I am not a crook!
 

This copyright business is getting out of hand!

I was asked to set up a sound system for a Jr.High play last week so everyone could hear the little kiddos in the back row.

The musical ended up being fabulous. This was the most talented group of kids I have ever seen and thought they really deserved to have a quality recording of thier performance.
I offered to tape it for free and give a copy the music director, who could make copies as he wished. I did NOT want to make money on this!
At first he was very appreciative, but then realized he had signed a "No videotaping" clause.

I realize he did the right thing, but I am tired of feeling like a criminal because I want to provide people with quality videos.

Sorry for the rant, but I know there are at least a few people who can relate to this.

MarkG

You wouldn't want the results of your own work to used without your permission or, if you had created it in order to feed your family, without payment of an appropriate fee, would you? How is the publisher of the play or music any different from you? Does the fact he's a corporation and you're just a lone guy with a camera make the difference? You're not a criminal for wanting to provide quality videos to your client but you are being perhaps a bit selfish in expecting to use be able to use other people's property to make those videos without compensating them for it. Perhaps a quick email to the publisher would have otten you the necessary license at a practical cost or even free since it wasn't to be sold. Would have been a couple minutes to send the mail in any case - the worst that could happen is they'd say 'no way.'

Just one opinion

I realize that you do have valid points, Steve. It's just the thought of the publishing company thinking " Now that I have gotten my money by selling them the materials and right to perform the play, now I deserve more money for letting them watch thier own performance on tape!"

I would be furious if someone took my work, proceeded to butcher it, and then played it on TV for the world to see.

Or

If someone made a substantial amount of money selling DVD's without me getting a peice of the action.

There is a definate need for laws to exist to protect stuff like this. I just am speechless at the thought of a publishing company not wanting to let a kid see how he performed after putting so much work into it.

Mark G

Mark -
Yes, it's gotten rediculous. I offered to shoot my son's play and let the school sell DVD's as a fundraiser (schools seem to be short on $$ and a DVD of your child's performance seems a lot more tangible and "valuable" than a muffin/cookie). They were concerned if someone didn't want their kid videotaped (?!) and have signed releases they might have a problem... never heard that before, but I guess paranoia has taken firm hold in the land of the free and we can't even do the most simple of things without fear of legal reprisal... sigh.

I just went and shot the thing as a parent, simple multicam setup on a tripod, came out awesome, and my 6 year old will have something that he can be proud of...

FWIW, lots of other tiny little LCD screens can be seen all over the room, undoubtedly wobbling all over the place, and probalby half the quality of what I shot... I'd bet that the school could have made a nice bit of pocket change making available to those parents a quality version of what they themselves were shooting... something to send to the Grandparents and whatnot...

We are at a strange moment in time, to be sure. Digital media is becoming pervasive and democratized, but our copyright system and mindset is firmly lodged in the 1800's with not a sensible approach in sight for these small one time special events, the EXACT thing people want to record and remember... and will probably watch a couple times...

To me it's obvious that people have the right to make their own recordings/videos, etc., and that they don't have the right to "profit" from them per se in the sense of commercially mass marketing them. AND YET, doesn't one have the right to share their own experiences and special moments with family/friends/relatives??? Just not if you pay someone to do a nice video of it for you??? Makes ZERO sense... Same event, same "value", same limited "market"... but if you pay someone to do it right, you and they are a "criminal"... HMMM...

What I see is a need for either a relatively simple contract clause from the copyright holder(s) allowing for certain limited reproduction rights to a purchaser of their copyrighted work - something allowing for a professional to video tape and distribute "X" number of DVD's of an event for instance, or use "X" instances of a song for sync to a video for limited personal distribution.

You're typically looking at under 500 pieces, very limited marketability and interest, so it'd have to be pretty reasonable... what do radio stations pay to broadcast a song to thousands of listeners??? A few pennies? There's a need for the copyright holder to protect their IP, but what REAL value is there in the "aftermarket" unless you're talking about HUGE performances/artists?

I suppose some industrious sort could also create a system for a yearly flat fee from content creators, divided among copyright holders... but I suspect that the copyright holder would be better served by looking after their own interests with a simple contract clause?

There's a HUGE opportunity for wise copyright holders to make a little extra by opening the doors to the event videography market in a "user friendly" way... but then there's the "internet broadcast" issue that raises it's ugly head... No wonder there's a lot of confusion!!

