It's funny that you mention this.
As while my wife and me were watching the food channel (Rachel Ray), I commented on if she noticed that all of her food products had lables that were designed for the show. The Food Channel does this with all of their food shows, as they use name brand products, but don't display the actual lables on the shows. But instead design generic fake lables for all of their products.

the funny thing is that my wife mentione that people like Rachel Ray get lots of emails from viewers wanting to know where to get the products that she uses on her show, as they can't find them in stores. Pretty funny actually.

Our own Charles Papert talked about this practice in the industry. Their term for it is 'greeking'. Probably from the old phrase, "it's all Greek to me", said when someone doesn't understand.

-gb-

My understanding is that, legally, we are not allowed to cover a reception where copyrighted music is playing and put that footage with the music on a DVD. It falls right in line with the earlier comment about photographs and brand labels and such. You essentially cannot have any copyrighted materials in the video you give to the client.

Now, as videographers in the real world, I don't see that we have much choice. Sure, you can cut all the actual music out and lay the footage over a "royalty-free" track, and you can blur out copyrighted photographs and labels, but honestly, I don't make enough money to spend that kind of time on a video.

What really kills me is that companies purposely put brand labels on things to ADVERTISE them, and when they show up on video, they are being advertised. Why sue someone for advertising for you? It's ridiculous.

This is the most amusing thing about IP/trademark/copyright/licensing...

Featuring a song/product/logo in a sucessful production adds a certain cachet to that product (presuming it's featured in a "good" way - not like that fast food movie about eating non-stop super size Micky-D's food for every meal...). Good synergy and careful associations can help a product "pop".

Big brands actually are more than willing to pay or provide free product for "placement" in movies etc (watch carefully - you'll see Apple computers, various sodas carefully rotated so the logo is obvious, etc. etc.). BUT, there's the practical matter that those placements are equivalent of advertising or endorsements... and if you know anything about endorsements (and we all know about advertising), typically these are exclusive, and represent revenue streams... to somebody. I believe that advertisers are even paying to be featured on "billboards" in car oriented video games...

SO, if you start to scratch your head on this you'll realize that there are all sorts of intertwined issues here, all involving "revenue streams" and who they are supposed to go to. The bigger the brand/artist/song/product the more likely that they will be backed by legal teams that work to "protect" their brand/image/likeness and whatever value they attach to it...

Funny thing is "free publicity" <cough*paris hilton*cough> is usually consdered beneficial at least to some degree... and MOST artists realize without exposure, you are "nobody" (do you give out a promo DVD for your wedding biz?).

SO it's a real "catch-22" - while you're giving an artist "exposure" (helping them by "endorsing" their "product"), you're also "infringing" (hurting them if you don't pay for that "product") on their rights unless you have express permission to use their creation/imaging/logo/branding...

Gives one a headache pretty quickly... and heaven help you if some low-life ambulance chaser type in a fancy suit decides to run up a huge bill (and his client won't ever see a dime...) "protecting" his client from you... and it happens.

Maybe the pro wedding videographers need to get together and get blanket rights for use in the high quality "mini-movies" we make, since of course the featuring of specific songs adds a great deal of "image" enhancement to those songs <wink>! Oh wait, wasn't there a thread recently about what songs you hope never to hear again...

DB>)

Travis -

You bring up an interesting idea... aren't we all "documentary" film makers? I know fuzzing out logos/looping tracks, and all that is done, but perhaps there's a legal loophole of some sort here?

If you're "documenting" an event, it seems rather odd that you would be in the position of ALTERING that same event so as to change it entirely... THAT can't be right...

Anyone care to jump in who is familiar with "documentary" productions? I'm thinking that they guy who "documented" the aforementioned side effects of super size ingestion was not likely able to secure licensing rights to certain golden arch logos and associated trade dress, etc., yet I'm pretty sure the brand association was there?

Documentary crews are paid for their work, they record an event(s), they produce a product, presumably that product is watched by some people... how do they handle these issues?

This is of course different from producing a "love story" type thing and using a song as a "sound track"...

DB>)

I do plenty of shooting where the soundtrack is no doubt copyright material. I shoot mainly in theatres, and the content can be dance, comedy, music or plays. My client in most cases is not the copyright holder. I rarely do the edit, I'm just commisioned to aquire the material for somebody else. All clearances are obtained by them. If they forgot, or perhaps just didn't bother, I wouldn't know. I don't worry about it at all. The advice I got over here in the UK was that the person whon publishes the material is responsible for clearance, not the person who shoots it. So - the editor and client would appear to be the ones who need to be careful. I realise it's been covered, but I still can't quite work out why if the client is happy to take the responsibility, and you have evidence of this, why it should be a problem.

