how to license copyrighted music for a slideshow?

[Keebler]

Hi folks,

Lately, I've been using royalty free music for slideshows, but I have a client insisting on using copyrighted music.

I've explained the legalities to her, but she's still insisting.

I'm at a loss as to where I can find how to license copyrighted songs. Lots of google information out there, but I thought I would check any real life situations first.

Yes, if I can't find a solution and if my client still insists, I'll be telling her no thanks.

Cheers,
Keebler

 

[blueroom]

Have you contacted the record label?

 

[Zwhaler]

What is the slideshow being used for? Commercial or non-commercial use? As an "editor" under contract (work for hire) you aren't under any obligation to license the soundtrack for use in your client's product, it's their job to make sure they are in compliance with royalties/copyright & licensing laws before publishing the slideshow or using it for anything besides home use or maybe YouTube.

 

[Keebler]

What is the slideshow being used for? Commercial or non-commercial use? As an "editor" under contract (work for hire) you aren't under any obligation to license the soundtrack for use in your client's product, it's their job to make sure they are in compliance with royalties/copyright & licensing laws before publishing the slideshow or using it for anything besides home use or maybe YouTube.

Good point - I forgot to mention that it will be played at a private family engagement party so non-commercial. I'll probably make 10-20 copies for the family.

Blueroom, I've asked the clients for a list of songs before I contact the label.

 

[puckhead193]

Use Ascap to see if you find information on the record label and who to contact.
http://www.ascap.com/

 

[Gav2k]

Is it one track or multiple tracks??

 

[Keebler]

Is it one track or multiple tracks??

multiple tracks and probably edited versions (ie. just using part of a song to match lyrics so not entire tracks). Not sure how many. She's trying to provide a list for me.

 

[Zwhaler]

So the editor's project is for the client's personal use, in that case you can put whatever copyrighted song you want in there so long as neither you nor the client violate the master use or sync license (i.e. this slideshow product isn't for sale or for publishing on television or use by a corporation, etc.) Keep in mind that these licenses vary depending on the song and may prohibit using it even for personal use. That being said, who's gonna know. An editor can put music in a slideshow as per a client's request, but the editor can't sell the product implying that said music is his or her own, and the client can't sell the slideshow either.

 

[LethalWolfe]

So the editor's project is for the client's personal use, in that case you can put whatever copyrighted song you want in there so long as neither you nor the client violate the master use or sync license (i.e. this slideshow product isn't for sale or for publishing on television or use by a corporation, etc.) Keep in mind that these licenses vary depending on the song and may prohibit using it even for personal use. That being said, who's gonna know. An editor can put music in a slideshow as per a client's request, but the editor can't sell the product implying that said music is his or her own, and the client can't sell the slideshow either.

The end product might be for the client's personal use but the process of making said product is a commercial endeavor. And no one will find out... until one of the 20 or so family members puts the totally awesome slideshow that Keebler did up on YouTube to share w/other friends and family.

Applicable blog post from last December, The Music Licensing Chickens Have Come Home to Roost in Wedding and Event Videography.


Lethal

 

[Keebler]

The end product might be for the client's personal use but the process of making said product is a commercial endeavor. And no one will find out... until one of the 20 or so family members puts the totally awesome slideshow that Keebler did up on YouTube to share w/other friends and family.

Applicable blog post from last December, The Music Licensing Chickens Have Come Home to Roost in Wedding and Event Videography.


Lethal

Thanks Lethal! Great links with some solid information I can provide my client.

Scary too - something like that could put a dent in my small biz.

 

[snberk103]

Also, keep in mind that copyright laws are different in Canada than the USA, and that most online info is about American laws. In my field (photography) the differences can be critically important. I mention this because you have listed 'Canada' as your location.

Depending on the budget, but consider hiring service to clear the copyright. A friend of ours clears copyright on photos for use in books. I'm sure the same service must exist for music.

Luck.

 

[matteusclement]

Also, keep in mind that copyright laws are different in Canada than the USA, and that most online info is about American laws. In my field (photography) the differences can be critically important. I mention this because you have listed 'Canada' as your location.

Depending on the budget, but consider hiring service to clear the copyright. A friend of ours clears copyright on photos for use in books. I'm sure the same service must exist for music.

Luck.

an island in the salish sea? where in BC are you?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Also, keep in mind that copyright laws are different in Canada than the USA, and that most online info is about American laws.

That's a very good point.

 

[Gav2k]

After digging around the same law seems to apply in the uk us and Canada which is you can use upto 30 seconds of a track royalty free providing its not for commercial use. 'if your putting this together for no profit your fine. If your making money you have to pay. Sorry the news own better.

 

[Zmmin3]

The end product might be for the client's personal use but the process of making said product is a commercial endeavor. And no one will find out... until one of the 20 or so family members puts the totally awesome slideshow that Keebler did up on YouTube to share w/other friends and family.

