The way I understand it is you don't have to have the songwriter's (or publisher's)permission provided the song has been released. You (or someone)do have to license the song at 8.5 cents per unit sold from the Harry Fox Agency. I would contact the Harry Fox Agency for the legalities and options. If/when you get your answer please let us know.
Thanks,
Randy

Randy,

That is what is called a mechanicle lic and it is for music recording not for sync in a video and you have to lic it through the Harry Fox Agency. If it is on video it is a sync lic and Fox does not touch that.

rextillion is correct. Please consult an attorney before jumping into that. You are fully exposed.

K

This is an interesting question. The basic answer is you can not do this legally. The other side of the coin is that no one is going to bother you about it. It is not worth the lawsuit.

Further, if you wish to do it legally, there is no practical way provided and therefore you are in a position of being illegal or losing the job to some one else.

Theoretically, wedding and event videographers that record dancing scenes (to copyrighted music) are all breaking the law, yet it still happens thousands of times every day.

I hear local commercials, talk shows and the like play copyrighted music all of the time as background/intros on the radio.

For some time the Pretenders were/are used as an intro to Rush. Do you suppose the show has a right to use the music? I always wondered.

It is a confusing issue and the recording industry is not interested in collecting a mere $25 from you (or whatever) to allow the use of their music.

This puts you in the spot of being by the book or not.

This issue needs to be addressed by the music industry at some point.

There has been a case where the music industry sued a school because a videographer recorded a school musical and sold the tape to the parents. Not good for the industry on the PR side, but of course they won. Can you imagine suing a bunch of 8 year olds over a school play? Wow.

Typically, you can expect greater liability with the more copies you sell (if you're producing something for the intent to profit from sells). Weddings or small projects for local garage bands aren't worth the industry's time. But let's say you're producing "Girls Gone Wild!". You can bet that video will be fully scoured for any copyright violations, because it's sold so many copies.

And in this instance I would not actually be selling the video. But I would be profiting from it. What I mean is, the band would pay me to produce the video for them, then they would own the video which they would give copies to local clubs along with their press kits to help them land gigs. So...I would profit directly from making the video but there would be no direct sales and distribution for profit after the video is finished, just indirect profits in the way of better promotion. The reason I asked is mainly to know if the fact that the band already has the rights to play these songs makes it ok for me to shoot them playing these songs. I am gathering that it is not. Even though the risk of anything happening legally is slim, I still would not want to take it as I am just starting to build up this side business and don't want to start off on a bad note. If the copyright fees are not that extreme, I am willing to roll those costs into my fees but if they are absurd or if the process would take months, I guess I would have to turn the band down. Any thoughts? -Shon

You guys are probably in the US - I'm not. But the legislation concerning these matters are pretty much international, bound up in agreements and such. So I give my understanding of Sr_C's question:

Copyright has to do with a product, like a recording. It is usually owned by a recording company. If your band was miming to the original records copyright could come into play.

Publishing rights are the right to publish the songwriters' work, i.e. not the recording; the song. It is (over here) usually owned by the songwriters involved and a publishing house, and would be represented by (in the US) BMI or ASCAP.

If you record a band playing someone else's songs, you own the copyright to that recording. If you want to make and sell copies of that recording you have to have some sort of license. If the band has made their own arrangements of the songs, they could negotiate for a share in the publishing rights. They would then have to document the work; show how it differs from the original. The record company as such would have no say in this. But record companies often doubles as publishing houses, and as such the do have a say.

In your case - making a demo, I don't think you need a license at all. But if you sell copies (and I don't mean selling like 200 copies to the band) or if you show the video for money or even broadcast it somehow (except for demonstrational purposes) you do need a license. And you'd be wise to obtain one beforehand.

I'd say go ahead, make the video (and good luck to you!). The only condition is that you must show some of it to us here on the Forum afterwards.

If you want to be totally sure, ask ASCAP. You'll find their contact page at:

http://www.ascap.com/contactASCAP.html

Tor

I am running into these copyright problems two.

I have a song with one bands instrumental...that instrumental is then rearranged...then I have another bands chorus used with the new rearranged instrumental (30sec sample used a fewtimes)...and finally I rhime over this contraption.

I mixed the song entirely with acid. I want to publish to acid planet.

This is where things get tricky. I have to have a mechanical license from "harry" to use the works in my song...But I need a MASTER RECORDING LICENSE from the publishers of the instrumental and chorus in order to obtain the mechanical licenses.

If that isnt difficult enough I have to contact the publishers wich has resulted in hours on the phone leaving messages that dont get returned.

