![]() |
'Can I copy your stuff?'
A lady called me Friday afternoon. She's getting in 8 days and her video person just backed out. Looking for anyone to video her wedding, she calls me.
I go over all the odds and ends, what's included, congratulations, etc. I mention that each package comes with 6 DVDs. That's one for them, their parents, grandparents, etc. I don't think I've ever had anyone request more than 6 DVDs. Then she asks if she could COPY them. Uh... what? So I asked what I remember someone on this board saying: 'I'd rather you didn't. Are you going to copy the still photographer's pictures as well?' It drove the point home. I hope. |
I personally encourage my customers to copy them if they need extra copies. I really hate to do copies. To me it is just a waste of time. I rather be editing than looking for masters and holding me up while it burns, print and put them in a case.
Most videographers see it as extra income, but if you charge what it is really worth, they will copy them without your permission. That is just me. |
I don't have a problem with paying customers making copies of the video I produce for them.
I still hold the copyright. But I tell wedding customers they can make additional copies if they have the means to. Of course, if they want me to make additional copies, the discs and cases will look just like the original. I also produce promo videos for bands. I actually issue them a license to reproduce and distribute copies so if they go to a commercial duplicater service, they have a paper showing they have permission to make copies. Again, if they want me to make the copies, it looks just like the original. I do charge for copies I make. To each his own but I never could understand wanting to prevent videography customers from making their own copies if they choose to. Just out of curiousity, why would you object to your paying customer making copies of the video you produced? Jeff |
Most photographers these days include high-rez files in all packages exactly for this reason. We personally don't- but it really makes the point moot I think.
|
I will offer to make additional copies for clients for free (within reason). After all, I want my demo DVD to get into as many hands as possible, why not an actual wedding DVD? This is advertising that people are asking for! Why not give it to them?
|
It's not like it's a short film. It's their wedding. Really, they own it as much as you do (regardless of the fact that you edited it and such). Be fair, and charge for making it, but let them give it to whomever they want. Not like you can sell it or anything.
If it were a case where they were going to make 1,000s of copies (ie a celebrity, though this probably still isn't the case), then you might want to get in on that a bit. But for even 100 family members... how does that harm you? The idea of it is silly, I say. |
Back when I was a wedding photographer (pre-digital days), I'd set the price so I made a suitable profit up-front, and would turn over the sleeved negatives along with the album(s). It saved me the hassle and liabilities of negative storage, print re-orders, etc. As far as I was concerned, I was working for hire, and the customer owned the copyright to their wedding images. The customers liked the idea that they could get whatever prints they wanted and had control over the negatives.
Me? I collected my money, thanked them, then walked away to do the next job. I called them kamikaze weddings -- hit and run. Martin |
Photographers have the disadvantage of not being able to 'brand' their work. You see photos and nobody knows who took the picture.
With videography, I have my three second animation attached to the video. True, the client could remove it in a NLE, but unlikely. I want the client to show people, so I don't charge royalties. I don't burn multiple DVDs because I want *them* to. It's a waste of time for me to do what they can do on their own. I agree with the philosophy that the wedding belongs to the couple, but I understand it would be hard to swallow that philosophy as a photographer. We've got to make money to provide the service to a couple in the first place. If I were a photographer I would charge for my *talent* and leave it at that. |
I always maintain that I own the raw footage, however they have paid me to make an edit of their day and when I supply the wedding dvd to them I also transfer the copyright of that edited work to them using a creative common license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
They are free to copy it (after all, if sony cant stop people copying their blockbuster movies what chance do we have....) but I do charge a small price if they want a copy with the nice artwork and printed disc...(£15 per disc). Interesting to see how many different opinions there are on this topic though... |
Sure, for your work in copying it, a small fee is quite reasonable.
CC is a good idea too. |
I'm with the majority here. I encourage clients to make copies. It's just so easy to copy a DVD that I don't see a point of making clients "feel bad" about it - which is pretty much the only thing you can do.
As for raw footage, I never give them out. I've lost potential clients because of it, but I maintain that policy. I'm not trying to make more money out of them or anything, it's just that raw footage isn't representative of what we do, and I would never want an audience to sit through it. |
I also encourage clients to do their own copying or if they prefer I will do it but then I will charge for it, I hardly get any requests for extra copies but that's fine by me.
|
It is nice to see the non-gouging attitude of this board.
