Copyright music

[Andy Morrison 1]

Or can't afford to pay. I know, if you can't afford it, don't use it. Just sayin'. Who can afford to hire Hans Zimmer or pay thousands for using a song ? Whether you are creating for commercial or hobbyist use, you want your video to be as entertaining as possible. The choice of soundtrack/music, how you edit to make the audio and visual work together is a big challenge. Professionals making movies, TV shows, commercials, etc., don't worry about copyright because they can afford to pay. They just concentrate on what audio works best.

 

I wonder what price range music labels/artists charge for use. Lawyer fees running $300/hr +. I imagine there is no standard since use can vary as well as the popularity of the artist/song. Web, TV, indie movie, hollywood movie, commercial, hobbyist video, etc..

 

Anyone know of a hobbyist that contacted a well known artist/label asking for the price to use a song on their personal video to be shared on youtube or vimeo ?

 

I understand the desire to produce the best package you can. But again, it's as simple as my mother taught me - if it isn't mine don't take it without asking. I'd love to drive a Bentley so should I just take the one the guy down the road from me has? What if the keys were left in it? I mean would it be ok if I washed it when I was done? After all he'd be benefiting from it. Fact is I can't afford to drive a Bentley so I drive a Ford and you know what, it gets the job done just the same. If you're going to be broadcasting your videos/slideshows use royalty free music if you can't afford to license what you want. Or at least have the decency to contact the artist and ask if you can use it. That's really the legal and moral thing to do.

[Drew 0]

Ron

Many feature films use music they can afford vs the actual music they want on the film, because of the costs of licensing the material. Plenty of Music Directors worry about copyright because they can't afford some of the music they want.

ASCAP has gone after many people and organizations, including the scouts for playing songs at camp in the 90s! There are fees each organization (be it TV broadcast etc etc) can pay to have unlimited use of copyrighted material under the auspices of ASCAP.

As for asking for permission, I know a few people who do ask, myself included. In fact, Vince LaForet's Reverie, was an exercise that could be argued to be a hobbyist project. It was like a film school project, yet permission for "Extreme Ways" was applied for and granted.

Now of course, Youtube has paid ASCAP for certain licenses which may cover someone's chosen soundtrack. I believe Vimeo is arranging for that too. This of course, does not pertain to Richard's (the OP) question regarding Sting's music, which of course would be illegal to include in his film, which I assume will be a commercial venture.

[TheRealDrew 0]

I wonder what price range music labels/artists charge for use. Lawyer fees running $300/hr +. I imagine there is no standard since use can vary as well as the popularity of the artist/song. Web, TV, indie movie, hollywood movie, commercial, hobbyist video, etc..

 

 

Prices vary for a variety of factors, including the ones you described. As to getting permission from record labels and publishers, there are also factors that will come into play. Not sure what you mean by "hobbyist," but very often you may not even get far enough to get permission. Having someone who can get your request in will help, but just dropping a line to the general label or publisher may not make it very far through the process. Never hurts to ask or try of course, sometimes you may be pleasantly suprised, but that will often be the exception rather than the rule.

[ronscuba 4]

What I mean by hobbyist is someone who is 100% hobbyist, never sells ANY of their work or uses their video/photo to promote a business. Typical example of what I call hobbyist are vacation videos with music posted on the net to share with family and friends. I consider myself a hobbyist.

 

I don't consider anything La Foret or Bloom show on the internet to be hobbyist. They are pro's and everything they show promotes them, their business and services.

 

Currently, it looks like videos on Youtube might be ok. Hopefully Vimeo goes that route too.

 

Just did a little reading on ASCAP and the Boy Scouts. Ridiculous. At least their threat was retracted. Glad to read the courts ruled against them on ringtone and public playing of music.

 

Sorry Richard for slightly side tracking your post on using music for a DVD sale.

Edited September 27, 2010 by ronscuba

[Drew 0]

What I mean by hobbyist is someone who is 100% hobbyist, never sells ANY of their work or uses their video/photo to promote a business. Typical example of what I call hobbyist are vacation videos with music posted on the net to share with family and friends. I consider myself a hobbyist.

 

I don't consider anything La Foret or Bloom show on the internet to be hobbyist. They are pro's and everything they show promotes them, their business and services.

 

Currently, it looks like videos on Youtube might be ok. Hopefully Vimeo goes that route too.

 

Just did a little reading on ASCAP and the Boy Scouts. Ridiculous. At least their threat was retracted. Glad to read the courts ruled against them on ringtone and public playing of music.

 

Actually no. It is not all clear for using copyrighted music on youtube. BMI and ASCAP represent the labels, and while the artists usually sign over the POA to the labels to represent them in licensing deals etc, many established artists control their music rights (like Moby for eg.) Youtube paid off ASCAP and BMI to avoid a huge lawsuit. It is not carte blanche to use any of the listed songs on the ASCAP and BMI catalogs, although it addresses many of the copyright issues. Artists/Songwriters still retain the right of use. Furthermore, ASCAP and BMI only represent US rights, and not global, which is what youtube is. The ASCAP/BMI catalog doesn't represent all songs and artists either.

So unless you put your hobbyist video on a server which does not have public access and only members of your family and friends can watch it (ie: Google or any other search engine won't find it), it is an infringement of copyright. As is making multiple copies of a DVD for distribution.

If your youtube hobbyist video has a shot that some firm finds and wants to use it or hire you as camera person, are you going to say no? If not, then It could be argued that you are promoting your work publicly as well.

