Weddings & Music
 

I have just recently started a production company and will be doing some weddings while I am getting the company rolling. I have noticed many of the wedding "highlight reels" and "trailers" feature copyrighted music. Is this something that could possibly cause a legal issue? Or is it because the videos are made for home viewing that it falls into a gray area? Also if it is in the gray area what are the implications of posting a video with copyrighted material in your online portfolio?
Thank you for your input, it is greatly appreciated!

There's nothing gray about it. Using copyright-protected music in this fashion without the applicable licenses and/or permissions constitutes copyright infingement.

The rights protected by copyright in the U.S. include:

The right to make copies.
The right to prepare derivative works.
The right to publicly display.
The right to publicly perform.
The right to distribute.

What you're describing violates all of these rights and would constitute copyright infringement.

I'm currently in the process of re-editing both the highlight videos I've shot thus far so as not to include any copyright-protected music before I put it on my site. Not worth risking a lawsuit and losing your shiny new company over, no matter how small a fish you think you are.

Thanks for the info gentlemen, does anyone have a good source for inexpensive or free royalty free music?

I'm a big fan of StackTraxx from Digital Juice.

Unfortunately, 99% of wedding videographers use popular songs, so that's what all the brides expect.

It also gives an edge of danger to an otherwise pretty boring field...
Bill

I encourage all my competitors to use StackTraxx from Digital Juice.

It matches nicely with the poorly composed, out of focus footage and tacky template titles! :)

Just my 2 cents, since I've stayed out of every other copyright and music thread on here:

For my personally stuff I have decided not to use only music that I can obtain the rights to, rather from a royalty stock sites of friends who make music and are willing to donate some music. When I am editing for other's I'm sort of stuck using the music that is provided to me by them, since that pays the bills, but for my own weddings I am doing this because -

1) It's a bigger challenge as an editor. It forces me to use more audio from the day-off so I have to take extra care in making sure it's clear at the time it is being recorded. It forces me to think more in terms of storytelling than simply laying all usable clips on a timeline and sticking dissolves on them.

2) I want to be good enough that brides and grooms want me to do the job because I am good at it, and hire me despite their favourite songs not being included on the DVD. It's the same deal as price: you don't want your clients to book you because you're cheap, you want to be good enough that they think, "We need to find the money to hire this guy." I don't want someone to hire me because I'll put any song they want in the edit, I want them to hire me because they like the way I tell the story of their day.

The disadvantage, of course, is that everyone else is using whatever music the client wants.

So, we'll see how that goes, but in my case I value the security of knowing that I won't have any video with music that I'm not supposed to use online where anyone can see it. I guess everyone just has to evaluate their - and I don't know quite the term to use here - risk tolerance - and do what they feel is right. Just as long as we don't kid ourselves with the standard excuses ("I bought the song from iTunes so the artist is getting paid anyway," and "It's just for private use even though I posted it online to advertise my business") I certainly won't hold it against any other videographer.

The legality of using copyrighted music without either permission of the artist or paid consideration can't be argued, it's illegal. That being said, the general rule of thumb for years has been that if you're passing out a handful of wedding DVD's the FCC generally isn't going to look your way. That's not to say there haven't been cases of wedding guys getting busted, but they are few and far between and I've only heard it told as a "friend of an aunt who knows this guy" kinda thing.

When doing corporate jobs, and especially when doing broadcast work such as commercials avoid using copyrighted music at all cost. This is generally when you get in hot water.

Recently I've started questioning how smart it is of me to have samples up on my website because now it's out there and openly known that I'm using it in my weddings. Before the internet, the FCC would have had to go into someone's home and watched their wedding to find the offense, but now we're plastering our illegal use all over the place for any and all to see. I'm beginning to question my sanity on this one, but I don't want to lose the huge benefit of having samples of my work on the site.

I have to admit, I do lose sleep over this issue and it's always gnawing at the back of my brain, but my videos wouldn't be 1/4 of what they are without the music. If the FCC comes down on me, I lose my business which is my livelihood, and I could potentially lose much more. I don't wanna think about it anymore, pardon me while I go edit to another legally protected piece of music.

**EDIT**
I've often wondered where the heavy hitters, the Still Motions of the world are on this issue especially since they are pulling in larger sums of cash than a lot of the rest of us and therefore may be a bigger target for the FCC or whatever regulatory board is up in their neck of the woods. I know Patrick and the boys (and girls) use protected music like most of us, but how do they feel about the risks, and what steps if any do they take to insure against losing everything to a FCC shakedown. This thought isn't limited to Patrick but to anyone who is running a sizable event biz and practicing in the dirty little secret of wedding videos.