Just some random thoughts on a sticky wicket! Common sense needs to enter in at some point in time...

Who knows - if it was explained to the publisher courteously that the resulting videos would be given to the parents at cost rather than sold and not distributed further, they might be amenable to a very low cost or even no-cost license. Been known to happen. But it is their property and they have the right to be as generous or as stingy with it as they feel like, just like you do with yours. By your argument, they shouldn't make a profit on selling the script materials or the performance licensing either, since it's a bunch of cute little kids putting on the play instead of a big, rich, Broadway producer like Max Bialystock. I'd certainly agree that it should be simpler and some sort of limited use licensing for music such as they have in Australia is way overdue but I really don't have a problem with the publisher controlling when or if performances of their materials are videotaped or what and where music they've produced is used for and what it isn't.

possibly the performance (music, choregraphy,instructions, costumes) is sold as a package and videotaping could be enough for other people to reproduce the performance without purchasing the package.
Basically these guys are protecting their ideas, not the application of the idea (i am pretty sure they do not care how good the kids perform on scene)
there is a principle in copyright that says if you do not put some effort in protecting it, it could be void by some guy claiming it is now public.
there are so many case like this that some people go paranoid about that.
I would understand if you propose to do it for free, but as you said yourself " I'd bet that the school could have made a nice bit of pocket change making available to those parents " is a good reason why they could go paranoid.

I agree that things are out of wack. People usually make the argument "what about YOUR work?". Well, if someone wants to take a wedding video I've created and cut a part out of it for use in a documentary about weddings and they are going to be selling thousands of copies of the documentary, then yeah, I think they should talk to be about licensing the clip.

On the other hand, if a college student is doing a project about weddings to show to a class of students and uses a clip of mine, all I want is credit for the clip. Let's say he makes copies of his project available to the students at a price. I still don't care. Granted he's taken some of my work and he's making money with it, but the amount is so small and the role that my clip played in the project is so small that it just doesn't bother me.

I know what the law is ... I just think it's severely outdated for where media is at now.

Honestly I feel the same way about not being allowed to photograph art at a gallery. Unless my goal is to recreate the piece exactly and sell it for profit, what's the big deal? I mean, I paid to view the art, and now I simply want pictures of it so I can enjoy it again later in life. The art in the gallery will change over time, so I don't have the option of just going back again.

Same goes for attending a sporting event. My wife and I love hockey, and we make date nights out of it. They are very strict at the arena about taking pictures or video. So we don't get to capture the memory of us at the game? It's just dumb.

There is definitely too much paranoia these days ...

I do think these publishers should make some "real life" exceptions as part of their contract.

For example, our church (and almost every other church in the USA) is a member of CCLI. Our license allows us to not only perform songs at our church, but it also contains provisions for recording and limited distribution of church services, which may (probably will) contain copyright works. Their restrictions are very easy to live with, yet still allow us freedom. These publishers need to adopt a similar set of rules.

Giroud wrote
"there is a principle in copyright that says if you do not put some effort in protecting it, it could be void by some guy claiming it is now public."

I knew there was a reason I hang out here! This is something I was not aware of, thanks for posting this little tidbit.

It does clear things up a little bit. It sounds a little like a weird property law that says that if you let people trespass on a peice of property over a certain length of time, then you may lose rights to it. So you have to put up a "No Trespassing" up once a year.(this may not apply to all states)

So, I have revised my opinion of these publishers. They are not exactly EVIL, just MEAN!

I do realize that I might have gotten permision if I contacted them, but I only had a few hours until the second show started.


My apologies to all the people putting up with yet another stupid "copyright" thread, but it seems like until something changes, this issue is going to continue to rear is ugly head. I am saddened when I read posts from people who have gotten out of event videography because of ridiculous copyright restrictions. I realized as I was mulling this topic over, that I was breaking the law every time I videotaped a wedding due to the fact that every ceremony had at least some music involved in it! Even if you use legal music for the recap and background music, can you imagine muting the sound when the music started for the bridal procession, or when someone sang a special song.


Mark G

Part of the reason for restricting photography in art galleries and museums has nothing to do with copyright. Flash is very high in UV and the cumulative exposure to hundreds of flashes can seriously damage some materials, especially dyes. There's a major problem right now with the deterioration of tomb paintings in Egypt, partly due to the humidity from visitor's breathing and partially due to the UV damage from photography and filming. Add to that the trip hazard as people jockey for position with cameras glued to their eyes or try to setup a tripod and many venues will restirct photography just to secure the physical safety of the collection and their patrons.

