Music licensing / what music u use?
 

Newbie, during researching, see alot of service providers offering choice of music... does this mean we all just put whatever they want and forget about licensing.... i've seen many packages here in the forums just like this.... nothing to worry about right?

In addition, if you do do the above... how often do you actually use canned music/what canned do you recommend?

Thank you!

I use royalty free music for my projects.

I've been told by a professional in the wedding video business that since the wedding videos are not widely distributed, and only for home viewing of the couple and their families, that if you buy the CD that contains the song you want to use, and then give the CD to the bride and groom, you will have nothing to worry about.

Does anyone here agree with this?

Many people use that for justification. Doesn't change the fact that it's still illegal.

Here's a quote by someone on another mail list to someone with a similar question (customer providing the CD):

Let me give you the low-down on this from an insider's perspective. As a former employee of a major recording label, and as a retired working musician who has as of 5 years ago moved into the videography business.... Lisha, what you are doing is illegal, and if the powers that be so choose, they will fry your ass. You are creating videos for profit using copyright protected music.... Period. The chances of them knocking on your door is slim, but it can happen. It does not matter if the customer provided it to you or not. The RIAA sees it just the same as ripping a CD and putting it out there for downloading in MP3 format. The RIAA does surf the web, and has come across many a videographer using copyright protected music, and HAS slapped them with fines. Everybody on this list has at one time, or still does do it, but it doesn't make it legal. It's kind of like knowing that you really shouldn't have the extra syrup on your pancakes, but boy it sure does make it taste better. There is no "Grey Line", it is definately a black one drawn clear as bell for all to see. You can rationalize it all you want, but let's all not forget that this is the same group of people who took a 14 year old to court because she shared Christina Aguilera MP3s on a peer to peer network. By the way, if you are taken to court, you will lose. Make no mistake about it, there will be no "well they asked me to do it." excuse. The judge will consider you as a professional who should know the legal boundries of your respective trade, but chose to ignore the rules.


T Fain

I would imagine the number of zeros on the check to pay that fine would be four or five decimal places to the left of the original profit on the video with the stolen song.

"Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine!"

Or for habitual offenders

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!"

easy solution is to pay for a license.. simple no brainer...

So during the couples first dance, am I to dub over the audio with my hums and whistles, or just not record it? What if I can read the label on the beer can Uncle Bob is drinking, I should have permission for that too, but I doubt Coors is going to come after me for that either.

There must be some room to give, and it was my assumption that people use the 'music provided by bride and groom' line to remove or at least limit the legal issue of selling or profiting from copyright material. All I sold was my time and expertise, the music was theirs to begin with. I can understand not using copyright protected music for promotional purposes or demo reels, but in the video, I think the 'home use only' license that we all utilize when we listened to the CD in the first place still applies, NO?. I am no lawyer, but shouldnt the same 'Fair Use' law that allows me to burn MP3's of any CD I own for playback on my computer, even record television programs with my VCR, cover the couple simply providing their 'licensed' music for playback on their television speakers. If they don't own it and provide it, then I understand you are breaking laws putting it in your video, if they bought the CD, they have every right to hear the songs on it. I guess my other option is to remove the audio from the video, and tell them when to press play on the CD when they are watching it back. Who knows, you need a law degree just to understand it!

I use ambient sound. I'm taping the dance, I don't care what is going on in the background. I do NOT tap into the DJ's soundboard or overdub with an original CD of the music. I get all the people talking in the background etc...

Peter Jefferson wrote

"easy solution is to pay for a license.. simple no brainer..."

I would love to do this, but found it very hard and expensive to do. Is it really an 'easy solution' as Peter says, and if so, how do you do it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Lloyd Coleman : Is it really an 'easy solution' as Peter says, and if so, how do you do it. -->>>

It is where Peter lives :-)

yeah sorry guys.. here in oz, we can pay 150 bux for an event license which allows us 5 copies for private use..

its not bad, but for demo send outs it can suck as we can only distribute 5 at a time for viewing. crushes our chance at a mass mail out too.. :(

for more than 5 were lookin in the thousands, but this 150.. is charged back to teh bride and groom if they choose to use commercial music

Does anyone out there have ideas about good royalty free music to use?

Just do a search on Google for "Royalty Free Music" - might want to try on e-bay too.

I have the Music Mania and a few other CDs from Elite Video. I know there IS some good stuff out there. I think maybe "piano boys" or something like that. Many have samples online.

