AHHH, and here's the rub... if your friend makes a business of it, he in theory is violating copyright, BUT is he really doing anything other than facilitating your right to use your media as you see fit? Tough call, he's merely charging for his time to do something you are not technically inclined to do... HMMMM


On the one side content providers want and deserve to be compensated and protect their work against unautorized or unacceptable use (how would you like a wedding video you produced to be used in a porn or horror film, for instance... I know it's an odd example, but we're talkig law here, and part of protecting one's "work" is the prevention of tasteless and unacceptable uses).

On the flip side, the Supreme Court has upheld that the end user has a right to duplicate for their own use, and some licenses acknowledge you may make a backup copy... if you make a copy for a "friend" you've crossed the line... BUT, it's been acknowledged that the end user has SOME rights, albeit limited.

The idea that you can shift content from one media to another is established to some degree already, but when you switch from audio to video (and those lines are blurry at best) you've created a new beast, and we'll probably be seeing cases on the topic eventually... stay tuned. I'm still not sure exactly how one becomes liable for synchronizing audio and video that could be played from two separate devices (see an earlier post of mine) so that they may be watched and enjoyed together for the end user... but if you "go public" with that "product", I think you're over the line...

The main problem is the total lack of a simple licensing system - the pay per download sites clearly have solved it (or at least come up with a workable system) for the "end user", now someone needs to solve it for the small videographer - but I'm guessing it's too small a market to pay attention to?

And the big risk is that the "media" controllers have piles of attorneys looking to sue grandmothers and college students just for the "deterrrent value", while the REAL pirates churning out bootlegs CDs and DVDs often go unchecked, because they are harder to find and shut down... and crime pays well enough they can stay on the run for a long time. SIGH...

I think the UK has a good system worked out (at least from what I know of it). I would love to see a system like that in the US. I think just about every wedding videographer would pay a monthly fee just to be on the safe side. I would.

AFAIK, strictly speaking it is. Whether you'd get caught is another matter.

If he offers it as a duplication service it absolutely is.

Hi Adam,

From what you say and from what I read in this thread I too am glad I am filming in the UK!

Simple method of license per disc for using music from a cd and a seperate one for live performance makes it cheap and simple to achieve.

I think that the fact it is that simple and reasonably priced will encourage UK videographers to abide by the rules.

Adam -

IANAL, BIPOOTI (I'm not a lawyer, but I "play one on the internet" <wink>).

I believe that the Kinko's analogy would apply at least in theory - while the purchaser of a work can copy it on their own, someone "facilitating" copyright infringement on a large enough scale is a "target" for lawyers, IIRC Kinkos got sued and lost on this somewhat spurious legal theory.

BUT they still provide copy machines, right? And they simply post a warning about copyright infringement... and I'm guesing this is deemed legally sufficient - but if you took 20 copies of a book up to the counter to pay for it, they "might" (and should) crack the whip on you.

I think if the person requesting the duplication can show they own the work they want copied or media shifted can show legal ownership or a clear copyright (and many stores now ask for copyright releases for stills), the "facilitator" is in the clear.

The primary case quoted IIRC is the betamax case, where "fair use" was first put forward as a legal theory - it established that an end user has the right to make a copy... but that case is ancient history in a digital world, and I understand it is under constant attack...

Keep in mind that if anyone can show case law, that case might be overturned or directly contradicted if you're unlucky enough to be the victim of a suit... IP law is VERY much in flux, and attorneys are quite creative in thinking up new and novel ways to approach common sense questions and make them unimaginably complex...

I'm not bad at deciphering legal issues, and frankly some of these areas are just too dicey to tread in for my tastes. I feel "incidental" music probably is relatively safe, but I'll avoid using copyrighted music (as a "soundtrack) out of caution until there's a better answer. I suspect if you bought a copy of the song in question through legal online channels, you'd have a decent affirmative defense should you be sued (no way to purchase, so you tried to ensure the copyright holder was compensated in some way). But having a good affirmative defense and having the $$$ to make it fly in litigation are two very different things.

I guess you should always ask yourself the question is it RIGHT to COPY this work? If it was yours, would you want it dup'ed? Would you want it used in the way it's going to be used (keep in mind there are exceptions for parody). MOST IMPORTANTLY, would you feel ripped off if someone used YOUR stuff and didn't pay for it's use?? If you're not comfortable in the slightest, rethink what you're about to do.

It's also under constant defense. If I buy a CD I should be allowed to put the songs from it on my MP3 player. And I can legally. Media companies always try to come up with new ways of not letting me do it, and that's their legal right, but I can and will still find ways of doing it (as long as it remains legal).

If an artist produces an album for distribution he is already having it dup'ed. That's how the Bride and Groom got it in the first place. I think if the artist has a work published and someone buys it, they shouldn't be too upset if that person wants to put it in their wedding video.

But again, this doesn't answer what the law says and I think that's because it's subject to interpretation. If and when there is a legal precedent for this very issue, there will be a definite answer to the question. Until then I think we are stuck just guessing and either playing it safe with royalty free music or taking a chance that we could be the first one to have a court test the law on us. But I still feel that if the bride and groom buy music, they should be allowed to have me put it in their video. I feel strongly that that would be completely fair to the artist.

I would agree that's the way it should be if the world was fair and if the video is the B&G's own personal copy. Too bad they didn't ask us before making the law. It would also be great if the US and Canada would enact licensing schemes such as Australia and the UK have that allow for such limited use copying as wedding coverage at low cost but alas, there seems to be no interest on the part of music publishers and recording studios to wsupport such as move. (And if you use a popular recording you have to deal with botyh - the copyright on the music and the copyright on the specific recording).

But consider if the B&G were to order multiple copies of the DVD from you and give them to their friends and family. Now it would be the same situation as buying a music CD, making a bunch of copies, and giving them away as presents. Clearly illegal.

I seem to always get requests for extra copies. I, like most of you print the DVD covers on Premium glossy photo paper, and I also use Taiyo Yuden Watershield Glossy hub printable DVD's. I don't mind if they make copies of the DVD, but they don't get the quality look I offer them through the case cover & printer glossy disc.

Which law would that be?

Once I deliver the product, that's their business.

Gentlemen,

Excuse me if I seem out of order for commenting on this on-going spirited discussion of legal and illegal copying but hasn't this issue been brought up several times, in many other threads, over the course of time.

It almost comes across as though person #1 is trying to persuade person #2 to see things person #1's way and vice versa.

If you have an issue with making copies of anything at all, then don't make the copies. If you're OK with making copies, encouraging others to make copies, aiding someone in making copies, or any other thing that has to do with copies, then by all means, continue doing what you feel comfortable with.

No one is going to convince the other to see things his way.

That's just my point of view.

Jeff

I think Jeff has summed things up quite well... some stubborn people need to realize that they're not going to change the minds of other stubborn people.

I've cleaned up this thread a little bit; there were some references to guns and murder for hire, of all things, which I really don't want on my web site.

This is going around in circles, so it's time to put it out of its misery... thread closed.