whats right? at DVinfo.net

Ron Edwards · June 24th, 2004, 05:39 AM

Say I shoot a video where a local band plays their own version of "Proud Mary". Then I would sell copies of the tape locally. Do I need to contact someone and pay a royalty? Who do I contact?
Thanks in Advance!
Ron

Michael Wisniewski · June 24th, 2004, 10:32 AM

Here's a good article to start getting confused.

You might also do a search at the Harmony Central forums ... when they are up. Royalties and covers can be a hot topic over there.

Dennis Vogel · June 24th, 2004, 01:59 PM

Here's another good link:

http://www.digitalproducer.com/2004/02_feb/features/02_09/copyright_caveats.htm

Dennis Vogel

Paul Tauger · June 24th, 2004, 05:37 PM

A couple of points.

A local band playing a cover of Proud Mary needs public performance rights. These are usually taken care of by the venue, i.e. the club, concert hall, etc., who has a yearly license from BMI and/or ASCAP.

The public performance rights do _not_ cover, nor permit, making copies, i.e. recording the performance. If the song has been previously released on a commercial recording, a new recording of the performance _may_ come within the compulsory license.

Selling copies of the audio recording would also come within the compulsory license.

The compulsory license would _not_ apply to making a video recording of the performance. Making and selling such a tape would infringe copyright.

Peter Moore · June 24th, 2004, 08:48 PM

I always have found it interesting how Harry Fox handles straight recording rights but not sync rights. It also looks like they used to though. Does anyone know the background on that, whether they ever allowed people to license sync rights in general and if so why they stopped?

Law Tyler · June 26th, 2004, 07:58 AM

Could it be the explosion of amateur videographers with VX2000 has been bugging the hell out of HFA with questions on a daily or hourly basis, but never follow thru, since they are amateurs, and HFA just feel that it is not worth answering endless questions with no sales?

Peter Moore · June 26th, 2004, 08:24 AM

Could be I guess. :)

I wish in some ways there was compulsory licensing for sync rights. On the other hand, I could see how a copyright owner would very much not want his music used by any old person to be synced with god knows what (porn, etc.)

Law Tyler · June 26th, 2004, 08:31 AM

I think they can lay down the conditions which people can buy sync rights w/o getting time-consuming individual approvals.

E.g. I want this song to be use in traditional weddings only.

Or, it can be used with anything except porn, soft porn, political ads or anything political, and definitely nothing to do with Steven Spielburg... :-)

If people accepts and follows the condition, they can buy and use it, else they will be in violation.

Peter Moore · June 27th, 2004, 08:11 AM

'twould be nice.

Dennis Vogel · June 29th, 2004, 02:09 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Law Tyler : I think they can lay down the conditions which people can buy sync rights w/o getting time-consuming individual approvals.

E.g. I want this song to be use in traditional weddings only.

Or, it can be used with anything except porn, soft porn, political ads or anything political, and definitely nothing to do with Steven Spielburg... :-)

If people accepts and follows the condition, they can buy and use it, else they will be in violation. -->>>

Maybe. But everyone has their own definition of these things. Even when contracts are written in excruciating detail and teams of lawyers review them there are still disputes. There's no way a blanket condition like this could work. What, exactly, is soft porn anyway? (It's a rhetorical question. Let's not get into a debate. It's a thought experiment.)

Dennis Vogel

Law Tyler · June 29th, 2004, 11:01 PM

Agreed.

And I don't mind if the artist demands that we read a two-page conditions and definitions, etc, or as long as his lawyer wants it to be.

Some of us are willing to do that, and following the conditions, just so we can use that popular song, after paying the ongoing rate, of course.

June 24th, 2004, 05:39 AM	#1
Ron Edwards Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Fairview Heights, Illinois Posts: 148	whats right? Say I shoot a video where a local band plays their own version of "Proud Mary". Then I would sell copies of the tape locally. Do I need to contact someone and pay a royalty? Who do I contact? Thanks in Advance! Ron

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

June 24th, 2004, 10:32 AM	#2
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	Here's a good article to start getting confused. You might also do a search at the Harmony Central forums ... when they are up. Royalties and covers can be a hot topic over there.

June 24th, 2004, 01:59 PM	#3
Dennis Vogel Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 409	Here's another good link: http://www.digitalproducer.com/2004/02_feb/features/02_09/copyright_caveats.htm Dennis Vogel

June 24th, 2004, 05:37 PM	#4
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 954	A couple of points. A local band playing a cover of Proud Mary needs public performance rights. These are usually taken care of by the venue, i.e. the club, concert hall, etc., who has a yearly license from BMI and/or ASCAP. The public performance rights do _not_ cover, nor permit, making copies, i.e. recording the performance. If the song has been previously released on a commercial recording, a new recording of the performance _may_ come within the compulsory license. Selling copies of the audio recording would also come within the compulsory license. The compulsory license would _not_ apply to making a video recording of the performance. Making and selling such a tape would infringe copyright.

June 24th, 2004, 08:48 PM	#5
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	I always have found it interesting how Harry Fox handles straight recording rights but not sync rights. It also looks like they used to though. Does anyone know the background on that, whether they ever allowed people to license sync rights in general and if so why they stopped?

June 26th, 2004, 07:58 AM	#6
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	Could it be the explosion of amateur videographers with VX2000 has been bugging the hell out of HFA with questions on a daily or hourly basis, but never follow thru, since they are amateurs, and HFA just feel that it is not worth answering endless questions with no sales?

June 26th, 2004, 08:24 AM	#7
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Could be I guess. :) I wish in some ways there was compulsory licensing for sync rights. On the other hand, I could see how a copyright owner would very much not want his music used by any old person to be synced with god knows what (porn, etc.)

June 26th, 2004, 08:31 AM	#8
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	I think they can lay down the conditions which people can buy sync rights w/o getting time-consuming individual approvals. E.g. I want this song to be use in traditional weddings only. Or, it can be used with anything except porn, soft porn, political ads or anything political, and definitely nothing to do with Steven Spielburg... :-) If people accepts and follows the condition, they can buy and use it, else they will be in violation.

June 27th, 2004, 08:11 AM	#9
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	'twould be nice.

June 29th, 2004, 02:09 PM	#10
Dennis Vogel Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 409	<<<-- Originally posted by Law Tyler : I think they can lay down the conditions which people can buy sync rights w/o getting time-consuming individual approvals. E.g. I want this song to be use in traditional weddings only. Or, it can be used with anything except porn, soft porn, political ads or anything political, and definitely nothing to do with Steven Spielburg... :-) If people accepts and follows the condition, they can buy and use it, else they will be in violation. -->>> Maybe. But everyone has their own definition of these things. Even when contracts are written in excruciating detail and teams of lawyers review them there are still disputes. There's no way a blanket condition like this could work. What, exactly, is soft porn anyway? (It's a rhetorical question. Let's not get into a debate. It's a thought experiment.) Dennis Vogel

June 29th, 2004, 11:01 PM	#11
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	Agreed. And I don't mind if the artist demands that we read a two-page conditions and definitions, etc, or as long as his lawyer wants it to be. Some of us are willing to do that, and following the conditions, just so we can use that popular song, after paying the ongoing rate, of course.