It's not the FCC that get's involved, nor any law enforcement agency (FBI warning on rental videos not withstanding), at least not until it's to the level of selling bootleg copies at retail. (Got a great deal on a genuine Rofex watch if you're interested!) Copyright infringment is a civil action and it is the owners of the copyright or their agents (such as RIAA or ASCAP/BMI, etc) that (might) take action by suing in civil court when infringment is discovered. Remember just a few months ago when Prince sued the housewife who posted a YouTube video of her toddler dancing in the kitchen to one of his songs? That's how it comes about. The major record labels and music publishers have entire legal staffs charged with searching out infringers and protecting their intellectual property. It may be an urban myth but I've heard tale of the couple who had a 1st anniversary party where they played their wedding video. One of their friends happened to bring a date to the party who in turn happened to be an IP lawyer working for the publisher of one of the songs on the video - guess who got an angry cease-and-desist letter by courier the next day? (Not the couple who insisted on the song, the videographer who created the video bears full legal responsibility for its content.) As I said, it may be an urban legend but it's certainly plausible. One thing is sure - using copyright music without license on one's web page advertising is definitely tickling the dragon's tail, inviting it to turn around and bite. Remember, IP legal aids can use Google to find your site just as easily as potential customers.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. It's still the same type of problem, just a new Boogie Man to be scared of. I'd always assumed it was the (mostly asleep at the switch) FCC, but now that you say it's IP Lawyers and the RIAA, well, that's even worse. Thanks.

*insert Family Guy FCC song here*

Check out the SmartSound library and the SonicFire Pro software that uses it. They have a vast amount of music in a variety of genres and the software makes it easy to edit the music so the tempo fits your picture's rhythm, the time exactly matches the length of your video segment, add hits and whooshes, etc, to generate a complete soundtrack "made to order." Typical cost is $15 per song for unlimited use buyout rights and you can preview all the pieces online before committing to buy. Another very reasonably priced library with high quality tracks is Magnatunes.

But wouldn't a lawsuit, like the Prince one, be "please stop", and if you stop, it ends there? You (or the website or whatever) would first get a "take down" notice I believe. You take it down, everything is ok. In the Prince/Housewife situation, it looks like she chose to fight back.

Jeff

Yes, a "cease-and-desist" demand letter is usually the first step. But that could include a demand for an audit of all of the videos you've produced and sold to clients with payment of royalties on all infringing works found in them. Far more practical to stay legal from the very beginning. Big or small, we all need to play by the rules of the profession, whether you're a casual wedding shooter out in West Bugtussle or 20th Century Fox releasing a hoped-for Christmas blockbuster. I have a problem with small businesses that try to say "We're too small to have to worry about copyright issues, environmental protection, worker safety, fair wage and labour practices (or what have you)." When you hang out your shingle as a working professional, even part-time, you've moved into a ballgame with more serious rules than confront the hobbyist.

I'd say that you're missing the huge distinction here, namely that she wasn't making money off her website. When money is involved it becomes a more serious issue.

The FCC at this time has nothing "or almost nothing" to do with what is broadcast musically over the internet. If you really want the rights to use someone's composition, you need a license with ASCAP and or BMI if you're using a composed song they are representing. To broadcast digitally over the internet, you'd also need a license with Sound Exchange as they represent the publisher and band of the recording being used via digital broadcast.

I've had a "live band" website for 3 years and since I do all the recording, hence am my own publisher. My only licensing needs are with ASCAP and BMI. I sleep at night because I don't have to worry about the $150,000 potential lawsuit per song times the amount of runs.

To be truly legal to broadcast music over the internet, you'd need about $2000 a year for licensing fees.

When it comes to making and distributing copies of music via DVD, you'd need a mechanical license with the Harry Fox Agency www.harryfox.com I think it is somewhere in the range of $90 per song but you may want to check further into that.

I think I'd rather pay $180 to have two songs on a photo montage/highlight video than risk the Copyright Royalty Board breathing down my neck via the various royalty agents with busted noses showing up at my door.

It's confusing but maybe I can help someone out with this as I learned the hard way (threat by royalty company to be sued for millions)

but isn't the client's responsibility for the copyrighted music who owns the DVDs and not the videographer? after all the various film clips that are posted on the Internet (especially You Tube) belong to the owner of the DVDs, maybe the bride and groom.

