Music License trouble... (stupid of me...)
 

So on twitter, I decided to follow one of my favorite composers, XXX XXXX (whom by the way, I used on majority of my wedding trailer) and that was the biggest and dumbest mistake that I have made in my life...
His assistant accepted the following on tweeter and decided to stop by my website where he discovered that 2 of my demo trailers, his music has been used. So he e-mailed me with "illegal music usage, let me know "exactly" how many songs you have used, cue timing, etc, and how much I charge my client for the video, etc, etc...."
I really wanted to shoot myself in the head when I was reading the e-mail...
I guess I am learning my lesson in very.. very.. hard way...

JJ

o my gosh.. I feel you man.. that must've hurt..

I mean.. in my personal personal personal opinion.. if I were the composer, I'd be very happy to know that my music is being used in weddings. Its not like people pay to play it on events and stuff... its a free advertising for them as well.. but yeah.. thats just me i guess.

Santo

Actually, I BELIEVE that "real" DJ's and such pay a BMI/ASCAP licensing fee that allows them to use copywritten music, just like bars do. Of course, are there "fly by night" DJ's with a laptop full of illegal downloaded music that don't pay fees? Hmmm....

Correct and, if they don't, the hall in which the wedding is held does.

From the legal perspective, if Muzzey is inclined to sue and discovers that, rather than taking down the material, it was simply moved somewhere else, the OP has incurred liability for intentional copyright infringement, for which the penalties are severe.

So would you film a wedding for anyone that wants it for free? Paying for it all out of your pocket, using your time, just so you can have free advertising?
The composer didn't create that music for free advertising... that's his product.
Music costs money and time to make.

I am in process of talking with his assistant and attorney for signing the contract of usage of his music with licensing fee. I have sent them my wedding price package and they will determine how much they would charge for my usage of his music.
His music has been used 3 of trailers and nowhere else which is usually 30 sec to one minute. The entire DVD is usually from 1.5 hours to 2. I guess it's important to them what' the portion of his music being used as to a whole project.
I mean, I am a musician myself and I do respect and admire very talented musicians/composers, like XXX XXXXX.
As long as music fee is reasonable, like American Music Co, and stock 20, I am willing to pay the cost. I have read some big thread about music licensing in this forum, but I didn't know it could actually hit me like this.. but then again, it's all my stupidity of deciding to follow Kerry's twitter...

JJ

No, but I wouldn't mind if I see my wedding film shown in someone's party because they think its a very cool stuff to be shown :) I'd be thrilled! of course I'd love to be paid for it, but I'm still happy if they just do whatever they like with it because they like what I do.

This is because I already got paid in the main job. which is the wedding day.

For composers, I think their main income is from album sales, itunes download, concerts, commercials, etc.

But then again, like I said, its a personal personal personal opinion.. :)

Santo

Just out of interest - did you credit him in the clip?

No, I wish I did.
I am thinking about doing that for my trailers from now on.
But then again, how many wedding videographer/video production service put the composer/musician name on their trailer or highlight? I know some do, but most of them don't, correct?

lucky for australians, we got a license that covers commercial music used in weddings...

US should provide this such license..

That's a big problem JJ. If you had credited him I doubt he would be taking this aggressive an attitude.

This is a very unfortunate trend in wedding video. Hunting out more obscure pieces of music which the client is unlikely to have heard. Creating highlights/montages where 90% of the impact is from the music and then by not crediting the artist effectively claiming 100% of the credit for yourself.

Of course you/I don't necessarily want to credit the artist, especially if we promote our work to other videographers, but succumbing to the temptation is flat out wrong and not just in the legal/technical sense.

Kudos for going public.

This is from his twitter update:

I get annoyed at unauthorized uses of my music, esp. becuz my attorney fees get a little outrageous.
about 1 hour ago from web

I just don't want anyone else to make same mistake that I made.
Who knew following someone in the twitter could get this much trouble...
I am very frustrated and a bit scared even... with this mass...
I don't mind credit the artist at all... OH I wish I had...