For the most part, in today's climate of "pay me or I'll sue" documentary producers are in the same boat as everyone else. Perfect example is the song "Happy Birthday". We all sing it, right. Well, singing it is fine but if you want to use someone singing it in a film... even if you are simply covering the event where they are singing it you have to pay the family of the original author. I have heard of figures as high as $5,000 for its use in a TV documentary. So what do producers do? They do not use the scene where they all sang Happy Birthday.

The 80's documentary "Eyes on the Prize" was recently rebroadcast on PBS after only having been shown one time. Why? The producers no longer had the rights to the stock footage and 95% of that show was stock. Only recently was the widow of the producer able to get funding to relicense the footage and make the show available to a whole new audience.

Why is it all you seem to see on the History Channel are WW2 shows? Because the footage is all public domain. It was shot by members of the armed forces, for the most part, and is therefore free for anyones use. You do not see other documentaries the way you use to anymore because the cost to license the footage has gone out of site. The legal department of a network can kill any show if they (the producers) do not have signed releases for everything. Interviews, stock, music. Even shots of buildings like the Trump Tower need a release from his company.

Had a shoot recently for a new show to run on ABC. One of those real life types. We were shooting in a child's bedroom and in the background were some stuffed animals. I had the shot lit and in came the producer. He went crazy when he saw the stuffed animals. "Who are these animals... are they anybody famous?" he asked the child. He then proceeded to turn all the animals around until it looked like a bunch of colored pillows.

It's nuts out there!

I understand your example Paul, but the wedding video business doesn't fit that mold. Many times, the person shooting is the same person who will produce it, edit it, deliver it, etc. The client in this case is the couple who are getting married. Since they aren't the distributors, you can't really shift the burden of rights clearances to them. That's my interpretation anyway.

The parallel that I would prefer to draw is that we have the right to photograph and sell photographs of 'celebrities' without consent if they are appearing in public. So the law does recognize some semblance of necessity in that regard. Applied equally to popular music, I think that when an artist has a song that gets published, receives airplay, and is promoted heavily, there should be some sort of 'celebrity status' proviso for such music as there is for people. But I don't agree that we should be able to use it for free. I am personally an advocate for a 'forced' licensing system that recognizes a type of celebrity status for music and requires the artist to allow low cost licensing for this type of work.

IMO, it's a broken or antiquated system that needs to be fixed.

JMHO,

-gb-

THX George for the fill in - sounds like the plot for "Lawyers Gone Wild" rumour had it that was a great show, but by the time they sorted out all the legal issues everyone had died from the tedium... or gone bankrupt from the legal fees...

The state of technology is changing much faster then legal updates... that's one of the problems with IP law. No-one really anticipated a lot of the technology that exists today, and once it started creating licensing problems, then people started including phrases like "In whatever medium or distribution method might be created in the universe in the future.."

Yes, it's frustrating... but I like to think of it as 'job security'. My wife is an IP attorney ;)

Great topic, I've been looking into doing private work and this issue alone is discouraging. You know whats funny, is that event videographers feel they are somewhat the only ones, well I went skydiving and I paid for a video and guess what they used U2 and I can tell that there is no way they had a license for the music or even a sync license. Technically it seems like these laws are being broken every second we sit here and write about this issue. Who knows how many broke the law by the time I get done writing this .....

Mike,
Being a skydiving photographer, I'd first submit that skydiving photography is an "event" too.
That said, the law is being broken every second of every day somewhere in the world. That doesn't make it right. Much of law-breaking is tied to myths of what is legal and what isn't. There isn't a week go by that I don't hear:
~It's OK because it's just one copy
~It's OK because the customer provided the music
~It's OK because I bought a CD for every DVD copy I made
~(My favorite) I only used a small piece of the music, and Fair Use says that I can use up to 10% without being illegal (wish I knew where that came from).

Lots of myths, lots of misunderstandings. Bottom line, the model in the US will change at some point, but until then, stay legal by using royalty free content and then you have nothing to worry about. Not now, not in the future.
BTW, there is a real push in the skydiving world (admittedly led by me) to abolish the use of copyrighted works.

Glad to hear that and I agree with you a lot on this. I'll definitely look into the royalty free content. Thanks again.

Actually you CAN stay in business and refuse to break the law, but I'll admit it's going be swimming upstream for a while. You need to become an activist for a truly professional industry and do all you can to insure every other wedding videographer and all the trade organizations get on board and as an industry just flat refuse to condone violations. Frankly I don't understand why wedding and event videographers as a group aren't as rigid about this as people in broadcasting and the feature production industries are ... it's almost as if they're saying en masse "We're not real professionals like they are so all that big-business legal stuff doesn't really apply to us." It's embarrassing! I'd like to give the W/E shooters a lot more credit than that. Even the smallest of small-town radio stations makes sure it has its ducks in order with their ASCAP and BMI licenses, for the life of me I can't understand why event and wedding videographers are equally diligent in staying on the right side of the law. Sure it's more complicated, but dealing with complicated problems is what being professional is all about.

