This has been the defense of the Microsoft Anti-trust lawsuit. Apparently the law only mentioned phone, electricity and no mention of Operating Systems/Computers with regards to monopoly. We all know how it went.

Oops, sorry... didn't mean to get you and Paul confused, Dave. (It was one of those days)

My problem is that with my luck, I would drop the rabbits foot as I tripped over a black cat under a ladder and fell into a mirror... which is why I asked.

I had thought of this idea a few months back, but your scenarios reminded me of it. Since most of these laws seem to be written with, and aimed at, the idea of public display or mass distribution, I didn't know if simply buying enough copies for a very limited distribution for private viewing would satisfy the copyright (i.e. "media shifting") provided it never makes it to Youtube. Since a lawyer with copyright knowledge was on this thread, figured I should probably ask. I think I may wait for Paul to chime in before I attempt something like that (see my answer above about my luck)... with the full understanding that any answer Paul may give on an internet board probably wouldn't constitute "legal advice" in a court of law. ("But your honor, some guy claiming to be a lawyer on the internet said I could...!")

J.J., I believe your were very fortunate that you were involved with the musician directly who in the end showed that he wanted to be reasonable even though he was obviously irritated at what you did. I suspect you would have had a much more difficult time if you were dealing with the attorney for the estate of a deceased musician. I imagine some of these attorneys would be heartless. They aren't paid to be understanding; they are paid to grub as much money for the estate as possible.

I also remember reading somewhere that Australia has some type of fee structure for using commercial music. I'm no expert on the matter so don't take my word as gospel.

This idea hit me after lunch today, would it be possible (and legal) for me, doing business in the United States to incorporate my business in either Canada or Australia, pay the fees to legally use this music in my productions and sell them in the States? I figure that type of thing would get complicated and might get pricey with tax structures and whatnot but would it be legal?

Probably not for all materials, but I suppose myb it depends what it's for & how your distributing it. If you shoot a movie, use it. No, you wouldn't likely be able to sell it in America because you'd violate distribution terms. If you shoot a commercial... right out. It couldn't air in broadcast TV. If you shot a wedding, that took place in Canada, and was edited in Canada, I suppose that's a fine line but my guess is anything violating US copyright infringement cannot be be imported nor shipped thru customs (Granted, a few wedding dvd's would surely make it thru). The point of sale would likely need to take place in Canada. I can't really think of any instances where it could be tolerated or considered much of a slippery slope.


PS. Blackhurst I'm a pretty big fan of the band, well the original band, and had to laugh at your comment about "if you infringe on a song no one even cares about, is it still infringement?". That pretty much summed up that last album.

YouTube - Don't Cry (gnr reunion version)

Dance and cheer competitions are likely also breaking the law in a similar fashion. Not only are they playing licensed music to an audience without permission, but they often hire videographers who sell DVDs of the performances to the dancers, or even put clips of the performances online. Many also prohibit personal photography and videography, which is frustrating especially when none of the photos are of my child, or the video is SD and simply a static, wide-angle shot of the entire stage. I think the next time I'm told I can't video my own child's performance, I'll ask them about their music licensing... ;)

Noel -
Not sure the connection other than... the law can swing any way, and you don't want to be in the path... and I guess what you're saying is that one of the problem of laws written in one "technological era" often don't contemplate "future tech", and thus have to be re-tried with a "new" set of "facts", despite obvious similarities (thus my commentary on the high cost of "proving" what would appear on the surface to be common sense). Much of copyright code (the actual legislated law, not the judicially decided case law) uses the reference to "phonographic reproduction", i.e. vinyl records, if memory serves... can you say "out of touch"?

Ethan -
Most typically, you would be in Court in the jurisdiction you do business, or where the contract was executed, so not very likely international licenses or incorporation would be of any help... unless you've got a multinational video business, and even there the general rule is "when in Rome" - you have to follow the local rules/customs/laws.

Jim -
You are correct that JJ was very lucky. I think we can all understand the artist not being too happy to have been "ripped off" - that's a bad feeling, period, I'd be ticked off too, fortunately JJ was a gentleman and found the same. Even if JJ "borrowed" the tunes because he thought the were awesome, he should have asked and gotten permission - in this case he was lucky when he asked forgiveness (there are still decent people out there, and we all make mistakes, a little understanding goes a long way). It's just common decency to respect other people's property, even when that property is "intellectual" and encapsulated in 1's ands 0's.