Applicable blog post from last December, The Music Licensing Chickens Have Come Home to Roost in Wedding and Event Videography.


Lethal

Thanks for posting that, I have been making a timelapse video and have come to realize if it were to get popular on youtube only way I could monetize it is if I used royalty free music.

 

[snberk103]

an island in the salish sea? where in BC are you?

Just a little north of Victoria. 1st island out of Swartz Bay.....

 

[LethalWolfe]

Thanks for posting that, I have been making a timelapse video and have come to realize if it were to get popular on youtube only way I could monetize it is if I used royalty free music.

Royalty free isn't the same thing copyright free / public domain. Royalty free means you just pay up front for the right to use the music as opposed to having to continuously pay royalties back to the rights' holder.


Lethal

 

[Boisv]

The end product might be for the client's personal use but the process of making said product is a commercial endeavor. And no one will find out... until one of the 20 or so family members puts the totally awesome slideshow that Keebler did up on YouTube to share w/other friends and family.

Applicable blog post from last December, The Music Licensing Chickens Have Come Home to Roost in Wedding and Event Videography.


Lethal

Well that settles it, I am NEVER paying for another album for as long as I live. The greedy labels can go f__k themselves.

And btw, THANK YOU for posting that article. Very good information.

 

[Boisv]

Also Lethal (or well... anyone),

What about popular music that is actually captured in the raw video footage? Obviously people always play popular music at weddings, and so it's obviously going to show up somewhere in the video. Should this be a concern?

I cover a dance recital every year and all they do is play popular music. Is that my responsibility?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Well that settles it, I am NEVER paying for another album for as long as I live. The greedy labels can go f__k themselves.

And herein lies part of the problem. Whatever happened to the good ol' days when people would boycott a company? At least that requires some level of sacrifice. Now it's just all like "I hate you so I'm gonna take what you make w/o paying for it... 'cause I really like what you make I just don't want to pay for it so go screw yourself. But keep making this awesome stuff that I really like and can't imagine living with out. Jerks."

Also Lethal (or well... anyone),
What about popular music that is actually captured in the raw video footage? Obviously people always play popular music at weddings, and so it's obviously going to show up somewhere in the video. Should this be a concern?

Most likely needs to be cleared. How did Mad Hot Ballroom survive the copyright cartel? Not totally the same thing but gives you some idea.


Lethal

 

[Keebler]

Also Lethal (or well... anyone),

What about popular music that is actually captured in the raw video footage? Obviously people always play popular music at weddings, and so it's obviously going to show up somewhere in the video. Should this be a concern?

I cover a dance recital every year and all they do is play popular music. Is that my responsibility?

While I have no real clue, I would imagine it's not a worry as you aren't editing the videos and music together (ie. needing a synchronization license), but I have no official word on that!

And I actually have no problem with how the licensing is supposed to work. If you think about, musicians, song writers, session musicians, labels etc... put forth their efforts and talents into making good music. If you feel a song is worth using, those involved in making the song should be paid since you are being paid to use it. Ie. think of commercial jingles and not songs for a second. A guy or gal creates a catchy 30 second clip which helps increase a product's profitability b/c people remember that clip and when they're out shopping, buy the product.

That's helping the company so the person responsible for making that song should continue to get paid. Just like an actor in a commercial or a movie. They're being paid royalties for their skills to 'act' but those talents are also helping promote the product or movie so they should be paid accordingly. I have a friend who's an actor/comedian and his pay varies depending on the type - standup, commercial, cartoon voiceover, radio spot, movie appearance etc... All defined by the type of use too - multiple, single use, recurring etc...

I don't know if I explained that well enough...fighting a headache, but I think the point is there.

In the end, I just want to ensure I have a legal way of reaching my client's objective

And yes, I'm Canadian so I'll have to look at the laws and how they apply.

 

[Boisv]

And herein lies part of the problem. Whatever happened to the good ol' days when people would boycott a company? At least that requires some level of sacrifice. Now it's just all like "I hate you so I'm gonna take what you make w/o paying for it... 'cause I really like what you make I just don't want to pay for it so go screw yourself. But keep making this awesome stuff that I really like and can't imagine living with out. Jerks."

Record labels don't make music. Musicians make music. So sorry, but I'm not the problem. You have this silly idea that it must involve sacrifice like some sort of "good ol' day" that never existed. Plus, you fail to see the difference in boycotting a company and boycotting an industry.

The record labels are disgusting. Suing someone for more than $100K for one song is insane. Suing college students for hundreds of thousands of dollars over one song on Napster isn't justice. It's horrid. This would be the equivelant of getting pulled over for speeding and being given a ticket for every driver that the cop doesn't have the time to pull over. It goes way beyond being a deterrent.