Then if I am lucky enough to get thru to the publishers of the songs instrumental and they grant me permission to use there instrumental I must let them know exactly how I rearranged it. I also have to get a good quality master of the beat from there studio because my prerecorded version isnt the best quality I need. Of course this means reloading the master into acid and remixing again.

Then if the instrumental publishers dont like my lyrics being used with there beat...Im stuck. Same with the chorus. The end result is these record companys are asking for my demo wanting to hear how everything "clicks" together...but to send it without copyright protection to the owners of the copyright is like artist suicide.

If my song was to get posted to acid planet with full copyrights being legal...I could just imagine all the royalies I must pay: 16.5 cents (2 differnt record labels getting royalies) per copy downloaded?=big$$$$$$$

This is so complicated and I am still trying for two years know with no luck.
Any way......this whole post's show why people commit copyright enfridgement. It just isnt easy to get simple permission.

astral_supreme:
I'm not sure what you're bitching about, having to pay or having to legwork the license.

Of course you have to pay; somebody owns this stuff and you're using it for your own good.

And the legwork, well I don't know what it's like in the US. It can be a problem that the record company as publishing house will turn down a perfectly reasonable proposal to protect the interests of the record company as record producer. This may or may not serve the interests of the songwriters.

Most of the communication around these matters are between record companies. They know the drill, and you must learn it, too. Take a look at the ASPAC page and mail someone there with your question. They are the nearest you can come to a "neutral party" here.

Tor

I am always a bit concerned when artists use other artists materials without compensating them. As videomakers, we have a responsibility to follow the law to the tee---anything less is playnig a game of moral relativity. The law is very clear on this issue---

"I hear local commercials, talk shows and the like play copyrighted music all of the time as background/intros on the radio."

BMI Licensing covers this for broadcast. Each broadcast station logs every song played during a period of time and pays a regular fee for the license to broadcast material covered by BMI. I think ASCAP also does this, but the stations I have worked for are BMI stations.

I'm sure there are those who violate this to some degree. The "tradio" show of a 500 watt am station in Uncertain TX will most likely get by with playing "Sandford and Son" for an opening theme, where Rush would get clobbered if he didn't play by the rules.

"For some time the Pretenders were/are used as an intro to Rush. Do you suppose the show has a right to use the music? I always wondered."

Rush pays a small fortune to use the song. When logging BMI, every show opener/closer gets special attention. They are logged as such and additional fees are collected. In addition, since the song Rush uses had to be modified, he had to get permission and pay whatever fees the copyright holder could work out with him. Every time the top of the hour rolls by and the Pretenders guitars wail, someone gets paid.

Dunno about the video question. I know if a DJ is legal he should be licensed through ASCAP or BMI. Most are not, but they are leaving themselves open to a lawsuit. Of course, if they make $200 a week, who would sue them for one or two percent of that?

As for the videographer at the wedding, if the DJ is licensed, the "reasonable use" section of the licensing agreement could cover that. I'm not sure. If it was Princess Di's wedding and you were selling millions of copies, that would be different.

As for recording copyrighted music for a video to sell, this better be worked out with the copyright holders. Otherwise you will be left wide open for litigation.


RiRo

Again I would say that if you are unsure about any of this an attorney is the only correct place to get an answer. It is about risk assement. It is about "Do you have an legal argument and what are the chances that you might win?" Remember that you can be right and still lose in a lawsuit. You can be dead wrong and still win.

"Theoretically, wedding and event videographers that record dancing scenes (to copyrighted music) are all breaking the law, yet it still happens thousands of times every day."

There is a legal arguement in this case for the videographer. Since he is covering a live event to be released to the couple, as long as the amount recorded is in the background and only short pieces are used as such that it could not be avoided and still cover the event, the fair use arguement could be made similar to the news fair use. To the best of my knowlege that arguement has never been tested in the courts, so again an attorney should be consulted. I personally do not use the nat sound music in these sequences. By the time you intercut a bunch of shots to make it look good, any one of a gaggle of stock stuff that I have works better and gives the segments a more unified feel. If you need an example of what I mean I could post an example, but this is far away from the question that was originally asked about the cover band.

K

Re: videoing wedding recptions

I THINK it isn't a copyright violation if you video a reception and record the audio that the DJ or a band plays in CERTAIN situations:

1. Assume that you record with one camera the bride's first dance and put on your final product the video along with the audio that was captured at the same time. I think this is OK. You were recording an event (the reception) and there happened to be audio playing.

