Background Music License

[skier-hughes]

Of course it depends where you are in the world, but in the UK you need to get the copywriters permission for even home use.

One second is enough to be targeted here.

"I have begun to produce several photo videos for my daughter's 3rd grade class of field trips, etc. (using VS10). They have become rather popluar,"

This would also tend to suggest they are being distributed, and that may not be classified as fair use.

Yes, it is great that people are asking the right questions, and I applaud him for that, but really he probably needs permission for his dvds/vhs's as well.

Also here in the UK internet available videos with music added is a greater minefield than dvd's as you can quite easily get a license for a dvd, but for the internet is a right mess, as nobody knows how many times it will be downloaded, watched, played, how much to charge, and the legal eagles are still trying to sort out how to do it properly!!!!!!

[Black Lab]

Educate yourself well on this subject. ASCAP and BMI are the primary licensors for copyrighted music so start there. Don't assume that music in the public domain or referred to as "royalty free" is safe for use, either. Much of those types of music are often only so when used privately. Commercial use is often prohibited or restricted, but the exact definition of "commercial use" can be ambiguous. The SmartSounds library included with VS falls into that category. You can use it for little Cindy's video of her birthday party that you share with relatives and friends, but using it for that skateboard compilation you're selling on eBay is verboten. Production houses often have a department (staffed with lawyers) that specializes in clearances and releases to prevent copyright issues from cropping up. Something as seemingly innocuous as a radio playing in the background of a scene could cause trouble for a content producer depending on the usage, identifiability, and intent of the final product. Being ignorant about copyright issues can cost you big time.

Just let me clarify. A videographer you've hired shoots your wedding reception, complete with the guests dancing to popular music, copies of which are commonly distributed to family and friends. That is, in fact, violating copyright laws, assuming the videographer hasn't paid the thousands of dollars necessary for the licenses needed? (As I'm sure most don't.) Everybody, lock up your contraband! I'm just saying...

[maddrummer3301]

.

[Black Lab]

The key word, according to CycleWriter, seems to be distribution. My point was, what is the difference between distributing your wedding video to friends and family and distributing the 3rd grade class trips to those that participated. Maybe there is no difference.

But CycleWriter also says it should be ok under Fair Use, because he is documenting an event. The wedding video I could see as documentation, but for the class trip he is adding the music. Wouldn't that change things a bit?

And regarding the wedding video, I can see it being Fair Use if my cousin tapes the wedding and gives it to us. But what about paying a guy $1200 to have it done complete with editing, effects, etc. To me that's a little more than just documentation.

I know a guy ( ) who makes highlight reels of his kid's teams, complete with music, that he gives to teammates. Illegal?

All this legal mumbo jumbo. My head hurts.

[skier-hughes]

Yep, all illegal.

In the UK we have agencies and groups such as the IOV www.iov.co.uk who supply the neccessary licenses to wedding videographers. Thankfully it is more in the tens of pounds rather than thousands of doallars.

In the UK it is illegal to record any type of movie and have any kind of music (except royalty free types) in the background and watch it yourself...........

[CycleWriter]

Sorry if my tone came across as alarmist, but I work in the publishing industry and I bump up against copyright issues every day. I'm particularly amazed at the level of ignorance that some people have about intellectual property rights, and at the ease with which they are willing to violate them. When I see a chance to enlighten, I speak up.

Obviously, the law wasn't designed to inhibit the flow of information or enjoyment. It is primarily designed to prevent unremunerated commercial use, abuse and plagiarism. There are no police to monitor your homes to see if your vacation video has copyrighted music in it or if you give a copy of that "pirate" video to aunt Marge. But what the OP suggested involved putting his pirate videos on the web. Even with some controls in place, that could lead to his videos being widely circulated and coming to the attention of authorities. That puts him beyond the simple act of sharing with friends and family.

Most content producers and law enforcement recognize that there are some violations that really do little, if any, harm and there is no fear of enforcement in those cases because it is just too cumbersome and expensive to go after every person who, often unintentionally, commits a copyright violation by using a snip of a song or piece of a video in a private way. But thanks to the ease of digital conversion, the internet, growing high-speed access to it, and the proliferation of sites like Youtube, the concerns of copyright infringement and the need to be more aware of it have increased dramatically.

In the example of the wedding videographer, it would be hard to prosecute him for several reasons. The product he is selling is the wedding, not the music, which is incidental. Even if he added a soundtrack of copyrighted material, he is limited in his ability to sell beyond the interested parties. There is no real commercial value of a stranger's wedding video to the general public. Now if he uses part of that video with identifiable music in an ad for his business, he could be in trouble. Or if the couple are celebrities and he tries to sell the video...

