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?