It is illegal unless you get all of the proper permisions by all of the copyright holders in the US.

yeah. Here'sthe rule I follow:

if I didn't make it i need permission. No exceptions. :)

Just curious, I dont really do wedding videos, but what do you do in the case where a performer does a cover of a song in the ceremony.
Does that mean you have to leave that out of your video?

This topic comes up a lot here - maybe Sony should just put anther forum about music around here somewhere. Anyway - this whole topic just came up and has been very acive - matter of fact when I saw this thread it was about one post above the other one. So look here for some answers -
http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=300196&Replies=51&Page=1

um...... yup. :) Or you could ask permission (i just got permission from Fox Music & Sony to use a song in a grad video i'm doing. Took about a month & $50 ($1 per DVD sold) but oh well. :) )

Hi bob

if u know this off hand, what were the costs involved to obtain a license from apra in australia? Also, what would it be classed as for wedding video work - production music, music in business? i'm just trying to look through their website. Thanks

I think the figure I heard was around $800 / year or under $100 per video. Don't know much more, suggest you contact APRA, I'm sure they don't bite.

thanks!

Filmy,
The problem with the previous link is that it became a mess of opinions, facts, and pseudo-facts. Here are the possible problems I am facing with shooting weddings: The organist plays music that is copyrighted. The vocalists sing songs with lyrics that are copyrighted along with the music from compact discs that are copyrighted. There are works of art in the church are copyrighted, and should not be shown on tape. Then we get to the reception, where the groom or bride had a slideshow produced using copyrighted music synched to their images. The DJ comes in and stages an unlawful public performance of copyrighted music with an unlawfully synched light show. Then I get to edit all of that. What am I left with?

I realize that the possibility of being prosecuted for these "offenses" is minimal, but ask a copyhouse to make a copy of this work for you, and see what you get.

Please, somebody tell me I'm wrong about this.

P.S., Adding insult to injury, the DJ generally makes MORE than I do.

>>>Here are the possible problems I am facing with shooting weddings: The organist plays music that is copyrighted. The vocalists sing songs with lyrics that are copyrighted along with the music from compact discs that are copyrighted. There are works of art in the church are copyrighted, and should not be shown on tape. Then we get to the reception, where the groom or bride had a slideshow produced using copyrighted music synched to their images. The DJ comes in and stages an unlawful public performance of copyrighted music with an unlawfully synched light show. Then I get to edit all of that. What am I left with?<<<

Lets give the others a benefit of the doubt with a few things here.

1> The church has paid license fees in order to obtain the sheet music for playing those "copyrighted" pieces. The license covers public performance. So the organist has done nothing wrong if they are using that sheet music the church has paid for to play music in the church.

2> The vocalist/choir is singing along to the same music as I mentioned above. In the case of singing to CD's lets say the church has done the same thing. Obtained buyout music or "karaoke" type sing along CD's that have been cleared for this sort of thing.

3> The "works of art" in the church were purchased and, or donated, to the church for public display. It is true you may not directly copy those works and than sell reproductions of them however simply seeing these on the wall in the background does not mean you have broken any laws reguarding copyright. Chances are it is covered under "fair use". If you start focusing too much on the art and it becomes about that, than you may have a problem. Whatever the case may be on your end, on the church's end they have done nothing wrong by having these works of art on display.

4> At the reception the slideshow may contain the illegal use of music, but if you know this than you simply do not use that music. It could also be they have obtained the licenses on their end. ..but that still does not mean that you would have the right to reproduce what they have paid for.

5> The Dj comes in and plays music. The DJ, and the reception hall, may also be paying monthly fees to ASCAP and the like.

Ok - so lets figure these are all correct. Than you come in with your video gear. Now what have *you* done? Have you obtained the proper license for the material you have shot? Did you clear and have the church sign a property release form? Did you sign any agreement with the organist allowing you the right to record their performance of the piece? Or the vocalist? At the reception you are knowingly taping, with audio, the DJ spinning records. Clearly unless you have paid for the proper licenses you already know you can not use any of the audio. Or let me just skip to the post production part - you edit your piece and you have all this music on it. Have you now obtained the proper licenses? My question is this to you - why is it assumed that everyone else has done something wrong and you haven't?

>>>I realize that the possibility of being prosecuted for these "offenses" is minimal, but ask a copyhouse to make a copy of this work for you, and see what you get.<<<

It is not just the duplication houses that are worried about this. Other outlets are as well. More and more I have even seen news reporters show a clip of something sans any audio. In more cases now I hear the reporter point out there is no audio because of copyright issues. I think the "possibility of being prosecuted" anymore is getting higher, even under what used to be news and 'fair use'.

>>>Please, somebody tell me I'm wrong about this.<<<

Your assumption that everyone in your scenerio but you has done something wrong I feel is way off base. If I come to you and hire you to create a wedding video it could be argued that it would be up to you to clear all the music for use on the video. It would be up to you to obtain any needed property release forms and the like. No different than if I come to you and say "I want you to produce a film." It isn't up to me to make the film and clear all talent and music and so on. All I want is a final product that people can watch and that I, hopefuly, will be able to do something with.

