licensed music

[Captain Mench]

There are lots of good music libraries you can use for your wedding videos. Pay for the cd of that stuff and you’ll be able to use at will.

Pay for a cd of someone elses music that is protected by rights and you’ll get in trouble.

Might not the first time, but hey— they’re arresting 13 year old kids for downloading music to their bedrooms. You want to make $2500 and do it for free?

Please.

CaptM

[Peter Ralph]

you are probably ok using music supplied by the client – its not quite as straightforward as including the live music of the event in the video, but it’s a lot more defensible that slapping some movie soundtrack over the live audio.

[Bouncing Account needs new email address]

[Peter Ralph] “you are probably ok using music supplied by the client”

Wow!

I can’t believe someone with your pro experience said that.

NO ONE is “alright” using any “non-cleared” copyrighted music in a professional edit.

“But my client handed me the CD” is not a defense. Not even a little bit.

Am I misinterpreting your answer?

If so, I apologize. But that’s how I read it.

[Doug Lewis]

Here’s something I’ve never understood. I can walk into my living room and pick out a CD that I own and use it to play with pictures of my kids on a family video and there is no problem. Why is it that someone can’t bring to me their pictures and their CD and pay me to do the edit work. If they had the talent, equipment, etc, they could do it themselves with no problem. All I am doing is the “labor” that they cannot do because of lack of talent, equip, etc. Is this a “grey” area? Probably not.

[Bouncing Account needs new email address]

Just do a Google search for “Synchronization Copyright” or similar.

Is topic is always under discussion.

It is the actual “connecting the music WITH the images” that comes into play here (as well as “reproduction copyright”).

We can debate the LOGIC (or lack thereof) of these laws forever… but what really matters is the FACT that they EXIST.

[Doug Graham]

The difference is that you are making money creating a media product. Using someone else’s copyrighted material as a part of that product, to earn money, without giving them fair compensation, is a no-no.

The problem here in the U.S.A. is that the mechanisms for obtaining permission, and providing “fair” compensation, were originally set up for Hollywood studios and record companies. They aren’t suitable for small budget productions like weddings or video scrapbooks.

The copyright law itself isn’t to blame, so much as the established legal machinery for implementing it. It badly needs work; other countries, like Australia and the U.K., have workable mechanisms for small-budget producers obtaining licenses, so it can be done.

Until someone tackles this, your only legal recourses are to use buyout music, compose and perform your own, or use a loop-based program like Acid to create it.

If you decide to break the law, you’ll have lots of company. The risk of being sued is pretty low (so far, anyway). But does the fact that many others are doing it, and that you probably won’t get punished, make it right? I don’t think so, but it’s an ethical and business decision that every event videographer must face.

Regards,
Doug Graham

[Peter Ralph]

Matte – this subject has been done to death many times on this forum, just do a search to find out more than you would ever want to know about my take on wedding video and copyright.

3 things:

To understand fair use you must understand the difference between equity and common law. Fair use is an equitable doctrine, and the courts have consistently resisted all attempts by the legislature to limit its application. It is wrong to assume that the copyright act represents the final word on this issue.

Many years ago there was legitimate doubt as to wether or not fair use could be applied in commercial uses. Supreme court decisions in Mad magazine vs Walt Disney, and 2 Live Crew vs Roy Orbison (the “Pretty Woman” case) have clarified this issue. You can claim fair use protection for commercial productions.

I believe that including recorded music in a wedding video is covered by fair use. Taking an unrelated piece of music and plastering it over the wedding video for dramatic effect is just as clearly not covered by fair use. Here the case in point falls between the two, hence my proviso. And yes I believe that a judge in adjudicating an equitable remedy would be concerned about where the music came from, and who suggested its use.

[Bouncing Account needs new email address]

[Peter Ralph] “I believe that including recorded music in a wedding video is covered by fair use.”

The key part of that sentence is the “I believe…”

I’m not trying to argue the point (OK, a little bit), but it can be very dangerous to the pocketbooks of those “tuning in” here to say that “fair use” means you can do anything your client wants you to do with copyrighted works.

Hey, BOTH can get prosecuted, cha-CHING!

I wish it were simple, but it is very unclear.

Remember that the Disney Co. sued and won against a small daycare center for painting Mickey and other Disney characters on the walls.

Its not the “evil” corporations trying to stick it to the little guy. They MUST defend their property. The law holds that if one does NOT PROTECT a copyright, over time, the work(s) can fall into Public Domain.

But, as you said, this has all been rehashed to infinity.

(Google “copyright law” for even more confusion).

[Kyle S]

NO, No, No, and once again for those who don’t seem to understand the answer is No.

The cases you list fall into the class of parody and sarcasm, which typically have always fallen into the fair use grouping. You can use whatwever music you wish since the chances of getting sued are rather small. Just remember all it takes is your client to send a copy to Aunt Martha who has a neighbor who watches it with her one evening, and that neighbor happens to work for ABC record company who released the song. Strange things like this are what usually catch small producers and then you get “the letter”.

It galls me to no end when people who create things for a living suggest that it should be ok to just lift someone elses creative work. If you create a wonderful opening to use in front of your weddings, say using different shots of churches, flowers, wedding bells, whatever, how would you feel if I just lifted it and put in on my work? Fair use right?

Kyle

[Peter Ralph]

Kyle – you believe that a judge would criminalize a citizen, and conceivably send him to prison, for commissioning a video of his wedding – I respectfully disagree.

Your contention that parody has always been protected by fair use is flat wrong – in 1993 the 2nd circuit court of appeal held that 2livecrew’s parody of Pretty Woman was illegal. The Supreme Court reversed the decision the following year. 11 years is a long time but “always”?

Sarcasm? I like the sound of that, but again I think you’ve got it wrong.

In the future, maybe sarcasm will be be included as fair use (I can’t see how personally) – certainly the courts continue to expand the fair use doctrine year by year. Will it be extended to cover wedding videography? Certainly not unless someone institutes a suit, and so far no-one has done that. Can it really be, as you imply, that no-one in the recording industry has ever seen a wedding video?

You certainly claim a more restrictive interpretation of fair use than either the legislature or the judiciary:

“Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts……
The statement of the fair use doctrine in section 107 offers some guidance to users in determining when the principles of the doctrine apply. However, the endless variety of situations and combinations of circumstances that can rise in particular cases precludes the formulation of exact rules in the statute. The bill endorses the purpose and general scope of the judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory explanation of what fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to it, the courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular situations on a case-by-case basis….the works and uses to which the doctrine of fair use is applicable are as broad as the copyright law itself”

excerpts are from house report no.94-1476 dealing with section 107 (the fair use section) of the 1976 Copyright Act