I know this has been talked about, but wondering if there's a solution for recording wedding events such as the dances that have music playing. Since we're hired professionals, is there any way around this other than using less that 30 seconds or telling the client that they have to buy the rights to all the songs played? The way that I have read the law is a "hired" work is different and requires rights to the music. Also I figured that adding "clients are responsible for obtaining all copyright music" in my contract wouldn't hold any water. Any thoughts? Thanks!

Do a search please cause your question has been answered numerous times!

If it's going online you want the rights to it. If the client is not gonna post their film online then you might get away with it.

Use sites like SongFreedom.com, Triple Scoop and MusicBed.

You should be picking the music for your highlight videos you post online anyways, not the clients. You'll be using the same songs over and over again if you let them. Secondly, what if the footage doesn't match the style of your shooting or the feel and energy of the wedding.

I highly recommend that you come up with a solid sales pitch on why you chosing the music benefits the client better than if they pick it.

You can also send a link to the Joe Simon article where he talks about being sued and tell your clients that they and you can be sued and you'd rather be safe than sorry.

I have (and will search better) about this issue. Although, I meant all the songs that are recorded in the background. When I film the couples walking down there's at lest 2 songs that are playing and then the dances and (dancing). That's like 10 songs. I'm well aware of the highlight video rights and I'm currently doing that. Even if I copyright my DVD's that was still be a copyright infringement, right?

Thanks (although there hasn't been a clear answer that I can find)

Hi Dylan.

To answer your question, it is technically illegal to use copyrighted works in your video.

However, if the bride has chosen to walk down the aisle to Robbie Williams, and you overdub a royalty free version of "Beethoven's 5th symphony", how long do you think you'll be in business for?

Hi Dylan

Yes it is even illegal to record some footage outdoors if a song is playing... some guy was recording his family on a boardwalk and the TV shop in the background happened to be showing the Simpsons and Fox supposedly sued him for using the footage even though it was purely co-incidental.

The bottom line is usually, use whatever you need to use and record what you have to record and make the DVD...it's unlikely to be aired on national TV so it's for personal use only... that's what most wedding videographers do even though it's technically wrong...record the first dance and the song also and don't sweat it too much...the DJ probably doesn't have permission to use it either.

The only time you MUST be careful is for online clips....you can replace the music with Royalty Free but as John says, it really sucks..YouTube seem to have an arrangement with publishers to put ads on youyr video to generate "royalty income" ....My Friday wedding had a string trio playing the Bridal March and YT zapped that as "copyright" .... I'm not going to change it either.

Chris

Youtube zapped the music on one of my ice skating videos, so we had a string of comments on how silly that was. Now they have allowed the music but with a link to purchase the Josh Grogan song on iTunes. And the comments look silly. What the hey.

Even better, they screwed up my account in the Google acquisition so I can't add or delete videos on that account any more.

The fact of life is that music is being played everywhere nowadays, and if you wish to use it, you pay. What I don't quite get is that if your client wants Robbie Williams, and you offer them the choice of paying for Robbie Williams or having something less appropriate for free or a bit less money - does it matter. They pay or they don't - it isn't your fault. If they want special visual effects, like they want a marryoke (sp?) or aerial footage, they pay. Why is copyright complained about over and over again? It's just an extra cost to the production that can be absorbed or passed on.

What I don't quite get is that if your client wants Robbie Williams, and you offer them the choice of paying for Robbie Williams or having something less appropriate for free or a bit less money - does it matter.

In reality, you don't charge them extra to use Robbie Williams. You just do it. If you tell clients that you are going to charge them a fee to use Robbie, then they will just hire the competition who won't charge them.

Only the good die young.

Then that's something that the Wedding Industry need to address. I really don't understand the wedding industry from a video perspective. They seem to be able to demand up front payment without any guarantee of quality or content, yet have in some cases, amazing double standards, where some are as mentioned above willing to avoid proper licensing simply because everyone else does. On this forum, there's been so much content devoted to video people 'stealing' other people's work for their websites, and avoiding clearances, yet when people can get away with it, they themselves seem happy to break the rules because others do it.

If the wedding industry want to be respected throughout the industry, this kind of behaviour does none of you any good. As an outsider I read the indigence in some posts because their rights and expectations have been breached in some way, yet I see other people's similar views swept out of sight.

