Do you have, or plan to have kids some day? You might see that differently if you do.

Sebastian, you are not being hired by a parent to document a child's performance. You are being hired by the school (or someone claiming to represent their interests) and selling the recording. This is not a recording for private viewing. This is a recording being sold to the public. The parents aren't hiring you for a personal recording. The school is hiring you to record something that they don't have the license for (sync license).

Sebastian, you are not being hired by a parent to document a child's performance. You are being hired by the school (or someone claiming to represent their interests) and selling the recording. This is not a recording for private viewing. This is a recording being sold to the public. The parents aren't hiring you for a personal recording. The school is hiring you to record something that they don't have the license for (sync license).

Well, what if the school hired me and paid me directly to provide that service, instead of the parents paying me directly? But regardless, it is a recording for private viewing. It would be a public recording if I put it up for sale on a website or through some other means, and sold it to people who don't even have children there.

If it would be the way you say, a wedding can also be considered public viewing if the couple invites a few friends over and shows them the video. That's not public viewing, that's private viewing. Now, if they take the video and show it at a bar to total strangers, that would be public viewing.

If the school hired you to document the event and you handed them the master it might be possible that your position in this would be different.

I suspect as long as you do the selling and are selling to people who did not contract you, it may be public. Public isn't defined by "internet" sales. They are attendees at an event and you'd be selling to them.

Keep in mind your arguments have nothing to do with us. The question is would a court system absolve you of legal responsibility if you were sued. Just because you think your right doesn't mean you are in the eye of the legal system.

In a wedding the couple, the participant, is paying for and receiving a document of the event. You are not distributing the document. You are not selling to document to other people. Your main "risk" is that you are providing a commercial service by syncing without the license to do so.

In the recital you are selling an unlicensed synced recording to people who did not hire you to make a personal recording so the penalties might be more severe.

...If it would be the way you say, a wedding can also be considered public viewing if the couple invites a few friends over and shows them the video. That's not public viewing, that's private viewing. Now, if they take the video and show it at a bar to total strangers, that would be public viewing.

Public viewing of the video is not the issue other than public viewing such as posting on YouTube increases your chances of getting caught. Public SALE of the video is problem. And you're engaging in public sales of the music when you offer it to the audience for purchase. The "copy" might not be as good a quality as a direct digital copy of the original CD but you're selling copies of the music all the same. You are using someone else's creative work in order to create your own production. There's a big difference between the ASCAP license for a public performance and the sync license necessary to include that same music in the soundtrack of a copyrightable film or video.

Why, have you seen the license? If not, how can you know what it prohibits?

That's standard boilerplate in all public performance contracts.

Sebastian, you seem to be working very hard to convince us using nothing more than your opinion and very little actual information. I think you're actually trying to convince yourself.

There has been some great advice here but Sebastian is going to do what he thinks he can do. I don't think he will be persuaded otherwise regarding music rights and their application in this situation.

On DVD production here is a great article on dual layer discs which is what he wants to do DVD-9 Compatibility: Creating a Suitable Master for Replication | Disc Makers? Echoes – Insight for Independent Artists (http://blog.discmakers.com/2009/10/dvd-9-compatilbility-creating-a-suitable-master-for-replication/)
There seems to be some issues duplicating them and having them compatible with most DVD players unless specific procedures are followed. You can fit 2 hours on a DVD-5 disc if carefully encoded. This might be the better route to go vs. issues with dual layer compatibility.

Public viewing of the video is not the issue other than public viewing such as posting on YouTube increases your chances of getting caught.

OK, but wouldn't that be as easy as having a clause in the contract and in each order form specifying that copying or extracting the content of the DVD is strictly forbidden, as well as posting all or part of it online?

Public SALE of the video is problem. And you're engaging in public sales of the music when you offer it to the audience for purchase.

