His big mistake was to put it on YouTube.

"We can't live without showing our work online," he said, "but because of the lawsuits we have to pull it off the web."

Another producer said, "I did have a video that went viral, we had used a very popular song on it, someone saw it and brought it to the attention of the label's legal team and from there they came after us."

If I want to use a piece music what is the correct procedure to be able to use it freely?

Buy the license--which might cost more than you probably make in a year.

i knew it would happen sooner than later. The one part that really sums it up and that is typical (and sad coming form a "professional") is this one: "He said he can buy generic music for $50 for a three-minute track, but it cuts into his profits and his newlywed clients don't like it as much."

In laymans terms: "Yes I could spend 50 bucks for royalty free music but my client is paying me thousdands of dollars and really likes Whitney Huston so I am just going to just use a song form her from a CD I have. Free is always better!"

To lightads - a sync license is what is needed and prices may vary depending on who you are dealing with. Some acts may freely allow use for the right cause. Some lables might as well - but there is the ongoing issues of who is really serving who. An artist may say "Sure, this is an awesome porject" but unless the artists actual own the mechanicals they don't have the final say.

Spot and I used to discuss things like that when we were both more active here. I discuss this sort of thig all the time in the real world. Wedding videographers have flown under the radar for a while but with the internet being used as a marketing tool these lawsuits are not schocking at all, at least not to me.

First this is one of the most confusing subjects to my (non-legal) mind.

Why in the world would they be doing this? Using original music is a money pot for the music industry even if there is not a "click to buy" link. Read this: JK Wedding Entrance Dance "On July 26, 2009 sales of Chris Brown's 2008 song "Forever" reached number 4 on iTunes and number 3 on Amazon.com as a result of the post"

Next, there have been some interesting threads on this forum (I'm sure there are more - these were memorable for me):

Music Copyright Questions
WOT: LipDub - the new word for viral (look for the "MUTTLEY" posts.)

A very confused,
...Jerry

The bigger worry I see is something like the photographers who didn't get the exact shots the couple wanted, got sued &, years later, was ordered to refund the $$ and pay for a NEW wedding for the DIVORCED couple so they could get their wedding shots. here.

I couldn't find the AP article I read in the paper, but that's more scary imho. I can use a cheap song but if, for some reason, the shots aren't to the liking I'm out a wedding cost, it's just another reason I don't do weddings.

I'd say we're next on that front.

EDIT: I tried to get licensing for a graduation once (for ~50 copies for a pretty popular song at the time). Three companies were on the label, all THREE companies said "When the other company says yes, we'll say yes". Nobody wanted to charge me anything but none of them would be the first to let me use it.

Why in the world would they be doing this? Using original music is a money pot for the music industry...

Like the graphic in the second article stated, the "Music industry is killing music." They are their own worst enemy. They are guilt of 'musicacide.'

I've been saying for a long time that the USA (and Canada too) need to take a much closer look at the Australian method as they take most of these "problems" into consideration when granting a music licence to videographers (or anyone else for that matter).
APRA|AMCOS
Everything is clearly spelled out so there's no excuse for mistakes on anyone's part.
Note that the basic agreement does NOT cover things like YouTube uploads as those need to be negotiated separately.

Mike

To me it's not complicated at all: COPYRIGHT is a declarative statement -- not a suggestion.

I can use a cheap song but if, for some reason, the shots aren't to the liking I'm out a wedding cost, it's just another reason I don't do weddings.

I've never worked on a wedding shoot, the closest I've gotten to vanity shoots is hip-hop and rap videos. Weddings always seemed to be the very bottom of the barrel until I became aware of the helicopter tour video.

Anyway, it seems to me that any video that requires specific shots needs to have a contract that states a) what the shots are, b) You'll get the shots and c) the client will pose for the shots either during the event, at rehearsals, or at a supplemental shoot after the event.

Secondly, you need to insure against a few of these things. For instance, when my employers have signed distribution deals part of the contract says that they need to have insurance against issues with media rights.

