Exactly! The real hurdle is not redistribution of the music on a DVD, but the fact that you're synchronizing it with video. Even if you own the CD with the song on it, you only have the right to PLAY that song. You don't legally have the right to edit video to it. To be perfectly honest, I think it's pretty silly, but I think it's really there to prevent massive misuse (like using the song in a production that's going to be sold by the hundreds or thousands).

What's funny to me is that when Napster was allowing people to download shared music for free (totally illegal), I didn't use it. It was an obvious breach "fair play". I actually argued with friends and family for using it, because the people "sharing" their music were taking sales away from the artists.

Now in my business, me using Aerosmith's latest song (after purchasing it on iTunes) isn't taking any sales away from the artist. In fact, the couple almost always already owns the song, but I'm making an additional purchase from the artist. I know it's not legal, but I certainly think it's fair, considering the intended use of the song.

The bottom line for me is that anything that is important enough will get attention. "Sharing" music was important enough that the music industry got together and shut Napster down. If charging fees to videographers for music use in wedding videos becomes important enough, they'll do something about it.

Until then, I can't stay in this business if I'm going to have to tell my clients, "Nope. Sorry. I can't use your favorite song in your wedding video. It's illegal. Yes, I understand you have the CD. Yes, I'm sorry you own all 12 of that artist's CD's and have paid to go to every concert. Yes, I know every other videographer in town will do it. Okay then, have a nice day. Give me a call if you change your mind".

Yeah, right, lol.

The Sync license
 

The sync license has been largely left out of this discussion. For good reason. It is hard to understand, makes no sense, and is harder than crap to actual get any real information from with out goign through a music clearing company.

I honestly have never had ANY issues with clients over using strictly Buyout music. I tell them strait out that I cant use any copyrighted music, and I have yet to have any client complain about that. I understand some couples might want "their" song in the video, but im not willing to run the risk to get busted. I know the chances are ULtra slim of the RIAA coming down on me, but get some good buyout music, make good shots, and you should be good to go.

What Travis Bowers says makes sense. If everyone who was a member of this WEVA (I am not) organization held firm on not using copyrighted music the word would get around that to do so is unethical and against what "legitimate" wedding videographers do.

BTW: On the matter of (perhaps) not getting caught.. I was DP on a job for the software industry's trade organization. They have an investigative arm as you might expect. We did a story on a young fellow who was downloading pirated copyrighted software. He was not doing it on his own home computer but the one at his parents house.

Well, the FBI raided that home one morning around 6:00am. I believe there were some eight agents with vests and armed to the teeth. They tore the house apart. Took the computer from the living room and the one his retired father had in a small shed in the back he used for his mail order metal working business. They were held "captive" all this time while agents then went after the son at work. When mom had to go to the bathroom a female agent went in with her.

The father never got his computer back and lost his little business. The son lost his wife and kid and may lose his job (at a bank!) if found guilty.

It was not a pretty site. Doing the video was a way for the son to lessen his sentence and perhaps get probation. The FBI will investigate copyright infringement of any kind no matter how big or small the case. This case proved it to me!

Travis C has an interesting idea -seems like it would be a reasonable defense to "buy" a copy of the song for each copy of the DVD... not saying it would save your bacon on an infringement case, BUT it would show you TRIED to compensate for use...

Just curious, for those who might know - how do synchronization rights compare to "other" use costs? Obviously this is what the big studios have to get for their movies, and there must be some system in place for reasonable fees. I'm guessing that there's compensation scales in place, and probably reciprocal agreements as the use of a song in a movie might result in more sales for the song and more interest in the artist (like resurrecting "Bohemian Rhapsody" for WW?).

Intellectual property/copyright/patent law is a real pain to figure out, and it's tough to figure out what is "fair" or as Spot put it "Fair"... Music is an extra tough thing, because it's EVERYWHERE - muzak/car radio/etc, etc. You sort of EXPECT to hear music and probably your favorite tunes throughout your day without paying for it per se (or at least more than once at a cheap price), so it's a bit of a shock when you're expected to PAY...

I once advised a friend to go into IP law - figured it pretty much guaranteed job security... still good advice!

DB>)

Hi George -

There's another thread on here re. matt boxes where a poster is cheering on an Indian company "ripping off" the designs of another company...

