All Things Considered, December 18, 2005 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5060669) · Could a wedding dance turn into a copyright infringement if it's videotaped? New York Times Magazine ethicist, Randy Cohen, weighs in.

-----

I love his comment at the end.

David,

"incidental" is a non-defined term or art. That's why lawyers make money off of it. Yeah, if the music is incidental, no harm no foul. ON the other hand, the people who listen to this and decide to take the song, and synch it to a whole montage or something... have strayed far away from incidental use into synch rights.

and Randy Cohen brings up another issue in the interview.....
How many local bands actually pay ASCAP/BMI rights to sing those songs?

It is generally the responsibility of the venue or producer to pay the ASCAP or BMI payments, not the performers.

A lot of the weddings Ive been to don't have live bands, but use disk jockeys instead. I was thinking of that kind of issue when I heard this recording of the NPR broadcast. So does that make a difference too ??

And does it really matter how much the videographer makes of a shoot, if there is a violation ?

As an attorney not well versed in copyright law, there are lot of issues that temper my love of being involved in production of videos as a "second" or retirement career.... I suppose I better start brushing up on this. Anybody for law school??

"it's fine to use this music as long as what the video is doing is recording the wedding as opposed to making a movie about the wedding" (Randy Cohen)

Huh?

Clear as mud now.

"it's fine to use this music as long as what the video is doing is recording the wedding as opposed to making a movie about the wedding" (Randy Cohen)

Huh?

Clear as mud now.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one of TV.

That being said, AFAIK it works sort of like this. If you shoot the happy couple dancing their first dance and purely coincidentally happen to pick up fragments of music in the background along with other sounds like the buzz of conversation, the guest's applause, glasses tinkling, etc, you're probably okay. But if you put together a montage of shots from the ceremony or reception or a "love story" video and use the couple's favourite song as the score or otherwise intentional element of the soundtrack, the music becomes an integral part of the production itself - an artistic element contributing to the value of the final video - and would require licensing.

I doubt a wedding guest shooting for personal pleasure would need to worry. But the wedding videographer acting as the video counterpart of the official wedding photographer IMHO really needs to go "by the book" for a number of reasons, only one of which is the general social obligation to be a responsible citizen and obey the law of the land.

I think the article on copyright issues by Douglas Spotted Eagle was pretty interesting, and he is supposed to have checked it with counsel. See it here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/business/copyrightfaq1.php

How about this then?

Would a videographer be able to pay ASCAP/BMI fees or whatever is appropriate here in Canada and then be able to use copyright music for creative purposes in, say, wedding videos?

Or am I blowing smoke?

sincerely,


ian

Ian,

There have been a couple of very lengthy discussions on all this... try a search on it for more detailed info.

In short, though, there are two problems with that. First, at best case it would only include the songwriting rights and not the performance rights, which are administered differently. Even with songwriting rights, however, you would still need explicit permission. The laws provide for compusolry licensing of a few things for songs - you can play them on the radio, you can record your own version, probably something else. In these cases you don't need permission and you pay a fee based on a fixed schedule. Other uses - like a video soundtrack - you need to obtain explicit permission to use it.

Ian,
Do a search under 'synchronization rights'.