As you note, when attorneys show up to the party, things can get a lot more complicated and perhaps ugly. Not ALL attorneys are money grubbing, but SOME are, and it's not a place to play the odds. There are a fair number of "bad operators" in any industry, and attorneys have far more latittude to do things the average citizen can't do or would consider repugnant - it's an unfortunate requirement to a "guilty until proven innocent" legal system.


David -
I too was a fan "in the day" - grew up and was in the LA music business/scene in the 80's-90's. It's scary when you realize that your music tastes are now "classic"... and what the kids all listen to is "garbage"... ouch. And as a friend of mine once commented while walking around at the National Association of Music Merchants show... there's a time when you need to hang up the spandex... PLEASE...

Oh boy - "event video", a whole other can of worms... and we thought wedding videographers were the only "criminals"...

I've shot a couple of events for friends, and after looking at the mess of clearance issues, would probably decline or only shoot as a "friend". Also looked into shooting school plays (would be doing it anyway for MY kids), as a fund raiser for the school in tight times...

Too many potential legal issues, and while I felt they could be addressed, educators and event promoters typically know absolutely nothing about the legal issues, and if they do they know only enough to be scared of running afoul of some crazy parent or "ambulance chaser" type...

I can guarantee you'll freak them out royally when you ask about licensing <wink>!

ULTIMATELY, right or wrong doesn't REALLY matter squat in a court of law: it's who can afford to litigate the longest. (The words of my former sister-in-law, a lawyer)

I didn't figure my idea would fly, just tossing it out there.

Yes, no and maybe.

Yes, because you don't have the rights to 'sync' the music with video.

No, because it's perfectly legal for you to purchase music and give it away (provided you aren't keeping copies for yourself).

Maybe, because if you're making a copy of the music, even if you're destroying the original, it could be considered illegal simply because you're making a copy. It's splitting hairs at that point, though.

No, no, a thousand times no!

17 U.S.C. § 106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Copyright law is most definitely NOT limited to the idea of public display or mass distribution.

Oy. There's so much wrong with this. Where to begin? ;)

First, buying copies does NOT give you any right to use the underlying work for any purpose whatsoever. All you get are rights in the physical copies, and those rights are limited to what is provided by license and/or rights that are not reserved to the copyright owner in Section 106, above. First Sale Doctrine says that you can give your legally-acquired copy away, you can rent it, you can loan it, you can sell it, or you can destory it. You have absolutely no right to either copy it, prepare derivative works or distribute the derivative works. These are rights that exclusively reserved to the copyright owner.

Second, "media shifting" applies to Fair Use analysis. "Media shifting," per se, is not authorized at law, except with respect to the very limited circumstances identified in the Audio Home Recording Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1008. For point of reference, here it is:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

As you see it does not remotely address commercial wedding videography.

Fair Use is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107. It provides four non-dispositive factors that are considered in determining whether a given use is a fair use. I've discussed fair use before, but the important thing you have to know is this: fair use is a [b]defense[b] to copyright infringement. This means that whether a given use is a fair use will be determined in the context of a trial for copyright infringement. Now, there are certain uses in which it is settled law that use in a specific context is fair use. THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM. To my knowledge, wedding video usage has never been litigated. Now, my personal view (NOT my legal opinion) is that wedding video use SHOULD be fair use. However, until someone gets sued, the case is litigated and then appealed and the Circuit Court of Appeal finds it to be fair use and THEN at least a couple of other Circuit Courts of Appeal make the same finding in other cases, it is not settled law.

So, I hope you have the $300-400,000 it costs to defend a copyright infringement if you want to go down this road (or, alternatively, I hope my employers consent to my pro bono representation of you in this matter AND you have the cash to cover non-fee related costs).

Consider me to have chimed. ;)

I never give legal advice here. Well, that's not true -- I have on very, very rare occasion done so and, usually, it's along the lines of, "Here's my legal advice: consult a competent lawyer immediately and stop talking about what happened on internet websites." I'm usually pretty comfortable with that. ;)

Fair use is an equitable doctrine. As such its application cannot be limited by legislation. Attempts by Congress to codify fair use are completely illegitimate and are resisted aggressively by the judiciary.

to those with a legalistic frame of mind: US Supreme Court 1994 - majority opinion - obiter dicta 2 Live vs Roy Orbison (Pretty Woman)

FWIW - by the time the decision came down all the albums were recalled and the offending track had been removed at enormous expense, because even their own attorneys were advising 2LC that the case was hopeless.