JJ

Thanks for weighing in Paul. Good to know that I haven't been misled.

I wish or hope Canada comes up with a similar license fee as Australia, I know Djs through AVLA pay a one year license fee. Would love to pay a one year fee. WEVA should start a campaign of some sort, I am sure thousands of videogs from the US and Canada would love to pay that fee.

J.J., I hope they don't charge you an extravagant amount ( I hope they base it on a certain percentage of what you charge).

So you wouldn't mind if someone took one of your videos (that you would have made on spec hoping to make money on sales of that video, not production) and used it to enhance the value of their product without compensation or even credit?

And licensing...
Musicians don't get paid to make music, they get paid to sell and license music.
Kind of like feature films.
Sorry, touchy subject for me.

OK, I'm wrong. Nicely put up there by Chris.

Somehow I pictured some guy making a wedding entertainment product and he uses my video without asking for permission.. that'll be quiet upsetting.

Santo

Just a little FYI: I was curious and went to hunt down this composer's Twitter page. I typed Kerry Muzzey Twitter into Google and this thread was on the first page of search results, about five or six results from the top.

Considering that you're currently still working out a deal and it's a rather sticky legal issue, it may be best to keep your frustration private, at the risk of what you write here being used against you.

Thank you for your info, Matthew. It does show up there...
I would like to keep it private, but I just wanted to share with fellow video professions at this forum because as simple thing as following someone in the twitter could cause such a big issue, others (and I) will think twice when they decided to do twitter and facebook in that matter.
But should I erased his name from my first thread??
I am going to do it anyway...

JJ

First, JJ, I'm really sorry to hear of your troubles. Considering how little we get paid to do what we do as it is, this has got to be very frustrating. I'm sorry, man.

Second, contrary to what Doug said, I seriously doubt that 'crediting' the composer would have made much of a difference in how they interacted with you. If they are willing to pay lawyers to try and get money out of a wedding videographer I seriously doubt they would do things differently if you had put the composers name on the piece.

Third, I would like to point out that there's a difference between using a composer's music in what amounts to a personal project for the couple ... and using someone's video to sell a product or services on a mass scale. I'm not justifying the legality, I'm just saying there is a difference between the two.

Fourth, how long is it going to be before the music industry gets it's act together and gives us a system that works? Seriously.

Lastly, I hope this thread doesn't hurt you JJ, and I appreciate you sharing your story. Very thoughtful of you.

But I have not made a single penny from the trailer yet, because all the trailers with his music has not been fully produced at DVD yet. They are still in editing process.
I can leave it out from full DVD and explain it to my brides and I am sure they will understand.
I am really nervous right now... (sigh)...

JJ

Travis - you doubt it would have made any difference? IMHO that is is the classic "get out". There is no point in behaving honorably because they will still go after you for maximum legal damages.

I think JJ knows only too well how much of a difference it would have made.

But perhaps we are wrong. How would you feel if I showed a clip of yours on my website without credit? Would it be different if I included your name, email and website?

Let's get real guys. In the battle between wedding videographers and the rest of the world wedding videographers are not always right.

I do feel for JJ - it's a painful experience, but not giving credit in circumstances where you stand to gain competitive advantage by assuming the credit yourself is flat wrong.

JJ - if this is the biggest mistake of your life the you must be very very young.

Travis - I checked yr work man. VERY nice!! I have some clients coming round in a few - so I've taken a couple of yr clips and put them on my site. Hope that's OK. I won't credit you if that's OK. But if they do explicitly ask who shot that clip I will give them your name. That way no-one can accuse me of dishonesty.

I will be 31 this October.
And yep, this one is the biggest one so far, but let's hope not... let's just hope this will work out OK...
The wedding DVDs with the trailer with his music has not been produced yet. All 3 of them are still in editing process and one of them has not been even started yet because the bride has not been submitted her music CD yet.
So really... I haven't made a single penny off his music yet if they want to investigate how much I have made with the trailer itself....
Urgh.. I just want this nightmare to end........
Funny, he is following me as well on Twitter...

