Not without a fee Missy

i filmed a fashion that was raising money for a charity. all of the participants were business owners. i captured 1hr of footage.

i was not hired to do this. infact it was me that asked the organizer. i have edited a this footage and posted it.

she has now asked me for the raw footage. we never had any contract just a verbal agreement that her organization would allow me to film and use the footage for my site.

now i dont need the "always have a contract" speech. however there were companies there that also do video and i feel if she wants her own copy for her discretional use, there should be a fee. i am thinking this fee to be at least 75% of what i would have charged if they had hired me.

any thoughts?

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

this is for a charity, right?
were the other video companies getting paid?

eh, sorry. in this case i think you should provide her with what you shot. the only fee would be the blank media itself and the time it takes to produce the dupe

You say you had asked to film the show. Which means one can easily argue that the organizer was doing you a favour by allowing you to do so...and that she still owns or co-owns the images you are now claiming to be yours. It was her show and she (and/or her company) paid for it. To me, you should only be entitled to the dub costs, not the shooting. If she had approached you and begged for a favour, that would be different.


www.derekmok.com

If you did it for your own website, and you had permission, then the show is yours.

But since the show was found to be well done on your part, the organizer should compensate you for providing her with a version that she can use -- which you should edit yourself, because there's no telling what they'll do with the raw footage; they might make you look bad if they don't know how to edit. You should be paid in addition to edit or just to supervise.

If they like it so much they should pay you, as they're all business owners and may end up using your shoot for their profit. It's not fair if you're just being used ...

I think you should suggest in a business like manner and as a professional that you take yourself seriously as a videographer and artist. Ask for at least $7,500 and settle for $5,000.

> If you did it for your own website, and you had permission, then the show is yours.

Not true. Permission to shoot does not equate permission to exploit commercially. The only thing that would have granted you the right to "sell" the footage is an on-paper agreement.

> which you should edit yourself, because there's no telling what they'll do with the raw
> footage; they might make you look bad if they don't know how to edit.

I don't think you have the cards to make this demand either.
Without an agreement, you're in a rights black hole. They don't have a proper hold on the footage, but you don't have a proper hold on the show, either. Your right to exhibit the footage only extends to what they explicitly agreed to, and even then, it can be argued that since the agreement is not on paper, nothing is set in stone. But since you used their models, shows etc., they can also try to stop you from using the footage because the show is their property.

It would be unreasonable for you to say "You have to let me edit or else". They didn't agree to that. Again, without an agreement, they probably can't force you to turn over the footage, but it would be bad form to try to charge them all sorts of fees for services they may not want. It would be akin to an artist letting you film him at work, then not giving him copies. If you're the one asking to film somebody, then you're beholden to that somebody, not the other way around.

You should approach them respectfully. To me, "Not without a fee, Missy" is an insulting way to think about this. Look at it this way: You asked to film the show, they agreed to it. You are working together. Be reasonable. Charge for the dub, offer to edit it for a fee, or even ask for a cut if, say, they end up benefitting financially from your shoot (eg. selling the show on a DVD). But you're not entitled to the same conditions as if you had been working for a deferred fee at their request.


www.derekmok.com

Just quietly, J, this is the other side of the copyright argument. It suddenly seems a lot more important and reasonable to pay for people's work when it's your own work...

Maybe now is the time to do paperwork and arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement.

My thoughts:
Write a contract which allows you to continue to use all material raw and edited for your promotional use.

You might include the costs of dubbing (you each get a set) or you might donate that to the charity too. Explain that while you're able to donate the shoot time you can't donate the dub time. Of course you can donate that too (and it would be the gracious thing to do since it's the only way they can have the vide) but make it clear that it's additional beyond the shoot.

Include language that allow the charity to use the raw video for both promotional and fundraising. Make clear the video is for the charity's use only and NOT for any for profit businesses involved. She may very well want to offer the video to the businesses for a "donation" which may well fall under "fundraising" mentioned above. Make sure you label the dubs with your business name and contact info.