2. A slight variation of #1 is if you record the first dance with multiple cameras. As long as you use audio from camera 1 when you use the video form camera 1 and the audio from camera 2 when you switch to camera 2, etc. it's not a copyright violation.

3. However, If you take the audio from camera 1 and then do a cut away to the video from camera 2 (and still use the audio from camera 1) then you are SYNCHRONIZING video images to an audio sound track and it is a copyright violation.

4. If you shoot the first dance with one camera and then use the audio from a MD recorder that was connected to the DJ mixer it is a violation (synchronizing).

Anyway that is my understanding.

In any case I don't think anyone has ever been hasseled over this.

Later,


Berto

"I was videoing this band and they just happened to be playing some music at the time. It wasn't my fault."

Sr_C asked who is responsible. It is you, the videomaker who's responsible for what goes on in the video. And you are supposed to know what you are doing.

I was in a band once, and we played a festival of some sort. Broadcasting people approached us and said they were allowed to film X seconds and call it news reporting. That they could do without license or even paperwork. If they used more than that it was called something else, and the price they had to pay increased dramatically. What they wanted was for us to sign away the license to that particular performance - otherwise our band would not figure in the broadcast reports from that festival. An easy choice for a little known band.

I'm certain that even for a wedding reception there is a (very tight) limit to how much incidental music you can record and put in a product that you want to sell as your own.

However, if the couple hire you to make a video of their wedding, they have every right to include whatever occured at the ceremony or the reception in their personal document, for noncommercial distribution among friends and relatives. They can even charge a reasonable fee for each video, to cover costs. But not sell it for profit. That is where the law steps in to protect the owners of the commodities that might be involved.

That is how I understand the situation here. I'll be surprised if it is very different in the USA.

Tor

>That is what is called a mechanicle lic and it is for music recording not for sync in a video<

Geez, will I ever be able to contribute some valuable info to this group. I own a recording studio and thought "hey, I know the answer to this one...FINALLY, I get to help someone else!". Oh well...some day
Randy

I did some research about this for some original performances of copyrighted material. I'm big on getting permission and paying what is owed, but it sure as heck is a nightmare. Bottom-line I 'thought' is that to release the CDs of this recording (my copyrighted work) was the payment through Fox. I think the minimum license was necessary since there were less than 150 CDs.

Anyway, here is the note I have on file and I would appreciate knowing if I have it right or if I missed something. This is only for the fees that would need to be paid for recordings of a choir that is a bonafide 501(c)(3) not-for-profit for CDs that are offered to people performing in the choir. I also thought this would cover if they sold the CDs as a fundraiser. I would hope it would at over $5.00 license per CD!

"I think I have tracked down the needed information on getting the mandatory license for each song used for CDs to be sold. This can all be done on-line and paid for with a credit card. You can check it out at: http://www.nmpa.org/hfa/mechanical.html

It appears that this includes any 'break' for not-for-profit organizations since that is the option I checked when going through the process. One costly point is that the minimum license fee is based on 500 units. It appears that this one place is the single central place where this licensing is done for the US. The nice part is that you go to just one place, search for the song, and apply for the 'mechanical license.'

I got sent to ASCAP and BMI by one person, but that is NOT for licensing of recordings. That is for licensing the public playing of recordings and other different licensing issues.

Basically, for songs under 5 minutes the cost is 7.55¢ per CD/Tape, with a 500 unit minimum and 2500 maximum production. This is also, don't ask me why, only for manufacture and distribution in the US. Songs over 5 minutes are 1.45¢ per minute.

So, if we want to fully license a CD to be sold and assuming there were 22 tracks/songs, we are talking about a total license fee of $830.50. With the 500 CDs that is only $1.66 per disc, but that fee is the minimum so if you make 150 CDs the license cost per unit is $5.54."

So, have I got it? Am I close?

Wayne Munn

I emailed ASCAP via the link that TorS had posted. I explained the scenario and asked for specifics on what I would need to do. When/if I get a reply I will surely post it here. -Shon

To quote delaluz...
"If you shoot the first dance with one camera and then use the audio from a MD recorder that was connected to the DJ mixer it is a violation (synchronizing)."

But if you're syncing audio that occurred at the exact same time as the video, is that a violation? I mean, if this is a point of contention, you just say that you had the camera's audio in physically plugged into the master audio mixers out.

However, this is the only way you will get usable sound. If the band plays at their "normal" volume level and you're using an on camera microphone, it will be continuously distorted, however still good enough for a manual (non-timecode) sync with the audio recorded separately.