JJ

I agree completely. Crediting music in this manner is no more nor less than a prima facie admission of intentional infringement.

Do not, for a moment, think that the primary reason people sue is to get money from the defendant. My advice to IP clients is always the same:

Do not think of an IP lawsuit as a profit center. There is a very simple calculus for determining whether or not to sue: if the cost of litigation is less than the value of the IP at issue, sue. If not, don't.

IP plaintiffs sue to vindicate the right at issue, not to make money. Valid reasons for suing include sending a message to other and potential infringers, get an easy win to hold up to other, more problematic, potential defendants, etc. My clients will routinely pick a "weak" defendant, i.e. one with few financial resources who provides a clear black-and-white case, to get an easy win that can be publicized.

I agree from the standpoint of logic and ethics, though it is worth emphasizing that, from the standpoint of the law, the are one and the same.

Answer: not until they stop making money from the existing system. I agree that a compulsory license such as that available in Australia (and, I think, Canada), is a simple solution that would work for everyone. I have, however, spoken with BMI's counsel about this and there is simply no interest on their part to push for such a scheme.

no JJ however this works out if this is the worst you're doing pretty good in my book. We make mistakes - we get suckered in to behaving dishonorably, because "everybody is doing it".

He is following you on Twitter? Maybe he reads this thread and decides you are a well-intentioned innocent, who has been brainwashed into thinking that because this is "Standard Industry Practice", it is OK. Now you have seen the error of your ways he goes easy on you.

No that couldn't happen.

Why is that do you think? I mean, from my perspective it takes care of the legal issues AND provides additional profit all at the same time. Even if the legal issue solution doesn't motivate them, I would think profits would. Is it that they don't believe they would make a profit off of such a system?

Hey all,

I read all the posts with great interest because I read the thread a bit a while ago about the discussion of using music as a DJ or in wedding videos.

I am confused by a few issues. I am hoping some of you can clear these up based on J.J.'s issues at hand. As he said..he used this guys music in a video trailer that is on his sight. He didn't credit the guy..ok.. but JJ isnt making money (yet) off of the videos. If I understand correctly, isn't JJ selling the video as part of his service for shooting the wedding video? Thus, there is only 1 person buying it? It's not like he's redistributing this guys music and making money off of it. So how much "license" can a song demand?

I ask this because, I have been wanting to get in to the wedding video business, but after reading this, I don't think I do now. This is insane. I agree a musician needs to make his money, and if J.J. Were selling his music on some site and profiting from it without permission, J.J. would be in a heap of trouble. That is mostly common sense. We see pirated DVDs, CDs, etc all over the place and we read about places that get caught and their owners go to jail.. etc etc.. but they are redistributing music possibly in quantities for profit with not even a penny going back to the original musicians and parties involved in the production of said music. That is illegal.. agree. But J.J is simply using his song in a video that he is "showing off" so while somebody can watch it.. it's not the full song and it's probably not even CD quality and it's not being sold.. so how the heck can he be charged any sort of nominal price for using a portion of the music in a non-profitable way? By that I mean..if this musician has lawyers involved (plural mind you), that's costing the guy a lot of money..probably a lot more than the money JJ was going to make off the whole wedding video service. It would be my guess that he would then try to sue JJ for at least the costs of his lawyers + some sort of cost for the use of the music. I don't know for sure how that works..but it's a guess.. why have lawyers looking into this one use of it and pay their astronomical fees if you don't plan to recoup the costs of their fees at least?

That said, now that I am also scared about thinking of going into this business.. how does one in the US of good o'l A license music for videos? I ask this primarily because I have no money and wanted to offer some free shoots/editings to get a portfolio going..but it sounds like I may get my house taken from me if I try to use any song at all without paying some license? I have read that there is a new site that offers music for wedding videos, events, etc at a low price.. forget how much it was per use, but it wasn't too bad. Naturally wedding people have to work that in to their prices. I would love it if someone could point me to some info on that so I can get a rough idea of what will be required to actually use any music I want in a video.