WEVA has annual awards, for example ... how about if WEVA said that "All videos submitted for consideration for awards and all video exhibited at any WEVA sanctioned trade show or event requires written proof of license for all music." How about if WEVA said "All member videographers are subject to audit and may not use the WEVA logo or make any public claim of membership in WEVA unless they can prove by written license that all music used in all productions from their company has proper licensing." How about if they said "Any member found to be using copyright material without license in any web-based advertising or demo reels must immediately cease and desist using any and all references to WEVA membership in their promotional materials and advertising and are barred from participating in any WEVA affiliated wedding shows." Figure out whatever sanctions could be applied to scofflaws who don't give a damn, toss 'em out of WEVA, file complaints with the BBB for unethical business practices, whatever, but it would screech to a stop when every professional videographer in town worth hiring that the B&G call says "Sorry, no can do, won't break the law for any amount of money because no matter how much you pay me, it's a pittance compared to what it will cost me." But when the venues where people in the business congregate all give it a wink and say "Sure, we know it's illegal but ...." it's going to be damned hard to be ethical about it and go against the flow.

I have a feeling if WEVA took that stand, and actually enforced it, then that might be the end of WEVA. I could be wrong, though. (EDIT: I would also add that the average bride doesn't really care if you're a WEVA member or not. They hire based on what your work looks like and your rate.)

As for why most videographers don't take a stand, I think it has to do with the history of wedding videography. My guess is that it started with hobbyists who never even thought it could be illegal to use an artist's song in a wedding video (I know I didn't realize it for the longest time). As more and more hobbyists became full-timers, the trend to use the clients' music in their videos strengthened, and eventually clients came to expect that from videographers. This is all just guesswork from me, since I've only been in the business about 4 or 5 years, but it seems to add up.

I guess all I know for sure is that every videographer in my market touts "using the music the couple chooses" as a service that they provide. They present it as a strongpoint. So when a guy like me comes along, and doesn't even know any better, and starts up a business doing videography, it's a give that I need to offer that service as well, especially when couple's are asking me for that.

Then I find out that technically it's not legal, but that there's no system for doing it legally, which is why everyone else is just doing it. The couples that come to me don't know about this backstory and they could care less if they did. They just want a videographer that will make a highlight video with their favorite song. Saying "no" is basically the same thing as handing them a piece of paper with your competitor's phone number on it.

It's a pretty crappy scenario.

Possible. I am not a member of WEVA myself (and I don't make wedding videos), so I don't know what lobbying power WEVA has. Given enough influence, though, I think the smart move would be for WEVA to talk to the big music companies and make an arrangement that benefits everyone. Something along the lines of WEVA collecting the fees and issuing the permits for the use of music in wedding videos, and writing a monthly check to the music companies.

No individual wedding videographer brings enough money to the table to make it interesting for the music industry to even start thinking about a solution. But when you combine them all, maybe it can be an attractive solution to the industry, as well as to videographers. Isn't this what associations like WEVA should be all about?

[Disclaimer: Again, I am not part of WEVA, I don't know much about it, so this may be completely unrealistic. Maybe someone else knows if this has already been tried...]

- Martin

I agree with Martin. I am always in search of good royalty free music that doesnt sound too "studio or garageband" manufactured. I know myself and others would gladly pay a one time fee for music used in a video provided it was of sufficient quality. The problem is that most of the Brides we deal with want a particular song or at least a certain feel of music. The only thing we do right now is make sure that they provide the song. I really don't think there is a parallel comparrison to our field and the film industry when it comes to the project budgets and of course the net profits. Give me us a realistic avenue to purchase the music and I'm on board. Stock20.com is my favorite so far but they really need to increase the library volume more consistently.

I have a problem with using this as the justification. To take an extreme example, and I don't mean to equate videographers with dope dealers, but there's a consumer demand for crack, there's no system in place to obtain it legally, so does that justify an enterpreneur ignoring the law and going into business to satisfy that demand illegaly? While the severity of the issues aren't comparable, the principal involved is the same IMHO.

True, but consider the point of view of the owners of the music. Is there any complelling reason they OUGHT to make it available to small users at low cost? It's their property just like your work is your property. Would the fact you'd really like to have a F900 camera but can't afford the $100,000 price tag create any compulsion on the part of Sony to reduce the price? What is different about a current song that commands a $50000 license fee when used on "So You Think You Can Dance" that means the owners should feel obligated to make it available to you for $10? I think it would be NICE if they did, don't get me wrong, and I'd certainly support any efforts to create such a system, but it's very hard to make a compelling case that it OUGHT to be done and until it is done, there's no case at all that can justify being a scofflaw. Expediency ain't good enough.

Another thought:
 

I see no compelling reason, other than to offer the potential wisdom embedded in this question:

Would you rather have $ 100 from 100 customers, or $ 1 from 100,000 customers? From that perspective, the artists are "losing" $ 90,000.