There's nothing in the copyright law that prevents you from being as generous with your permission for others to use your work as you want to be. Just put a 5 or 10 second billboard at the start of your program that says "You are welcome to use portions of this program up to xx seconds in length in your own production as long as credit is given for the source" or whatever provisions you wish to set. That's the whole thing behind the Creative Commons licensing idea - a way to protect your interest in the results of your work while allowing others easy access to use it legitimately. The things is, as your property and the fruit of your labors, you and you alone have the right to allow or refuse permission to others to use it. Some people seem to feel that they have a right to use others work just because they really, really want to badly and it hasn't been kept under lock and key somewhere - I just don't see that as an ethical position. I may not agree with the reason why someone refuses me but they have the absolute right to do so and I have the absolute obligation to respect their choice.

I didn't realize that was one of the reasons. Good point.

That does remind me of a local art gallery, though. They open the venue to weddings, and I've shot several weddings there. Each time I'm instructed to make sure none of the art appears on film. That seems pretty ridiculous to me.

They open the venue and allow a couple to have their wedding there (knowing full well that weddings are typically filmed and photographed), with art all over the walls and hanging from the ceiling and whatnot, and yet I'm somehow supposed to film the event without capturing any of it on film? Yeah ... right.

I really just think people have gotten too cynical and paranoid. There just needs to be some revision in the laws to allow for limited use of media. If a couple wants to videotape their wedding and set all of the best moments of it to their favorite song, for themselves to enjoy, they should be allowed to do that (or pay someone to do it for them). Same goes for a 5-year-old dance class. The parents should be allowed to film it (or pay someone to film it) so that they can enjoy it later in life. There needs to be a line drawn for what constitutes commercial use versus personal use, and personal use should be exempt from the copyright laws.

Perhaps you're a victim of your own expertise here. The gallery knows that Uncle Furdinkle's photos are going to look like c**p and so they don't worry about it but your's will actually look like "keepers" and they'd rather people buy the exhibit catalog if they want a momento.

Personal use .... that's the thing. "Personal use" means "for yourself." Photos or videos you shoot for other people, whether it's a full-time sucessful business or a part-time hobby 'business' that just bills enough to cover cost or even works only for the passion of it (to cover both ends of the spectrum), whether you have a huge customer base or just shoot the occasional gig, isn't "personal use." Personal use is what you do in the privacy of your own home solely for consumption by yourself and your family - you make it yourself purely for your own enjoyment. Videos you shoot of your summer vacation are personal use, video you shot of your friends wedding as a gift for them isn't. And anything you derive any revenue or reimbursement for certainly isn't. The only time the wedding would be "personal use" is if you kept the video for yourself for you and your family's viewing only. Shoot video your kid's school play that you keep as a family momento, it's personal use. But give copies to the other parents and it's no longer personal use - it's public distribution, albeit a relatively small public. And if any money changes hands, even just reimbursing you for the tape, it's public commercial distribution. Essentially if you do anything with it outside of your immediate household it's no longer personal. Whether your audience is just your buddy and his new wife or the tens of millions queing up to see "Ironman," it's the same thing - public publishing and distribution and all the rights issues kick in. Arguments based on the scale of distribution are like the old joke about the fellow who asked the girl next to him at the bar if she'd sleep with him for 10 thousand dollars ... the punch line is "now we're just haggling over price." <grin>

this has to do with breach of contract - nothing to do with copyright law

And this is where I completely disagree with the current law. It's outdated.

There should be no difference if I bring my camera to film a school play for my own viewing pleasure ... or if I decide to pay someone to film it for me for my own viewing pleasure. The end result is absolutely no different (other than the quality of the product). In the end, I'm still watching it in my own home as a "personal use' product. It makes no sense to allow one method of creating the peronsal use product and not the other.

That's exactly my point as well, there's a strange "no man's land" here where the exact same event, the exact same content, the same limited "audience", and for all practical purposes the same recording, is legal in one instance, and "illegal" in another.

It is rather bizzare if someone, for convenience or desire for a better result or whatever, chooses to hire an "event videographer" for his/her SERVICES to record/memorialize an event thereby somehow criminalizing themselves and the videographer.

In fact, this defense certainly holds some merit if one were sued. The law is intended to protect others from "injury", but where is the injury and damage?? What about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"??