Incidentally..what about videos people post on YouTube and Facebook and such? If this guy can go after J.J for this.. why can't everyone on youtube and facebook be sued for posting videos with illegal music and such?

You wonder why people download mp3s.. it's because of this crap exactly. People are tired of paying $16 for a CD that costs less than $1 to make an distribute. This is why iTunes has done so well and frankly the music industry is in serious trouble.. even more so with the higher bandwidth internet to homes, more musicians doing it themselves because they don't want to wait for BMI and whoever else to try to sign them and take 90% of their profits, etc.

Sorry for the anger.. but this is just sickening how this happens. Lawyers have been tearing apart people's lives with all kinds of loopholes for decades now and our country is a damn sue happy country at any cost. This is just one more case where a musician could have taken a very professional approach and simply said "Hey, I notice you're using my music.. I like to be credited for it and I ask a nominal fee for use.." Bam. I am sure JJ would have obliged and everybody would be happy. If this guy is going to try to sue JJ, frankly I think his music career is going to have a rough ride. There are professional ways to handle things in small situations like this, I don't think involving lawyers right off is the right approach. Why not be professional, ask JJ for a little compensation that is fair and some credit. That would go a long way in bringing this guy more business. I for one would rather have seen JJ say "Hey guys..I got caught on twitter by a musician for using his music, but this guy was really professional.. asked me to credit him and pay a nominal fee for each use.. you guys should check out his site and music.. give him some business." To me..that would have been far better. But our country is no longer built on good morals like this.. everyone is out to make a buck and screw the next guy over.

Ugh.. JJ, I feel for you man.. this makes me angry just reading this. I am really sorry you're going through it. :( I hope it turns out ok.

Why? If you're going to use obscure music that the client has never heard, why not use legally obtained royalty free music from Stock20, Digital Juice, Free Play Music, et al?

This event reinforces my opinion that soon (very soon!) music publishers, composers and authors will use music fingerprinting software to crawl the web searching for infringing uses of their music, including in videos many of you have posted on your websites. Facebook and YouTube already do it, what makes you think others won't?

It doesn't matter how many copies or if it's being sold or given away. He used the music without permission. It doesn't matter if he only made a video for his dying grandmother.

You can purchase royalty-free music from stock20.com, digitaljuice.com, freeplaymusic.com and many others.

BTW, it gets worse. When you record and redistribute the bride's cousin singing "Endless Love" during the ceremony, you are violating copyright.

They don't get away with it. YouTube and Facebook have music fingerprinting software that will eventually sniff out your infringing video, remove it from the site, and alert the rights holder. Maybe those people are getting the shakedown from those music publishers, or maybe not. None of them have posted their experiences here.

That is what's happening. So chill out.

I think this would be great. Right now, we break copyright constantly because if we refuse to use the songs the couple wants, we don't get the job. So this topic gets hashed and bashed around over and over.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just all get to say to our clients "nope, can't do it. Here's a list of royalty free stuff from my library that I can use in your video. The music police have shut us all down."

Then we could just get on with it.

Actually.. you nailed it on the head for me. Thinking of going into this business.. this is the only way to go. Seriously. I don't know if it would make sense to have say a page on my company website that lists the hundreds if not thousands of songs (maybe with a nice search facility) so someone can check what songs they could be allowed in their wedding video. I do think as time goes on with all the issues going on with this, more and more musicians will sign up for the royalty free avenue as they'll have yet another outlet for money.

So..question then for Chris (or anyone who knows), what if the wedding client has purchased a CD of music that they want to use. Can I legally use that music in their wedding video since they purchased the music legally and the video is for them and nobody else? It would mean I can't show their video on my site, sure.. but could I legally use the music they purchased in their video? OR.. could I go out and buy a CD (or itunes music), and put it in their video for their use only? If so.. how does this apply to making copies of the DVDs for their friends/relatives? I am guessing that would NOT be allowed due to multiple distributes of the music without paying for it... hence what a royalty free license covers.