Tried that, but so much junk is returned, I am hoping to get some advice from others who have made purchases that they are happy with. I have checked out a few samples, and don't really find any of it appealing.

freeplaymusic.com

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Wright : I've been told by a professional in the wedding video business that since the wedding videos are not widely distributed, and only for home viewing of the couple and their families, that if you buy the CD that contains the song you want to use, and then give the CD to the bride and groom, you will have nothing to worry about.

Does anyone here agree with this? -->>>

rememeber once this is done, and you want to keep a copy for your own portfolio or stick it on the web, you are blatantly inviting royalty rights issues.

<<<-- Originally posted by Edward Troxel : Just do a search on Google for "Royalty Free Music" - might want to try on e-bay too.

I have the Music Mania and a few other CDs from Elite Video. I know there IS some good stuff out there. I think maybe "piano boys" or something like that. Many have samples online. -->>>

I think you mean www.pianobrothers.com. I licensed their "A Day To Remember" CD for $69 for unlimited usage. It is the best I've heard, especially at this price. I like knowing all my videos are legit now, too.

I didnt read the others but I do have a question if there any takers. Is it ok to record a song live and put it in your dvd? considering you have the ok to do the videography by the event director.

John

If you get all the proper rights from the music publisher and the performers then, yes, that would be legal.

<<<-- Originally posted by Lloyd Coleman : Peter Jefferson wrote

"easy solution is to pay for a license.. simple no brainer..."

I would love to do this, but found it very hard and expensive to do. Is it really an 'easy solution' as Peter says, and if so, how do you do it. -->>>


My sister used to work for a record label in New York...

She used to get a lot of small time requests for use of songs in videos/school plays etc...[Not big time licensing--like compliations "the Groovy 70's" etc---they pay attention to *that* kind of stuff.] and almost always-- the standard answer is NO.

The problem is that there isn't any kind of real structure to deal with requests for people that aren't making a commercial film. An employee to type a license etc whatever....the record companies are more disorganized than you think(according to my sis)

I obviously--think it is stupid as it a golden opportunity---there needs to be an affordable license one can purchase for a couple copies.

Right now---it's either you are big time player and can pay thousands for the rights to the song...or you use it "illegally".

That's why I hope the success of the iTunes music store can translate in the opening record companies eyes to other revenue sources of their cash cows...

Try www.smartsound.com

According to the Harry Fox Agency (hearsay), no license is needed for 10 copies or less if the B&G own the CD.

For more info, see:
Suggestion for FAQ Update - Use of Copyrighted Music

This is completely wrong, and constitutes copyright infringement. This has been discussed many times here. Do a search on my name and "fair use."

This is not the law, but may be the policy of the Harry Fox Agency with respect to the clients that they represent.

Not without permission of the copyright owner. This has also been discussed at some length here. Do a search on my name and "incidental reproduction."

It depends on how much you use and what the court decides is the purpose of the video. Do the "incidental reproduction" search, above.

Apples and oranges -- the label on the beer can raises trademark issues, whereas copying music implicates copyright. If there is no likelihood of consumer confusion as to source (and I don't see how there would be in a wedding video), and there is no dilution or tarnishment of the trademark (and I don't see how there would be in a wedding video), there's no reason to be concerned over having a beer can label visible.

A Scenario
 

So you're telling me that this scenario is illegal???---

I have a wedding-
I record it-
I own a copy of certain music i like-
I overlay this music in the video in the editing process-
I am the only one to own the final result-


Is this Illegal?????


If its true that when you buy music its for your personal disposal- then I did nothing illegal- because only I own the end result- and only i benefit from the music- and only i am using the music.

And if this is infact not illegal, then what does it matter if someone else does it for you? As long as you dont charge people for adding their music, then there's no reason that it should be illegal.

Please respond.

Re: A Scenario
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Lepp : So you're telling me that this scenario is illegal???---

I have a wedding-
I record it-
I own a copy of certain music i like-
I overlay this music in the video in the editing process-
I am the only one to own the final result
--->>>

I am not a lawyer but, I guess the consensus is yes, to the letter of the law that is not legal. Will anyone ever care enough about that scenario to sue you? not likely, but still possible. Would they win if they sued you? I guess we will never know until they do, and I can't seem to find any info anywhere about anyone who has been sued over something similar.

Ever earn a couple of bucks mowing a lawn or shooting a video before you were a top notch pro and not tell the tax man (shhhh)? What about drive 5mph over the speed limit? Hook up cable to an extra TV and not call the cable company? That is not legal either, ask an attorney....