Third, If you post a sample of your work on the web and you don't have the rights to all of the media, you'd better recut it with media you do have the rights for. This means you take the music out and put in something you know is free.

For that matter, you might want to provide the client with a disk that has all the rights cleared and another with the music they want. Let them pay for their own duplication, which you can help them with.

Rob

Hiring a lawyer and making sure those terms are enforced are beyond the $500-$5000 small time wedding shoot. It's also out of the range of the small wedding for the extra costs for all that stuff.

To me it's not complicated at all: COPYRIGHT is a declarative statement -- not a suggestion.

No, it's a suggestion: Justin Bieber violated copyright and he got a record deal. Wedding guy violates copyright and he gets a lawsuit. Difference is that Bieber agreed to bring in big $$ to a music company.

Youtube is filled with lots of people violating copyright. The message from the music industry is loud and clear: give us free promotion that you make a loss on and we're ok with it. Make a buck and we'll sue.

I'm betting the music video that was on youtube that caused this issue was even having royalties paid by youtube. That would mean the violation isn't even putting it on the internet, the violation was the editor putting it to video on their own system. Which, again, isn't gone after if it gives the music company a famous hit or a new artist.

"No, it's a suggestion..."

Nope. Sorry, but you are wrong. You may not think it's fair -- but a copyright is an enforceable declaration. Period. And anyone who violates that copyright is breaking the law. Period.

I really cannot get my head around why people want to continue to debate this.

I don't take it as people wanting to debate this, I take it as people trying to find a solution similar to the UK or Australia.

The record labels are sending a mixed message. It's ok for the dancing wedding entrance video to violate copyright (very unlikely for them to get $$ from the couple that posted it) but the videographer that posted it is wrong (cash stream for them to take).

It's all about the money!!

It's a suggestion by the practice of the companies enforcing it, that's what I meant. It's still breaking the law but they're only enforcing it on people they want to enforce it on and not on the ones they don't want to. Bieber violated copyright, plain and simple, but didn't get sued. It's the companies holding the copyright to the property that are the issue, not the law.

To put it in an "out there" example, it would be like George Lucas letting me put the entire Star Wars BD set on my youtube channel but suing you because you loaned it to a friend (most newer DVD's/BD's say leasing/renting/loaning is illegal) and posted I was loaned it on my youtube blog.

Fair or not, bottom line is the music labels hold the rights and therefore set the rules. Period. Nothing confusing about it in the slightest.

Now, if the rules they set are shooting everyone in the feet, that's their problem, but it's still their right to set and enforce those rules.

Strikes me that the music industry could revive itself a bit, if it were to find a clearing house for music rights that would streamline the process of purchasing rights to specific songs. I have tried on multiple occasions to secure rights to orchestrations of classical music and basically been ignored by the publishers (too much cost to investigate and respond i suppose). I think in a time when anyone can purchase a song for personal use for $.99, that the music industry could set fees for commercial use based on how it was presented/number of DVD's/broadcast, etc. that was standardized and easily approached. I think YouTube and weddings and personal video projects would be at the bottom of the pay scale and international distribution of DVD's and broadcast at the top...

"To me it's not complicated at all: COPYRIGHT is a declarative statement -- not a suggestion."

Nothing to do with copyright at all. It has a lot to do with the laws covering contracts.

YouTube has licenses from most of the labels to cover the use of their music. The labels get their money from the click throughs to iTunes. Any video with music in it that YouTube doesn't have licenses to cover will get pulled.

So the question I see here is what exactly happened, did the label act in breach of contract? If I was the videographer involved I'd certainly be seeking legal advice, there could be a case for damages against the record label involved.


There's also a problem stewing away with YouTube involving scamming. I've had someone claim copyrirght over my recording of my clients performance of his own arrangement of several pieces composed originally by J.S. Bach. The company claiming the copyright publishes sheet music?.

I've also been notified of claims by YouTube for a performance of a popular piece of Indian folk music. The company claiming it owned the copyright is some form of shelf company that appears to have bought up obscure defunct labels. The original label may have had compyright over a recording of the music by someone of note but do not, cannot, own copyright to the composition.

