dont know how many people do this, but it worked great.
 

Just got back from a wedding... For the first time I plugged my H2 digital recorder into the DJ's audio mixer... I was blown away with the results. Perfect audio all the way around.
I highly recommend this...

Not to open a can of worms, but if you/the editor use(s) that audio, aren't you going to have deal with a whole host of copyright issues?

No, you won't. It's legal to record any music played in public and use it in a video with the same music being played. Basically wedding is a document video about a couple and it happened that they had DJ playing this music for them that night - and it's all on tape - just in very high quality.

Let me ask you Stephan - how did you plug it in? What cabled did you need? How did you convince the DJ? I'm just curious how difficult is to do it?

I have recently been plugging in my iriver to the DJ's board as well.

Lukas it is best to course your request through the Bride, I don't think it should be a big deal with DJ.

Ahhh... I forgot about "the Boss". Everything said by her this day is like an order from a queen :-) Good idea :-)

Noel - which iRiver do u use?

I use the 890 & 790. I plug one to the DJ board & clip one to the Podium or the B & G depending on the sitiuation.

Noel... thanks for looking out. At the time I wasn't even planning on using the music recorded from my H2, just the audio from the intro, best man speeches, DJ... that kind of stuff. If it's legal though, I might rethink everything.

I used an XLR to mini jack cable. It's funny because the day before I went to the audio store and asked them what kind of cables would work best to plug into an audio mixer. They told me a RCA cable (red and white) to mini jack and a 1/4 audio jack to mini jack are the most common. Luckily the DJ had an XLR to mini jack cable for me to use...

I did approach the DJ very wary though. I didn't know how he would feel about it. I asked, and he practically bent of backwards for my request. He had the attitude "whatever makes me look better on camera" I'll do. I imagine that a lot of other DJ's would feel the same way.

Steve

I'll add to this....(although I've never shot for weddings)

I've shot with a Canon XL-1S for 7 years now, but in January I switched over to a new Sony EX3. With the Canon, every time I would connect the camera directly to a AV guys mixing board I would get a hum or buzz (60hz ground loop). It didn't matter whether the camera was plugged in to ac power, or running off a battery, I would always get a hum/buzz. The only way I could get rid of it was to lift the ground using a cheap 3-prong to 2-prong adaptor. These are NOT safe if you use wired mic's, but all the AV guys use wired mics now a days, so I got away with it.

With the EX3, I've now shot two events where I plugged into a AV mixing board, and in both cases....(drum roll please)....no hum or buzz. The first one the camera was plugged into ac power, and the second shoot I was running off battery.

Maybe it has something to do with the camera? Dunno....

I also like how I can adjust the audio input "trim" in the menu to perfectly match the output of the mixing board to the input of the camera.

tape out is safest - and that is almost always RCA. XLR out is fine as long as the DJ knows his board/mixer.

I prefer tape-out to wireless transmitter, and then every camera gets a receiver tuned to the same frequency on channel 1. A camera mic on channel 2. Safety in numbers.

Actually, that's an urban legend. Well, it probably hasn't achieved "legend" status yet, but it's not legal.

With what you are saying it would be illegal to record any music during the reception. And this doesn't make sense. What I'm saying, that recording better quality during the reception if fully legal as long as you use it for the same video. It is illegal to use the recording for other purposes/videos.

Why not go direct into your xlr inputs on your camera with a wireless mic?

When you shoot a wedding (and I do), 90% of what you shoot is illegal audio wise. From the processional music, to the prerecorded tracks that the singers sing to, to your synching anything in the video to the music. It is something you either have to circumvent or get over. The first dance is illegal to use even it is played by a band. And I cannot imagine a bride anywhere being ok with you leaving out her first dance song because there's technically a legal issue with using the music.
Back on topic, I love the H2 for this type of stuff. I tend to use it every wedding for either a feed from the board, or ambient of an instrumentalist or musician. It is a very cool little tool. I still use a wireless on the groom and an Iriver on the minister, but that H2 gets alot of play.
Bill

That's exactly what I'm saying. And whoever said the law has to make sense? Basically, as the laws exist in the United States today, wedding video is illegal.

When wedding video is outlawed, only outlaws will have wedding video. ;)

Also on topic - I have an H2 and it's one of the handiest recorders around.