I haven't looked at the sites yet, but was is the average price for a single song royalty free to use? And.. if I myself pay for that song.. is it normally a one time use, or can I use it in anything I want from then on (or some duration probably the license covers)?

Thanks.

Kevin, do a search on the site. This topic has been discussed a million times and you'll get lots of info.

Cheers...

There was a huge thread about the music licensing issue a while back and there have been numbers of threads about this issue.
I started this thread just to share that twitter and facebook could very often be used against you... More on that subject than the actual music licensing.....
But, really, I want to thank you all for your advice and help.
Hopefully things will work out OK...

JJ

Copyright = the right to copy. Even if they have bought a hundred copies of the CD you still don't have the right to copy the song and sync it to video.

I often fantasize about Vito's idea of our industry collectively telling our clients, "Sorry, can't use that Madonna song." But as long as the majority of us are giving the option of using any song, licensed or not, it's a death sentence.

I often wonder how the higher priced studios with the most exposure get away with it. Uncle Bob with the handycam who charges $500 and does five weddings a year I can see flying under the radar, but I would think more companys that are featured on popular wedding websites and magazines, would be caught by now.

But I don't want to get off track so I'll zip it :)

Because that music is created on a computer, and it sounds like it. Nothing says 'cheese' more in a wedding video than music that sounds like it should be playing in an elevator somewhere.

Maybe some, but I've found several that work well with my corporate productions. I get lots of comments about my choice of music fitting perfectly with the video. But perhaps my ear is not as educated as yours. Laws be damned - we're in it for the art! :)

I use royalty-free stuff from places like Digital Juice for corporate projects, but wedding clients are a whole 'nother ball game. d;-)

I second Travis' comment. I use Stock 20 for most of my non-wedding client and they always loved it. It's the wedding clients that I can show 1000 songs to pick from my royalty free music library, and honestly, I have used some royalty free music for some weddings, but it is very very rare...
Still waiting from their attorney...

JJ

When I used to work in aerospace (my day job while I was a professional actor), we always had two reasons not to change something:

1. We've always done it this way.
2. We've never done it that way.

My expectation is that the copyright owners don't see wedding and event videography as a significant source of potential income. Though I think they wrong in this assessment, there's little I (or you) can do to change there minds. I do think that WEVA and similar organizations can and should lobby for this change. Perhaps you should ask them. ;)

Copyright law reserves to the copyright owner a number of protected rights. Among these are:

1. The right to make copies.
2. The right to distribute.
3. The right to prepare derivative works.
4. The right to publicly perform.

By posting the video trailer on a website, the OP has infringed all four. Copyright confers and exclusive right, meaning you can't "make" a copyright owner let you use something (absent a compulsory license or fair use, which this is not).

This is the law. I won't comment on its relative sanity or insanity.

J.J. is already in a heap of trouble. The remaining questions are only two: does the copyright owner intend to sue and, if so, what will be the amount of damages for which J.J. is liable.

As I said, "exclusive rights," means exclusive as in, "the power to exclude." The purpose of copyright is as an incentive to creation by authors. I happen to write music. Suppose I think wedding videos are tacky and cheapen my compositions (I don't, by the way -- this is a hypothetical). I have an absolute right, confirmed by the Constitution, to say, "I don't care whether you're making money or not -- you can't use my music for a wedding video."

And this is the law.

It would also be illegal if they were giving them away for free. The fact of profit on this scale renders it criminal.

I have own a vacant house in San Francisco. I'm not using it and it's not making me any money at the moment. Do you think that means you can spend the weekend there for free without my permission? Like real estate, copyright confers the power to exclude for any reason or for no reason.

And it appears that it does.

And you've guessed wrong. Intentional infringement does result in liability for attorneys fees, but it also includes statutory damages, which can be elected instead of actual damages. Statutory damages for intentional infringement are awarded in an amount at the discretion of the judge and can be up to $1,000,000.