Sorry, but that's absolutely incorrect. Fair Use remains an equitable doctrine because the intent of Congress in codifying it was not to supplant it but to clarify it. Congress is completely within its powers under the Commerce Clause, as well as the Article I, Section 8 authorization for copyright, to address copyright in any way in which it chooses -- equitable doctrines are most certainly not "out of bounds."

So what you're saying is... I couldn't legally do that? ;)

Thanks for chiming in. Just thought I would ask. Looks like I'll be sticking with royalty free stuff (I have no desire to be the industry guinea pig...). And I appreciate the *very* thorough answer.

I've learned more in this thread than I did in all of high school and college regarding copyright, infringement, and just about most everything else.

Sad, and oh so true... Right and wrong as most of us understand it disappear at the courtroom door, and as Paul points out, access to the Courts, while originally intended to be open to all, is a lofty thing financially - and the deeper pockets have a distinct advantage...


Paul -
A couple thoughts - while the copyright holder retains all rights, and is really only licensing the use of the IP, I believe it's been upheld that a legitimate purchaser MAY copy (for backup purposes at the least) or shift the media container of that IP for non-commercial personal use, without it being an infringement. The only flaw I see here is in "sync" of the IP with another work. It's the re-combination of the audio track with the images in a "derivative work" that in theory crosses the line, despite it being legal to play the audio while playing the video on two separate devices (mechanical sync if you will).

The one phrase that I see sticking out is "noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings" - and this raises the problematic question of "if the consumer can do it for themselves, at what point does it become illegal for someone to do it for them as (part of) a service"... I know the Kinko's case puts a kink in that line of reasoning, but the Carterphone example to me pushes it the other way...

I guess one could always mix the video to the audio, deliver a mixdown to the customer with basic instructions to use iMovie or Movie maker to combine with their choice of music - that wouldn't be illegal...

True .. but good luck selling that to brides. d;-)

Glad to hear it. The final will be next week. ;)

That's not correct, at least as far as I know. 17 U.S.C. § 117 provides for making backups of computer programs. As I've already mentioned, the AHRA prohibits infringement actions for copying audio for personal use. There are other provisions that allow libraries to make archival copies. There is no statutory authorization for making back-ups or for media-shifting. There have been cases that have found media shifting, e.g. CD to mp3, fair use.

Not exactly. Combining a pre-recorded audio track with a visual work results in a derivative work. There's no express provision for a "sync right" in the statute. It is the right to prepare derivative works that is implicated.

That's right.

What makes you think the consumer can do it themselves? The AHRA applies to copies of audio recordings, not to preparation of derivative works.

It might be contributory infringement.

You might as well have sold some drugs to cops in a police station! lol :-D
Delete the video off your site, deny deny deny or change your email, web-site, business name and run. They might just decide to make an example out of you, look at that poor woman they sued for over one million dollars! They're insane.

Paul - perhaps I can rephrase that in a way that we can both agree.

The codification of fair use within the Act cannot be taken as imposing any restrictions on judges deliberating whether a particular use is Fair Use or not. So no-one can say "that's not Fair Use because it's not listed".

The only reason that there is no specific provision relating to professional wedding videos and copyright music is because no lawyer, musician, music publisher or copyright owner has ever filed suit. There are just too many hungry attorneys out there desperate to stand up in a high profile court case and argue that a bride has the right to professional video of her first dance. That could lead to a show on Court TV. Yes Sony Worldwide Music Monolith might win $500, but they won't do it twice.

But, IMHO, wedding videographers have taken too much advantage. The Fair Use provision for Professional Wedding Video, if it is ever written, is not going to read "anyone describing themselves as a wedding videographer can ignore copyright law".

Look at what the Documentary Film Makers at the Center for Media Studies have done with their "Best Practices for Documentary Film Makers in Fair Use". They get together with a bunch of IP attorneys and law school professors and develop a set of codes and best practices. This document has no legal standing whatsoever. But any filmmaker who follows those practices can be fairly confident that:

1. he/she will find it relatively easy to get A-list pro-bono legal help
2. any judgement will be for proven damages only. There will be no penalty damages because he/she acted in good faith according to the codes and practices of the industry.

Why don't the Wedding Video trade groups follow that route? What would a "Best Fair Use Guidelines for wedding videographers" look like?