I can understand the need to imprison and flog someone going into a theater and pirating "Ironman" with a handy cam and selling bootlegs - there's OBVIOUS injury and damage there to the copyright holder (and other than getting a bad copy before you can buy it for $5-15 bucks when released on DVD, WHY would you buy the stupid bootleg???). Maybe stupidity should be outlawed...

I understand the concept of a copyright holder needing to protect their rights under current law, and I suppose that "logically" leads to suing granny for grandaughter downloading a few dozen songs on her computer... but doesn't that in the end BACKFIRE?? Anyone notice how loved the RIAA is?? And how the "music biz" has been in the dumps??

There's LOGIC, and then there's COMMON SENSE... One is practised by lawyers and academics, the other by the rest of the population who would just like to "get along"... living, having reasonable rights and pursuing happiness. Not to mention being able to have their favorite song on a special video of their special day, or being able to buy a copy of their favorite movie or song for a reasonable price...

As a practical matter, there are constitutional issues when law makes one a criminal for no apparent reason... eventually this will have to be addressed, no doubt.

My suggestion for a simple contract clause, and what Steve mentioned (Creative Commons licensing) addresses the problem directly and practically for the content creator in the meantime.

A copyright holder should have the right to deny use if he wishes (protect his private property), license it for free under certain circumstances (allowing fair and reasonable use and enjoyment to others, with credit to the copyright holder), and charge a reasonable fee for use where appropriate (rent/lease/sell/license a specific right for a specific use/purpose).

Obviously a copyright holder gets NOTHING from unreasonably withholding their "work" from others (or suing someone for reasonable use), and has little incentive to do so, BUT also has a vested interest in protecting their property and profiting from it. You CAN'T be a "popular" artist if you won't let anyone see or enjoy your work!!

The challenge here is BALANCE. I've met people who think they have "the next big thing", but are so blinded by the potential $$, they choke it off before it even has a chance...

In this case we have a valuable service (videography) which may or may not be breaking the law, but even the question creates a serious choke point (witness the frequent copyright threads here). Unlike the "everything should be free" types, we're addressing the day to day mechanics of dealing with IP that may be captured by our cameras/recording equipment while shooting video, and it's a bloody mess, or at least potentially is, if someone gets their nose out of joint and hires a sleazy attorney to make their point.

Good discussion, now if we can just figure out the answer and contact our representatives... getting back to life, etc.!

The problem is that people always think it's about rights, or money, or legal things - making a copy for your own personal use is fine? Is it?

I went to a show, as a member of the audience, paying to get in. It was in aid of somebody who had died in tragic circumstances. One segment was some poetry, read by a young girl to some sad background music. The trouble for me was it was MY music. Ten years before I produced a one-off video promo for a piece of satellite kit. The customer was one of the Omani Ruling Family, and this gadget was destined to be stuck in a plant room, in a rack - but GOLD PLATED. The manufacturer commissioned me to produce 3.30 of sad music, which I did and was paid for.

I have no idea how this music was even heard by the organisers. If I'd been asked, I would have gladly given permission, but I expect they didn't even know the source or composer.

The entire point is that if you use music, shoot peoples performances etc - you are stealing their 'ownership and control' of their product.

The idea that it is ok for just yourself to have, makes no difference at all. It was mine, somebody took my property without my permission. Maybe, as in this case, I wouldn't have minded - BUT it's my call - and taking it away from me as if it doesn't matter stinks

Finding an obscure track, and using it is easy. Shooting some video of something interesting is easy too, but what about if it accidentally contains other peoples property - we cannot have a system that says we can do things sometimes, but not others because it's a good cause, or will only be used privately. We have to say no, but offer solutions - awkward as they may be.

There isn't any difference. YOU'RE not doing anything that might violate copyright or the publishers contract with the school by hiring a videographer to shoot it for you but HE might be in violation by accepting your offer of employment. The person that has to worry is the person with the camera, not the person buying his product.

I see your point, but I still disagree in the sense that I think it is "over-protection" of the property. I think protection of IP should cover the realm of the public market, not private domain.

I just don't see the harm if someone purchases your song, thus paying you, and then decides to edit the highlights of their wedding to it for viewing within their own home. I don't think they should have the right to take your work, change it, and then present or market it publicly without your permission. I also don't think you should have the right to prevent them from using your work in the privacy of their own home in whatever way they want.

Exactly, then. There is no difference in the end result of the two, so it makes no sense that one option is legal and the other is illegal. The law is broken.