That's where we disagree. Public sale would be if I went there, recorded the event, produced the DVDs and then tried to sell it to anybody. For this the school would basically take pre-orders from parents whose children are in that particular recital. What I'd be doing is documenting their children dancing, they'd be paying me for that service, they wouldn't pay because they see it as a replacement of the music in the recital and they would see it as an alternative to buy the CD. Like I said, most likely that would convince them to order a bunch of CDs or at least the legal downloadable songs. So it's not music piracy by a long stretch.

Still, I'll see if I can check with an IP lawyer that doesn't charge me an arm and a leg for a few questions. Obviously I won't do it if it will put my at risk of losing everything, regardless of how small the risk might be.

And by the way, does anybody know where to find out if I would need licensing for this, what would it cost, and what's the process to obtain those licenses? I mean, would it be ASCAP, BMI, the RIAA, the label of each artist? When a TV producer has to purchase the rights to use a song in an episode of his show, how do they do it?

There seems to be some issues duplicating them and having them compatible with most DVD players. You can fit 2 hours on a DVD-5 disc if carefully encoded. This might be the better route to go vs. issues with dual layer compatibility.

I would never do that. To me quality is a top priority, and no matter how good the encoder is, at 4.5 Mbps you can't have decent video. Maybe it was tolerable when watched on CRT TV sets, but even 9 Mbps MPEG 2 video shows mosquito noise in a 46" LCD. 4.5 Mbps is just horrendous.

If it was up to me DVD would be buried for good. I don't understand why when a Blu-ray player is only $50 or $90 for a decent one people are still fixated on getting DVDs for everything. I'd happy if I'd only had to give my customers Blu-rays.

And by the way, does anybody know where to find out if I would need licensing for this, what would it cost, and what's the process to obtain those licenses? I mean, would it be ASCAP, BMI, the RIAA, the label of each artist? When a TV producer has to purchase the rights to use a song in an episode of his show, how do they do it?

ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licenses do not cover this so they don't apply. They are performance licenses, which the venue must obtain to play the music in front of an audience or a radio station must obtain whenver the music is broadcast. To use existing music in a soundtrack alongside images you need TWO separate licenses. One is the sync license, obtained from the owner of the copyright on the words and melody itself, typically the publisher as representative of the composer and lyricist. That entitles you to use the music per se. But you're not done yet. Each RECORDING of the music by a particular artist carries it's own separate independent copyright, so to use an existing recording (rather than making a new one yourself of a new performance) you also require a master use license from the owner of that copyright, typically the record label that released the recording in question. So if you want to use "Stardust" recorded by Frank Sinatra, you get the sync license from Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Universal Music Publishing Group, EMI Music Publishing as publisher for the the composer Hoagy Carmichael and the Master license comes from whatever label has released the CD you're getting it from.

A regular TV producer / production company has a rights clearance agent or department that takes care of the legwork. Rights clearance agents know who to call to clear songs quickly and economically.. But it's not always straight forward even for major producers - for example there are a number of TV series from the 60s and 70s that aren't available on DVD even though there is a fan base wanting them because the production company owning the rights to the show itself and wanting to release a DVD version can't clear the copyright for the additional use on some music in the original soundtrack .

Sebastian -

Once again we have a huge debate over copyright... it's a mess, yes, but also something that will eventually sort out. There are MULTIPLE licences for a given work, and that's part of the problem. It's a system that evolved around (and you'll find many of the terms directly refer to) technology like "phonograph" that are simply OBSOLETE. Digital changed the possibilities, law IMO has yet to catch up... My local court still uses typewriters... and few utilize e-mail or other electronic trasmissions.



I tend to agree with the "incidental" capture argument, but it's tougher with a DANCE recital since music is integral to the event... to me the strongest argument is that IF the parents can record it for themselves (and typically they can, perhaps even with HD cell phones...), providing the ability for them to get a better quality recording of the same event should become a clear exception, as long as you are "documenting" an event as it happened, for the benefit of those in attendance. It's as far as I know a completely untested affirmative defense, and whenever you get attorneys into the mix, and a "justice system" that IMO is highly suspect, it's a gamble as to how things would end up...