I agree, we should charge for our talents and products and let everything else go as it will. When I photograph, I deliver the orginals on CD but give them an option to buy prints from me as well. I use a pro lab and charge reasonable prices for the prints and the customers will often print pretty many because of the longevity issue with cheaper labs. In this day and age, the business model of making your money on the back end is gone. Charing up front allows you to focus on quality and lets the customer feel like they are getting a lot in return. |
Quote:
|
No-one has mentioned this point yet:
Here in UK: it is assumed that professional videographers supply a PPL holographic sticker on each copy (which costs a few pounds) for the (limited) rights to dub on copyrighted music. If clients copy (or are encouraged to copy) such a DVD with dubbed commercial music, they are strictly doing it illegally, as they obviously won't be buying and applying the PPL sticker for each copy. Of course, no-one has been prosecuted for private copying of such a DVD, but it's an issue that might impinge on how we handle this. I assume there is some equivalent per-copy-payment in other countries that strictly should be applied to each copy? |
Quote:
I encourage it. It's a wedding, not exactly black market material. It's nice to have your name spread around. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Both. Any money made from making copies of your finished products etc... |
Hm. The UK system sounds interesting. But is that for any song you want? Other media?
In the US, you basically need permission to use anything, and if you have it, then that's probably just fine. If you don't (and this can frequently be the case) it's technically illegal, and probably a bad idea because of it. Any smart videographer would get some rights setup or use copyright free music or music from a library designed for this. It's just asking for trouble if not. On the other hand, I doubt it's much of an issue to have copyrighted music IN the film, as part of the ceremony/reception. I'm not sure on the legal issues there, but I think it's just generally seen as a public event that you documented, so probably not something you need to worry about. I'd like to hear from someone who knows the copyright law in this case, though. |
I don't think anyone knows the copyright laws exactly Daniel. Best bet is to use royalty free music. Definitely safe that way. Not saying that's what I do, but that's definitely the safest way to do it.
In terms of letting clients copy the DVD I'm all for it. I provide five copies up front, with the couple's DVD in a nicer case than the others. If they want to copy it and pass it around that's great. More advertising for me. If they actually like it enough to pass it around to other people then that seems like a compliment to me. |
Wow... I wish whoever said they did have a problem with their stuff being copied would chime in! :)
Seriously though... in my packages, a certain amount of DVDs are included (6), complete with customized labels, etc. If they make copies and hand them off to someone else, I hate to think that my work was being delivered on a less than spectacular looking DVD. Also, it does affect my bottom line because if they want extra, they should BUY EXTRA. Just seems kind of cheap. And I know in the pecking order, the wedding video is near the bottom rung. For know, anyways... |
I think the key here is to deliver a superior looking final product, so that there is incentive to have you make the copies. A high quality (preferably printed on the DVD) "label" is a nice touch, a DVD cover that looks like somthing you'd buy in the store probably helps.
In the end, I concur that if they order up front, I'd appreciate the opportunity to make any "extra" copies they need... what's a few "extras" while burning and printing a project? If they need stuff 6 months later, I've already archived everything, I'd rather they just burn a quick copy... |
Quote:
I'd have a huge problem with someone copying my short films. But if I did something specifically for someone, such as a wedding, I think they've got the rights to it once it's made. If you were to record some band's song, wouldn't you get paid to record it and give them the rights? If you were to film someone's movie as DP, or edit it, wouldn't you get paid and just give the director/etc. the rights? If you own the rights, what do you plan to gain with them? Would you sell them? Whose wedding is it? To whom is it of significant importance? Do you really care about the wedding? About who watches your videos? I can certainly see wanting to make more money, and you suggesting they pay you more to make 12 copies from the start, but if they want to copy the videos and show their grandmother do you really want to stop them? (and as has been asked, how?) If you have a good reason, please post. I'm not saying you can't have a reason, but I honestly don't understand it if so. |
Daniel, when you make your films, aren't you making those for someone? Your audience?
