Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Chris Hurd is exactly right. I would add that, if there is a case brought, the "fair use" question WILL be decided. "Hopefully," means you hope it will get decided in your favor.

As for Chris Sgraraglino's four questions, each has been covered extensively in many other threads.

Not really.

Yup.


I assume this is a rhetorical question about risk assessment.

"Indemnity" is the wrong term. (See my earlier post above).

Anyway, she can't sue you for refusing to violate copyright law. A suit like that would get dismissed as facially frivolous within a couple of weeks of getting filed.

And, there is a frequently repeated but utterly wrong misconception that the couple could sue you for bizillions of dollars for "emotional distress" of going ballistic. Can she do this? Nope. You have a contract. She can only sue you for breach of contract. Nobody gets "emotional distress" damages in a contract case. She gets only contract damages which are the difference in value between what she paid you and the presumably lesser amount that the product is actually worth.

The real problem is not legal liability in this instance. It is bad customer relations.

So, as with much else in videography contracts, it helps to be explicit with the customers. If you won't use any copyrighted audio, just say that. Then customers won't bad mouth you for refusing to do something you should have (but did not) tell them you would not do. If you are willing to infringe by including a first dance on a DVD but won't use the copyrighted audio in that Facebook trailer, then tell them that. Tell them you will provide substitute soundtrack for anything for web or widespread distribution.

None of this protects you when some overzealous homeland security droid suddenly drops out of the sky with an indictment charging you with economic terrorism by piratically expropriating copyrighted materials. If some feds or Sony or whomever decide to play whack-a-mole with minor infringers --- maybe because they figure the small-timers can't afford the high legal fees of trying to contest the charges --- will you have a legal leg to stand on? Nope. You have committed a technical infringement of somebody's rights. Just like all the other ones where your wedding video neglects to blur out a branded-label of the champagne bottles and does not get signed releases from every guest whose image appears in the video. (These are the kinds of questions that law students get asked to analyze in the exams.)

So, if it is possible, how likely is it? Well, that is not a matter of legal rights or defenses like "fair use." It is only a matter of playing the odds, which is to say, risk assessment.

Why am I talking about risk assessement rather than legal rights? Because most of the time, most everybody thinks it is absurd to to take things out to the nth degree of enforcing every conceivable legal jot and tittle like those that Jad mentioned above (things like blurring out any labels, getting releases from every guest, etc.) That does not mean that folks do not have those legal rights. If they want to enforce them, those rights do exist. Even though most people regularly disregard the jots and tittles in everyday life because they think the jots and tittle are absurd. Most of those whose rights are infringed are similarly inclined.

Even the most protective and/or avaricious usually only really care when it gets to the threat of mass distribution and other commercial piracy. Why is this? There is no viable system (here in this country) to get an inexpensive, low volume limited use license. It is economically infeasible for the likes for Sony to administer one for themselves. So, if you make a couple of DVDs for the bride and groom, nobody will care. Usually. Make a clip for the bride to have on her facebook page with a soundtrack that anybody can copy for free for their own use (as opposed to paying, say, iTunes for a download), and the rights-holders may see the threat of Napster-like "sharing" ([i.e., organized piracy.) Plus, they've got a host to talk to, and that is much more economically rational way to shut off that spigott.

Again, this is risk assessment not legalities. Do not confuse them.

Now, after all this criticism of the law, let's look at this from a different perspective for a moment. Let's say that one of the guests at the wedding has figured out how to extract copies of your video as you are shooting the wedding. The guest extracts that video, gives it to the bride to put on her website. The bride now refuses to pay you because she has a video and does not need yours. See where I'm going with this? If the bride and the guest have a contract, do you think they can avoid legal liability to you? Would anybody here seriously say there is nothing wrong with what they did?

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Fair Use is not a blanket applying to all docos just because they're docos, it may apply to some of them when the doco falls into the category of current news coverage or one of the other categories defined by the law. Weddings don't fall into any of those categories and Fair Use does not apply to them.

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Could this type of agreement avoid copyright issues for editors?