With the greatest respect, is it surprising the clients believe they get a raw deal sometimes?


I'm glad I deal with mainly other businesses who do appreciate that laws are designed for us all.

If you have to deal with people who are prepared to ignore the law to save a few pennies, that's sad. I personally don't work this way - and to be honest, I'm surprised others do. I'd have thought the bad publicity that could be generated by a legal claim would be somewhat negative where reputations are concerned.

The client says I can't afford the extra wedding car, could you steal one for the day for me, because ZXY video say they can get me one for free, and nobody is likely to notice, and if we get caught, we'll pretend we didn't know borrowing somebodies car without telling them was not on.

Are you really defending breaking the law just because the competition have less in the ways of morals?

In the UK, Australia, New Zealand & a few other territories we are able to easily licence commercial music at reasonable rates for wedding videos (excluding online use) so please don't assume that all wedding videographers are ignoring copyright.

As for paying up front this is the norm with every other supplier in the wedding industry e.g. photographers, venues, caterers, venues, limousine hire etc etc It's a nice position to be in with regard to cash flow but perfectly normal & accepted by the clients. Just because other industries have different protocols doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with this way or working.

BTW Taking a car without permission is a crime. Using a Robbie Williams track on a wedding video without payment isn't.

Paul - I understand where you are coming from. But you are arguing for a perfect world solution... not what is reality.

I consider myself a good person. I do however sometimes drive in excess of the speed limit - when I deem it is safe to do so, my kids aren't in the car, and where I calculate the risk of being caught is low. Technically this is a crime. Each person must judge if they can live with that. I can.

My main concern is generating a good income so that I can put food on my family's table, pay my kids school fees, and retire to live a comfortable lifestyle with my wife.

Keeping rockstars and fatcat corporate executives in their BMW's and luxury yachts in the Caribbean isn't one of my main priorities.

Sorry if this offends you - I think it's admirable that you want to play by 'the rules'. Just don't expect others share your views, or demand a worldwide change in attitude. It's just life.

This thread, like all other threads on this forum and other, that deal with music usage, is showing the problem in the US with no good solution on the horizon. It is also exposing a problem that the wedding videography business has in general and it is creeping into other areas of multimedia production. That is the ever lowering costs to produce what is considered acceptable video.


My main concern is generating a good income so that I can put food on my family's table, pay my kids school fees, and retire to live a comfortable lifestyle with my wife.

Keeping rock starsand fatcat corporate executives in their BMW's and luxury yachts in the Caribbean isn't one of my main priorities.

John, by your thinking why is it wrong for the guy who is starving and trying to survive to go into your home and steel from you? To him, you are the fat cat who has it made and is living in luxury. Why should their priorities be to let you live a comfortable lifestyle? That is the exact mentality that has caused a great deal of the problems that we as a society face today. It is a mentality that others must play by the rules but as long as I can benefit from it and I can justify that it helps me, it's ok for me to do it.

I am the first to admit that I detest the upward mobility push "at all cost" mentality. It boggles my mind when a person making a million dollars a year complains that they shouldn't have to pay so much in taxes that go toward social programs. Even if you had to pay 50% to taxes are you telling me that you can't live off of $500,000 per year?. But,well, stealing is stealing, even if you can justify it, it still isn't right.

I don't think you are a bad person John. It just goes to show how deep this problem goes. You've just been fully indoctrinated into the global mentality that it is ok to break the law and steal from others because you feel you are justified and deserve it. Unfortunately, the people that you hurt when you steal music isn't the artist, or the big music company exec. They will take their profits first. The ones you hurt are the record store owner who now has to pay more for the inventory he has to sell at a lower profit margin because he's competing with people willing to steal the music rather than buy it, the workers at the distribution centers who are having to take lower salaries if they wish to stay employed, and the list goes on and on. Those who really suffer are not the ones with the jets and yachts.

If you want to see a change in the way the music industry treats wedding videography, then the wedding videography industry has to change. If all of the wedding industry stopped using unlicensed music, then the brides and grooms would have no choice. They would either pay for it, or they would learn to not expect it. If there is enough push to license the music, and the recording industry had enough requests for a low cost solution, they would do it. The problem is that there has just not been enough demand in the US to make them change. As Nigel pointed out, other countries have been successful in getting a acceptable system in place. Also, I believe they know that it is being used illegally and that pisses them off. So, in a way they'd rather hold the threat of possible legal action over your head just to mess with you (yes that is a cynical attitude but when it comes to big business I'm very cynical).