Stelios

This reasoning only works if it's the client who edits the footage. If you (the videographer/production guy) edit the footage to copyrighted music then that's on you, not the B&G. It's the production company's responsibility to know the law and avoid breaking it, not the client, just as it's any other professional's responsibility to know the regulations of their profession.

Again, the differentiation between using that music for a wedding video and some random video you just toss up on youtube is that you've gotten paid to do the wedding video. It's generally when money is involved when you draw the ire of lawyers & regulators.

Nope - it's the producer of the completed work who is responsible. If you created the finished program, you're 100% personally responsible for the legality of all of its content. Your client insists you include infringing content such as unlicensed music and it's discovered and the copyright owner chooses to take action, your client is not liable, you are, and there's no contract or waiver you have them sign that would shift the legal responsibility from you over to them. Only if your role as wedding videographer were to be strictly that of a camera operator, shooting the ceremony and reception and handing over the tapes of raw footage to the couple at the end of the day, would that argument apply.

Not quite true - it is just as illegal to give away copies as it is to sell them. It is the act of copying and distribution that is the infringment, not what you do with the copy later. None of the people the RIAA have sued were selling the copies they made - they were just posting them where people could download them for free. Copy a CD you own to take with you when traveling, no problem. But give a copy to your buddy for Christmas, you're broken the law. True, commercial uses such as including copyright music in a wedding video are more likely to be discovered, but the commercial use is not the main issue.

Mechanicals still don't convery the right to incorporate music into the soundtrack of a film or video production. For that you need a sync license from the publisher to use to the music and a usually a master use license from the record label if you're using an existing recording. Mechanicals refer to reproducing audio recordings for distribution as audio recordings.

ASCAP and BMI licenses are performance licenses - playing the music publically or broadcasting it. Whole different ballgame from recording it or incorporating it into a soundtrack.

I wasn't saying it was legal, just less likely to land you in hot water.

I've been wondering recently about dancing at the reception - I usually shoot several dances, and obviously that's to copy protected music. Should we be concerned about recording that?

no.

(I have to type more here cause that response wasn't long enough)

Maybe so, maybe not. The issue of "incidental music" is still undecided, with some cases going one way and some going the other. If you shoot the couple dancing, the music is a material part of the scene. OTOH, if you're shooting a "congratulations to the couple" interview sort of shot with a guest during the dancing and music just happens to be audible in the background that's something else again. As I understand it (IANAL and I'm no expert) strictly speaking the first use would require clearance but the second would probably slip by as incidental and not need to be licensed.

Yep, you got me on that one...the sync license. I've dealt mostly with compositions and digital transmissions over the Internet during the last three years so the sync license is yet another headache to 'sync' my head into.

Any idea of the costs of master use and a sync license? Time involved? My licenses with ASCAP and BMI aren't too bad until it comes time to report plays and money figures. Both take a percentage of the gross regardless of a profit or loss. Reporting plays can be time consuming until a proper procedure is in place to track the plays.

Is there anyone out there who can assist with all of this and make it easier to be legal? Instead of each videographer having to do the paperwork every time a new client walks in the door?

Will the client be willing to absorb the costs for legal use of music or will it cause them to be turned away from hiring a videographer?

A quick Google on "Music Clearance" or "Music Rights Clearance" and simiilar search terms turns up a wealth of information and a number of firms that specialize in obtaining clearances, Unlike ASCAP/BMI performance rights or mechanicals which are essentially standardized rates, synch and master recording rights are whatever the market and the whim of the owner dictates.

I'm sorry, I can't give you any specifics, but traditionally the use of "popular" music is very expensive. We're talking in the multiple thousands of dollars for a sync license, per song. That's why the topic is taboo in the wedding industry because there is no way it's feasible to use that music and be legal.

I would think that if you're concerned with the legality of the music you use that you would want to search out a few good stock music libraries. From what I've read of your posts, that really seems to be your best bet.

To legally use the type of music you hear on the radio or can purchase on iTunes will simply cost too much money. Ask yourself, why is it that I hear that type of music on national TV ad's and not local. The answer is that the national ad's have a very large budget to be able to pay for the sync license. The same basic rules that apply to that type of production would also apply to your wedding videos. No, the wedding isn't broadcast, but many of the same rules apply.

I'm sure someone else can chime in here and give you more concrete examples of what I've outlined, and I'm sure someone else can chime in and argue over semantics, but rest assured, obtaining a sync license for a wedding video would cost you thousands of dollars per song. You want to use some nice popular music in your video? It ain't gonna happen, not legally anyway.