The apparent "wisdom" of that thought seems obvious, (at least to me), but also seems to elude many "artists." Maybe because they're artists, not bean-counters or business managers?

Martin, I totally agree, and I think WEVA has made some pushes in that area. It would be awesome if they managed to implement a system. It would finally give me a good reason to join WEVA.

Steve, I wasn't trying to provide justification, more like explanation. I also don't think your "crack" example makes the point you want. Let's face it, crack is illegal to everyone, and there are major efforts in place to police it. Music usage isn't illegal across the board. If you have the money (ie, a large enough project) then you can get the rights. The problem is that for a videographer making 3 copies of a video that maybe a dozen people will see, he's not making enough money for an artist to be interested in negotiating a usage deal. Because his project is so small time and essentialy harmless to the artist, he's also not worth pursuing in a legal sense. It's like a catch-22.

Denis, you make an excellent point. I think the music industry is missing a nice opportunity here. The vast majority of videographers would gladly pay a yearly fee to gain legal-use rights to music, and there are A LOT of videographers out there. That's A LOT of additional money that the artists could be making. For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened yet. I'm assuming that it will eventually, though.

But we're not talking about legal music usage, we're talking about copying without permission and then selling the copies for a profit, which is, in fact, illegal across the board. There is really no difference between that and say the corner computer shops who sell PCs loaded up with pirated copies of Windows and other software. It's not limited to 3 copies of a song on a video seen by a handful of people either - if you're a successful video firm you may end up selling hundred of copies of a single popular song over the course of a season and that's really no difference between that and making clones of the CD as a commercial venture and selling them under the counter at your corner 7/11 store. It's absolutely not harmless to the artist because it dilutes the value of the song as a piece of commercial property. The public gets bored very quickly - the more exposure a song has, the more the people hear it in different places, the sooner they get tired of it and the sooner the market value drops as it's replaced by a shiney new tune that has caught the publics' ears. While it's in the artist's interest to secure airplay of the tune, it's not in the artist's interest at all to have it cropping up around every corner.

I once checked into the process of obtaining rights
 

for music from the Harry Fox agency. I've been told they handle a vast majority of that for a large portion of the music industry. Poking around their site, and "testing" their online process (as it existed at that time) to make copies of, I think, one of the older Beach Boys songs, I found that they had a minimum amount of 500. There was no way to "order" or "purchase" an amount below 500, as if they couldn't be bothered.

Wouldn't it be nice if that could be argued to serve as tacit approval for anyone willing to use less than 500 copies? Or, less likely, is there already legal precedent for that? (I doubt it).

Once, I was given what I strongly suspect was copyrighted, recorded music to overlay the soundtrack of a play I once shot; far from complete songs, but longer than I understand "fair use" to cover. I burned it to DVD and gave it to the client. It was a single DVD that the client said they would use to burn copies themself, one at a time. However, when I did the credits, I listed everyone except myself, for fear of infringement reprisal.(didn't want my fledgling business name associated with the recording)...didn't even use a lead-in. I also recently learned that the client has made so many copies, that they now want another "original" to make even more. And, I've been hired back to tape this year's performance, which will almost certainly be under the same circumstances. (It was for a non-profit, so my motives were at least altruistic, even though that wouldn't exonerate me). What to do, what to do.

I'll probably do the same as last year and miss out on all that free publicity on the hundreds of copies they'll likely make. Which raises some questions:
if the client makes the copies, and distributes them, does liability still rest with the videographer? Does it matter if the copies are distributed free, or "at cost" and without a profit? (Cost being the amount fo money to purchase the blanks and ink).

In your "crack example" there is no scenario in which using crack is legal. With music usage, if you have a large enough project with a good budget, then you have options open to you to make it legal. That is why I was saying that your "crack example" is a poor example.

I also think that comparing what videographers do to copying and selling music CD's or pirating softare is a poor example. With music and software piracy the client's goal is to gain music or software that he didn't previously own. 95% of my clients already own the music they are requesting on their DVD, but regardless of that, I STILL BUY THE MUSIC for every single project. So whereas with music and software piracy the artist or company is losing out on potential sales, they are actually gaining sales in the videographry scenario because I'm buying the music. Furthermore, with music and software piracy there is an alternative. Go to the store and buy the music or software. In the videographer scenario there is no alternative.

Now you may say the alternative is to contact the artist or publisher of the song and negotiate the rights, but that's a ridiculous suggestion because there's very little profit on a wedding video and the artist doesn't have enough to gain to make drawing up a bunch of legal paperwork worthwhile.

Finally, I have to disagree that the added exposure that videographers give artists is hurting them. Most artists are struggling every day to find new ways to gain exposure, not limit it.

My understanding is that you would still be partially responsible, since you don't have permission to "sync" the music with footage.