Your friend has consulted a few attorneys who are of one "opinion", others here have consulted other legal advisers and come to different "opinion". Such it is with legal matters, and what is legal or allowed can just as quickly become illegal or vice versa, depending on the "opinions" of a few special people in robes, who end up listening to the aforementioned attorneys of differing OPINIONS argue, and make a ruling which may or may not stand on appeals or future cases reviewed by "higher" Courts. One side wins, one side loses, and the attorneys ALWAYS win...

One thing for certian is that there is a HUGE untapped market for rights clearing in the USA, and until such a thing exists, we'll have these discussions!


edit: Steve explains the multiple license thing rather well, so you can see the interesting challenges presented trying to clear a specific "work"...

IMO this is SOMEWHAT offset in digital reality by the fact that YOU aren't syncing, or reusing the "work", but just capturing the actual documented event as is happened, so it's VERY different from someone producing a movie where each choice is carefully thought out to enhance the end product. YOU are simply documenting a bunch of kids bouncing around on stage, hopefully artfully, for the benefit of those who are interested in those specific kids (and who wants to watch someone else's kids stumble about, really?).

OK, so this afternoon I went to see an IP attorney, not just any attorney, but one specializing in intellectual property and patents and has been for about twenty five years, and he told me I have nothing to worry about. First off, the client is responsible for obtaining the license to play that music at the recital, and since the owner of the institute pays for that license, that's covered. But even if that license is not a sync license for video, this is not a video for public broadcast or public sale. The institute will hire me to document the recital, edit it and give them as many copies as they need, but my role there is as a work for hire. He told me it would definitely be different, and then there would be copyright issues if I went there out of the blue with my cameras, recorded the recital (provided they didn't call the police to kick me out), and then tried to sell it to the institute and the parents, and to anybody who will buy it.

I asked him if it would be preferable in that case not to take the money directly from the parents (which is what the institute prefers), but instead for the institute to collect the money from them and then pay me the whole amount, and he said that would be the best option, because it would make it even more clear under the law that I was just a professional for hire to document the event.

I also asked him about the weddings, specifically what to do about the music that is captured using the cameras mikes, such as the bridal march, first dance, party music, etc, and he said that's not infringement based on the same principle, that the DJ is supposed to pay a license to play all that music and that I'm just documenting the event. Obviously he confirmed what we already know, that we can't use a copyrighted song to do a highlights video or any other use. But as far as the music that is played by the DJ and recorded on the camera, that's not a problem, since it's for private viewing of the couple who hired the videographer to document the event.

What he wasn't 100% sure about is if I'm liable if I put a highlights video on my website with short portions of the wedding that include a few seconds of the first dance, or the party music, as recorded with the cameras. He thinks it's probably infringement because it's not private viewing anymore, but he was going to double check and get back to me.

So there, basically he told me the same thing that the other lawyer told that other guy I spoke with. So we can put this to rest.

And you can go back to working out if you're going to make any money from selling the DVDs :)

Cheers.

I second the Kunaki solution.
But in the case of in-house productions, look into CIS systems (continuous ink supply) . . . so much better than cartridges. For quantities over 30 i usually just output color copies and have them trim them.
Best of luck to you.

Today I talked to another IP lawyer, and basically he told me the opposite of the first one, that it would make me liable for the music in the video, not only me but the owner of the institute as well. So I'm going to keep checking with other lawyers to decide for good if I can do it or not. At least they didn't charge me anything for the short consultation.

Your second opinion is more right than your first.

I sent an email to another IP lawyer in my city who seemed more specialized in music copyright, and he replied that "you will generally need licenses in each of the scenarios you describe, which in most cases are prohibitively time consuming and expensive", and then offered me to discuss further for $275, which no way, but at least he gave me the general answer I needed. So I told the institute I wouldn't do it.