I am very upfront with couples about what's included with my services. You get 6 DVDs included with your wedding... and additional DVDs will cost 'x' amount. And to flat out ask if they can make copies?! That's just being cheap. In my opinion, of course. |
Quote:
Even so, at a price of about £8 per disc for live music and £4 per disc to cover any music you choose to use during the edit it is still quite cheap. however, the price for a copy of a disc is already £12 ($23) for the licenses and then I add on the price of the disc, ink, box and photo paper....still works out cheap. |
The sticker music license system sounds nice. Wish we had that in the US.
As for copies, I tell couples that if they have the capability to make copies on their own, they can do that. I state in my contract that they do not take the video to a 3rd party for copying, but that they come back to me. Most of the time they come back to me. They say the price ($20 USD) is reasonable, and they like the labels and packaging. |
Quote:
No one else has any reason to have it be more important to them (others are related, but if I'm directing/editing/etc., then I'm usually the most interested). The audience is the... audience. But not part of the production. "I want to see the movie you didn't make that I don't know about" is not the same as "I wish I'd had someone record my wedding", etc. In the case of a wedding, isn't it more for the couple? Whose production was it? Yours or theirs? I see it as a service where you recorded the film and created it within their "production"-- ie, event... the wedding. Your job is a simple one-- make the film, get it to them, and, of course, get paid to do it. I can see a legal argument for owning the copies, but that seems kinda extreme. That would be like the minister charging twice as much if you brought more people to watch. On top of that, legally, this isn't entirely yours. You don't have releases from the "actors", so you wouldn't be able to sell this anyway. If you feel you need to charge more then give them full rights, completely understandable. But why hold back and keep the film from them if not? Does this actually give you any financial gain? (Again, if they want you to duplicate them, then that's just fine. Charge for your work/time/costs.) Think of this as a professional relationship with a studio. You are hired, and you make something. But you don't really own it. Legally you own the way the footage was captured, the tapes, the editing, and any other intellectual property, but it's their content. Or, do you have them sign some sort of release that you own the exclusive rights to the content you record at their event? (Crazy, I say, but then legally correct. -- And if it was my wedding, I'm sure I wouldn't sign such a contract.) Do you genuinely feel that you can say to the couple, "No. I filmed it, so you need to ask me permission before giving a copy of your wedding video to your grandmother. Sorry. That's in the contract."? <<>> As for the sticker licensing, that's very cool. Still a bit vague-- so these stickers are decided upon between you and the party holding the copyright? |
Quote:
Not fair, for sure, but pretty convenient for us music dubbers. There are limitations to our use of the system - supposedly only 20 minutes of dubbed music (from memory) but you don't have to nominate the tracks you use. |
Quote:
|
Yes, I meant entirely incidental music, with "IN", which admittedly wasn't very clear.
If you add a track, then you would certainly need permission. (The only rule I know about is a 10% or 30 second (I think that's the number) allotment of any copyrighted work for purely educational and nonprofit works, and this I have just heard about in passing, though from several generally reliable sources.) Clearly in the case of a wedding video you are selling, you would need full permission from anything you do. However, anything that was actually recorded as part of the video seems more the responsibility of the bride and groom. As a matter of fact, this actually ties in very closely with the original question. If you charge for your SERVICES ONLY, then you don't really need to worry about copyright. Your job is a simple one-- sit at a computer and be paid [arbitrary] $500. Then give them a CD when you are done, as their employee (or something like that), not as an independent production studio. Issues could still arise from including your own music library if you don't have rights to distribute that, but, really, just like if you were to give them a copy of the CD, except that it might be more noticeable especially as it was related to a financial transaction. As an example, I know that it's legal to hire an FX artist to work on a Star Wars fan film. But then you can't sell the film itself. People have also paid actors, rented locations, etc. Your actions are purely your own and you're free to sell them as you want. Selling anything that has copyrighted material in it directly, though, will be a big no no. But, of course, these actions might be independently illegal (regardless of your pay for working on them), such as duplicating a song on the disc. If it's their music and you copy it FOR THEM (making duplicate copies might be an issue), then you probably would be fine there. Of course, it's a gray area still. |
Quote:
Copyright is violated by the person who makes the copy. If someone comes to you and gives you a CD of copyrighted music and a blank disc and says "I'll give you $5 to copy this for me" and you agree to do it, YOU, not them, are the one that has violated the law. Kinko's ran into trouble from the "charging for sevices" notion with regard to copying printed materials, claiming that they were only providing a service and it was the customer's responsibility if the copying violated copyright. They lost. |
Well, I WAS talking about a situation in which you would be their employee. Perhaps that is the incorrect word, but the idea is that you are working for them on their project, not on your own, on your own project. Your job is purely technical (of course creative, but that's not really relevant in the eyes of the law).