Of course you can then offer your edit services to the for profit businesses if that should come to pass.

Thank her for allowing you to shoot. If she's gracious she'll thank you for donating your services.

Objective:
You still have complete use of the video for promotional purposes
Charity has use of video for fundraising and promotion
You use the opportunity to market to the for profit businesses involved

craig sounds like that is quite the novel idea.

it just pissed me off when she asked for the footage knowing about the other video companies who would not donate the shoot time. who also seemed to be mistified as to why anyone would film it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDE
my main concern was not that some one else would use the footage. it was that some one else was gonna get payed to do what i just did for free.

my market has not had the eureka thought on video use yet. i have to just about shove it down their throat and the they say," wow that was tasty".

so when i sit and spend 30min on 4 different days, convincing someone that video will give the event a brandname appeal so the future event will have larger turn outs. then they see the impact and decide that they are gonna doo more of it but not with my company that bites my butt. especially when they are intending on getting some-one to do it that i have tutored or are in direct competition with.

------------------------------------------------------------------

i am gonna charge her something just so she holds respect for my work. she can have the raw footage with a nice watermark.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Yeah, as a musician, I'm quite often on the other side of the copyright argument.

Did the models get paid?

It irks me when people film my gigs without permisson, and they later surface on community/cable TV/independent docos. Generally with horrible sound etc etc.

It de-values my brand as a player.

But then again J, I could also make the argument as a video editor that I wouldn't give raw footage to another editor who might botch it.

It de-values my brand as an editor.

I gave up on the vision angle a while ago - though they will always pay for work I've done if that was the agreement.

I now will stop a gig if I see more than 1 handycam in the audience.

Its a toughie!

Justin.

im gonna hijack this thread for a sec to debate a bit with justin. justin, now i dont know who you are, maybe you are some big name act using jusrus as a pseudonym. but if you are a smaller local or regional act and youre getting bent out of shape about random folks videoing your shows - i think youre being shortsighted.

unless you are actively selling show videos yourself and they are cutting into your market, these "guerilla" videos are some of the BEST advertising you could hope for, and its FREE to you.

this kind of thing has worked for phish for years and was instrumental in breaking john mayer... dont know why you'd be any different.

I like the debate Wayne, thanks! To let you know, I'm in a few acts, a couple of which are on minor labels, and all of which are based in Australia. I've played in front of crowds of up to 10,000 or so at larger summer festivals.

I agree about the guerilla stuff - no dramas with people whacking a 1 minute clip from a show they liked on YouTube. But if the sound is that appalling, then I see it as completely detrimental to any progress the band could make, unless it has some sort of WOW factor I guess.

I understand your point about Phish (didnt know about how John Mayer broke), and many others - Dave Matthews, Pearl Jam etc and their 'open taping policies' - which is I presume what you are referring to?

But in the majority of these examples :

1. The act is selling thousands of records
2. They have major record distribution
3. These guerilla videos are NOT ending up on TV

I have a shocking handheld cam of Pearl Jam in the early 90s. Nothing about that helped build them in my eyes. And PJ then went on and released their OWN bootlegs to improve sound quality for the fans.

I personally couldn't care less about the financial aspect - I recently discovered one of my acts albums' is illegally on a P2P torrent site, and I took it as a positive sign that at least people wanted to listen to it.

I put a lot of effort into creating a professional product, and that is what I'd like audiences to see - on both sides of the game.

im glad you took the debate in the spirit it was offered.

its funny, i do some work occasionally with a local act her ein texas and thier manager was all on me to post what id shot on you tube. i said "dude, nobody is gona wathc these guys on youtube!" the next day he sends me like half dozen or so links where people had posted stuff of that band theyed shot on thier various handycams/cameraphones, etc...

i was floored

it looked and sounded like ass, but if people are talking, people are coming to your shows and buying merch. so the way i see it is "buzz is buzz"

you'd be amazed at what crap the general public would consider "cool"

I've had similar stuff with Youtube. Its amazing what people think is good, let alone cool. And what people will be prepared to watch rather than do work!