You know guys, no composer, singer or musician is going to go bankrupt just because you use his music in one wedding DVD; on the other hand we do him a favour using his music on our wedding videos. I never worry about these "copyright" thing when I put music on my videos.

Stelios

My word of advice... duck!

" I never worry about these "copyright" thing when I put music on my videos."

It will only take one music executive to see this crap, get pissed off, and have their people to start cruising video sites and fining people huge sums of money.

They fine housewives and teenagers, you don't think they will come after professionals who do it? It is easier to find videographers who break the law than to find people who illegally share downloads.

Did someone say in a previous post that we are doing the artists a favor? What a joke. Be serious. Like they need their music on our videos?

This topic is tired and worn out. This has been covered ad nauseum over and over on this board.

Many do it but it is illegal no matter how you slice it. If sharing music amongst others on the net is illegal, doesn't it make sense that using it in a wedding video is illegal as well?

To publish comments in a public forum that justify as to why it is OK is pure stupid.

It is illegal. Leave it at that. If you choose to do it anyway, please don't talk about it on this board.

The Solution?
 

This could be the Solution for use of copy right music

https://www.zoomlicense.com/

I agree with Ethan DUCK. lol

And what about your ethical obligation to a fellow creative professional to respect the sanctity of his labour? You make your living creating video, they make their living creating music. Neither of you earn a living if you don't get paid for your work by those who use it. Would a broadcast network who aired one of your tapes in a commercial that made them money without offering you payment or credit be doing you a favour? Do not unto others as you would not want them to do to you. Is it okay to steal a car just because the dealer won't go bankrupt from only one theft?

Steve
You are right what you are saying, but the main problem with the music industry, is not me buying one cd and using one track of this cd for a wedding video; the problem is for the thousands or millions of illegal downloads who pay nothing . These are the guys that the music industry is worried about.

Stelios

As a mayor of New York once said, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. You're no different from the downloaders....correction, you're no different from one of the people who POST to make the tunes available for download, far more serious than merely doiwnloading.

OK Steve if you put it that way, I suppose you are right. It's just what I thought about it but you convinced me that I was wrong and I apologise for insinuating that it's right to use other people work without paying for it. Sorry again for that. and Jeff it was stupid for me putting these crazy ideas on this board in any case. It won't happen again.

Stelios

and of course I just noticed that you are NOT posting from the US. so you have an entirely different set of national rules which, in most cases, work in your favor. Licensing music for use in video productions tends to be easier pretty much anywhere outside of the US, thanks to us living under the rules written by the music industry for the music industry's benefit.

Good point Jason. Stelios you have to remember here in the US they have taken houswives and teenagers to court and fined them huge sums of money for downloading music, as Jason alludes to.

I believe it is only a matter of time before the video world gets hit. the music companies are not having it good now...the artists may be doing fine, as you say, but the music companies are having a very tough time.

I've been following this subject very closely since it was posted. I always do my best to follow by the rules, but wow... It's sometimes hard to do.
Anyways, what about using a song from a karaoke website? A lot of the songs that you can purchase have been redone by other artist's and even include light vocals. Would this still be wrong to use. Or maybe raise less eyebrows then the original tracks?

In my opinion, it would be beneficial for both sides to figure out a way to use a blanket policy that would cover video production companies, especially those who specialize in weddings. I know the logistics are a nightmare, but if you could pay a fee of say $2,000 - $5,000 a year for a blanket policy and be legally covered to use the music your clients actually want in their videos, it would be worth it. You could cover the expense with one wedding video.

Perhaps there would be some criteria you would have to meet, such as gross sales would have to be under $500,000 and if they go above you have to pay a higher fee or something to that effect.

I've never felt right about using copyright music on a video that you are getting paid to do. But like many others, I have felt the need to do it to keep clients happy. If the music industry decides to clean house at some point and start suing everyone think of all the companies that could end up in their crosshairs. Will they do this, maybe not. Just depends on how desperate they are to get additional revenue streams.

But as artists, it does reflect poorly on us when we do it. Think of it this way. If you found out a band had used some footage you shot in one of their music videos, and they didn't offer to pay you for it or even acknowledge it is your footage, you'd be upset. It's a tricky issue.

I feel exactly the same way, even down to the payment policy you laid out, but was too lazy to type everything out. Thanks for articulating it for me.