Oz

Oz,

First off I don't think any wedding videographer has every been prosecuted for copyright violations due to videoing receptions. When I used to do weddings a couple of years ago their were several lively discussion of the copyright issue on I think the old NewTek Amiga Flyer mailing list. I raised the same point that you did. The folks on the board who seemed to know what they were posting about agreed on the "synchronization" issue:

-If you use the audio that came with the video then you are documenting an event (the reception).
-If you use the audio from a separate device other than your camera and sync it with your camera's video then it's a violation (that no one ever gets prosecuted for). The fact that the audio on your camera may suck and that the audio from an MD connected to a DJ board is great doesn't mean anything.

Try this example for size: Your're driving on the freeway and a big wreck happens in front of you. You wip out your camcorder and record a car while it's burning. In the background you can hear on an onlooker's radio "Satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones.

1. I believe that you could show this footage on TV without any copyright issues.
2. If the TV producer did some cut-aways to show the resulting traffic jam and used your audio track he would be in violation.

Anyway, regarding liability. I think all videographers that do a work for hire are repsonbible for any copyright violations that occur as a result of their work even if the video guy doesn't sell the copies. In the original poster's case he would be responsible even if the band gave the demo's away. The fact that the video is not sold doesn't have anything to do with whether it violated the law. If you are sued the fact that you sold 10,000 copies of something would factor into the "damage" done to the copyright holder (the more you sell the more you could be fined).

If you made a video of your child's stay at a day camp and synced it with CD music and gave the copies away to your child's friends you are violating copyright laws.

Simply put you need the copyright holder's permission to sync their audio with video if the resulting video will be given to or viewed by third parties. This includes company training videos, motivational videos for non-profits, your church picnic, etc.

Of course I never did this when I produced videos. Welll maybe .....


Later,

Roberto

Basically you are correct by my understanding. Normally though a CD doesn't have so many tracks. Maybe to save money you should limit the number of songs?

K

Hold up: TorS

'I'm not sure what you're bitching about, having to pay or having to legwork the license. Of course you have to pay; somebody owns this stuff and you're using it for your own good."

Im only complaining that I cant get intouch with the publisher to get permission to use the work. I am willing to pay them alot.

The problem is I am singing new and differnt lyrics over there song...and to do this I need to contact the original composer of the work for permission; not the record label...the artist/band itself.

For a good example lets use Madonna. Try to call up Madonna and ask if you can sing "live a virgin" but over your bands beat. It isnt like I can just look up her number in the phonebook and call and ask her for permission.

And her lawyers are so rich they wont even talk to you about such matters.

And do you think her record label wants the few pennies in royalties I would give them...It would cost them more to sign the agreement than it would for them to just say "no".

This is why I am upset. Sampling is very real and will always exist. Artists should grant the rights as easy as radiostations can play there songs. Nobody cares they have to pay.....the issue is the hassle of trying to follow the law.

Some food for thought:

You guys are focusing on the copyrights of video and audio only but did you all know you need permission to use the clothes, jewelery, shoes, etc that each person who attended the event worn, not to mention dont let one of them hold up a "pepsi" or "coke".

Its true, If someone came wearing a old pair of "nike air" it could be portrayed to degrade the image of nike and you would need permission from them to have that guy wear those shoes in your wedding video.

This is why movie sets are made and costumes are worn....all copyrighted stuff.

>Hold up: TorS ...
Sorry, I read your frustration as something else.

>Try to call up Madonna ...
You don't. You call BMI or ASCAP. They'll give you the address to whoever represents that particular song. You then write and ask permission to do whatever it is you are planning.

I've done this a lot in connection with translating songs to Norwegian. Sometimes I get replies directly from the songwriters, sometimes from New York law firms with very long names. The answer is sometimes "no".

These companies do this all the time, but usually amongst themselves - one record company to another. They are more at ease then. I think they get a little nervous when somebody from the street suddenly pops up and wants to do something to what they almost regard as their property. Our angle in dealing with them should be to make them understand that this is no big deal; they are not about so sign away something that will subsequently start earning big money.

It's important to stress (again) that this thread is about several things, all covered by their own law and regulations. What wedding videographers do with incidental music is one thing, complicated enough by the look of it. Changing a protected work of art, like setting words to an instrumetal, is something else. Not quite straightforward, but more so, I believe.

Let get one thing straight: When you guys talk about wedding videos, are you then talking about one videographer (or a company) being hired to make a video of someone's wedding for the couple's privat viewing and non-profit distribution among friends and relatives and that's it? Just want to keep examples and assumptions within a frame.

Tor