I think it's important to remember how you'd feel if someone were stealing YOUR product! Theft is theft. If you'd want to get compensated for your work, isn't it fair to expect the other guy would too?

I guess the challenge becomes how do you comply with a licensing system that apparently DOESN'T have a method in place for purchase of rights at a reasonable price?

I always argued that if software (be it computer or entertainment, movies and music included, so lets call it "product") was fairly cheap, there would be little incentive to "steal". Even most software companies realize this and give away limited time or feature DEMOS of their product in hopes you'll find it useful and buy it... even if it is expensive. It's really hard to justify stealing a sub $20 product if you and your time are worth ANYTHING at all...

Obviously somebody has to come up with a profit model that compensates the ARTIST and the distributor, whoever that may be... I think that's one of the HUGE battles we will see fought in the near future (it's already begun to some extent...) - the OLD distribution channel vs. the NEW distribution channel - times they are a changin'... technology will probably eliminate or at least reduce many business models to the point of near extinction. It's not like typesetting is a growth industry for instance... look at the "democratization" of video on YouToob...

We all like to eat, it's just how do we do it, and it's good to respect the next guy's right to eat too while we're at it!

DB>)

I think Stock20.com is moving in the direction that would make it a little easier for us to buy artist's music.

It wouldn't be hard I imagine to add an option to iTunes to purchase a song for "use rights" instead of "play rights". Just charge me more and I'll pay.

What's funny is that I bet a lot of these music artists have their own wedding videos that have been edited with other musicians music anyways. No one seems to care, and why should they? If someone wanted to take a wedding video I edited for them, and have another editor cut it up and make something new out of it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's not like they making it to sell a million copies to their friends. Who cares?

I also wonder about DJ's. I mean, they just buy a bunch of songs on iTunes or via CD's and then play music at a public event. That certainly can't be legal, but there's no industry fuss over that either.

To put things in perspective here, take this for what its worth.
Back in the 70's and 80's there were some successful bands that realized that if they wrote songs that were really easy for local bar bands to learn and "illegally" perform at clubs, then they were ensuring their tunes would become heard and in turn become more popular.
I understand that times have changed with the internet and all, but I can still sit and remember the "good ol days".
If every videographer in the world went with exclusively stock music, then the artists will lose out in the end by having their music heard less.
I am more than willing to pay for music I use, and hope that eventually a (easy to use) mechanism will be put in place to take my money!

Mark

The venue, the hall or restaurant, is charged an annual license by the recording industry based on the number of occupants it holds. For that license they may allow music to be played by live bands or use recorded music.

Same goes for diners that have a juke box. They get a bill (ASCAP I think) every year or 3 years and they can play all the records they want. This has been the standard operating procedure for as long as I can remember.

Ever go into a small diner and see a note on the juke box that says "out of order"? It's not the juke box. The owner does not want to pay for the license.

Actually there is a fuss from time to time. Just a few years ago the performance rights organizations went after doctors and dentists who played the radio or other sources as background music in their offices without paying commercial performance roylaties.

It is completely legal to play the radio (or television) in an office since broadcast stations also pay for the music they use on a blanket license basis. Therefore, the royalties are being paid at the time of broadcast. As long as you carry it live and do not record it for playback at a later date.

The playing of CD's is another matter and would, if the recording industry wanted to make an issue of it, probably fall under the same category of a diner's juke box.

That's why many opt for a service like Muzak where there is never any worry about someone knocking on your door looking to be paid a royalty. Agents for the record companies go to the doctor too.

Ah, interesting. Thanks.

This kind of reminds me of the music on youtube. There are several offroad vids that have been put together (I wont say by me.. ;)
that contain copyrighted music. It's still illegal, but it's not really a problem (imo). Especially since trying to rip music from youtube would be stupid.

When people ripped off Greorge Lucas' stuff and made their own Star Wars trailers, Lucas loved it and even encouraged it to a degree. I realize that not everyone thinks this way.

All in all though, even though record labels are not trying to put wedding videographers out of buisness, it would be nice to have some kind of affordable license to be protected.

I just found this site.... www.Musiclicensingstore.com
Seems to average about $30.00 per song for our intended use.