I just did a quick search on most of the winners of the WEVA awards, found their sites to check out the demo's and about 80% of them use protected music in at least one of their demo's that are being streamed to the web! I think the fact is, some videographers disregard copyright laws under the 'bigger fish to fry' assumption, others use royalty free music, some a mix of both. It really depends on how you sell your business, what the customer wants to see, and how much you want the business. If they like what you can provide with royalty free music, and not 'syncing' anything to the ambient noise of their cut down first dance, you are in a great position. If they liked what they saw from others who abuse the copyright laws, there is not much you can do, as I am sure they will always be around.

For your own use? Possibly, but not certainly, this scenario comes within the AHRA, which precludes infringement liability for creating audio copies for your own use. However, there are two separate rights that are implicated here, the right to make copies and the right to prepare a derivative work. Only the former is addressed by the AHRA.

With all that said, I believe this scenario also should come within Fair Use. For what it's worth, when I edited my own wedding video, I did exactly this.

Except that it's not true. When you buy an authorized copy of music (we're not getting into any licensing scenario), the copy is subject to first sale doctrine, which allows you to give the copy away, rent it, loan it, destroy it, or use it as a coaster. You do not have the right to violate any of the reserved rights of the copyright owner, e.g. the right to make copies, prepare derivative works, perform publicly, etc.

What you've done is describe, sort of, the basis for such a use coming within fair use doctrine.

It matters because the AHRA doesn't allow you to do it for someone. It matters because one of the fair use factors is whether the use is commercial in nature and has any impact on the market for the original.

Do you mean, no reason other than the law?

As I've said a number of times -- if any wedding videographer is sued for infringement in this scenario, I'll do my best to persuade my firm to allow me to do the defense on a pro bono basis, because I believe that fair use should cover this kind of activity (no guarantees here -- this isn't a promise or a contract). However, under the current state of the law, it is illegal to do so. The only mechanism for using music on commercial CDs is to obtain a license for its use.

And, as a postscript, WEVA is in the best position to remedy this situation. All it takes is a little legislation. WEVA should be lobbying Congress, and also should be negotiating with the major music publishers for an easy-to-administer, inexpensive license for wedding and event videographers.

I saw a commercial a few years back about cd burners- in the commercial they used an example of how you can use the burner (and this was from a major manufacturer, Phillips or something)- a guy was burning a mix of a few different cd's onto a new blank cd, thus making his own new cd mix of songs he got from his previously purchased cd's. - if what your saying could possibly be against the law, then there would be no way that they would have made that commercial- because as far as the purpose goes, its the same thing- SO, then concluding that it is legal for you to make your own mix (copying your own purchased songs onto another object for playback), then I CANT see how it would be illegal to make a mix for playback, only instead of mixing it with other songs on a cd, you mix it with video--- I cant for the life of me understand how that is different in the sense of the Fair Use thing. YOURE USING IT FOR YOURSELF-thats the point of what the Fair Use thing is supposed to be about- I just dont see how its any different- what?, is there a law defining that you can listen to a duplicated song, but you cant listen to a duplicated song with video- If thats true, then thats ridiculous.

I dont mean to sound mad, I just dont see how thats possible using common sense- and nothing against any of you who do say that this is illegal, but id have to hear that from a judge after ive explained it to them like that, before I'd believe it. It just seems like any judge in our courts using common sense would acknowledge the obvious comments im making and declare this not to be illegal.

And another question: if i dont have a cd burner, but i want to make a mix of my cd's, so i give some of my cd's to my friend to make me a mix- and i then get my cd's back and he gives me the mixed cd and keeps no copy for himself- is this illegal? And if you say it is, then WHY??? Legally explain to me why i can do something myself, but i cant let someone else do it for me-THAT I DONT UNDERSTAND-- again, im talking about specifically not charging any money for this, so you cant say im making money from this action-

Thankyou,

kevin

Exactly what I thought and posted earlier in the thread. After looking into it in a little more detail, and reviewing the copyright article on Douglas Spotted Eagle's website (posted here), it made things a little more clear. (I hope that it is OK to post the link)

Fair use does seem to protect you enough to make a music mix of CD's you have purchased. Even changing media (recording to tape, or MP3). The biggest concern comes when using the music to better your video production. If you simply added it the start of the roll, and played a black screen then sure, it would probably be the same as recording it to a mixed CD. But once you add video, and then edit that video to the music, it is a whole new can of worms involving not only the copyright of the music, but 'sync licensing' too and using the recording to benefit your work.

i despise this legal system- or atleast the companies that make these laws.

Why cant they just make a simple insertion into their legal statements that says if you want to sync music for weddings then you have to buy the cd that you are going to use brand new or something.- therefore it offsets any costs the music people think they are losing from the music being used on the wedding videos.

