Is Adding Some Music to Your Video Legal?

This past weekend I posted a video on my blog about Fred water. I guess you could call it an advertisement for Fred water although I didn't really think of it as an advertisement.

It generated a bunch of comments including this one from Rick:

Microsoft had to pay the Stones $10 million for Start Me Up for the Windows95 launch. If you put your commercial on YouTube, does that mean you don't have to pay the copyright holders?

What Rick was referring to was the use of the Stones' Sympathy For The Devil in the video. I doubt the maker of that Fred video licensed the use of that song.

Which points out that Bob Lefsetz is right when he says:

Nobody thinks it’s copyright infringement to sync music with video.

The other day I saw a 12 minute video that one of my companies made for their offsite. The CEO asked a bunch of people close to the company (customers, industry analysts, investors) to videotape themselves answering a set of questions. They each sent in their video and the company stitched it together. It was a great video. Very motivating. It started out with Queen's We Will Rock You. Did they license that music? I doubt it. It was for a movie that would be shown once to a small group of senior execs at a company offsite.

People do this all the time. My daugther syncs music to every iMovie she's ever made. It's a piece of cake to do in iMovie.

I think the deal that Warner did with YouTube to license this kind of activity for all of their artists is the right idea. Because people are going to do it and as Bob points out, you can't sue everyone on the web.

Comments

[Ryan Coleman]

I believe pretty firmly that "infringement" doesn't start until there's an intent to profit, or materially advance yourself - directly or indirectly) through the use of someone else's work.

Synching some home movies to music and sharing them with friends is recreational with no profit motive attached. Of course as soon as you put Google Adsense, or something similar on the site the line gets even fuzzier.

[steve]

gosh, i sound more and more like my parents every day, but... just because everybody does it, doesnt make it right, no? heck, shoplifting is a painfully common occurence, but i assume we dont tell our kids that makes it OK, even once?

the warner music deal does make sense -- lets hope the "sniffing" software actually works (i'll give it less than 50% chance -- it'll err on the side of caution and be ridiculed or it'll err on the side of the user and be hated by warner.)

[mark slater]

Fred - thats no answer come on. As a very active consumer of many creative forms, you must have some understanding for those who wish to either protect or be compensated for their art.

Which is the burning question of our time that is yet to be solved and prevents the music industry from turning any meaningful corner.

Sure- incremental improvement services like last.fm or others are fine but do they solve the real problem? NO.

DRM and other walls will continue to get broken so the only realy solution is by coupling the presentation of artwork with some implicit but frictionless vehicle of commerce.

have not seen anything close to this yet.

[dave]

"you can't sue everyone on the web"

Ok.

How about: "you can't prosecute every murderer"

"You can't prosecute every rapist"

Isn't that what you're implying here? So many people are engaged in an activity...so those who retain rights should just roll over and play dead?

Are you really that naive?

[fred]

dave and steve

not everyone is murdering, raping, etc

everyone is doing this. society is speaking.

our laws need to change to reflect reality.

fred

[Sean Garrett]

Some forward thinking labels and artists will likely soon license their music to the masses for any use on video/film for free. However, they will smartly stipulate that once the film becomes a commercial venture, than the terms of the licensing must be negotiated. This way they can "invest" in the potential success of of the autere using their content.

The irony is that, eventually, the oft-cited bane of consumers and tech/music watchers *might* be a savior. And, that is, those three unholy letters: DRM. If some sort of enforceable, open-standard, interoperable creative commons-like system can be created so average-consumer-generated media-creator can both create terms for the distribution of their own content AND accept "terms of use" for other copyrighted content contained in their media, than we might keep innovating and avoid the mess of the legislative process.

Let's also not forget, though, that publishers/song-writers have a stake in this game and make music deals much more complex than nearly anyone would like.

[hello]

Fred

Next time one of your companies needs to add music to a promotional video for internal use, just go ahead and get the release and/or license. It's really not that difficult, the major musc publishing companies all have special licenses for "limited video projects", and it can be surprisingly affordable. If your company decides to later distribute the video over the web, you'll have precedent for an easy transition to an "online distribution license".

Here's an example from EMI: http://www.emimusicpub.com/worldwide/licensing/for_limited_video_projects.html

Also, there are agencies that specialize in this type of music licensing for film/TV. The fact is, one of the most lucrative contracts a musician can acquire is use of a song in a TV commercial. I've worked with musicians who've earned enough from a single TV commercial to put a kid through Ivy League. :) And if the musician should be lucky enough to score the "Theme song" for a hit TV show, well now....

Actually there are musicians who's entire careers are based on work for film/TV, and you can make a *very good* living that way. It also allows the artist to pursue other musical activities without the pressures of touring or signing a less than beneficial "recording contract". The musician can now afford to self-publish the music that he/she is really passionate about.

As for your daughter's home brew videos, just point her to the many web sites that are offering music licensed under Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/audio/

Your daughter sounds like an "aspiring film maker" (or a just a really creative kid), so one of the most important skills she'll need to have is the ability to quickly secure the clearances for music and images used in her films.

Just my .02....

[everysandwich]

Yes, the original creators have a serious stake in the game, and they should. Creativity has to be monetized. The whole notion of personal use is a little hinky to me because if I slapped a tune to a movie and put it out publicly, anyone could download it and strip audio or record the stream. And from there, who knows where it goes? Nothing's free for long.

[Deirdre' Straughan]

Those of us who videoblog regularly have debated this up, down, and sideways. Is it legal? No. Will the music industry sue you? No cases yet. Will YouTube take you down if someone complains? Yes. Furthermore, Revver, one of the video hosting sites that shares advertising revenue on individual videos, will not accept a video unless they're absolutely sure you've got all the rights to everything in it.

There are services providing music you can license for free for non-profit works, I mention a few on my lens http://www.squidoo.com/Videoblogging/

However, using CC-licensed music on a site like Revver falls into a gray area, so Revver won't accept that, either.

It would be nice if the music industry and the law could agree on some model allowing people to use any music they like for non-commercial purposes, but there will always be gray areas like the above. We need an electronic rights clearing house for this kind of thing, with license terms according to useage, like stock photography.

[Dean]

If it's wrong don't do it. Simple.

You are in traffic, then one car drives on the shoulder...then another..then another. It doesn't make it right.

I do agree that the music industry should try to allow this more effectively, because it makes sense. It stands to reason it's a good busines model from a marketing standpoint. However from a royalty standpoint that still has to be figured out.

I had the privelage of hearing the CEO of The 9thXchange speak a few weeks ago in NYC, and they seem to have a solution. Their concept is geared towards collectors of digital content however it could be applied throughout the industry.

[hello]

@Deirdre

That's interesting that there isn't a music publishing clearinghouse for non-commercial video purposes. I've always worked with musicians/composers directly for that sort of thing. However, the larger music publishing houses, have licenses for "educational" purposes (at least in the US).

I see you're in Italy though, so I'm not sure of the licensing complexities there. Have you tried connecting with like-minded musicians?

Milano has wonderful music scene IIRC, :-D