No argument with the buzz factor. Especially if its being created in consultation with the band.

But what would you think if you were the artist having dodgy videos posted of your live performance? Maybe where you were having an off night, had a few too many, singing not great etc etc.

Hence why my motto is play every gig like it was your last....

There was a recent article in the New York Times that asserted that YouTube is now even more of an effective marketing tool than MySpace.

But all's told, it is still wrong to just shoot a band without permission and post it.

Whether it helps the band or not is another issue. But the band's music is its own property. The audience has no right whatsoever to decide what to do with it. Posting a video is the equivalent of part of a marketing strategy. It's not the audience's right. Liking the music doesn't give the listener the right to distribute it.


www.derekmok.com

agreed whole heartedly derek. in fact, i agree with you both. and i personally HATE everything about youtube (and what its doing to the perception of the medium) but from what im seeing, marketing and specifically the marketing of music is changing radically. there is a HUGE chasm between estisting major lable logic and that of the smaller guerilla lables. just look at what the industry is trying to do to beat down online radio by increasing license fees by as much as 2x or 3x just because they either cant or wont adapt. im so looking forward to the day when only giants like clearchannel control all of the published music in the world ; )

look how fast artists, movies, commedians, etc. go from obscurity one week to household names the next simply from being seen on a youtube or myspace kind of thing

agreed that a perfomance shouldnt just be considered public property. but i cant imagine how allowing its recording could do anything but help a band - unless of course the recording party is activley distributing it on a wide basis.

> but i cant imagine how allowing its recording could do anything but help a band

Lots of reasons.

a) If the artist looks physically unattractive, either due to bad lighting/camera work or just Mother Nature;
b) If the artist wants to remain visually anonymous or known only by a brand name (eg. Nine Inch Nails, Bright Eyes, My Bloody Valentine);
c) If the artist makes great records but isn't very good live, or as Justin brings up, has a bad night during the taping;
d) If the artist's marketing strategy is based on mystique, not overexposure (eg. Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd);
e) If a band member is no longer in the band;
f) If songs and people are given the wrong name because, as we all know, the average music fan can't spell for crap;
g) If the artist already has video content out and the junk just distracts from that;
h) If the person shooting the video writes negative comments about the artist's material.

And on and on and on.

A lot of those fans are being selfish and ignorant. And they are distorting the facts most of the time. The majority of them are doing this to "help promote the band". They're doing it because it's fun for them -- the YouTube "I'm a filmmaker" phenomenon which has resulted in thousands of crappy "tribute" videos being made using songs and video they don't have the rights to. And Napster users earlier in the decade weren't trying to help artists' careers. They do it to get free music. The argument that "we're helping the artists" is just wrong, wrongheaded, presumptuous, and -- illegal. It's not their decision to make. The artists can arrange to shoot their own video content, thank you very much, and they should have the main say in what goes out and what doesn't. Unless it is an act like Pearl Jam, which encourages home recordings and says so explicitly.


www.derekmok.com

Great arguments here. Of Derek's list I would say that a, b, d, e, f and g have all effected me in the past.

One act did a showcase a few weeks ago, and the press grabbed a hold of a photo of me from 10 years ago. bad hair the whole bit. Taken by a fan from when I was signed to a major. its seriously scary.

YouTube is the new Napster of video as far as I can see - bad quality and mainly illegal.

There will soon become a new iTunes of video - legal, but still poor quality.

As for major vs minor/independent - its already changed heaps here in Australia, primarily from artists on the Jarrah label formed by John Butler Trio and The Waifs (have you heard of them I wonder?!?!?!). They are doing a lot more work, but also making a lot more money. Work hard and ye shall receive. These guys have number 1 records, and have set an example to the rest of the industry here that it can be done.