However, you also said you read the thread. You must have missed my post in which I explained that people rarely sue for copyright infringement because they think they will make money from the litigation. There are many other far more valid reasons to sue.

What is "astronomical" to you isn't astronomical to a business that derives its income from license fees and royalties for its intellectual property.

You either obtain a license from the copyright owner (and, because we're talking about recordings, there are multiple copyrights involved, i.e. the recording and the underlying composition constitute separate copyrights), or you use royalty-free or public domain music.

Legally, you could. Whether it's likely that would happen is another question. I'm a lawyer and can only offer opinions about the law. Whether or not you will get caught is not something I could or would advise about.

There are lots of sites like that. I'm just an amateur, but I post my videos on YouTube. I use royalty-free music from SmartSound for my videos.

Do a search here on "royalty free music." You'll find lots of suggestions.

Everyone can. I've sent take-down notices and cease-and-desist letters to people who have pirated my videos (though why they would want to do so is absolutely beyond me -- I'm just not that good).

I don't understand why you think this is crap. As I said, I write music. Why would I want to let anyone have it for free?

That's the cost of physical production of the CDs. It doesn't cover marketing, distribution of CDs, financing recording sessions for unknown groups (though many -- at least those with bad contracts -- are required to self-produce), clearances, insurance, etc. However, if you think the cost is too high, don't buy them and the record companies will be forced to lower their prices. I think the cost of houses is too high. That doesn't mean I can steal one.

iTunes has done well because it is selling popular music. If your music tastes are more eclectic, you won't find the music you want on iTunes. Music or, for that matter, any other art shouldn't be based on lowest-common-denominator commercial appeal.

BMI doesn't take 90% of the profits -- it collects royalties for musicians. Your complaint is with the record companies, not the agencies that represent artists.

No offense, but your anger is completely misplaced.

That's the populist myth. And it's completely wrong. Don't confuse IP lawyers and commercial litigators with personal injury lawyers.

And that's exactly what is happening. The copyright owner is negotiating a license fee. Just like you can say, "Hey, I hear you have a vacant house in SF. How much do you want to rent it to me for a week?" Note that I'd be less inclined to rent it to you if I find you've already moved in before I said, "yes."

See above.

Please re-read my posts in this thread about why people sue.

What makes you think it's a "small" situation? Do you think I wouldn't call the police if I found you in my house in SF and you said, "Hey, I only jumped in here to get out the rain"?

On the contrary, it is critical. Lay people waive rights when they try to handle things like this themselves. Worse yet, lay people find themselves sued for declaratory relief if they hand things like this the wrong way by, for example, threatening to sue.

I'm sorry, but what you are suggesting is unprofessional.

The professional way to handle this is for JJ to have approached the copyright owners and requested a license. It's possible they might even have given him one for free. Instead, he simply appropriated for himself something that didn't belong to him. Instead of just immediately suing him (which the copyright owner was completely within his rights to do), they contacted him first and, now, are discussing a license.

That is professional.

Approaching someone and saying, "hey you took something that's mine -- how about putting my name on it and giving me a few bucks" is not, in the least, professional.

You don't get it. This guy doesn't want wedding business. He thinks, rightly or wrongly, that he doesn't need it. His business is recording music, selling records and giving performances.

It might have been better for you, but it would have been incredibly stupid as it could be construed as dedication to the public domain or, at least, grant of an implied license to anyone who came along.

There is so much wrong with statement.

1. Law has nothing to do with morality.
2. Copyright exists because it provides a social benefit.
3. The Constitution guarantees that the only one who can make a buck from a protected work of authorship is the author.
4. Enforcing copyright has nothing to do with screwing anyone over, anymore than my throwing you out of my vacant house in SF is screwing you over.

I hope it turns out okay, too. I also hope that people spend a little time understanding the nature of copyright, why it exists, and what purpose it serves. It is painfully obvious that quite a few folks simply don\'t understand it.