And he does, right now and without any change to the law required. What people object to are the copyright holders who insist on either withholding permission altogther or who refuse to make their licenses available at what those who want to use the material consider a "reasonable" fee. But "reasonable" is subject to personal interpretation - if I held the copyright on the recording of this week's number 1 single, I might think $50000 for a sync/master license would be reasonable. If I were a videographer who wanted to use it in an event video, I might think $10 is reasonable. Who gets to decide? In our capitalist system the ultimate arbiter of "reasonable" is the owner of the property - everyone else's choice is limited to either paying the price demanded or going elsewhere with their business.

But isn't that exactly what someone who provides a service of making videos for other people, whether as a business or as a hobby, is doing? He's not distributing thousands of copies, true enough, but the process is exactly what you just described whether it's one copy or a thousand.

Still, the problem is that Joe Smith can film his own wedding and edit the footage to a song for his personal amusement and is not violating the law. But if Joe Smith recognizes that he is not good with a camera and doesn't know how to edit, and he pays someone to do the EXACT SAME THING for the EXACT SAME USAGE, then the person he pays is now in violation of the law.

I'm sorry, but that is just stupid.

So I wonder for people who submit their wedding videos for international competition, how do they deal with music copyright issues.. Do they acquire usage rights to the video right before submitting the video?

I have two parties that are interested in having me film their wedding and from what I have read here, I think that if I decide to do so I would be breaking the law to do a simple video with some backround music and give that to the bride and groom for a nominal fee for my time.

If I decline the offer they will get someone else to do the same thing. This is a major delima. No one want's to break the law or copy someone else's work but just a small video with limited copies wow! something to think about.
I must assume that most all wedding videographers are in non compliance?

Maybe just blur out everyone but the bride and groom and play a fiddle for backround and call it good. Probably won't get much work though.

All I'm going to say is that I highly doubt they acquire all of the proper rights.

There are a lot of ways you can provide good music legally. Stock library music doesn't sound like elevator music any more and you can get royalty-free performances of things like the classic Wedding March, etc, in a lot of buy-out or needle-drop libraries. Packages like SonicFire can help. But it's true it would be difficult - for all practical purposes impossible - to legally use the couple's choice of popular music. All of the workarounds that some people advocate from time to time, things like having the couple buy CDs of the music they want, are more akin to urban legend than legal fact. You are correct - it is a major dilemma.

Travis,
My beef is that we have gotten to a point where Joe Smith cannot even legally tape his OWN wedding because he will be capturing some music at some point that he does not own. If he does do it legally and provide all of the music from his own personal collection, then any one else who tapes it is commiting a crime.

I don't think it should be that difficult to define personal use. As absolutley incredible works of art that my wedding videos are, I don't think any one other than the personal friends and relatives of the bride and groom would possibly be interested in acquiring one! The same goes for the Jr. High play, Nobody other than the relatives of these kids would be interested in watching it.
If I hired professional actors, made a movie and distributed it, it would be fairly obvious that it was not for the actors "personal" use.

Mark G

I couldn't agree more. I think the difference between commercial use and personal use could be defined more clearly and simply, and it would eliminate 95% of the problem situations.

And that is exactly why the rules will change, probably sooner than most think.

The inability to negotiate cost for simple music use in wedding videos etc., that are never made a legal contest, and other simple uses that do not generate large incomes for the videographer and private persons, will cause the rules to change.

Sonny Bono (Sonny & Cher), an artist and musician who was married to Cher and who became a US representative to congress, for those who don't remember, played a major part in extending the copyright laws and making it so technical that you probably can't get permission to use the music that you would like. Companies like Disney and such were the major beneficiaries of these new laws that Bono proposed and got passed.

I do not want to argue the laws that are on the books now, but I will say that they will change sooner rather than later. Funny thing is, I don't have a real concern in this issue. I don't take other peoples music and use them. I do have my own royalty free libraries and use them. BUT, I don't do wedding videos, where the client wants his current favorite music as the background. I pity those who do have those clients. You have to, and will continue to use their music in their videos. I support your use for this purpose.

The internet, digital production, easy access, etc. will change the laws,,,,,,,,,,for the better in my opinion.

So, now I await Chris's deletion of my post. But, for those who subscribe, you will get it before it will be deleted! :) I understand business, but I still think that this is a legitimate forum topic. After all, most produce videos with music content.

