Much ado about nothing! I have never heard any music publishing company suing anyone for using music on someones personal wedding video.

Stelios

Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and with great frequency. Such lawsuits are often setted before trial once the defendent's lawyer makes it clear to him that he doesn't have a prayer of winning.

The problem that makes it illegal is not that the music could be ripped from the download from YouTube. It's illegal because the poster TOO YouTube stole the music when they copied it into their video.

The idea is that music is a commercial product. The ONLY reason the people who wrote it, published it, performed it, recorded it, distributed it, marketed, sold it did all that was to make a buck and pay their bills. When you buy a CD you are licensing it for your personal listening pleasure. The law does allow you to do a few limited things to make it more convenient to perform its primary function, like make a copy on your mp3 player to listen to while jogging, for example, but aside from those limited uses, listening to it is all you can do with it. If you want to become part of the party and use that product to somehow pay your OWN bills or even if you just want to be a nice guy and make it available to others to enjoy, you need to pay the creators for the priviledge. While I agree that it would be great if it were easier and cheaper for us little guys to get the required licenses, there's no compelling reason that it 'ought' to be that way. Lennon and McCartny wrote "All You Need Is Love" for THEIR benefit, not mine, and there's no moral principal that says I have a right to use it to my benefit beyond the pleasure I get from listening to it. It's the result of their personal work and they (or their estates) have every right to say what it can and cannot be used for and how much each use will cost. As to whether their demands are reasonable or not, that's just not something any of us have a right even to have a voice in ... the music is their property just like your camera is your property and they have the absolute right to total control over what it's used for.

I've been there before, and there are other sites like it as well. The problem is, they don't carry music from popular artists that the b&g are likely to ask for. The music they sell is good, but if the b&g wants a highlight video set to their first dance song, which happens to be "Right Here Waiting" by Richard Marx, then I'm still stuck.

Interesting article on this subject.

http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Read...rticleID=11202

Here is the web site for the wedding licensing organization in the UK

http://www.wvrl.co.uk/richtext.asp?p...&content_id=38

There is also an interesting case where a videographer was sued by the recording industry for using music on Amway videos he made. He was found "wholly responsible for the copyright infringement" even though he tried to get some of the Amway distributors involved. The court would not see it.

This gets back to my reply earlier on that, as an independent contractor, we cannot pass the responsibility for our illegal actions to our clients. The "she told me to use that music" defense just will not work in the eyes of the court.

http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/m...14123.man.html

Finally, YouTube does not condone the posting of copyrighted material to it's site. It clearly states that in the user agreement and when you try to post you will get a prompt to agree to those terms before uploading. They also will not protect violators and will pass your real identity or to law enforcement if served with a subpeona.

There are any number of suits pending against Google and YouTube for copyright violations. Just do a search and you'll find them!

What about the DJ's playing this copyrighted music at the reception? They are being paid too, and I'm pretty darn sure that they are not paying royalties. DJ's fall under the same situation as we do. The music they purchase/download is meant for non-commercial use same as us, but they are getting paid to play it. And what if they do have a license for each song played (which, of course, would cost them way too much money)? We are still recording the reception, hence we are recording the music that's being played. Are we supposed to ADR the reception, and cut out the music in the background? This is a difficult situation. I understand arguments on both sides (I, like others, do use music for the video's and unfortunately run the risk).

I've suggested to B&G's not to use their choice of music due to the legal issues and they looked at me as if I was crazy. Imagine a DJ telling the B&G that they could only play royalty free music at the reception... think they'd get hired?

Already covered in this thread, Todd. Go back and read it over.

Thanks George,

I did read the thread, but somehow I missed that (must have been when my two boys were jumping on the couch).

That makes sense, but how does it cover the fact that we tape the reception? Of course the music (typically the entire song) would be heard during the first dance, etc. Obviously we can't cut the music out. Even though the venue and DJ is covered due to it's license agreement, we are not. How do we legally stand in this case?

Todd

I'm not a lawyer but I would venture to say you are somewhat safe if you are simply covering the event and you do not control (add in post later on) that music.

My rule of thumb when I work for a producer is to always have any radios, CD players, TV's turned off prior to shooting. Even art work and photographs are now a no-no unless created by the person we are shooting.

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>)