At some point videographers have to get together to organize a way to make the music labels understand that the current laws don't help anybody but lawyers, while taking away profit from both videographers and musicians. For example, if I would have done the recital and the parents see their daughter dancing to a song, even if they don't like the song, chances are they would order the CD, or at least the song in digital form.

Even further, there should be a simple system like there is for restaurants and public venues for playing music, it would be as simple as paying 2% of the value charged for the video to be able to use the songs captured on video.

So if anybody has any ideas on how to organize something, and especially if anybody knows a lawyer that can help pro-bono, let's bring it on. Videographers deserve to make money, and musicians deserve to make money. This system only helps lawyers.

You've got it grasshopper...

Different attorneys, entirely different "opinions"... just as I said. I'd side with Atty #1, as his opinion aligns more with other opinions I've encountered in the "industry" (videography side anyway, NOT "movie industry")... but he'd be facing Atty #2, who might be backed by deep pockets and be friends with the Judge...

The current system of multiple licences for "similar" uses makes it decidedly "UN-simple" to "fix". We've got to wait for "the law" to catch up with digital technology, by which time we may be dealing with something completely different.

Remember as I said that if you read the actual copyright law, you'll find it typically uses the term "phonograph" when referring to copying... while I still have a "phonograph", I doubt it still even works, and I have little use for it anyway, when I can probably download digital copies of any old LP's for a couple bucks... While almost EVERYONE is familiar with, and uses, digital tech (most of which has the capability to RECORD in one form or another), the law generally feels like it's expecting "copies" to be on papyrus...

Technology has hurtled forward, the parents can probably get together, put a couple iPhones on tripods strategically located, mix it in Vegas studio, and have a pretty "pro" production... and since THEY are doing it for their own private use, guess what... no legal "issues"... the tech is there, most people will have it or have access to it, but it's "criminal" if one uses it to offer a "commercial" service to deleiver the exact same thing... ? And we wonder why the USA is rapildly losing ground in so many respects?!


There is a lack of common sense involved here, as well as practical considerations... while it's a different area of law, just ask yourself "is it ALWAYS illegal to go through a red light?" (really think about it...)... there's the LETTER of the law, and there is also the SPIRIT of the law, one of which you're virtually guaranteed to violate multiple times a day if you get out of bed... and the other, which allows one to actually go about one's business!

And on another note, keep in mind the recent case of the composer of the music for the "anti-piracy" advert that is in circualtion - he had to sue when he discovered that the limited distribution he had granted license for was actually being used worldwide on a far larger scale - IOW, even the "anti-pirating" commercial producers violated his copyrights... sigh.

In talking about the way the system ought to be, you guys are forgetting one thing...if the music publishing and recording industry perceived that it was in their financial self-interest to change the law so as to make limited use licenses for events such as weddings and and recitals easy and inexpensive, it would happen as fast as it takes a good secretary to type up the memo. They obviously don't see it as benefiting their industry to do so. And since the music IS their property, not ours,, they can be as liberal or as stingy with permission for its use as they wish

In talking about the way the system ought to be, you guys are forgetting one thing...if the music publishing and recording industry perceived that it was in their financial self-interest to change the law so as to make limited use licenses for events such as weddings and and recitals easy and inexpensive, it would happen as fast as it takes a good secretary to type up the memo.

Well, if they don't see the benefit to their industry, they are either stupid or they don't even dedicate a minute to think about it, because the benefits are obvious. If the music industry in the UK saw the potential and is getting 15 pounds per videographer per wedding and more in some cases just for the music they capture through the microphones, then how is that not possible here? They could charge even more, like 2% of whatever the videographer charge for the video. So $20 for a $1000 video, $40 for a $2000 and so on. And then they could charge $10 to allow the use of each copyrighted song in post production, which now they don't get any money from only because they don't allow it. People would pay to use probably 5 songs per wedding. Musicians could be getting a lot more money in royalties if the music industry would get rid of all the people with backwards mentality and bring new ones that see the market potential for a licensing system for videographers, whether it's weddings, dance recitals or school events.