>>>P.S., Adding insult to injury, the DJ generally makes MORE than I do.<<<

That might be because the DJ has to pay fees, the same way a radio station has to pay fees.

You coudl always add these fees to your cost, BUT for some things (like the DJ) you don't know what songs they are going to play. Or, you can't get the info until the day of the even (or worse still, you get the info months in advance, pays the fees, THEN find out the changed their minds!)

But, if you add the fees (which could add up to hundreds or thousands) then who would want to legaly video tape & edit a wedding? :) It would be cheaper to them to have a family memer record it. :(

This makes me a little depressed. :(

I have to agree with Happy.

Filmy, I am not saying that the others (Church, performers, etc) are wrong. What I AM saying is that somewhere along the line things get stupid-silly. Copyright is there to protect the rights of the copyright holders, NOT to infringe on the rights of others. Purposely dubbing a song over video is one thing, but using ambient sound is another. Yes, I could use crowd noises and buy-out music, but that is not what clients want to hear. Let's have a bunch of talking heads, but no sync sound. Maybe I can sell to the deaf crowd, since they can lip read anyway. Better yet, let's subtitle it! What a novel idea. This IS sarcasm, by the way. Copyright law was created for the right reasons, but it has become corrupted by greed (I'm selling this soapbox when I'm done with it). I know this issue has been talked out to death on this forum, but it just makes me angry.

P.S. Music is also nostalgic. People want to remember what they heard at certain moments in their lives. Same thing applies to clothing. Can you imagine if Nike started suing video producers because a pair of Jordans got caught on tape, or Ray-Ban didn't like the groom wearing Wayfairers after the ceremony? Don't kid yourselves. That IS where this is headed.

>"I know this issue has been talked out to death on this forum, but it just makes me angry."

I wonder if there are enough of us "angry" ones to consider actually doing something to change things?

I agree with Happy as well - the adding on of fees to your production costs makes perfect sense. The costs, for the US anyway, would get to the point of not being able to do a job. THis I can agree with as well.

The laws are always changing. Lobby your congressman. It's an election year so you know maybe if every single event producer/videographer lobbied their congressman we could see some change. It wouldn't be easy however and would probably take the 4 - 8 years to see any change.

To me what I see as having really changed is the means in which someone could be exploited. In another post I made a while back I brought up the Henry Winkler film Heros. When I first saw that film it ended with him running down a street and freaking out. As he sat down the strains of a Kansas song came on - "Once I rose above the noise and confusion, just to catch a glimpse beyond this illusion..." . At the time the concept of Home Video wasn't really in the cards. Certianly not DVD's and things like multi channels of Showtime, HBO, Encore and PPV films. The endless channels on cable that could, and do, run these films were not out there either. But at some point someone came into the picture and said "Hey you don't have the license for TV or Video or Cable...blah blah." So the song was removed. In that same post I told about the TV show Miami Vice - based heavly around the soundtrack, one of the first TV shows to make use of the MTV vibe. It isn't out on video becuase the costs to license the music for Video/DVD is too expensive.

All I am saying is that as other means become available why shouldn't the laws change to reflect that? They should. Problem is that in many cases the laws are just based on already existing laws - and that becomes the problem. At one point an argument such as "It cost us blah blah money to do that recording and press it up and promote it..." was very important. Right now the argument is sitll important however if the music is being promoted via the internet and the artist has an MP3 download of the song on their website and if the song is some sort of techno piece done with acid loops than, to me, it becomes a matter of someone looking at the law and than looking at the reality of year 2004 and saying "You know, you used royalty free/buy out music to create this music. and place it freely on a website that is freely viewable by billions of people all around the world. Did you honestly think that no one would download it? Did you honestly think that no one would 'swap' it? How much did it cost to produce this song? What other tracks did you use the same loops on? Are there any real musicians other than yourself on this track?" Well - you get the idea. I know there are those who will say "it doesn't matter if it cost 1 penny of 1 million dollars, that isn't the point." And that is very true - but that isn't my point here. Re-read the above if you think it is.

I agree that things are getting sue-silly. Not just in the industry but everywhere. I recently served jury duty. Next door was a fairly high profile murder trial...something that I would say was important. The trial I was part of saw a woman suing her boyfrend. Over what? Seems 3 years ago they were taking cans and bottles back to get the cash deposits back. He loaded up the bags in the backseat of a mini-van and closed the door. Her fingers were in the door. Were they fighting? No. Are they still together? Yes. Was this about insurance money? Can't say because that was never discussed. Did he admit to doing it? Yes. Was there damage to the fingers? Yes. Even the lawyers pointed out there wasn't any argument about what happened. We heard everything went back into the jury room and all looked at each other and sort of all went "What was *that* about?". We found him not guilty...because we had to decide if he was he negligent. And we all said "This was an accident...and considering what is going on next door this is pretty stupid."

I would love to see jury trials start happening with all the file sharing. I would love to, song by song, have lawyers point out what songs were freely available on record label websites and artist websites. I would love to see a band like Metalica go on trial and defend how they allow fans to record, both audio and video, and trade those recordings but are against "file sharing".