Well, time for me to get off my soap box. As a final thought, might not be the best idea to advertise that you don't follow the copyright laws. Never know when some overly ambitious young lawyer looking to get his first yacht reads your post and brings your name to the attention of some record exec he's friends with.That happened to an acquaintance who ran a blog. They just "innocently" used a quick snippet of a pop song without proper licensing on their blog. They were talking about their blog at a party and it was over heard by a young lawyer who brought it to the attention of one of their friends at a record label. About $25,000 later in penalties, and lawyer bills, the blog no longer has the few seconds of pop music on it.

Hi Garrett, awesome rant! :) I like your passion.

If you want to see a change in the way the music industry treats wedding videography, then the wedding videography industry has to change..

I think this is the crux of the matter from my perspective. I personally DON'T want to see a change in the way the music industry treats us. I know they are greedy, I know they are suing people, I know they are not here to support wedding videographers use their precious music. I have found a way to jump through the hoops and wriggle through the loopholes, and I'm happy with that. It's about playing the hand you've been dealt, taking the risks you are comfortable with and being able to sleep at night.

If all of the wedding industry stopped using unlicensed music, then the brides and grooms would have no choice.

Not going to happen. There is no 'united voice' of videographers, just a motley crew of enthusiastic business owners and entrepreneurs trying to make a buck however they can.

As a final thought, might not be the best idea to advertise that you don't follow the copyright laws...

Come on... gimme some credit.... "John Knight"??? seriously.... :)

But..... might be time to move this one to Members section....

Hi Garrett, awesome rant! :) I like your passion.

Thanks for recognizing it for what it was, a rant. We're dealing with a lot of ideological and social shifts here in the US. And a lot of it has to do with attitudes about what is acceptable and what justifies one's actions.

Come on... gimme some credit.... "John Knight"??? seriously.... :)

But..... might be time to move this one to Members section....

Hey, now a days, using a fake name will slow them down for about 2 seconds. My best friend got a job with a defense contractor and as "routine" background checks they checked all his known acquaintances. Of course I got a call from the good old federal authorities with a bunch of questions not only about him but me too. Wow, was that an eye opener. They new stuff about me that I had no idea why anyone would care. Heck, they probably could tell me how many time I chewed each bite of food. Really made me think, what if I were doing something illegal?

Dylan...the answer to your question is:

IT'S AS ILLEGAL AS HELL....DON'T DO IT!.

For the reality of the situation, reread John's posts.

As far as the situation of licensing ever changing, one has to step back and look at the big picture. That picture has one industry currently doing BILLIONS of dollars in sales each year without selling broadcast or duplication rights to videographers. The other industry, the wedding video industry is miniscule in comparison. If we were to take a educated guess, there's maybe 50,000 wedding video produced here in the states each year ??? Hell, let's double that, 100,000 done in the US every year. How much are wedding videographers going to pay for rights to music for each of those weddings, $100 maybe ??? That's ten million dollars which seriously, is just a drop in the ocean of the music industry's current sales. If we jump that to $500 per wedding, it's still just fifty million, again, in the big picture, it's chump change to them.

What does the music industry lose bedsides the 50 million ??? The "value" of those hot tunes has now just been diluted as anyone can now put them into any film for the insignificant price of $500. What does the music industry gain, besides 50 million in additional sales??? A huge pain in the ass as they try to license all this stuff to all those people.

Now the government could step in and force something on the music industry. Well they could, right after they fix the national debt, the deficit, the wars and the jobless situation. I expect if we all contact our senators tomorrow this issue will come up on the calendar right around the second week of never.

I and others gave you the answer. John relayed reality. You decide what is best for Dylan and your clients.

Good luck with your decision.