It will be interesting to see how all of this progresses. I'm very interested in all your comments.

Justin.

mok, you always take the hardest stance on copywrite issues. maybe your company is just like that but when all works are audited ( including film school ) every single editor has at least 3x frazzled the copywrite law.

i dont know what the laws are in australia or zhong guo but in america copywrite is often a matter of how an artist feels. if macy grey doesn't care if john doe editor uses her music in a short film then there is no law broken. on the other hand macy grey may sue jane doe for using the video in a film that she didnt like. the artist creatine the music is not obligated to sue on every occassion.

this is why there are so many different oppinions on the copywrite law. and in my oppinion it is a good thing.

justins perfomances proves this. in one instance if someone like a wayne g. does this incredible job on the editing and makes it really hot then he wont sue. meanwhile, i do a quick once over edit from footage shot on vhs cam and use 10 different transitions. justin would then be offended and may sue.

there are no absolutes.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

> maybe your company is just like that but when all works are audited ( including film school )
> every single editor has at least 3x frazzled the copywrite law.

Not true. Ask Jude, ask Nick, ask Shane, ask Ben King. Any project we do that gets exhibited anywhere, we would clear the music or make up our own. Try sticking a Beatles song into a show you deliver without the proper paperwork -- and watch it get bounced right back at you, with an extra admonishment for blowing your deadline.

Film schools are partial exceptions. One of the allowances made in copyright law is for education -- for example, you can photocopy or quote from a book if you're in a class. However, films made in film school still can't use copyrighted music because exhibitions outside of the school don't count as part of the educational use. Some people try to do it under the radar, but that doesn't make it legal, and also, many festivals and all distributors will ask for a chain of titles.

> but in america copywrite is often a matter of how an artist feels. if macy grey doesn't care if
> john doe editor uses her music in a short film then there is no law broken.

Wrong again. Macy Gray and John Doe are only partial copyright holders on their recordings. If they have co-writers in the composition of the songs, they don't own all the sync rights. And recording rights are almost certainly owned by their record companies, not themselves. They have some say in how their music is licensed, probably as part of their contract with the companies, but an okay from Gray or Doe would not be nearly enough if you were trying to license their master recordings for a film. If John Doe wrote a song alone and recorded a special version himself for you to use, and if he doesn't have a contract with his record company that limits who he can record for, and he's taken care of anybody (producer, musicians, singers, engineers) who may have helped him record the song -- then his signed consent would be enough.

> justins perfomances proves this. in one instance if someone like a wayne g. does this
> incredible job on the editing and makes it really hot then he wont sue.

Wanna bet? Try filming Jimmy Page without his permission sometime. See if he'll let go of his right to his own image and performances just because you think "your video is hot".

You're still being unbelievably naïve about this, Jeff. You're also twisting Justin's point. He is pointing out exactly what problems arise for the artist when fans -- and yes, filmmakers -- who assume that what they're doing is "good" for the artist and will automatically get approval. No, Justin isn't necessarily going to sue if you film him without his consent, but just because the victim of a crime doesn't sue doesn't mean you're off the hook. Or that you have the right to do it.

If your work is indeed good, why not approach the artist and do it legitimately? For example, you were given permission to film the charity show. You have the right to try to negotiate a fee and to market further services to the organizers. But it's up to the show's organizers to grant you the rights to do anything else.


www.derekmok.com

whoah jeff, youre also twisting my point. and THIS may have something to do with the problems youre having...

dont go lumping me in with outlaw videographers. im just agruing the devils advocate point of a new generation of publicity. if i shoot a show, THE ARTIST KNOWS before hand, and often im asked to do so at the outset.

the lynchpin here comes in at dereks alphabetical and very correct post. however a lot of that is based around antequated (though still very correct) logic. sadly, there are too many damned cameraphones and other hard to (or impossible) to manage recording forms out there to control - outside of a "put your guns in this box" procedure, we are all forced to evolve WITH the technology.