And where's the WEVA in all this? Shouldn't they be fighting for this with the music labels? The labels would laugh at a letter from a wedding videographer, but sure as hell would pay more attention to a letter from an association that represents weddings and events videographers. I would gladly pay a membership with them if I knew they were fighting for this, but all I read is that some people mentioned it to them and they didn't care. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The point is, we're getting screwed, the musicians are getting screwed, only because of a few suits with backwards mentality. We have to do something about it.

Oddly, I got something from WEVA in my inbox today, announcing a new music licensing program in conjunction with APM Music - looked promising... if you can't find it Googling, I'll post a link tomorrow.

As for "it would happen fast"... not when you're dealing with artists and attorneys, with a room ful of MBA's tossed in for good measure...

Well, if they don't see the benefit to their industry, they are either stupid or they don't even dedicate a minute to think about it, because the benefits are obvious.

The point is, we're getting screwed, the musicians are getting screwed, only because of a few suits with backwards mentality. We have to do something about it.

Sebastian,

You are preaching to the choir on that one. No one here would be unhappy with a workable arrangement when it comes to music licensing.

Also understand we aren't against you in any of this. Several people with good knowledge and experience are pointing out that you will be assuming some risk by taking on that project. Exactly how much is hard to quantify.

In the end you have to decide if you are willing to take the risk. I estimate that many of us (myself for sure) would choose to not take the project based on the amount of perceived risk in relation to the potential income.

If I were to take such a job I would shoot it, edit it, and turn over a master copy to the school for them to distribute as they saw fit. I would not put my name on it anywhere. I would treat it as any other private corporate job and price it accordingly. That means for me to get paid for the services I rendered and not based on the final product sales.

I expect if you were to submit a quote for your services and propose to get paid a reasonable rate for those services you will not be shooting that job. The reason is in addition to the risk above they want you to take all the risk for making or loosing money. Are you willing to take on that risk as well?

Take the emotion out of it and make a good business decision.

I commend you for your passion. Use it to make great looking projects. Don't use it to make business decisions.

In the end you have to decide if you are willing to take the risk. I estimate that many of us (myself for sure) would choose to not take the project based on the amount of perceived risk in relation to the potential income.

If I were to take such a job I would shoot it, edit it, and turn over a master copy to the school for them to distribute as they saw fit. I would not put my name on it anywhere. I would treat it as any other private corporate job and price it accordingly. That means for me to get paid for the services I rendered and not based on the final product sales.


Chris, actually if you see one of my previous posts I already said I wouldn't do it, because the risks are far greater than the reward. Obviously it pisses me off to no end to have to say goodbye to a few thousands of dollars, when I'd be doing nothing morally wrong in producing that video. If the industry had an easy and reasonable way for me to pay for the use of that music, I'd be happy to pay, but they don't.

The first lawyer I spoke to was an IP lawyer but more specialized in patents, which is why I wanted to check further. The second lawyer gave me a free consultation mostly because he had a long boring drive ahead of him and we spoke about the recitals and weddings. If strictly following the law, weddings would also be infringement when capturing the music played by the DJ, but that's more debatable in court because the music is not the main focus of the wedding, the couple is. The wedding could still happen without any music, although it would be ridiculous to mute the bridal march, the first dance and the party music, but if you were to mute it, there would still be a video. And you can also argue in court that the industry doesn't provide wedding videographers with a reasonable fee to license the use of all that music captured with the cameras.

However, he mentioned that in the case of a recital, it's much more clear that the music is a big part of the event since it serves a much bigger purpose, and it's instrumental to the reason for the event, so it would be much harder to fight in court.

Obviously now the music industry is losing money because of their policies, and they will continue to do so until they change it.

Oddly, I got something from WEVA in my inbox today, announcing a new music licensing program in conjunction with APM Music - looked promising... if you can't find it Googling, I'll post a link tomorrow.