Chip, those figures are way off for the UK licence scheme. The cost of licensing up to 25 minutes of any musical tracks is just £15.32 (about $25) for up to 5 discs of one production i.e. $5/disc. There is a sliding scale of charges & for up to 250 discs & more than 25 minutes of music it's just over £200/$325 i.e. $1.30/disc Limited Manufacture Licence (LM) (http://www.prsformusic.com/users/recordedmedia/cdsandvinyl/Pages/LimitedManufactureLicence(LM).aspx) However the Limited Manufacture licence is as the name implies limited. It's ideally suited for producing very short run videos of private events e.g. weddings but the value of those hot tunes is not diluted because even if you have some indy short the LM licence cannot be used. It's perfect for wedding videos, dance school videos, school productions even promotional videos by unsigned bands. The biggest limiting factor for us is that it only applies to physical products & there is no simple equivalent for licensing music for online use.

I don't know when this scheme was introduced (perhaps older UK videographers could chip in) but I am pretty sure that the initiative came from MCPS/PRS (UK equivalent of ASCAP/BMI) rather than wedding videographers who don't have any collective voice beyond the Institute of Videography.

Hi Nigel

Remember that the USA doesn't have anything like what the UK/AUS/NZ has so they face the problem of either putting Royalty Free music on the bride's DVD or simply using copyrighted music and hope that someone doesn't knock on your door or the bride's door.

Over here it's around $400 or so for an annual icence which allows you to do multiple weddings and up to 20 disks per bride or you can get a licence for just one event for around $50. That, of course, is only for the bride's DVD's for private viewing and if you host a portion on YouTube or any online site your video is then considered "broadcast" and it's up to you to approach various publishers and pay for copyright, which of course is totally impractical. I actually asked our guys APRA how wedding videographers can still use copyright music on their own website clips here and never had any response so despite the "licence" the music side is still somewhat unregulated.

AFAIK, in the USA using copyrighted music on your video is not permitted without paying for royalties so the bottom line is that no-one does it simply because it's totally impractical...I do believe that Canada has something in place though???

It certainly is a pity that a simple worldwide system couldn't be put in place..gosh, even at a paltry $1 per song the music industry would reap in a huge income!!

Chris

I use our Limited Manufacture License quite a bit, but I'm also a member of PRS and PLL here in the UK, and the bizarre thing is that I use the LML for my work with the non-business people, and as a PRS/PPL member of insignificance, I never get a penny for my contribution - even if I use my own music! The system we have allows compliance and legality, but very often doesn't benefit the music copyright holders. So our system isn't that good. Copyright, because it's some magical thing nobody understands won't ever be taken seriously. Even when people try to do it right, they do it wrong.

Maybe I'm the odd one but in business I try to stay on the positive side of the ethics line. Our LTM license doesn't cover business use, so to use Dire Straits in a project is going to cost the client. Quiet a bit, in most cases. All I do with my business clients is offer them the option. Business people at least understand the law when pointed out. Some will wish to avoid the payment, and I do not use copyright music and put it in my projects and avoid payment. As a music producer - it would be hypocritical, wouldn't it? My solution is to offer two solutions, one cheap, the other in-between.

Our UK system (and this is the same in the US, I think) is that we have a copyright in the composition of the music, and a copyright, controlled by a different agency, of the performance. So if we use Dire Straits, we are paying in most cases for the song Mark Knopfler wrote, and then we're paying his record company for him performing it. It's pretty common in broadcast adverts to get the song re-recorded by session paid musicians with a buy out contract, and then only the composer needs paying. This saves quite a bit of money. So I do a fair bit of this for me and other video producers. Pay for the recording musicians is per person. If this is still too much, then I offer the client music in the style of - something vaguely reminding them of a familiar song, but different enough to be a new product. I never give the copyright away (after one bad deal), but simply license it to the client to use on any media, in any territory, for a specific time period. 2 or 3 years seems ok - as after that, the video is usually out of date anyway. This works for me. With work I do that includes very obvious evidence that it is copyright material - re-edits of other videos, for example, it's more tricky. Here is where I do take a risk, because just because the client asserts they own the material, very often it seems unlikely. So although it is not possible here to have a contract clause that states it is the clients responsibility to clear copyright, I still use it, but back it up with some email correspondence that confirms I have been told it is ok by the client. I doubt in a court it would hold much legal water, it would at least show I did try - and ethics wise, I can live with that!


Copyright 'theft' is not a criminal acts here, it's a tort - so two sides in court against each other with a Judge. No legal aid, so it's a fight or give in type of transgression.