and thats where we are forced to deal with myspace, youtube, national enquirer and so on. sadly, a lot of legal vaguery casts a net of grey over the landscape and compromises everything.

but we have to choose to adapt to and capitalize on - OR bitch and whine about the emerging ladscape... and thats why THIS discussion is SO interesting... until big biz and attorneys come in and phoq it all up '; )

Jeff,

Hardline copyright should be an issue for every single film/video/etch on the sidewalk. Its an issue that gets taken far too lightly, and wayne, derek and I are simply trying to steer you in a legal, best practice workflow.

Lets not get started on the American legal system - I wonder if its a well documented fact of how much its laughed at elsewhere in the world. But I digress....

Copyright law is NOT an opinion. Not mine, not yours, not anyones. If I am (and I was) under contract with Sony, me telling you its OK does not mean you are not still violating the copyright law, and I promise you, Sony will/do/have come down on you faster than you can say boo...

I ain't the sue-ing type mate, so that ain't ever gonna happen. But others are...

I don't know enough about the film school laws, but I have had enough experience with film festivals and the like to know that the ONLY rule you should follow is "get permission or don't use it". End of story on that one.

While I'm sure we all like to think we are "fantastic/great/good/serviceable" film dudes and dude-ettes, the fact remains, if you do something without someone's permission, you'll end up in hot water.

Let me also say, I have never ONCE said no to someone who has asked me prior to filming/recording a show. Some recordings have been great, some have been terrible. But if you don't ask, IMO, you don't get.

Technology is improving, but I promise you I spend just as much time working on my music as those did 30 years ago. Just because any monkey with a $200 dv cam can record it, doesn't mean I should let then, or that they believe they should have the right.

If one more person puts their arm up in the air with a 320x240 camera phone when I'm in the audience, I'm gonna scream. Seriously. Its soooo painful - its gonna look terrible, and you can bet they'll never look at it. Just stop. Seriously. Bring the cigarette lighters back. At least they look cool.

Hope I've provided some insight.

Out of interest, has anyone ACTUALLY been rolled for using image/s etc without permission?

I had a very interesting one - a scene from a very successful, budget local Australian film 'Kenny' (about a guy who looks after porta-loos) was filmed at a street festival in St Kilda. The ambient music in the background is WITHOUT DOUBT a band I was performing with a couple of hundred metres away.

I thought it was funny, the publishing company I'm signed to did not. Nothing has come of it yet, but it was the most succesful local film here in 2006, so I bet the issue isn't over...

Where there's money, there's a lawyer...

Longest LAFCPUG post for me ever...I need a beer...

cheers jus! i'll buy!

slippery slope it is we travel. and sadly its a path paved in grey-area.

choose your path. sometimes its "no cop, no stop" other times "if you dont KNOW its a YES - then its a NO"

some folks can twist their way out of trouble while others go down hard.
m
as far as the live event goes, if i were a band and we were even remotely financially viable, id just roll footage at as many shows as possible and sell the uncut result affordably - look at what barenaked ladies were doing (audio only) last year - maybe they still are, i havent looked in a while...

hey is there a site that i can go to to find out what is or isn't public use?

it seems to me that there should be a web site for groups that allowing use and special conditions and all that type stuff?

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

what amazes me in these copywrite discussions is that all of these VIDEO EDITORS up at arms about the copywrite of music and here i am with a video copywrite issue. music must be more imprtant than video or more respected as art.

as long as there is grey there is a way. i will respect music copywrite in the same mannor as others respect video copywrites. i make a lot of music as a way of escaping video lol. yes my stuff is really hot in its genre and more than 4 major artist have used my stuff. however they cant get it if it means i who created it cant use it. if by some chance they wanna sue me for using my stuff after they have released a vocal version i will not comply.