The basic rule of thumb when using copyrighted material is to limit it to family and friends with no chance for mass distribution. If you plan to upload something to a website for anyone to see and/or download, make sure you have not violated anyone's copyright. And always be sensitive to intellectual property rights. Just because you can see it on your TV or computer screen or hear it from your radio doesn't mean someone doesn't own it and control its usage. Somebody worked to create it. Just because they allow you to experience it for free doesn't give you the right to use it as your own.

[maddrummer3301]

Excellent description, nice writeup.
.

[Black Lab]

You didn't come across as an alarmist at all. This topic has been brought up many times before and I've seen answers that run the gamut. You sounded as though you had some knowledge on the issue so I thought I'd throw out a common scenario and get your opinion.

I still question the fact that the music at a wedding reception is incidental. If, in fact, you are showing the guests dancing to the music, that music is not incidental, but integral to that particular part of the video.

As I said, I've read many opinions on this subject and, I'm sad to say, your very informative reply has done nothing to clear it up for me!

[CycleWriter]

You didn't come across as an alarmist at all. This topic has been brought up many times before and I've seen answers that run the gamut. You sounded as though you had some knowledge on the issue so I thought I'd throw out a common scenario and get your opinion.

I still question the fact that the music at a wedding reception is incidental. If, in fact, you are showing the guests dancing to the music, that music is not incidental, but integral to that particular part of the video.

As I said, I've read many opinions on this subject and, I'm sad to say, your very informative reply has done nothing to clear it up for me!

Many of the venues used for entertainment, whether they be wedding halls, nightclubs, ballrooms, etc. are required to have a cabaret license and/or to pay ASCAP/BMI fees for the performance of copyrighted music, especially where a live band is concerned. The rental fee paid creates an umbrella that indemnifies the photographer/videographer from liability in those situations. Of course, if a videographer later adds copyrighted material to a video he is no longer within that coverage, but the chances of his being prosecuted for distributing the end product to family and friends are near nil. Even if a local TV station were to use some of it as coverage because the couple were well known, that would fall under the fair use doctrine.

There are many pitfalls to using copyrighted material and the threshold between legal and illegal use is often blurry or indecipherable. If at all concerned, it's usually best to refrain rather than hope to get away with it. There are plenty of sources for inexpensive royalty free music and lots of public domain material available. But it behooves one to know the law and how most courts are applying it. Like I said, the best rule of thumb is that if it belongs to someone else, make sure your use of it does not leave your home. That's the only surefire way to protect yourself.

[Black Lab]

the threshold between legal and illegal use is often blurry or indecipherable.

You got that right.

[CycleWriter]

You got that right.

The main problem is that copyright law was created long before the current explosion in digital mechanisms to distribute the material. The technology has grown faster than the law's ability to deal with it creating huge gaps in enforcement and understanding. Unfortunately, the genie is already out of the bottle and people, particularly younger ones, gravitate towards the ease of technology with little understanding of intellectual property rights until they find themselves in trouble. We have a hard time equating copyright infringement with actual theft when it is so easy to do and widespread. As one who has seen his work's value diminished by the digital age, I'm overly sensitive to infringement so I try to help people understand the issues. The problem is that it isn't as black and white as one might think. There are way too many gray areas that only a lawyer could figure out.

[Black Lab]

There are way too many gray areas that only a lawyer could figure out.

Yes, the lawyers create the gray areas so you have to pay a lawyer to figure it out.

Another rant for another time.

[skier-hughes]

Many of the venues used for entertainment, whether they be wedding halls, nightclubs, ballrooms, etc. are required to have a cabaret license and/or to pay ASCAP/BMI fees for the performance of copyrighted music, especially where a live band is concerned. The rental fee paid creates an umbrella that indemnifies the photographer/videographer from liability in those situations. Of course, if a videographer later adds copyrighted material to a video he is no longer within that coverage, but the chances of his being prosecuted for distributing the end product to family and friends are near nil. Even if a local TV station were to use some of it as coverage because the couple were well known, that would fall under the fair use doctrine.

In the UK if you record the disco playing you need a licence for that when videoing a wedding, also the organist etc at a church or music played at a civil ceremony and further ones if you wish to add your own copyright music in the edit.

[CycleWriter]

In the UK if you record the disco playing you need a licence for that when videoing a wedding, also the organist etc at a church or music played at a civil ceremony and further ones if you wish to add your own copyright music in the edit.

Why do you think we went off and started our own country?

[sjj1805]

Please view:
Music Copyright