As copyright can't be seen - I've realised it's unrealistic to expect other people to have my views, but even though my own son seems to have no dilemma downloading music, I do - even though I realise perhaps I'm the dinosaur - but the law is the law, and because we don't like it isn't to me a reason to just disregard it.

Wow - we've a lot of soapboxes out on this one!

Paul, could you fill us in on the history of the Limited Manufacture License? How long has it been around? Who had the idea in the first place?

Hi Nigel

Remember that the USA doesn't have anything like what the UK/AUS/NZ has so they face the problem of either putting Royalty Free music on the bride's DVD or simply using copyrighted music and hope that someone doesn't knock on your door or the bride's door.I was just pointing out that Chip's hypothetical calculations on how much might be charged for ($100 or even $500 per wedding) are way out of line with what is actually charged in those territories where a simple mechanism for licensing music for wedding videos does exist.

Thanks Nigel

I wasn't disputing anything!! I read a post from an Aussie site about a guy trying to do the right thing and contacted a music publisher about costs..12 months later they came back with a price of $10K which was, of course, far too much and far too late!! I guess they were used to dealing with huge broadcast networks so they had no idea how to handle the request.

It's quite ironic that brides themselves will swop and share songs from iTunes amongst themselves (again purely for their own enjoyment) so they seldom understand why we cannot use copyrighted songs in a video.

They issue will probably be resolved one day and many people on DVInfo will already be 6 'under !!

Chris

Copyright is a modern human invention & the record music industry is even younger. In the early days record companies tried to stop radio stations playing records as they thought that nobody would bother buying records any more if they could hear them on the radio. Eventually they realised that not only was radio play fantastic publicity for the records but they could even get paid for this free advertising on the radio. The amounts paid to artists & record companies for radio broadcast are fractions of a penny even when they are reaching a million times more people than will ever see a wedding video online.

Nigel I knew my numbers were way stupid high, which is why I used them. Chances of 100K wedding videos done here is poor and no one is going to kick in $500 for rights for each one of those. But the math of those two figures is still just a drop in the bucket compared to an industry in the $15,000,000,000.00 range.

Reality is IF somehow licensing was made available here, the proceeds would be far outweighed by the direct costs associated with it. Then you have the indirect costs of dilution of the value of the hottest tunes, as they will be heard in films EVERYWHERE. So the music industry isn't going to bother. Why would they take on something that's going to lose them money ???

With no organization with any clout, compared to the music industry, there's no way videographers here are going to get the kind of deal you guys on that side of the pond enjoy with your licensing agreements. How you guys got that deal, I'd really be interested in knowing how it came about. The only body here with enough power to force the music industry to give us the deal you have, is our government. Also, videographers and their wedding videos is way down the list of issues they are going to deal with in this lifetime.

Over here we know this sucks, but its our laws, the same laws that are to protect our work too.

It's interesting that today I've received the following email from accounts-noreply@google.com:

"Your video may have content that is owned or licensed by Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society.

No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please open attached file with Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team"

Hi George

I get those all the time and most of my weddings are traditional songs played by the Church organist ...I was under the impression that the Wedding March would be fairly copyright free but obviously not!! Where the bride plays CD's with a well known commercial song, I replace it with a SmartSound track and funnily enough YouTube also zaps those even though it is supposed to be Royalty Free.

You will find your video will soon have an ad over it which is supposed to created income for the music publisher or copyright holder...they use some sort of "robot software " to detect music and I doubt whether it's very accurate.

However, that's the way they work!!

Chris

The funny thing is that I don't have any video on YouTube, or Vimeo.

I think it's a scam trying to get me to follow the link.

I know this has been talked about, but wondering if there's a solution for recording wedding events such as the dances that have music playing. Since we're hired professionals, is there any way around this other than using less that 30 seconds or telling the client that they have to buy the rights to all the songs played? The way that I have read the law is a "hired" work is different and requires rights to the music. Also I figured that adding "clients are responsible for obtaining all copyright music" in my contract wouldn't hold any water. Any thoughts? Thanks!

I quit shooting wedding video because I became convinced that the way the laws are structured in this country, wedding video is illegal. That doesn't mean the cops will come and arrest you, but there really is no way to professionally shoot a traditional wedding and remain within the bounds of the law.

BTW, the "30 seconds or less" exception is an urban legend. Using any amount of unlicensed music is a violation of copyright.