When it comes to copyrighted music, I draw the line if the project is beyond the scope of personal use. In other words, I'll do a wedding highlights video for a couple or a photo montage for someone's grandma, but if a company comes to me and wants to use copyrighted music in their promotional video - no way. The client's intent becomes entirely different at that point.

Not previously mentioned
 

I haven't seen these points mentioned yet, so I'm going to chime in.

Yes, it's admirable and virtuous to want to do "the right thing" when it comes to music licenses. However, the music industry as it exists today does not seem to make it possible to do the right thing in this particular situation and still be competitive in the wedding videography field. The music industry has an archaic business model that consists of trying to make as much money as possible on huge volumes to consumers, while charging obscene amounts for obscure things like synchronization rights, performance rights, and blow-your-nose-to-the-music rights. The music industry wanting to make money is not a good or bad thing, just a reality to deal with.

The Internet will hopefully change all this in time (look at what iTunes has already done to change the landscape for mainstream music consumers). For now the debate will continue to rage on, and the options will range from using stock music, to buying the tracks on iTunes, to having clients sign probably meaningless contracts, to ignoring the risks altogether.

This is somewhat a debate about morals, yes, but it is also a debate about best business practices. On the moral front, I leave you to make your own decision. There's nothing wrong with following your conscience before the almighty dollar, and it seems right to want to give the artists their fair share whenever possible. Remember, however, that concepts such as synchronization rights are not part of the ten commandments. :)

On the business front, it's really a simple cost/benefit analysis. The only thing that matters is whether you're going to get sued and lose. I would suggest that for now, the likelihood of getting sued is fairly low. Although the RIAA does not seem to care much about its reputation, I think that even they would not want to take the PR hit from suing newlyweds. If a lawsuit actually did happen, my guess is that the risk of losing would be fairly high, and the damages awarded would be moderate (4-5 figures, not including lawyer's fees).

But, I am not a lawyer. So I would also suggest that you talk with a lawyer about the best way to manage these risks. If you are running a business without having a lawyer as a resource, you're asking for problems beyond just the RIAA...

Hope this helps,
-- Elliot

But with rare exceptions, the music the B&G want is not from struggling artists seeking recognition, it's from top-line name talent who have more than their share of recognition already. Their talent is in high demand and that's why permission to use their work is so pricey. Think Shania Twain needs your help in gaining recognition? LOL

Buit they're not going to sue the newlyweds, they're not the party that made the illegal copy. They're going to come after YOU as the person selling pirating copies of the work because you are the one who actually did the deed.

The argument that if there were easy and inexpensive ways to license the music everyone would do it doesn't wash but since it's not, well, we can just go take it anyway. That's the excuse of the burglar - "I can't afford that bling but I've got a right to have it." We can assume because of the lack of interest on the part of the music publishing industry in establishing a such as system that the music is difficult to license and expensive because by and large the owners of the property don't want it to be used that way. It's their property and they have that right.

I think you misread my post. I didn't say "struggling artists". I said most artists are struggling to gain exposure. Yes, even the big-name artists are always looking for new ways to promote themselves. So, yes, I think if I create a highlights video to a Shania Twain song it helps Mrs. Twain. Why? Because the couple now associates that song and artist directly with the most beautiful day of their life.

Case in point. When my wife and I got married I used Green Day's "Time of Your Life" for the highlights (the song is actually titled "Good Riddance", but SHHHHH! d;-) ). My wife was never into Green Day, but after hearing the song and having it a part of our wedding, she now has actually gone to a Green Day concert, listens to their music on occassion, and points out "Time of Your Life" to anyone and everyone if it comes on the radio. It's now "our song". That can only be good for a band like Green Day, who certainly isn't a "struggling artist" either.

I don't think you're giving the vast majority of wedding videographers due credit. I would bet that at least 75% of videographers would readily adopt to a system where you pay a fee for rights to use music. We want the peace of mind.


Actually, I don't think you can make that assumption either. There was pretty strong demand for a system like Napster (which I didn't use) for quite a while and the music industry didn't do anything. But after a while they recognized the profit potential and now you have systems like iTunes. I think eventually they will create something for videographers, but not until they recognize that there are profits to be made.

I agree - I think they would too. What I take exception to is the attitude that since such as system doesn't yet exist and they can't afford the licenses or can't negotiate the admittedly formidable hurdles to getting licenses to popular songs with the present system (and licensing IS possible, just a real PITA and prohibitivley expensive), they're going to go ahead and use the music anyway and hope nobody catches them. I think that is the wrong thing to do.

It is the wrong thing to do AND perhaps the only thing to do.

I was in business for just over 3 years when I first learned that using music a couple provided was not legal. By then I had already quit my other job, and invested nearly $20k in my new business. My options were limited. Switch to using stock music only; a move I'm pretty sure would end my ability to stay in business. Quit the business and walk away with $20k in debt. Or stay in the business and do what every other videographer has been doing for decades.