Being the one who makes the copy is an interesting argument. I can see that being the case. It doesn't sound like you have any official/professional legal knowledge (not to say you are wrong at all-- very interesting), so I'd love to hear a confirmation of this from someone who works in the field. I wonder if anyone on the board fits this. Anyway, it's an interesting thought. Another legal argument is that being the professional, you should be aware of the laws, so perhaps hiding behind that would not be a factor. One thing to consider, though, is that it's very unlikely anyone would be sued for copying a CD and giving it to a family member. In the same sense, if that was all you were doing from them, it might not be a big deal. If you were to own the copyright on the film, then actually sell it to them, even including their music, it would be actually selling copyrighted material and benefiting directly, rather than in the process of working with such material coincidentally (if you could argue that). |
Quote:
You seem to think that because the completed video is assembled abstract content rather than a manufactured physical product and your role in the matter is providing an intellectual creative service, that it's not really a "thing" that is being sold. But the law disagrees - intangible intellectual content is just as much an real item sold in the marketplace as is a toaster. Even though you're not building something physical or buying something from a wholesaler and reselling it at retail, you are still a vendor selling a product. The fact that they are paying you to work on a project on their behalf rather than you working on the project purely at your own initiative doesn't change things. True, if you are an employee hired to make a product, the burden is on the employer to insure his product is legal - a worker on the assembly line is not personally liable if his employer markets a defective product, for example. But the fact that someone requests you do something and pays you money to do it does not automatically make you their employee. If you go into a tailor's shop and ask him to make you a made-to-order custom tailored suit with a certain style and colour of fabric, does that make him your employee? Is the plumber you call to your home to fix your leaky pipes your employee? And more to the point, if the plumber you've hired to fix your pipes does something illegal - lets say, he does work that doesn't comply with the building codes - who is responsible, you or him? He is - even if you have asked him to save you money by cutting corners and do non-complying work. (Remarkably similar to the client who says they can't afford you if you insist on only using licensed material, hmm?) If his assistant does the non-complying work, who is responsible - you, the plumber, or the assistant? Again, it's the plumber. He's the professional - he is expected to know and comply with the law regardless of the client's wishes and he's responsible for HIS employee's actions. If you, the videographer, have an employee who does your editing and he places unlicensed material in the video at your direction he doesn't have any legal liability. But if you're the videographer and you acceed to your client's wishes and use unlicenses material, it's going to be you on the hook. The argument is that you only provided a service won't protect you, any more than it would protect the plumber who you requested to do out-of-code work. |
Quote:
Hmm. The plumber simile makes sense, but at the same time it's a professional job they are probably licensed to do. Video isn't quite the same. You keep saying that the assistant wouldn't be responsible. Why is the videographer not the assistant? If the scenario were to be that you had the bride and groom standing behind your shoulder telling you what to click, would you be responsible then? Anyway, I just think there may be some ways around this, or, perhaps, LESS legal responsibility than if you were to actually sell them the discs. But I think that being paid to duplicate someone's CD FOR THEM is not really all that illegal. You don't own the disc nor do you own the songs, anyway. You own the right to listen to those tracks. So, you can listen however you want. Putting it in the video would be no more illegal than putting it on an iPod. So... if you just worked for them on their computer, it would be fine. But of course that isn't practical. Just not sure where the line would be drawn. On another note-- this is sorta a documentary. Are there any laws that would allow use of copyrighted material in order to document events? You could document the history of the couple and how music has affected them. Sure, it's abstract, but a lot of legal arguments are weird. //thoughts... |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If I use royalty free audio (licensed to me) - for example, SmartSound series - (www.smartsound.com) - and I created the video, and I pass on the final copy to somebody else, is that somebody else violating any laws when he copies the DVD - which is a result of my work?
|
Technically violating your copyright unless you give them rights to do so. However, as has been discussed, it's a strange situation. Not like they're trying to make money, etc.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:02 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network