That's not quite correct. The codification of fair use in the statute provides a compulsory guideline for judicial analysis. However, judges are afforded discretion in the weight given to each factor, nor are the four factors listed comprehensive. It is reversable error if a judge fails to consider the statutory factors, but solely within to the discretion of the court as to whether any listed factor or combination of factors is or is not dispositive, as well as whether other factors should be considered as well, i.e. a judge can't simply ignore the statute but, similarly, it is within the judge's discretion to find other factors compelling provided that he has considered the statutory factors. Accordingly, a judge who decides a fair use case predicated solely upon a First Amendment analysis, without at least considering effect on the market for the original, etc., has committed error. The significance of fair use remaining an equitable doctrine is that lay people (or, for that matter, lawyers who don't practice in this area) will, inevitably, come up with the wrong answer if they attempt to analyze a fair use question solely with reference to the plain language of the statute.

I'll clarify that: there has been no reported case. There's no easy way to determine whether a suit has ever been filed addressing use of copyright-protected music for a wedding video. District court decisions are reported only if the editors of the official reporters decide the case is of sufficient interest. All appellate decisions are published except those that the Circuit Court of Appeal determines aren't appropriate for publication. Usually, the IP reporters will pick up copyright cases that aren't reported in the official reporters. However, without examining the docket for each and every district court in the U.S., there's no way to tell whether anyone has ever sued or been sued on this fact pattern.

And that's the point -- a wedding video fair use matter wouldn't be a high-profile case. There are plenty of hungry attorneys, but darn few hungry IP attorneys -- though, in California, I'm not allowed to use the term, IP litigation is a "specialty," and not something that is or should be attempted by commercial litigators. Moreover, no one will defend a case on contingency -- there's no money to be made. I'm willing to do one of these pro bono because of my interest in video. How many other lawyers not only post in this forum, but also avidly follow the substantive forums on dvinfo.net? ;)

I got kicked out of AFTRA for non-payment of dues a long time ago.

If Sony Worldwide Music Monolith sued and won, it will be considerably more than $500. Statutory damages range up to $250,000 PLUS court costs PLUS attorneys fees.

You're looking at it backwards. There's not going to be a statutory "wedding videographer exception" in the Copyright Act (at least, not unless a Senator finds out that he can't get the dream wedding video of his daughter's wedding because the videographer refuses to use the bride's favorite Manilow CD as a soundtrack). Instead, what will happen is a wedding videographer will get sued, a court will do a fair use analysis and find that particular fact pattern to be fair use. If I was arguing the case, I'd analogize to news reporting and focus on the lack of harm to the market for the original. If the videographer prevailed AND the case was reported, the lawyer for the next videographer who gets a cease-and-desist letter will, at least, have a case to cite in the responsive letter. By the time a few of these have been litigated in different jurisdictions, and a couple of them get appealed and upheld, a doctrine will emerge which will be fairly reliable.

Not quite. It is, for all intents and purposes, a treatise and, like any treatise, is considered persuasive, i.e. it can be cited in litigation though, of course, it is not binding in any way on the court.

I've previously done pro bono work on a different fair use issue for a documentary film maker. However, most law firms are going to consider documentary film-making an important First Amendment activity. I don't think they will regard wedding videography the same way.

Copyright plaintiffs may elect between statutory damages and actual damages. With respect to wedding videography it would be insane for a plaintiff to elect actual damages. Moreover, merely citing the Best Practices document does not establish good faith, though it would certainly be suggestive of it. The only absolute guarantee that you won't be held liable for intentional infringement is if you get a formal non-infringement opinion letter from competent IP counsel. Even then, the letter only constitutes prima facie proof of lack of intent to infringe. As with any proof, a preponderance of evidence that rebuts the inference will overcome the presumption and you can still be found to have infringed intentionally.

I've repeatedly asked why WEVA doesn't lobby Congress for a compulsory license. I don't know what that organization does but it seems to me that use of music in this fashion is a critical concern to the industry. I can't imagine why WEVA wouldn't involve itself in this issue.

If I understand the now-resolved dilemma, the OP used a recording of a musical composition in a wedding trailer. What if the composition had been performed live at the actual wedding? Is there a potential copyright infringement in that situation?

Short answer: yes, but . . .

This has been discussed here a number of times, including in this thread. Do a search on "incidental reproduction."

Paul - ignoring the legal fine print everything I said stands - including $500 damages - which may be too high.

There are no statutory damages for non-criminal copyright infringement.

(fine print - there is a clause in the DMCA which purports to make extracting material from a copy-protected device a criminal offence whether or not the material extracted was copyrighted.)

Doug, I don't know where you're getting your information, but you are simply mistaken.

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(a) In General.— Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either—

(1) the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

. . .