A customer who is unable to find suitable music in our library may prefer to order a silent video montage that has the exact running time of a particular piece of customer owned music. Please indicate your choice below:

[ ] I prefer a video montage with music selected from the licensed music library.

Title of music __________________________________________

[ ] I prefer a silent video montage.

Silent video running time ____ minutes ____ seconds.

Signature: _____________________________________________

The point of the above document would be to provide the details necessary to create a video montage with the exact length of a customer owned piece of music (presumably an original composition recorded by her soon-to-be-brother-in-law's garage band) without the editor even knowing what that music was (or having to listen to it).

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

You're going to ask your client to provide minutes:seconds:frames timing for each and every sequence in the final edited video where music might be added later? And just how are they going to edit their music into the soundtrack once you deliver the DVD to them - how many of your clients do you suppose own FCP, Premiere, or other NLE/DAW software? If you deliver the final version of the program to them sans music I don't see how you could be held liable for any modifications they might make to the later, though I don't think I would document the fact that you have prepared the program expressly so that they can add specific music tracks to it. I doubt you would be held liable if your client takes your program and turns it into something infringing since you're not responsible for their actions after you turn over your materials to them but from a practical business standpoint I don't see it working. And should your client successfully edit their own music tracks into the video and then post it on YouTube, let's say, so it came under the notice of the music's owners, you might have a hard time proving in court that it wasn't you who put the music in or at least aided and abetted your client's infringment by setting up the video so they could easily do it.

The only real solution is to establish a personal standard refusing the unlicensed use of another artist's property (where licensing is required by copyright law) in your own work and to advocate that professional societies, such as WEVA, of which you might be a member incorporate into their statements of professional standards and practices an absolute and unequivocal ban on the use of unlicensed materials by their members. It's not going too far even to suggest that such societies establish a system of sanctions for members who violate their canon of professional ethics and make a public statement that they will aid in the prosecution of such members who are found to be flagrant repeat violators. I think it is incumbent on all creative professionals earning income from their work to actively advocate respect for the rights of one's fellow creative professionals. Just as you have the right to be paid for your work in making the video you shoot for your client, the owners of the music you use in that video also have the right to be paid for their work and it is up to us to do all that we can to make sure that happens. It boils down to a simple respect for the rights of our fellow professionals, our brother and sister creatives, instead of trying to find ways of avoiding them.

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

I can see how the term "customer owned music" could be misinterpreted as ownership of a purchased CD containing music licensed for home listening rather than actual ownership of the music. The danger of being accused of aiding and abetting copyright infringement seems a serious issue. Just like a taxi driver can not knowingly drive a robber to the bank, a silent video montage can not be produced with the knowledge that a customer plans on using it for copyright infringement. The idea however was to support the creative efforts of others by not getting involved with or controlling the production, purchase and licensing arrangements for the music. I think you are right, though, that this could still be a problem.

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Does it have to be actually something that needs to enter an actual courtroom or can this be settled at the Cease and Desist letter stage? I recall reading of people getting free help from Standford Law Center on this right when they get their unwarranted threat letters for legitimate Fair Use of their material and then record companies have backed off (and even apologized for their mistake). Am I misunderstanding this situation?

Doesn't seem right for someone to have to put out money they dont have for legal expenses (if they're not aware of this Fair Use legal help program at Standford) to have their rights enforced or even considered.

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Fair Use is not a right. It is a defense you can raise if someone claims you have infringed their copyright. Fundamentally you don't have any rights with regard to another individual's property. The legislature has deemed that for a few specific exceptions spelled out in the law which I have listed in other replies, the social good of having those sorts of publications outweighs the property rights of the individual copyright owner. If you receive a cease and desist letter you can either comply or you can respond that you believe your usage is Fair Use because of x, y, and z. The person that sent that letter can then decide if they want to pursue it further or you have convinced them with your argument and they decide to drop their action. If they choose to push it, then a court will decide if your use actually is Fair Use or not. If the judge decides your usage of the material falls into one or more of those categories your claim of fair use will likely prevail. If he finds it doesn't, your claim will be rejected.