Mike

It's a very legitimate topic, as it affects any event/wedding videographer... "incidental" music is almost guaranteed, and intentional music is often expected... so since no one really wants to be a criminal, it's natural to examine the practical aspects of the question.

I think the most unique and legally supportable argument is that an event that can be privately taped for a limited audience by anyone in attendance at that event (this excludes sports events/concerts/paid theater, etc. by definition, as most have contracts for video/TV or no taping allowed) should be an automatic exemption for a videographer, who is really just being asked to record the event for the private party & perhaps for the convenience of the attendees.

The private party who is determining "distribution and marketing" is hiring a camera operator and an editor, and IF there is any potential liability, it should lie with them - probably a need for a fair use exemption or a "reasonable fee" of some sort there as well... but if we're talking about a limited not for profit event...

The grey area is where somehow that event becomes of more widespread interest or value... but how often does THAT happen??

If event/wedding video has a flaw as a business, it's that "repeat customers" are few and far between (at least you'd like to hope so), and the end product has a shorter lifespan than a fruitfly, except for maybe a handful of people who will watch it more than once. The likelyhood it will surpass sales of even the worst box office bomb is virtually nil. The "value" of any infringement is probably next to nothing in practical terms, thus why we are all scratching our heads!

The "commercial" value is in the recording and editing of the event for those few people, not in distribution of someone else's copyrighted work by any stretch of the imagination. With the cost of technology coming down, you increasingly must compete with "free" unless you've got some chops, there's not a lot of room for a legal team to go negotiate clearances... and yet there is demand for someone better than Uncle Bob... and maybe a familiar tune... so what to do...?

IP law has some major challenges/changes ahead to address the realities of the digital media age - no one could have envisioned the revolution that is still underway, and it's probably on par with the "industrial revolution"...

One unique aspect of law, it can and does change and adapt over time, usually because of needed changes and concerned citizens making enough noise to get someone to pen a bill and tack it on the back end of a budget measure or something <wink> - probably how Sonny Bono got it through...

The key is in figuring out a way to keep the wheels of commerce turning at least somewhat smoothly in the meantime, which ultimately should create profit for ALL the legitimate business people... but that would be common sense. Law and sausages are somewhat different.

If the clients were simply hiring a camera operator, you'd turn the raw footage over to them at the end of the shoot, receive your cheque and be on your way. But that's not what's happening - you're producing a finished program for them, a customized version to be sure but you're really in the same position as the creative producer of every program being broadcast. You, not the client, are responsible for the content. And you're doing it for a fee. The event may be non-profit but your personal involvement in the event is definitely for profit - unless it's your immediate family or circle of friends, you wouldn't be there if you weren't getting paid. So the wedding and event videographer is just like any other retail vendor. As a producer of an event video who assmbles a video program to sell to their client, the process and your role in it is really not much different from one who assembles an commercial to sell to an advertising client or a dramatic program to sell to a broadcaster. The music for the soundtrack is really a material component of the retail product you're selling - and what you are selling is, in part, a copy of the music. Taking it from your (or your client's) collection of CDs and syncing it to the video, is really not much different from selecting tracks off of your CDs and creating a music compilation disk which then you proceed to sell. In both cases you are using the music to create a product which you then sell to a retail customer.

I doubt there are any cases where someone has gotten in hot water because their personal videos contain unlicensed tracks. But video done for a retail client is a different animal - now what you do as a producer is different only in scale from what Sony Music or Jerry Bruckheimer does. The fact that your production is for your client's personal use doesn't mean that it's for YOUR personal use, you're still a producer and manufacturer of media content for retail sale.

Steve,

I don't believe that anyone is arguing the law itself or if it is indeed illegal to use someone else's music in a wedding video, of course it is. But, how much would it hurt the wedding video industry if most quit doing it. They would go out of business, as someone else would do it for the client. You are an attorney, if my memory serves me correct, and you know what you are talking about with regard to the law.

What we are saying is that the current laws have become antiquated for this day and age, with the internet and digital downloads etc.. Just like we can still find a few cities that still have those, "5mph speed limit in town for Horseless Carriages." Are those laws being enforced?

Times have changed and the laws will eventually change too. Hang in there everybody.

Mike

Nope, I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV, let's correct that right now!!! <grin> Just voicing knowledge gained over my many, many years in the business world (since the time Jonah was a deckhand).