If the end-all of your argument is that using the music is wrong, then you've made your point and we've all agreed with you before you ever made it. My point is that for those of us ACTUALLY IN THE SITUATION, the decision of what to do is not that simple.

...
 

I understand that, but I still maintain that the likelihood of a lawsuit is fairly low, because wedding videography is not a business with a few large players that can be easily sued for large amounts of money, and RIAA lawsuits for the sake of making an example of the little guy are an unquantifiable risk at this point.

That's one viewpoint that I can see the merit of, but I also have to acknowledge that there are equally good arguments for other view points. I don't think this is the place to convince people of particular views. This is because it detracts from a focus on the primary topic - making great wedding videos for people - and because it gets into legal issues that none of us are really qualified to make authoritative statements on.

I think this *is* the place to help videographers understand the consequences of their music decisions. Beyond that, it's just a pointless bunch of noise.

Best,
-- Elliot

New Rule: If wedding videographers 'must' pirate music, then they have to use a crappy 22 khz, low bitrate, compressed mono version of the Bride's favorite song.

Some random thoughts for you all...

if the B&G are the "producers" and you are just the camera op and editor, being paid to memorialize the event for the couple, I'd think you've got a reasonable position. Does anyone sue the camera op or the editor? Perhaps caution in titles is in order... it's nice to be the "producer", until the buck (or subpoena) lands on your desk...

You aren't going to ask if the couple has a valid marriage license, whether they have warrants out for their arrest, what "cousin Vinnie" does for a living, or if there are any other legal irregularities about their little event are you? SO if they say here's the music we want our video to have and imply they own it, who are we to say they don't have the right to use it?

"don't ask" or spell it out in the contract - "B&G producing the event are responsible for providing any materials/songs/pictures to videographer, and are responsible for any clearances/rights to use said materials. In no event is the videographer responsible for the procurement of or failure to procure said clearances." B&G agree to indemnify videographer from any liability resulting from use of materials provided. (at least your legal bill is paid...)

If there's music playing in the background while you're shooting, the music is incidental to the video...
Whole nother ball game if YOU provide the music. You'd better have the rights...

I'd suggest if you produce a demo for "public promotion" you use something "generic" that doesn't have copyright issues, otherwise you ARE using someone elses work to promote your business... Danger.

If you produce 5-10 DVD's for the couple (What if you do more? Is there a "cut off"?) for PRIVATE non profit use for their personal viewing and remembering of their special day, it's hard to argue that video is somehow being produced for a "profit" from its exhibition. I think most copyright issues ultimately revolve around whether someone makes a profit from someone elses work... when you do a wedding video, you profit from YOUR work shoting and editing (see above), not particularly from the use of a specific song the couple says is "our song" (it's obviously not "their" song, but you get the idea...).



If one really thinks about it, how many bar bands do "cover tunes" that technically violate the performance rights of an artist, and how many artists are complaining that they somehow lose money when their tune gets blasted out one more time because people LIKE it???

Fame, "popularity" (and taking public office) tend to dilute the legal protections one has (anyone else sick of Paris???)- the more popular you are, the more difficult it is to argue that somehow that very popularity dilutes your economic standing.

The practical problem here is that the relatively small number of copies that the average videographer will produce for the couples' private viewing pleasure are typically so small as to be a rounding error... Yes it would be nice if every artist could get a couple pennies EVERY time someone used their work, but I suspect that the "inventor" of such a system will die a pauper...

SO, until that system pops into being, be careful how you use someone elses work... Until then, Travis's approach of buying a copy for each DVD produced from whatever music service sells it at least shows an attempt to compensate the artist - and in fact compensation... diluting any argument that the artist somehow was damaged.

For what they're worth... some ideas, best not to get sued, maybe this will help y'all be safe out there!

Not true at all. You are in business to shoot, edit, and assemble an event into a final product, creating a program - the wedding video - which you then sell at retail to the B&G, and you make a profit, your livelihood, from its sale. You are far more than a merely camera operator who points his camera where the director tells him or an editor cutting footage at the direction of a producer, simply following the directions of someone else who is responsible for the creative content. You are the producer, the creative force who is solely responsible for the content - the only role of the B&G is that of paying customer purchasing a customized piece of merchandise that you're offering to sell them.

Profit from exhibition or not doesn't enter the picture, or even whether its exhibited publically or not. It would be just as illegal if you gave them the video for free - just like it's illegal to go buy an audio CD and make copies on your computer to give to all your friends.

The B&G (or anyone else) can themselves make copies of an audio CD for their own use as they wish. What isn't legal is for a duplication house to take accept the CD that the couple owns from them and make a number of copies for them, charging a fee for the copy. The owner of the CD isn't violating the law but the duplication merchant is. The same rules apply if they bring you a CD, or you purchase a CD for them, and then copy the music to your video and then sell them the copy in the form of the wedding video you're selling them. You're in same boat as the duplication house making copies for a fee.