As that may be, APM is just another company that offers royalty free music for production. It doesn't do anything on the subject of copyrighted music captured through the microphone at a wedding or other event.

Well, if they don't see the benefit to their industry, they are either stupid or they don't even dedicate a minute to think about it, because the benefits are obvious. If the music industry in the UK saw the potential and is getting 15 pounds per videographer per wedding and more in some cases just for the music they capture through the microphones, then how is that not possible here? They could charge even more, like 2% of whatever the videographer charge for the video. So $20 for a $1000 video, $40 for a $2000 and so on. And then they could charge $10 to allow the use of each copyrighted song in post production, which now they don't get any money from only because they don't allow it. People would pay to use probably 5 songs per wedding. Musicians could be getting a lot more money in royalties if the music industry would get rid of all the people with backwards mentality and bring new ones that see the market potential for a licensing system for videographers, whether it's weddings, dance recitals or school events.

And where's the WEVA in all this? Shouldn't they be fighting for this with the music labels? The labels would laugh at a letter from a wedding videographer, but sure as hell would pay more attention to a letter from an association that represents weddings and events videographers. I would gladly pay a membership with them if I knew they were fighting for this, but all I read is that some people mentioned it to them and they didn't care. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The point is, we're getting screwed, the musicians are getting screwed, only because of a few suits with backwards mentality. We have to do something about it.

Just guessing, but the administrative costs to the music publishers and record labels associated with large numbers of such small fees would likely far exceed the revenue they generate. It would make no sense to spend $100 in salaries and overheads to issue a license that only generated $10 of revenue. And then there is the whole other issue of loss of control over the product itself and the dilution of a song's market value through over-exposure.

I agree with you about WEVA (though I'm not a member and have no desire to shoot weddings). They seem singularly silent on the issue of licensing whether it's from the perspective of acting as an advocate for liberalized licensing schemes or by acting as a standards-setting body establishing canons of ethical business practices amongst their members and enforcing sanctions against members who violate them, including a member's use use of unlicensed materials in their productions. A common argument heard is "I have to use popular music or I'll lose business to my competitors." If a trade association such as WEVA built a cachet with consumers, sort of a "Better Business Bureau" for videographers if you will, the ability to advertise membership would be a business generator and conversely, the threat of sanctions, such as refusal to allow the use of the WEVA name and logo in advertising, or even outright cancellation of membership, if found to be engaging in copyright infringement, would provide a great incentive for a videographer to stay legal.

Remember though, that changes in the copyright laws would be a sword capable of cutting both ways. Videographers are also creators of copyrighted works. Liberalizing laws allowing you to more easily use copyright music in your productions would also mean YOUR ability to control and profit from your own work is possibly going to be similarly diminished. Do you want people who somehow have access to your footage to have the ability to use it without clearing with you where it's going to be used or without paying you what you feel is the fair market value for your work? Let's say you post a sample of some scenic shots around your city on YouTube or Vimeo ... would you want someone to download it and use the footage in a "Beautiful North Carolina" DVD they're putting together without paying you for it or even getting your permission? How about if they're a wedding shooter and just drop it into a video they're doing for a client, perhaps using it for a scenic intro to a shot of the wedding couple pulling up in front of a quaint country cottage where they're having their ceremony? Now you spent $$ on the gear to make that shot, and more $$ on the gas to get to the location, and hours of your time waiting until the light was just right and that's worth $$ too ... I think you'd deserve to paid for the use when someone want to use the resulting clip in their own production, don't you? After all, you're not a videographer in order to give away your talent, are you? And while it may only be 15 seconds of video that they use, it cost YOU $500 out-of-pocket to create that 15 seconds once everything is factored in ... I think you ought to get some of that back if someone wants to take advantage of the great work you did (and the wedding couple thinks that opening shot just makes the whole video, sets the perfect mood for their love story!)