(c) Statutory Damages.—

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

§ 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney’s fees

In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

Okay?

you are referring to cases of criminal copyright infringement - even then the statutory minimum is $200 - $750 not $250,000.

Prior to 2006 the criterion for criminal liability for copyright offences was that it caused loss or damage of over $7,000 to the copyright owner. In 2006 this sum was reduced to $800.

The notion that you can face a $250,000 fine for copying a VHS tape and giving it to a friend is complete poppycock.

Paul - leaving aside the legalistic gobbledegook do you really believe that the artist in JJ's case could have sued him for $250,000?

To me that suggestion is completely absurd - as long as JJ acted contrite and reasonable $500 tops. The real damage would be to his reputation, self-esteem and peace of mind.

No, I am not. Criminal copyright is addressed in 17 U.S.C. § 506.

Given your spelling of "offence," I have to ask -- are you referring to UK law? If so, I have no opinion at all. You are, however, completely wrong with respect to U.S. law.

Doug, I have no intention of arguing with you. I've cited the applicable statutes -- you can look them up if you like, but I've reproduced them verbatim here. I'm an attorney who practices in this area and what I've said is the law is the law.

Plain yes or no please:

If the musician who JJ mentions had come to you and suggested he wanted to sue JJ could you in all conscience given him any assurance that he would be likely to get anywhere near $250,000?

Yes or no?

What don't you understand about this:

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(a) In General.— Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either—

(1) the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

I can't answer that without knowing an awful lot more about the facts of the dispute. It's also an irrelevant question because I always tell plaintiffs the same thing: "Don't regard an infringement action as a profit center. If the value of the right at issue is worth more than the cost of litigation, then sue. Otherwise, don't."

Attorneys don't provide assurance of a recovery.

Your point, evidently, is that even if JJ got sued, the plaintiff wouldn't receive a huge damage award.

Maybe. Maybe not. There's no way I could predict, at this stage, what a judge or jury would do. I can tell you, however, that your assessment of potential liability is completely wrong, your assessment of fair use doctrine is completely wrong, and, apparently, you have no idea of the costs of defending a copyright infringement action.

I will tell you this. Based on the very limited facts recited by JJ, I would tell a prospective plaintiff that this set of facts presents a very straight-forward case of copyright infringement.

I'll also say this. I'm revising my offer to try to represent any wedding videographer who is sued for this on a pro bono basis. I reserve the right to reject anyone as a client. I will never represent a client who thinks they know the law better than I do.

You have no more business advising anyone on dvinfo.net about the law than I have advising them about which pro camera to buy. Don't do it.

Woman Fined $1.9 Million for Downloading 24 Songs

Look here, this woman was fined 1.9 million just for downloading songs... she didn't even use them for a video or distribute them... just illegally downloaded them!

Doug -
Simply put, law is by nature worded in ways oftentimes unintelligible - Paul is sharing very openly what the law states - it's helpful for those who "think" there's a yes or no answer - with law there is almost NEVER a yes or no answer!!! Even if there WAS today, a cock-eyed decision could change that TOMORROW... because the representing attorney was not an expert in the area and got sandbagged.

I think everyone here agrees that JJ infringed (even JJ, who was most heartily sorry for his error, and things worked out OK).

Whether a suit could have been brought is simple - YES, people can and will sue over the stupidest of things, like a pair of pants lost at a dry cleaners... and the costs to ANY litigant are extreme and place great risk to ANY litigant, win or lose, unless they have very carefully protected themselves in advance (business structure, etc.). This is why everyone here on the forum was holding their breath for JJ... and relieved when it became apparent that human kindness and courtesy prevailed.


Paul's point is not whether the litigant COULD recover (keep in mind a "judgement" might not be recoverable, but is a judgement nonetheless, meaning it could ruin the defendant for a long time), just that under the statutory scheme (which is designed to provide punitive effects against gross violators, but has no protections for the "little guy" who screws up), the provision is there to for the IP holder to ASK for the maximum damages provided by law. If the defendant walks into Court with an attitude or is guilty of such gross violations (think 150 yr sentence for Madoff), the IP holder very well might get it.

A wise attorney would evaluate the potential damages, the precedent value (which may be far larger than any monetary "win"), and the costs involved. BUT... if you cross a "deep pockets" IP holder or one who wants to set a precedent and sees an "easy mark", good luck, you'll be broke long before you "win" even if you're 100% right... and there ARE attorneys who will glady bill as long as the foolish client will pay to get their way, long after the economics fail to justify the litigation. If you know any unreasonable people, you'll realize they can access the Courts too... if they have the $$.

