Yes, it would be just as much a problem as the original. It is perfectly legal to record a cover of a song once it has been released by another artist, of course with payment of the proper licensing & royalty fees. The Harry Fox Agency in New York is the primary licensing agent in the US and their website is a wealth of information on the matter of mechanical and compulsary licensing. The music is still covered by the original copyrights and you're still required to get the same synch licenses from the publisher to use it in your video production - the fact that a cover has been recorded by other than the original artist doesn't change that. Remember that the music - meaning the words and musical notes - has one set of copyrights and a recording of a song has an additional set of copyrights. If you want to use the words and music to "My Heart Will Go On" you must obtain a license from that copyright owner, usually the publisher. But that DOES NOT give you the right to use an existing recording of it, only to use the words and music. If you were recording it yourself you'd be good to go. But if you want to use Celine Dion's recording of it, you must ALSO get a master use license from the record label that owns the copyright to that specific recording. So you use your karaoke version legally, you need to get a synch license to the music from its publisher and a master use license to the specific recording from the whoever owns the copyright to the recording on the karaoke site.

I agree with the other posters that it should be possible for small users such as wedding and corporate videographers, low-budget indy filmmakers, documentary producers acting in the general public interest, etc, to have access to some sort of affordable rights management provisions in the law so as to allow the use of music they need. For now, the legal and financial requirements to use music in a video are the same whether you're Joe's Wedding Video Emporium over in West Bugtussle or Warner's clearing music for George Lucas' latest release. Something to consider - for it to EVER happen that rights management evolves the music industry must come on board. If they perceive that the people who want to use their property are a bunch of thieves and pirates who'll keep ripping them off anyway, they'll dig their feet in and never allow it to happen - remember the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules." The small-user community needs to establish their credibility with the big boys as fellow media professionals who are just as concerned about the sanctity of intellectual property as they are and are seeking to reach an accomodation to their mutual benefit. That means that JWVE (Joe's ...) needs to be just as rigorous about staying legal as are NBC, CNN, or Fox. As soon as you accept a cheque for your work, you're playing in the major leagues and need to play by major league rules the same as if you were a mainstream Hollywood professional. Something to think about.

Steve....
Thanks for the input... Wow, you've really done your homework on this subject. I believe the general population of us might be over our heads. I know that I am.
I knew 100% when asking the question that chances are that it would still be illegal. I was looking at it like this. When you drive around town most people know if they drive 5mph over the speed limit, chances are that they wont be getting pulled over. It's still illegal, but not like driving 20mph over the limit. So my thought using a re-recorded version by a cover = over... using the original = 20mph over. Wow... after re-reading that it sounds terrible...

Letter of the law aside, to me it's a simple ethical issue. We owe our brother and sister professionals respect for their work and for their right to be compensated for their efforts. We don't have the right to advance our own careers by usurping the fruits of theirs even if we are usually able to get away with it. It's an issue of doing the right thing even when you don't have to.

so if a bride wants a particular song on her video - what's the answer? can I have her purchase the song or album and 'make a copy" for her use on the video?

If I purchase the song from itunes can I use it for that one instance of a wedding DVD?

re
 

so who actually uses music in their wedding that they got off a soundtrack or download???

or is that something no one will admit to

I see that you are in Australia and you're lucky because there is a limited use licensing scheme there that make it viable and affordable for Oz producers. In North America it's another matter. ...

The short answer is no and no. The purchase of a CD or an iTunes downloads does not convey the right to copy it or "re-purpose" it by synching it to video images. Essentially buying a CD or an iTunes download gives the purchaser the right to listen to it .... period. Nothing else. And while there are exceptions that allow the owner of a CD to personally make limited copies for backup or to rip it to their computer or iPod for their personal use and the iTunes license allows you to burn an audio CD of your downloads for your personal listening, using it in a video soundtrack for any purpose is definitely NOT included in those exceptions.

In answer to your first question, the only legal way that bride can have a song of her choice in the video is for you to contact the music publisher and license the use of the words and melody with a sync license and then contact the record label that released the recording and obtain a master use license for the specific recording you want to use (and of course paying whatever license fees they demand). That is the ONLY way to legally do it.