That's what I figured. I didn't want to push, but it seemed like too easy of a loophole. Say, for instance, you're making a no-budget feature, and you just KNOW that this Rolling Stones song in a certain spot would make the scene. So you have a "party" outside and play the song on your sound system, and then jack your camera directly in and record, and use it in your movie, and that's okay? No, didn't think so.

If that seemed convoluted, I'm sure many of us would do it, if legal, to save the cost of paying quintillions of dollars to do it the normal way.

Oh yeah, why was all this relevant? It seems like if you're recording with your on cam mic or something similar and the music is thumping away in the background, sounding crappy as it is wont to do when recorded in such a manner, you'd be more likely to get away with it if any of the relevant parties (from my experience, the gentlemen who wrote/recorded "cupid shuffle" and "crank dat") ever heard/saw it, whereas if you have nice clean audio, you're just asking for it.

Seems like the problem is not with us doing the videos but with the law not being capable to handle such services. Maybe since it's a such a niche business they just simply don't bother with us (yet). I wish it was solved with simple solution like in other countries where you pay flat fee for any amount of music you want in your wedding vid.

I don't make the rules, I just enforce them.

Okay, I don't actually do that either. I just become aware of and depressed by them.

I believe there's a significant difference between "incidental" music while capturing an event (and just try to remove it from the audio...), and a "sound track/music video".

The first is probably legally defensable, the second not so much...

The first instance comes with the recording of the event (the REASON for the video in the first place), the second is a "production" deliberately scored to a specific music track... One is beyond the control of the camera operator, the second is under the complete control of the editor. I think that helps clarify the difference.

But if you're jacking directly into the sound system like that, isn't it likely your intent is to have quality-sounding music to edit the wedding video later?

That does present a "sticky wicket", but if all you are doing is capturing audio to be synced to the same live video, and the end product is not separable, I think it would be really hard for someone to come along and argue that the "audio track" isn't the same or comparable to the audio you captured with your camera, which was "incidental".

You are still capturing the "live event" to the best quality level you can for post mixdown, NOT creating a sound track/music video. There's a distinction there.

I say let the lawyers sort it out, and thank my lucky stars I never EDIT weddings, only occasionally shoot them.

If anyone is interested, this thread is a good read and includes good comments from our resident legal-types about incidental music: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/taking-ca...omic-book.html

This whole conversation makes me happy that I have only 3 weddings to do this season so far. All my other jobs are corporate gigs with legal music :-)

I think much of this has to do with the difference between documentary and cinematic approaches to Wedding Video.

Documenting an event for a limited market (the couple's family and maybe friends basically) is different from producing a documentary for broadcast (broadcast now effectively meaning putting the video up on a web site or video site where anyone can see it)

Where this gets a lot tougher is when you edit to a music track as seems to be quite common with "cinematic" WV production.

Think about it, a music track chosen and mixed to is an entirely different animal from "I was documenting the day, and some music was playing in the background".

One is an INTENTIONAL use and repurposing of copyrighted material (and not likely to be legally defensable should you be sued if you don't have some valid license to use the work), the other is "it was there while I was shooting, and there's no way to effectively edit it out".

IMO, that establishes what is referred to in legal circles as a "bright line" between
"incidental" and intentional infringement. That isn't to say that it would save your bacon in Court, but it's a "reasonable" interpretation. And I think it's advisable to be on the right side of that line to reduce the possibility that you'd land in trouble...

wow... my intent wasn't to start another "copyrighted music battle" :-)

but good information once again.

Given the number of wedding videographers in USA/Canada, should someone take lead & petition the music industry to give us a blanket permit similar to what the DJ's are getting? It's not like we are making tons of money a year but the sync license fee is really expensive. DJs only pay less than $ 200 a year if I am not mistaken.

My best guess is because they are actually doing the record companies a favor by playing their music. That's free advertising for them.

That's the difference between performance rights and sync rights. When the DJ finishes playing the song, it's done. He's only distributing it "through the air". When you capture or sync to a song, it's preserved forever on the DVD. So the two are not analogous. What would be analogous would be if the DJ recorded the evening's music and presented the CD to the couple as a remembrance. That would clearly be a violation of copyright.

WEVA is trying to take the lead in the US, to varying degrees of success.