Your suggsted contract provision does nothing either. Sections of a contract that are contrary to law are void on their face. You can't give a drug dealer $1000 on his written promise that he'll bring you a quantity of coke the next day and then sue him in court for violating your contract if he doesn't deliver. The driver of a getaway car doen't get off by having his bank robber partner sign a waiver that he'll accept responsibility if they get caught. In the case of using unlicensed music in the video, as the merchant and working professional in the business of producing videos for sale you can be presumed to know the law and it's your responsibility to decline an illegal request from your customers just as it is the responsibility of any merchant in any industry.

What is especially interesting to me is that most still photographers who cover weddings follow the law with regard to respecting the copyrights of other photographers - try taking prints you purchased from wedding studio A over to wedding studio B and see if they'll make copies for you, fat chance! - and surely the demands from the wedding party on them to bend the law are just as strong as they are on videographers. As I said before, it's no wonder the wedding still shooters look down their noses at video people as not being fellow "true professionals" when they're on the scene - look at all the threads here about how often video people get no respect and little cooperation from the wedding planners, the still photographers, even sometimes even the officiants and the venues - threads such as prohibitions against wireless mics indicates the venue doesn't really care about the quality of sound in something they think of as a trivial product, compared to the way they'll often go out of their way to help the still shooter get good coverage. Look at the threads talking about how much more the still shooters get away with charging. I think it's at least partially because all too often the wedding videographer really does act more like a hobbyist than a business and media professional in the conduct of his business and certainly in the handling of requests to use music illegally, something filmmakers and working videographers in other specialties wouldn't even THINK of doing, it's too often true.

Steve -
First let me suggest your rhetoric reduces your credibility - labelling videographers "unprofessional" because they are struggling to sort out complex legal issues and suggesting they get no respect because of their inability to do so is frankly silly.

C'mon, get real here. The "professionals" discussing this are looking at this from a practical standpoint, and who knows, maybe this will lead to a solution... simply labeling (libeling?) everyone as a criminal with malicious intent is not helpful. If you've got practical solutions, offer them up, that will help everyone!!

Videographers memorializing a private event aren't criminals any more than someone who makes a copy of something they purchased for their own use (fair use is fundamental case law on copyright, albeit being constantly atacked and eroded by those who want the user to pay for EVERY SINGLE time they use or view a "work"). Time and format shifting are a relatively new multimedia phenomenon - and some say it shouldn't be legal, while at least some legal precedents and practical acknowledgement of REALITY say it IS. It's an evolving, complex issue, and calling everyone who doesn't see it your way a criminal is just rhetoric.

There's NOTHING fundamentally illegal about videotaping a private, not for profit event, for future private, not for profit viewing. There's nothing fundamentally illegal about offering professional services for shooting said video and editing it. The grey area is of course where the use of someone else's art or work may become involved... and it's VERY professional to discuss this rationally, to the credit of everyone posting.



You miss the simple point that a camera op and editor on a big production aren't worrying about clearances -there's a person or whole department dedicated to sorting our clearances and promotional consideration (i.e. in film "advertising"...). Watching a TV show the other night, it was pretty obvious that there was a sponsor giving the show "product" to "feature". I'm going to go out on a beefy limb here and say a musical artist would give away the rights to allow a "hit" TV show to feature their work prominently so their album would be "cross promoted". I've seen such blatant promotion more than once, and it makes sense...

To suggest that a small video operation, that can make it economically viable for a couple to have a lasting memory of their special day, is going to have a legal team to sort through and negotiate these issues is a bit absurd.

I think the B&G would rather have someone who can shoot straight and edit artfully than someone who spends all their time sorting out copyright clearances... especially since this is a one time private event on a schedule. Maybe one day we'll see Pepsi or Coke or some Vodka company "sponsoring" wedding videos... hey, the door swings both ways here... BUT until then...

If we're talking a few copies for family and friends, and as Travis suggested a copy is purchased for each DVD produced, the artist is compensated - I'm failing to see "damages", and I see a professional "solution" to a sticky problem. Perhaps imperfect, but certainly thoughtful!


I like analogies too, rather practical ones...

A couple buys a song on CD (or via the web), they have the right to play it for personal use and enjoyment, RIGHT? You produce a video designed to be played along with that "theme music" on a separate disc, and the couple pays you to create that video - the couple must simply press play on two players at the same time. Where is any law being broken? You have not facilitated any theft of copyright, but it's mighty inconvenient, so as a practical matter (using the miracles of modern digital technology), you record the two together so that they need only press one "play" button. The end result is the same, so where are the damages? Where is the "theft"? Where is the harm to the artist?? Presumably the couple will not be charging ayone to watch their wedding video, OR listening to the original music at the exact same time, SO they arguably have the right to shift formats of product they PAID for. You're facilitating the couple using their own "private property" for their personal enjoyment - not offering it for sale to anyone who comes along (and unless the couple happen to be famous, who would CARE anyway???)

