|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 10th, 2010, 06:04 AM | #16 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,441
|
Hi John
It's still quite a fair bit of money to pay unless you are doing bulk weddings with a team of cameramen!! If you consider that not everyone wants to use commercial music if can add to your overheads!! I condition my couples to use Royalty Free tracks and they are normally quite receptive!! If you only do a couple of weddings a year where the couple insist on commercial music the "one-off" event fee of $51 is a better bet. However it's still cheaper than Singapore!!! and there is no reason why you cannot add licence fees to your bill if they insist on using commercial music. Chris |
February 10th, 2010, 11:34 AM | #17 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Woods Cross, Utah
Posts: 310
|
Two different licenses.
Two different licenses.
One is to be able to record a cover of a song- compulsory license in the US. Anyone can record any song that has been published. Just pay a fixed per copy (# of CDs made) fee to the publisher. The second is the sync rights for picture. This, you have to get the person/company that holds the copyright to the song, usually the author but not always, to make a deal for syncing their song (even if it's a remake) to moving pictures. You also need the actual band/person that recorded the song to sign off on their performance, and most likely the person/company that holds the copyright to the actual recording of the performance. It would be great to get a compulsory license thing going in the US, but that will be very hard to accomplish. The right to refuse the usage of your work to be associated with, say the KKK or NAMBLA, is important to artists, as it should be. |
February 10th, 2010, 12:18 PM | #18 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 789
|
Hi Chris L, so basically it is back to square one. There is no way around it. It was worth the shot, hopefully a system will be in place soon where Wedding Videographers will be able to afford a synch fee.
Thanks for all the input.
__________________
Noel Lising |
February 10th, 2010, 01:36 PM | #19 |
New Boot
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 6
|
copyrighted material performed by live band
I'm shooting a documentary involving a local ballet company who is performing a dance to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. The music will be performed live by a cover band.
Specifically, I am hoping to use "The Great Gig in the Sky" and "Brain Damage" Is there any difference in my situation then in what is being talked about (using a song from a cd on a DVD)? Sync rights, etc.... I wanted to get as much info before going to the company with questions on their licencing powers since I'm sure they're paying something for the use. Last edited by Dustin Whitaker; February 10th, 2010 at 01:37 PM. Reason: clarification |
February 13th, 2010, 03:58 PM | #20 | |
Still Motion
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,186
|
Quote:
we believe that by fostering a relationship with independent artists, everyone involved wins. the photo + cinema industries have access to affordable original music, and the musicians have an avenue to share their music and fund the creation of new music. P.
__________________
site // www.stillmotion.ca blog // www.stillmotionblog.com edu // www.stillmotionexperience.com |
|
February 13th, 2010, 04:29 PM | #21 | |
AVPA
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 373
|
Quote:
In relation to Royalty free music, AMCOS has Production music that is of high quality and has recently changed their fee structure. We have purchased some music from there for online use and it can add up. I have yet to find out more about the changes, and will make the enquiry soon. Soundtracks make a difference to a clip and to your business image. It's a risk that producers take when they chose to incorporate licenced music for online broadcasting - I can advice you to do the right thing and build up a music bank of paid music. The problem of online clips is that a bank of music isn't infinite. I'll make the effort to enquire about the AMCOS deal this week - any aussie can email me directly and I can pass on the details |
|
February 13th, 2010, 06:56 PM | #22 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,441
|
Hi Rochelle
Your comments are much appreciated. I really thought that APPRA were going a great route with their blanket licence for wedding videographers until I discovered that it only applied to the actual DVD!! It's a business fact that we need to show brides online samples and those cannot contain any commercial songs unless thousands of dollars and months of tracking down publishers are completed! I don't use any commercial tracks anymore as all my packages include hosting an online video for the couple so licence-wise I'm not covered!! I do have an adequate SmartSound library which does the job nicely but it would be great if one could get around all the legal 'mumbo-jumbo' and use a couple's favorite song without fear of copyright infringement. It's silly really, as using an artists song in your online video is only likely to increase sales for the publisher and they should be happy with extra exposure. If publishers could work out a simple one-off method of controlling copyright then things would be so much easier and they would have more income. Personally I don't think that commercial song usage will ever be controlled effectively..publishers are way too greedy and there are just too many instances on line to try to police. Chris |
February 14th, 2010, 09:54 AM | #23 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lowestoft - UK
Posts: 4,044
|
I've often thought that what is always being argued about is not the actual use of copyright material, but the copyright holders right to say no. I'm in favour of allowing the 'owner' to say no - but if they're happy, for it to be used. Quite how this could be policed is a mystery. I just get amused by somebody who claims the right to do whatever they like with somebody else's product. As if their right to use was stronger/more valid than the person who actually created it?
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|