So I hope artists keep making great music that I can't live without. They'll still be making money from me through tickets and merchandise. As long as a major label is involved, I'm not paying for the music. Whoever is, I feel sorry for them.

----------

And I actually have no problem with how the licensing is supposed to work.

I actually completely agree there. What I can't agree with is the temper tantrum the labels are throwing. They're picking individual people and making them pay for the whole mess.

I could respect the labels if they sued for a reasonable amount of money, or expecially if they were reaching out to this industry at all. They should be coming up with a way for us to license this music at a reasonable cost. They don't need to charge a wedding videographer the same thing they would a Hollywood studio. They could make money and we could use their music legally. It would be a win-win. Instead they pound their fists.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Record labels don't make music. Musicians make music. So sorry, but I'm not the problem. You have this silly idea that it must involve sacrifice like some sort of "good ol' day" that never existed. Plus, you fail to see the difference in boycotting a company and boycotting an industry.

The only silly idea in this thread is saying, "I am NEVER paying for another album for as long as I live..." because you disagree w/how copyright law is being used. It's not "Hey, I'm going to write my Congressman" or "Hey, we should start a grassroots campaign to change this" it's "Hey, I'm never gonna pay for any of the music I acquire ever again." Yeah, that's productive.

I don't have a high opinion of the big five at all but to think that the billions they spend on artists (most of whom never generate a profit for their label) isn't conducive to musicians being able to put an album out and tour (as opposed to working 40hrs at a day job while trying to gig, write, record, tour and market themselves on nights/weekends) is just ignorant. I've been hearing that the major labels were on borrowed time since '99 yet, wouldn't you know it, they are still around. Must be a reason for that. Same goes for movie studios and TV networks. If one doesn't understand the role they play, and I'm not saying that they play fair, one doesn't understand the economics of the situation.

They don't need to charge a wedding videographer the same thing they would a Hollywood studio. They could make money and we could use their music legally. It would be a win-win. Instead they pound their fists.

Whomever owns the rights can charge whatever they want. Just like if you provided a service or a product you can charge whatever you want. I edited a doc where, of all things, a large company worked hard to get us an affordable deal on rights but a small band jacked their fees up on us at the last minute past what we could afford. Oh well. Some musicians, not labels but musicians, won't license their music at all because they don't want to commercialize their art like that.

Dollars to donuts if the videographer would've requested to license the song the fee would've been much less than what he ended up paying. Once you use something w/o permission and it goes public the fee is going to go up and be punitive in nature.


Lethal

 

[Zwhaler]

Hey folks, keep in mind that YouTube has it's own rules for dealing with copyrighted music. To answer one of the earlier questions, YES recording a live event with music being played at the event (and showing up in the video recording) is the same as adding in the music yourself, at least it is to YouTube. They have a Content ID program which will place ads in videos that use copyrighted music. The uploader is not prohibited from using copyrighted music in his or her videos, as long as they aren't being monetized.

 

[Boisv]

The only silly idea in this thread is saying, "I am NEVER paying for another album for as long as I live..." because you disagree w/how copyright law is being used. It's not "Hey, I'm going to write my Congressman" or "Hey, we should start a grassroots campaign to change this" it's "Hey, I'm never gonna pay for any of the music I acquire ever again." Yeah, that's productive.

I don't have a high opinion of the big five at all but to think that the billions they spend on artists (most of whom never generate a profit for their label) isn't conducive to musicians being able to put an album out and tour (as opposed to working 40hrs at a day job while trying to gig, write, record, tour and market themselves on nights/weekends) is just ignorant. I've been hearing that the major labels were on borrowed time since '99 yet, wouldn't you know it, they are still around. Must be a reason for that. Same goes for movie studios and TV networks. If one doesn't understand the role they play, and I'm not saying that they play fair, one doesn't understand the economics of the situation.


Whomever owns the rights can charge whatever they want. Just like if you provided a service or a product you can charge whatever you want. I edited a doc where, of all things, a large company worked hard to get us an affordable deal on rights but a small band jacked their fees up on us at the last minute past what we could afford. Oh well. Some musicians, not labels but musicians, won't license their music at all because they don't want to commercialize their art like that.

Dollars to donuts if the videographer would've requested to license the song the fee would've been much less than what he ended up paying. Once you use something w/o permission and it goes public the fee is going to go up and be punitive in nature.


Lethal

Oh my god. I said something out of emotion. Please. Sue me.

Seriously, the fact that you're so preoccupied with me saying that I don't want to pay for music, it's really unnecessary. Stop.

Just about everyone I know around my age or younger stopped paying for music along time ago. I hardly ever buy music as it is. And I also rarely take any music from the Internet. In fact when I do, it's usually for a video project. You're so concerned over this. It's actually sort of interesting.