It gets even worse. We've been trying to negotiate licensing for an Australian top 40 piece of music from a decade ago. Different entities own different parts of the copyright covering different regions of the planet. If we eventually find the money to pay for the Australasian rights how do we stand putting the trailer on YouTube when it can be viewed in countries for which we do not hold a license.

Bob.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/08/youtube-signs-licenses-with-music-publishers-settling-lawsuit.html


Article about youtubes music licensing. Not all labels are involved.

more specifics

http://www.youtubelicenseoffer.com/

Dave T2

From what I can see, youtube licensing is covered, but you, as an editor, do not have a sync agreement to use the music on your videos. This agreement keeps youtube from legal liabilities by basically paying the publishers for songs that are allowed.

Dave T2

YouTube might have a "broadcast" license to cover their legal behinds for distributing content, but there is no way YouTube has any sort of license to allow anyone to sync music. So, before the video(s) has even gotten to YouTube, the owners copyright has already been violated.

As I stated before, it just baffles the heck out of me that anyone will use copyrighted content in their projects without a license. Not because they might get caught -- but because it's just plain wrong to take and use something that you have no rights to.

It's very true that rights for a single movie, photo, song, etc will vary by regions. So I might be able to pay a fee to use a song in North America but not have the right to use the song in Europe.

Yes, it's all about money. The artist wants to be paid and most likely assigned rights to a distributor, who also wants to get paid (and maybe pay the artist if they're honest). So, when you charge a fee for a DVD that uses other people's property, and you don't pay them, you should have every expectation that they'll come after you for money. Or if you advertise using other people's property...same thing. It's not yours to publish.

What frosts me is if you are filming a birthday party at Mcdonalds and they are singing "Happy Birthday" you have to pay royalties because some yahoo copyrighted it. If there is music playing in the background you have to get permission to use that also. You also have to get permission from Mcdonalds to film inside their establishment. Zippity Doo Dah Zippity A----that's probably copyrighted too.
JJK

YouTube might have a "broadcast" license to cover their legal behinds for distributing content, but there is no way YouTube has any sort of license to allow anyone to sync music.Well, I don't think that's exactly correct, but it is right at the heart of the problem this wedding videographer is having.

YouTube DOES permit you to sync music. There are millions of such videos already posted. When you upload such a video, YouTube notifies you that you are using copyrighted music and that you could be in violation of copyright law BUT that no action is required on your part. Then, YouTube apparently notifies the copyright holder. If the copyright holder complains, your video is removed, but if the copyright holder doesn't complain (which they don't 99.9% of the time), then your video stays on YouTube, and a link is automatically added to your video which provides a way to go directly to iTunes or Amazon to purchase the music.

As I see it there are two problems: first, we don't have an Australian-style sync license here in the USA. Thus, there is no way at all that any person, short of a Hollywood film director, can negotiate sync rights. Second -- and this is the interesting problem -- YouTube's policy puts all 1,000,000+ videos that use copyrighted musc in jeopardy of being subject to legal action because, while legal on YouTube, any attempt to sell or profit from that synced video outside of YouTube is clearly a violation of copyright law.

Thus, this is a rather fascinating case in large scale entrapment: by putting your video (using synced music) on YouTube, you are potentially admitting that you are profiting outside of YouTube from illegal usage of copyrighted music.

So, you can definitely upload legally to YouTube, but you also just as definitely cannot sell the resulting work without obtaining a sync license, something which no one reading this post will ever be able to get.

There were periods in Samuel Clemens life when he wrote quite a bit about copyright and rights in general. He had a very hard time with people in other parts of the world reprinting his books without paying royalties. He also had a concern that writers couldn't easily leave the fruits of their efforts to their heirs, which is why he left some things unpublished so that they could be published later and provide income to his children.

Unfortunately only one of his children survived him but he didn't know that was how things would work out.

As for "Happy Birthday", here's the wikipedia entry for it.

Rob