Lets be honest- The only people who will ever watch this video more than once will be the Bride and Groom and the videographer.

You need to read the thread carefully. The AHRA (as well as fair use doctrine as applied in a number of published decisions) essentially allows copying audio recordings for personal use. The AHRA does not contemplate preparation of derivative works, which is what you have when sync audio to video. It may or may not cover such use -- it's not express in the statute, and it hasn't been litigated.

Fair use is an equitable doctrine which is codified in the copyright statute. The statute lists 4 factors, none of which are dispositive, meaning courts, in determining whether a given use is fair use, may use all of them, some of them, or none of them in reaching the determination. However, the two most important factors are whether the use is commercial or non-commercial, and the impact on the market for the original. Wedding and event videography are commercial activities, which mitigate against a finding of fair use. Music _is_ licensed for syncing to these kinds of videos, and the demand for any given song is diminished if everyone is using it. This impacts the market for the original, and mitigates against a finding of fair use.

Nonetheless, my personal opinion is that this kind of thing should come within fair use.

Until a court litigates this, and an appellate court affirms the decision, and other appellate courts adopt it, it is impossible to say whether it is fair use or not.

If the law was simple enough to be able to apply it based on common sense, I wouldn't have had to spend years in law school, and my clients wouldn't pay me the outrageous hourly fees that they do. Copyright law is complex and arcane, as it must balance a number of competing, and frequently contradictory, interests. The copyright statutes themselves run several hundred pages, and can only be understood in the context of 200 years of published decisions.

First, I didn't say it's illegal -- I said my belief is that it should come within fair use. However, under no circumstances would I advise my clients to operate under that assumption, given that the cost of defense of a copyright infringement suit can easily approach $250,000, and statutory damages for infringement can be as high as $125,000 per infringement.

I'm not a judge. I am, however, an experienced intellectual property attorney. You can see my bio here:

http://www.schnader.com/NEWEST_4_02/...asp?attyID=396


Judges decide cases based on the law. I don't know a nice way to say this, so forgive me for being blunt, but what seems like common sense to you is only because you have an extremely limited understanding of copyright law and the different interests that it tries to balance. Fair use doctrine is one means of addressing the inherent tension between copyright protection (which is authorized by the Constitution at Article I, Section 8) and the First Amendment, which precludes government restriction of speech. The original intent of copyright, both constitutionally and prior (copyright protection dates back to the 18th century Statute of Anne in England). The purpose of copyright protection is as an incentive to creation -- the theory is, if authors can profit from their work, they'll produce more work. The ownership interest accorded a copyright owner is absolute, meaning _no_one_ has a right to make an unauthorized copy. Period. Fair use recognizes exceptions based on some overriding justification in the public interest. First Amendment concerns are in the public interest so, for example, there is a "news reporting" exception under fair use doctrine. A family wedding video is not quite as compelling an interest as an informed populace -- there are a lot of factors which mitigate against finding fair use in such circumstance.

Yes. The AHRA authorizes copying only for personal use, not for the use of one's friends.

Because that's how Congress wrote the statute. Blame your congressperson if you don't like it.

Companies don't make the laws -- Congress does. Some companies have an undue influence over Congress (Disney comes to mind), but it is still the people you elected who enact the laws.

Who did you vote for in the last election? (That's a rhetorical question -- this isn't the place to discuss politics).

That's a great idea -- why doesn't WEVA pressure the music publishers to do it? It would certainly make things easier for everyone. Understand this: I don't _like_ the fact that it's so difficult to incorporate legitimately-acquired CD music into wedding and event videos; I do videos myself, and it's a pain to have to pay for rights to music to put in videos that I distribute commercially. However, I don't _make_ the laws. I just practice law, and I know what the law is.

You may wish to try out www.MegaTrax.com

They have some great music that you can pay for.
It's needle drop and it's not cheap but it's legal.

You can preview their music.

I am thinking that I may end up expanding my business so I will likely start using them again.

They're real nice to work with.

-Cesar

Paul, You have been both patient and knowledgable. I humbly thank you.

I see clearly from your posts that you want to see this changed for the most part as well, and I hope it does.

One more question- last night i looked around to find out about sync licensing, but did not seem to find how to really find how to find the specific songs i would want so i could get the licenses for them.- also, how much usually does such a license run? - i know prices have been covered before, but i found a few different answers and just kind of want a general ballpark area of what is common.

Thanks again!

p.s. - do you think if all of us videographers got a petition started and sent it to WEVA, that they would do something about this whole thing? I'd be willing to start it.