Basically this thread has turned into discussion about how people view copyright laws. It is a little US centric since ASCAP and BMI only are mentioned but it does reveal how little people know about licensing and use of copyright on the net and perhaps make them check out what is legal to use or not. Or for those who want to continue to feign ignorance or choose to outright use unlicensed music, it should educate them enough not to be surprised if their videos are pulled down or audio muted and maybe even a lawyer's letter be in the mail asking for compensation.

[decosnapper 37]

What I mean by hobbyist is someone who is 100% hobbyist, never sells ANY of their work or uses their video/photo to promote a business. Typical example of what I call hobbyist are vacation videos with music posted on the net to share with family and friends. I consider myself a hobbyist.

 

At risk of repeating myself.......

 

Ron, you enjoy the same legal protection with respect to your material that the pros have. You may well consider yourself a hobbyist but the law is on your side as much as those who earn their living from creating copyright protected works. Copyright must not ever make a distinction between amateur and pro.......

 

Why? Consider this:-

 

14 year old photographer wins $130k damages

 

A 14 year old schoolgirl found one of her self-portrait images being used to sell porn DVDs.......

 

Now ask yourself, what would you do if one of your images/music was used in this way? Sit back and say.....well I'm only an amateur......or would you call a lawyer? Copyright allows you to say "no" to requests you consider offensive or inappropriate whatever the fee the user is willing to pay.

 

Hobbyist or not, you have the full protection of the law. It is therefore only reasonable that you treat the works of others with the same respect.

[ronscuba 4]

I know, I know, I know.

 

I must have a problem with how I write.

 

My question was, do artist/labels charge less for what I call "hobbyist" videos vs. what I call "commercial" use ? Someone then asked what I mean by hobbyist.

[decosnapper 37]

I know, I know, I know.

 

I must have a problem with how I write.

 

My question was, do artist/labels charge less for what I call "hobbyist" videos vs. what I call "commercial" use ? Someone then asked what I mean by hobbyist.

 

Ok ok!

 

Perhaps the best method of pricing up intellectual property use is charging according to the benefit of the user/client.

 

Based on that, the rights to use a pop track on a worldwide product advertising video across satellite & terrestrial media should be considerably more expensive than a single use of a small run of DVDs (for example). I have no idea if record labels use this pricing model....but its a good place to start negotiating from.

[TheRealDrew 0]

My question was, do artist/labels charge less for what I call "hobbyist" videos vs. what I call "commercial" use ? Someone then asked what I mean by hobbyist.

 

 

Labels and publishers will charge different amounts based on what the use is, as Simon described. For limited uses, sometimes labels and publishers will offer a gratis licenses or de minimis amount if there is something they think to be gained by having the song. And many requests will simply be ignored due to the fact there are many requests and limited resources to negotiate a deal with anyone who comes to them with a request to license the material. Unless you know someone at those places, or can have it walked in by an attorney or manager, you probably will not hear back from them. It was me asking about hobbyist and trying to get a sense of degree. Assuming you get in the door, what Simon mentioned is what is used. It also depends on the label and artist. A small indie with a cool track is going to be easier to get rights from in terms of what they get from it. For example, using the small run of DVDs, if you go to a big label and say you are pressing 2,500 copies of a DVD, it probably is too small for them to even think about unless somehow you can show them it is a special market that will open up doors for the artist concerned, while a small label would love to have the music on 2,500 DVDs.

[Autopsea 7]

Did't read everything, but just a question to the original author :

 

If Sting would use 18 seconds of your video without asking for one of his clip, and then you see that on TV, would you be happy and do nothing? : )

[RWBrooks 26]

Hi Autopsea,

I would prefer Sting or his record label to contact me and ask my permission, if my work was used in conjunction with one of his productions I would be very happy as long as I got credit in some way.

It's a bit different though between me asking him to use a part of his work and him asking me when his work is so much better known than mine.

[decosnapper 37]

I would prefer Sting or his record label to contact me and ask my permission, if my work was used in conjunction with one of his productions I would be very happy as long as I got credit in some way.

It's a bit different though between me asking him to use a part of his work and him asking me when his work is so much better known than mine.

 

Just curious, but why would it matter if you are unknown and Sting has a higher profile when it comes to asking permission?

[RWBrooks 26]

You get me wrong, you should always ask permission, I'm just saying that practically everyone will know it's Sting's music as opposed to hardly anyone knowing my stuff. Just a difference in value of exposure. Sure I would stand to gain a lot more by Sting using my footage, than visa-versa, simply because of respective positions on the fame ladder.

[John Bantin 101]

I haven't read all of this thread but it is reflected in a thread about CS5 on another forum. Someone was asking for a pirate version of the software. I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) they go into a company that has it and steal the discs. People could not understand the similarity of the action. CS5 may be expensive - just as diamonds are - but it's no excuse to steal it - is it?

[Andy Morrison 1]

I haven't read all of this thread but it is reflected in a thread about CS5 on another forum. Someone was asking for a pirate version of the software. I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) they go into a company that has it and steal the discs. People could not understand the similarity of the action. CS5 may be expensive - just as diamonds are - but it's no excuse to steal it - is it?

 

Related news - link

[Steve Douglas 16]

In the old days we would just go to Bangkok or any place in that area and pick up bootlegged software for a buck a piece. Glad I don't have to do that anymore.

Steve