I think it would be great in the music industry were to adopt some sort of simple, low cost licensing scheme similar to what our friends in Australia have. Alas, they apparently don't see it as being in their interests to do so and until they change their minds there's not much we can do about it if we're uncomfortable being skofflaws. It's not an issue for me personally because I don't have any interest in operating a retail business and I don't envy those peers for whom its a choice of breaking the law or losing business.

Gee, sorry for the demotion!!! :) I mean it, I really am!

Exactly right on the simple system change. I actuality, I think that the artists would make much more money. Right now they get nothing most of the time.

We just bought the rights to Jack Lawrence's "If I Didn't Care," for use in our up coming feature film. We are not using it in the movie itself, just in a teaser that is making the rounds of some festivals. It is in fact to be shown at the G.I. Film Festival this weekend in Washington, DC.. We went through the long process and paid lawyers and reps and I bet in the end he actually sees very little of the $3,500.00 we paid. The system is very out of wack!

Hang in the scofflaws!!!!!! ;)

Mike

Getting back to the original events of this thread, plays and musicals are licensed for live performance only. No other rights are granted, and recording of rehearsals and performances are strictly and specifically forbidden. Intended use of a recording is not even an issue. Producers enter into this agreement every single day.

Theatrical performance is, by its very nature, ephemeral. And it is ephemeral by design. Artistic works invariably invite unfavorable comparison to some degree when converted to another medium ("The book was sooo much better than the movie...!"). Thus a recording of a play will never be able to accurately replicate the experience of live theatre.

In part, playwrights and their licensing agencies invoke the "no recording" clauses to protect undiscerning viewers (none of whom frequent these forums) from unfairly judging the quality of their work.

If uncle Joe sees a video of his nephew in a poorly taped production of a play, he is not likely to patronize any production of that play, judging it to be a poor play when it may have been merely a poorly recorded production. (Bad audio is the worst culprit here.) The longevity of the play's marketability may be reduced prematurely, reducing the royalties the playwright receives over time.

Unfair? Perhaps. Antiquated? Maybe. And whether uncle Joe frequents the theatre at all is of no consequence in the grand scheme of things.

I used to tour with a children's theatre company, and we performed all original works. Our company invited the use of cameras (no flash) and video cameras at our performances. We realized that many people would want a memento of the event, so our agreement with presenters allowed it. But when a presenter produces a play that is otherwise protected he is not at liberty to decide whether recording is allowable or not.

At the end of the day, our opinions of existing laws are meaningless. If we want to affect change, we should contact our congresspersons to see about changing the laws. But it is already tremendously difficult for the originating artists to protect their interests and receive proper credit/compensation. Whether we like it or not we are living in an increasingly selfish society that wants what it wants, and does not want to pay for it if they don't absolutely have to. We think the laws should be protect our specific way of thinking with little to no regard for their original intentions.

The laws regarding copyright are nebulous. Change will not come easily, nor will it be quick. It will likely mutate from time to time, and it may do so to the favor of videographers. But it may not. Nowhere in our constitution does it say that all laws must be likable!

Odd question time ...

I wonder if it would be considered illegal for someone to pay a video professional to tell them how to edit/shoot a personal project that involved copywrited music?

Excellent review of the situation and I agree on all points!

My opinion is that I doubt it. What the law prohibits is the act of copying - it doesn't make communicatiing knowledge of the process illegal (although some aspects of the DMCA come awfully damn close to doing that).

Mike -

If he even saw anything, I'd be surprised... your own statement clarifies where the money went - it's the "hangers on" that attach themselves to every sucessful artists' "gravy train". That's how many "artists" with huge "gross incomes" end up BROKE - all those layers of "friends and associates" often soak up all the $$$!

Frank -

EXCELLENT post, from "the other side" - and you make some good points! I think getting Uncle Joe interested in theater AT ALL might be in the interest of the copyright holder <wink>, and if it takes a video "starring" his nephew or whatever to do it, well, that SHOULD be a good thing. Point taken as to BAD video work though, there's a reason "community access" and amateur productions aren't usually worth the time to watch... and I can see where that "devalues" the original work to a degree. I know I wouldn't watch my kid's play unless he was in it <wink>! I'd be a lousy "customer", as I probably wouldn't buy the DVD either! But my wife would buy one to send to the grandparents, and she would appreciate that it was reasonably well done <wink>.



Steve -

Here's where I am thinking a bit differently - let's take the film industry analogy...