There are no legal workarounds or backdoors ... period.

Thanks Steve - I checked out APRA/AMCOS and the rate appears to be reasonable, I'll give them a call to clarify exactly what's covered.

They even have a rate for films produced for festivals only!

I feel this is somewhat relevant to the discussion, since a lot of the talk has been about the RIAA and music labels suing "housewives" and other people allegedly involved in the p2p music scene. The labels have decided to drop their strategy of suing individual downloaders of music. Instead, they'll start going after ISPs and working deals to cut off or restrict internet access to offenders. This is a whole new ballgame, ladies and gents. We're not in Kansas anymore...

Article here: Music Industry to Abandon Mass Suits - WSJ.com

What does this mean to people like us that use music? I'm not sure. But it seems interesting that the lawsuit game is being abandoned. It seems to me that the main focus of the issue of copyright infringement is not to go after small-time producers (yet) but to focus on the people that download and therefore do not purchase music for private listening.

I'll echo what some others have mentioned in this thread: it's mutually beneficial for the record labels to work out some type of deal with small-time producers like us. We serve our customer's wants by using a popular song, and the record company gets exposure and (very little) compensation for the use in a wedding DVD that will be distributed to a whopping 10 or so people.

If anyone hears of any lobbying group or nonprofit that's willing to work on something like this, I'm all ears. Seems like WEVA or another trade group would be perfect to approach the record labels.

I think it's worthy of note that music downloading is not a parallel to the use of commercial music in wedding and event videography, it's the music uploading that is the equivalent copying and subsequent distribution of the copies. And nothing I've read indicates that the RIAA is going soft on the uploaders - my reading is that they're narrowing their focus to better concentrate on them.

I too am perplexed at the resounding silence of the professional organizations in the wedding video industry and their lack of approach to the music industry. It's not just the labels, it's also the publishers that need to be involved, BTW. The publisher licenses the words and music, the label licenses a specific recording of a particular artist's performance of those words and music. A limited use licensing scheme such as that in Australia, administered through a central clearing house in the same way ASCAP and BMI administer broadcast and performance licensing and royalty distribution, makes immanently good sense to me. You pay your $500 or $1000 or $2500 per year and get a blanket license to use music as incidental music in wedding and event videos whose distribution is limited to no more than, say, 10 copies per production distributed only for private personal use and not used for broadcast or other commercial purposes. Or you report quarterly on the cues you use and how many copies of the production have been distributed where and pay a royalty accordingly. Seems to make perfect sense to me. But the music industry won't do it on their own initiative - why should they, what's their incentive? The initiative has to come from the videographers who establish themselves as a full fledged professional guild and establish their credibility to be on a par with other media production professionals who can then approach the likes of the RIAA, ASCAP, etc as fully the equals of all of the other interest groups in the broad umbrella of media and entertainment oriented industries.

Myspace or other websites to to view local artists is a great way to find good music without having to worry about licensing fees. Just send them a message asking for their permission to use their songs if you put them in the credits. most are thrilled to be used for such things. It may take a while to find some good stuff, but at least it's not the cheesy royalty free music from most places that don't even have lyrics.

Royalty-free music doesn't have to be cheesy - that went out with grade-school filmstrips. Think Mendelson's classic 'Wedding March' from "A Midsummer Night's Dream," performed and recorded by the London Philharmonic, would be considered cheesy? Well, you can license it on a royalty-free basis from DeWolffe if you have a mind to. Or for outstanding recordings of classical and original new music in a variety of genres, visit Magnatunes.com, also available for license at very reasonable rates and definitely NOT your cheesy elevator music. The problem is not finding good music, the problem is when the couple insists on using commercial recordings of their favourite songs by their favourite artists. Legally licensing a contemporary song such as you find on most radio station's playlist is gonna cost multiple kilobucks.

WOW! Your right steve, this site is awesome! Thanks for the input. Do you know of any other ones like this?