NOW, here's the flip side (and I presume where you're coming from) - put that same video on the internet, and you've violated copyrights all over the place, and probably should be issued a "cease and desist" letter immediately.

There are a lot of people making their own "music videos" and "publishing" to the net without any regard to the rights of the original artist... "fair use" and "derivative work" aside, there is probably far too much of this going on...

Thus my suggestion that if you're a videographer (pro OR hobby-ist!) posting your work "in public" or for profit (including to promote your business), use buyout tracks or licensed or otherwise cleared music. The big danger is of course anything in a digital format can be illegally copied, even if you yourself didn't mean that to happen... so don't post anything you wouldn't want "stolen". If you wouldn't leave your CD sitting out for anyone to grab, don't post the same content on the internet!


Another analogy - a town decides that everyone should pay to park in a specific area... but instead of installing meters so it's easy to do, they put an obscure box on the outskirts of town, and give everyone who doesn't go out of their way to put their .25/.50/.75 in that box (did I mention different spaces have different prices... but there's no clear definition of which is which) a ticket and a huge fine becuse they are "criminals" violating the town ordinance. First, no one will go to that town, and anyone who does is nuts - the town "shot itself in the foot..." Second, while the town may have the right to collect payment for parking, thereby producing revenue, they also had an obligation to facilitate said payment in a reasonable and effective way, and their failure to do so is at the least negligence, taking the wind out of any claims they may have. Are you going to argue the town has acted reasonably, and the "criminals", who wouldn't mind paying the .25/.50/.75, but were prevented from doing so because of the lack of a practical way to do so, are terrible people and should pay huge fines??

One last practical analogy for the situation we have here... you're driving along, and stop at a red light. After sitting for several minutes, you come to realize that the light is "stuck" and after looking both ways to confirm that no traffic is coming you proceed through the intersection. You just ran a red light and broke the law, didn't you?? And I'll bet you've done this EXACT thing a time or two - the alternative was to sit there forever and hope things would change... that's not sensible either! You don't go running red lights just for giggles, you don't make a practice of it, but the "system" was broken, so you proceed "at your own risk" to get to your destination. Maybe you take that route 10 times a week, and the signal's ALWAYS broken, maybe you even call it in to whoever maintains the light... and it's still broken. Your choices are limited, so yes, you "turn to crime" <wink>, but does this make your intent criminal or malicious?? NOPE, just someone trying to get where you're going.

IP law is a major headache, no doubt, and we're saddled with a "broken", "analog" enforcement/compensation structure in a digital world. Online music in general has gone through this and arrived at some sort of "solution", so at some point this will be addressed... we can hope. Until then, as a practical matter, we must "proceed at our own risk". I believe that is the original intent of this thread, understanding that risk, and how to properly deal with it!!

Hope I haven't muddied the waters too much with such a long post , but I think the points are valid.

I actually think you make a good point about posting work on the internet. I'm going to have to mull that one over now. Although, if you post it as Flash, it seems it would be a lot harder to rip the song. Interesting either way.

Proceed at your own risk... always good advice.

And went caught in a lawsuit , simply smile and say "Well, I knew it was always possible" and politely pay up.

Travis -

I think we forget how many "potential" viewers there are out there - if you've password protected your video so maybe a couple out of town relatives can come and see it for 6 months after the wedding (and maybe buy a copy), it's one thing, but to post "public", I think you open up the doors to an infringement claim BIG time.

After all, this was what the "file sharing" services got into trouble for - it basically provided a way to "give away" free access to stuff you bought to use yourself, thereby violating the implied agreement between you and the copyright owner (you can use it yourself for "fair use", resell the one copy if you don't want it anymore) - it's not terribly different from going and making a thousand copies of a CD that you don't own the content on, and giving them away... only it was easier... it damages someone else, that ain't right. And yes, where the rights owner hasn't been paid, it's theft of some other parties hard work. No one wants that.

How many guys lent out their record for a friend to check out and maybe make one copy? Maybe the guy goes and buys his own or some other records by the same artist because he digs the tunes... that was "back in the day". Lousy casette copies of relatively lo-fi scratchy vinyl...

NOW, with it all digital and the net everywhere, a thousand people can go load up for free - I watched guys doing this, and thinking nothing of it, and found it appalling. Digital content distribution changes everything.

BUT this doesn't mean EVERYONE is malicious and has criminal intent, technology is morally neutral, it's how it's used.

SO, who wants to put a company together to do digital rights management for videographers? Might be worth exploring... anyone got a few thousand spare hours? I see attorneys... AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

<wink>