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Thanks for the clarification. btw, do you have a background in law or do you have a good site or book you could refer me to for detailed info on this laid out SIMPLY in layman's terms?

It would be nice if the mod could stickie this discussion thread, lots of very relevant and important info in here contributed by you and others!

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

If by "background in law" you mean have I been to law school no, I have not. I have had an interest in various types of media production for over 40 years and have worked professionally in publishing, photography and broadcasting at several points in my career. Over that time I have made it a point to educate myself on copyright and other legal issues that might affect me. My information has come from a variety of reliable sources over the years, including personal communication with friends who are practicing attorneys. One current source you might start with is a series of podcasts dealing with the law and video production by intellectual property attorney Gordon Firemark, available for download on iTunes. A web search on his name should turn them up for you.

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

AWESOME! Man if I would've known about that I probably would've skipped posting this question on here altogether and gone straight there (not that I and others didn't get helpful information in this thread from folks like yourself).

Thanks again :)

G

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

And just when I thought this thread was all over...here I just NOW end up coming across this:

ZOOM :: Music Licensing for Videography & Digital Imaging

Anyone use this service before? I'm going through their TOS right now.

Excerpt:

With the expanding world of digital production in video, photography, and other media, you need to be sure that you and your clients are protected by using music that is licensed by the artists you select. ZOOM allows you to license copyrighted music of your choice easily and efficiently for a single production at fees of just $3.50-$5.50 per song.

Major publishing companies and record labels are already licensing original and popular music through ZOOM License and more songs are being cleared every month. Through ZOOM you will soon have an entire universe of copyrighted music at your fingertips for legal use in your productions.

ZOOM - Music Licensing for Videography & Digital Imaging allows you to:

* Use copyrighted music from major labels legally in your wedding and special event video productions and photo montages.
* EMI Music content already cleared for licensing.
* Other major labels and publishers are clearing music now.
* Create an account and begin licensing music today.
* View songs that have already been cleared for licensing.
* Register and track your uses.
* Request songs to be cleared for licensing.
* Print out a synch license for each song used.

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

FAQ: ZOOM :: Music Licensing for Videography & Digital Imaging
TOS: ZOOM :: Music Licensing for Videography & Digital Imaging

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Sounds like a good idea if it actually flies. From a quick reading of the FAQ it appears they're acting as a clearance agent for you and clearance agents are a preferred way of clearing music rather than trying to contact copyright owners yourself. Agents know who to call to get a clearnace while most of us don't.

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Yah I know! I need to finish read through the TOS. For all other readers, it says right in the FAQ:

How do I know I won't be sued by the RIAA or any other music industry organization?
For every song that you license for your production project, you will be able to print out the legal synchronization license for your records as proof of licensing. All tracks cleared into the ZOOM catalog have been approved by the record label that owns the Master Recording of the song and the publisher that represents the Composition.

I gotta find someone who's tried them. If this is legit....SCORE!!! (especially since some of my favorite artists, like Moby, are with EMI records which are all pre-cleared)

woohoooo! :D

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Is Internet broadcast covered by ZOOM License?
Internet usage can be covered for an additional fee of $500 per song, per production project.

Tell your brides not to upload their videos to YouTube...

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

Ya I saw that, looking to see if they say who is legally (and financially) responsible if the finished product were to be uploaded/broadcast by the client and it gets spread around and copied outside the producer's/editor's consent, knowledge or control. Hope that doesn't bring us back to square one. :(

Re: Can this doc "bypass" music copyright issue for editors?? (help frm Mr. Tauger?)
 

You cannot be responsible for what your client does with the video after delivery but to be on the safe side just print a warning on the disc that it should not be copied or uploaded.

BTW We already have scheme here in the UK that allows us to cheaply licence any music for small production runs of discs which is ideal for weddings & similar but this does not extend to broadcast on the Internet http://www.prsformusic.com/users/rec...cence(LM).aspx