The PRODUCER is the guy who takes all the different bits, contracts them out and in the end expects a completed production... that's the client, but on a much larger scale. Does Spielberg, Bruckheimer, or Lucas "do it all", nope, but are they the ones who would be sued should someone on the "crew" make a mistake?? You betcha!

Camera op, editor, music co-ordinator, soundtrack composer, etc, etc are all working FOR the producer. They get paid for their expertise/services, but they ultimately answer to the PRODUCER.

I know that small productions often turn the whole ball of cheese over to "the video guy" either in or out of house, but they also initiate the project, typically set the general stage for the end product, probably specify their expectations (including music), work creatively with "the video guy", and ultimately have to "sign off" on the end product.

And it's the PRODUCER who usually has someone handle clearances, it's a whole separate area of expertise, and I doubt you'd ever have someone in "legal" behind a camera or an edit suite...

Semantics to be sure, and there are many "fine lines", but perhaps if one is careful to follow that model, and make 100% clear that it is the client who is the PRODUCER of the event/video thereof and responsible for any copyright/clearance issues, you'd at least have a strong legal argument that you were hired to shoot/edit, NOT to be a legal expert...

Again there is a grey area, since the video guy "may" know more about the copyright issues than the client and in theory could be held liable for "knowing" the client did not have proper clearances... but if it's in the contract that "client is responsible for procuring any required copyright clearances", that's a lot harder to sell for a slick attorney trying to find some "deep pockets" to dig into.

Remember one thing about the legal industry... generally they can't make any money prosecuting "small fry" cases. And lawyers have to eat TOO. MOST of them do that legally and ethically, it's the other ones that you have to be careful to not give any ammunition! Since I'm guessing that 99.9% of wedding "productions" use copyrighted music without getting clearances, and it would be pretty nasty to be seen prosecuting such "infringement", there's probably a relatively safe area if your contracts are set up right.

Like anything else in business, structure things properly and you at least reduce your exposure.


To steer this back to the original question of the thread... I think that the school or event co-ordinator or whatever is actually thinking much as I've stated above - they don't want the liability as the "producer" and so they choose to avoid the risk... and that starts to clarify it for me as to why they are skittish!! And unless you as "the video guy" want to take on all the clearances and legal stuff (thus YOU quite probably become the producer), that's probably where it gets left. Shoot the event as a private party for your personal use and leave it at that...

If you're "hired", make sure your contract specifies that the client, not you is the producer and responsible for any copyright clearances on any materials they provide, and they must provide those materials... unless you use your stock library or original compositions, which you can offer...


The line becomes - IF you are the producer, you are liable for the infringement, if you are "the videographer" and clearly specify that clearances are the responsibility of the client/producer, you should be relatively safe.

I know this may not "fit" the model of many videographers, and it doesn't "fit" with either the OP scenario or the one I put forward (as the videographer was contemplating initiating the "production", not the "client"), but it clarifies the "legal issues" somewhat, even if it doesn't answer the question directly - why should a videotape of an event that anyone can shoot for themselves become "infringement" when a professional videographer records it? Because you're "profiting" per se, but isn't the video a "derivative work" that every parent in the room COULD create for themselves??

THAT is where the copyright law is antiquated - technology has jumped to the point where ANYONE can be a content producer. Then there are "rights" to be sorted out!

I know these threads can be convoluted, but I sure did find this one HELPFUL! Now I've got some ways to approach future "productions" without fear of being a criminal!!

Not sure I understand the question... if you're being paid to "teach", video production techniques, I suppose you'd touch on copyright issues, but it would be pretty low on the list...

If it's truly a personal "not for profit" project and they provide the copyrighted music/material I'd argue for "fair use". Technically they are simply playing back music they have the rights to in another "format" - this is the digital age challenge - a "recording" can be on 8 track, cassette, vinyl, 1/4" tape, a computer hard drive, an MP3 player, a flash memory stick, a CD, a DVD, etc. etc. Digital allows for a Pandora's box of "reproduction"!

Traditionally I think adding music to video is defined as "sync rights", and as that visual addition can add to or subtract from the original work, there's certainly an interest in the original creator protecting their "baby". I don't think too many artists want their catchy ditty attached to a porn video...

But if someone "purchases" in one format and then syncs to video so as to play back that SAME CONTENT in a different format to add to their personal enjoyment (even if it sucks), I THINK that qualifies as a reasonable use of their licensed/purchased material - now as soon as you distribute it publically(like over YouToob) or sell it... a whole different legal question <wink>!