The danger zone here is that most WV types aren't filthy rich, and they would be "defending", meaning that there's no "easy out" if the other side wants to make an example.

Paul is trying to make clear the risks, for those who will take wise counsel. If you are having trouble understanding the code sections, don't feel bad, most would be in the same boat, and it should serve to make abundantly clear that the issues here aren't simple or "easy", nor answered in one word... such is "law".

And there's the "make an example"...

The way I see it, if it is a well known artist chances are they are well to do, much much more than I am, so I have no problem using it.

I am also a musician and and spent many years playing live, recording and the like. I'd be honoured to have my music used on a video even more so to have it online where everyone could see it. Its a form of promotion. DJ's use boot legged music, they admit downloading it, yadda yadda.

I do pay for music that I use and disagree with downloading it for free.

If a well known artist wanted to use my video for their own promotion I'd have no problem. It would give me some fantastic exposure. They should be greatful for their sucess.

Not everybody sees it the same way you do, David -- there are those who prefer to protect their copyright. The argument that "they're rich and therefore they can afford to let me use it for free" is a completely invalid one, sorry.

And downloading music has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread -- it seems as though some folks are confusing the act of uploading as synonymous with downloading. It is not. Uploading is redistribution, which quite a different thing from downloading.

Just so I'm clear, are you also okay with taking the well-to-do artist's car, too? ;)

I'm sure you're a good videographer. But what if the videographer in question is not? As a musician, would you want your music providing the soundtrack for a truly lousy commercial video project? Or worse, what if it's the "perfect" song and suddenly, thousands of people are using it for their wedding, event and corporate videos? It's all over the place, on good videos and bad.

However, that is a moot point because the law is quite clear: copyright gives a monopoly interest in the reserved rights, save for fair uses (which wedding video might or might not be -- that's an open question at the moment).

How do you see using the music in a video as different?

Yes, but they're the well-known artist, and you're the not-so-well-known videographer. Of course you'd be thrilled. However, there is no quid pro quo for them if they do.

So you advocate a kind of intellectual property socialism, is that right? ;)

With many sources for LEGAL downloads for purely audio use, it would seem to me that some of those sources (Apple iTunes maybe?) might be a good place to start a "pull" campaign - let them know there's a demand for audio for use with limited distribution "personal" type videos, and currently no economic model providing it.

I should think if they know or even believe the demand is there, it would BECOME economically viable for a source of legal downloads to draft an "add on" agreement that the IP holders could opt in to - they would have a pretty good incentive to do so, and if one did it, it should quickly result in LOTS of available music without resorting to a Court battle royale? I would think the incentive to the artist, plus a cut to the download site would make the $$ signs start flashing here?

Obviously an additional add-on could be created for "uploaded" video - probably with a reciprocal link so anyone liking the audio track could go right to purchase it themselves - adding revenue to the IP holder, everyone wins. (I'd think that since JJ likes the artist, and he's such a good guy, any licensing JJ works out would run along those lines, so the artist makes more sales TOO!)


David, well... if you weren't in Oz, I'd drop by to "borrow" your widescreen and BluRay player later, OK? That is if you're a bit more well off than I... oh by the way where do you keep your root beer stash - I'm out...? Please, rethink what you're saying here, as it's not anywhere close to correct in any sense... it's just this sort of "justification" that is why things end up in Courts, because someone doesn't respect someone else's rights.


Paul - I think the question of having one's music track stuck on crappy video (or worse yet porn... you can see where this might go downhill fast) represents the one sticky situation in a limited A/V license. The only thing I would hope is that if such a license limited distribution to say 10-20 units, or multiple license purchases could go to say 100, an artist would have the reasonable assurance that any "damage" to their reputation would be limited... and offset by the aggregate licenses sold.

Uploaded video presents another challenge, but perhaps a system could be devised - would be a bugger to "enforce" for really popular songs though.

I see no way to control the QC of the derivative work. Then again they used to sell music on 8 track tape... didn't seem to hurt anything (other than the audio "quality")!

Which is why copyright is an exclusive right. I've told this story here before: I know some people who spent 4 years writing a musical adaptation of "Catcher in the Rye." Once it was finished, they sent it to J.D. Salinger. He replied that he liked it, it was excellent work, but his position was that he had realized his conception of the story as a novel and he would not allow it to be translated into other media. That is his right on undercopyright, and 4 years of work by two people was for nothing. You have to consider that some composers simply don't want their music used for wedding and/or event video.