SOmeone has to convince ME that there is a viable income stream. I would venture to say that any town has 20-100 times as many dentists as wedding videographers. I chose dentists since someone mentioned it above as a recent target of BMI. That tiny little piece of business for BMI/ASCAP will probably get them $50 a month ($600) a year from every dentist, which is the most they could hope for from a typical wedding videographer. SO they would get 1% the revenue stream they would get from dentists if they take on this new business model. And dentists are a barely noticable blip in their (ASCAP/BMI) income.

What are there, maybe 2,000 wedding videogs in the USA? We can safely ignore hs/college students and most of the newbies who never do more than a half-dozen weddings. Maybe 25% of the pros would actually pay a license fee, if that many. (500x$600 each = $300k/year) So why would they fool with setting up a whole new business model that will likely never pay for the overhead costs of running it? Artists would never see a penny.

license cost
 

The song Paris Mambo for a salsa video.
You have to provide the following info:

How many years you wanted it for?
In what medium you are going to do the final product(DVD,website,film..etc)?
What is the cost of the project? -- I think they will quote you based on the project cost.
The company name and website of the company? Your website if its self properitery

For me it cost $500 for a 1 year license for streaming through the website and 100 DVDs. I payed my attorney $500. But its worth it. Becuase
they wont give responses for individuals. Probably the attorney will have some
links to get through the barriers they have been working so long and they know people. Basically they act as an agent.

I don't know how I missed this thread. Some very good discussion.

A couple of points (in no particular order) . . .

1. The fact that a wedding video isn't intended for public performance does not make it non-infringing to use a commercial CD for the soundtrack. Public performance is one of the reserved rights of copyright owners. However, the right to make copies and prepare derivative works are two others and both are implicated by a wedding video.

2. I've said a number of times of times that my personal (not-to-be-relied-upon) opinion is that CDs-in-wedding-videos should probably come within fair use. I'm not aware, however, of any decisions which have test it, and I don't know anyone who wants to volunteer to be a test case.

3. Copyight, like patent, grants absolute control over the protected material, subject to any statutory exceptions. This means that the right owner cannot be compelled to permit use of the protected material.

4. There are, however, statutory exceptions, i.e. compulsory licenses of various kinds in the U.S. Copyright Act. There is no reason why a compulsory could or should not be created that would allow wedding and small-event videographers to use commercial recordings; it is solely a question of the Congressional will to do so.

5. ASCAP and BMI administer public performance rights, only, i.e. the copyright owners have not authorized either agency to license synchronization/mechanical rights or the right to make copies. I've spoken with BMI's counsel in the past about working something out for wedding videographers -- there was no interest whatsoever. BMI feels (wrongly, in my opinion) that there isn't enough money to be made from such licensing.

6. WEVA would be the ideal organization to lobby for a change in the law, i.e. the addition of a new compulsory license. Many of you guys are WEVA members -- I'm not. Talk to your organization. This kind of compulsory license shouldn't be particularly controversial and could be readily accomplished (along the Australian model, for example).

Can someone give me a specific case where a video grapher was sued for using copyrighted in a WEDDING VIDEO?

Then on the same token, they must believe there isn't enough money to be had in persuing small business videographers for copyright infringement. So I guess with that mentality by the industry, it's going to continue to be a "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement. Too bad.

Thanks for contribution Paul, always good to have the 'legal ear' on the topic.

Unfortunately, it's apples and oranges.

BMI/ASCAP license public performance rights. They don't enforce other specieis of copyright infringement. Their disinterest in licensing to wedding/small event videographers doesn't mean that copyright owners won't, for their owner reasons, decide to pursue videographers.

Bring it on! I am a small time wedding and event videgrapher...I will volunteer to be a test case. :) I have even spoken to my pastor about this - he talked about the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.

And coming back from WEVA Expo in Vegas a month ago ~ WEVA has no interest in pursuing this. Everyone I talked to said they have tried, etc.

"Some may say that I'm a dreamer..." (Did I just infringe something?)

I'll give your pastor a four word lesson in religion and the law for you. Here it goes:
"Thou Shalt Not Steal"

I am with Dylan on this.

I know many people see it as a victimless crime, but it really isn't. The value of someone's song is diminished by overuse. I have said this in previous threads on this topic, but if a song gets used in everybody's wedding video for free, no one is going to want to pay to put it in a movie or TV show. So by you taking the songwriter's (and performer's) property you are potentially robbing them of revenue. Certainly one video wouldn't hurt, one might say, but certainly losing one can of tuna wouldn't Whole Foods, and I'm not going to steal that either.