Quote
mok
Not true. Ask Jude, ask Nick, ask Shane, ask Ben King. Any project we do that gets exhibited anywhere

if you look at the strictest meaning of the copywrite law then one of these kids is doing his own thing. you once instructed me even architecture is under copywrite.

i do believe that you are giving me sound advice mok and you always have. i just live in the grey area so that i can get things done without extreme hassle. and i hope that i dont get sued unless that person is mega big. i sorta weight it out as if you dont notice me for the good things then notice me when i step on your foot and be sure to tell everyone i did. it will help my next project.

i dont have a million dollar lawyer or a million dollar budget. i cant sue for the infringement of my copywriten materials. rappers like TIP, indyanna jones, some neo groups and bad boy records have all stolen music from me in at least 7 situations. they remix it and use samples from my stuff but wont pay. i cant sue them becuase they have more money, and yes i have tried. they got to make millions living in the grey zone. this is why hardly anone get to hear my stuff anymore.

sometimes the rights to something is more expensive than the project cost. unless you have a 25k budget you cant afford most of the music to match your production. now this doesn't give me right to use it, but it certainly makes the grey area have a better contrast.

i am not the only grey editor but i am the only copywrite grey editor that will admit it.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Ok now you are getting a little crazy...

The problem comes though when YOU get a court summons or arrested and thrown in prison for copyright infringement.

If you want to have great audio in your video either make it yourself or find some great talent who doesn't cost the earth - there are millions of young people churning out amazing stuff that you can use for next to nothing or free - don't think for one moment that you are being some sort of hero by admitting to breaking the law.

Some people work hard, some people don't have too. However we all abide under the laws (or should do) laid down in our respected lands - if you don't agree with them - get them changed or move somewhere they don't have the law(s) you disagree with.

Its not what OTHERS do - its how YOU do things that matters - saying "somebody else stole my work so I feel justifed doing it" is a pathetic excuse and is exactly why the world got so messed up in the first place.

Seriously - look up copyright law and study it if you are so determined to find loopholes. Don't waste time here in debate about how you are an-eye-for-an-eye-type-of-guy... and that it should make it ok.

It doesn't


Ben



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Oh and to set you on the straight and narrow path of law abiding non-copyright infringed music in video/film production....

Quote

it seems to me that there should be a web site for groups that allowing use and special conditions and all that type stuff?

To answer this read up on the Creative Commons Licence [creativecommons.org] and find people who sign up to it - there are millions worldwide...

Ben



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

> i just live in the grey area so that i can get things done without extreme hassle. and i hope
> that i dont get sued unless that person is mega big.

That's still a problem. "I couldn't be bothered to get the rights" is not a defense for copyright violation.

What's interesting, Jeff, is that you also seem to think that your material isn't protected. You say we only argue for protection in music and not for video. Quite the opposite. You should not think that your video work isn't protected under copyright law. You should not think that smaller music artists and the smallest video producer isn't protected, or that their rights can't be enforced.

However, your misperception is largely related to your repeated assertions that "Macy Gray" or "Jack Johnson" can give you permission to use songs from their albums. They can't. Because if they had gotten a big advance for delivering said album, and if the budget for recording those albums had come from their record companies, and if they had signed a recording contract, then their record companies own the master rights. Film placement and other commercial uses would probably need an OK from the artist, but theirs is not the only OK you need.

Same as in your original case. You got permission to shoot the charity show. But there was no on-paper contract about how each party can use this footage. So any commercial exploitation of this footage opens up a whole new negotiation. If you were to market your own DVD for this show and sell it, and keep all the proceeds to yourself, I guarantee you will get into trouble with the organizers of the show, and you will lose the legal case. However, if the organizers of the show were to sell the show to broadcast, and send your footage to broadcast without having an agreement with you, you would also have a cause for action, because you have partial ownership in the footage by virtue of having shot it, and with your equipment. If they never paid you, then you co-own the footage.

You are protected. But film and video are much more collaborative than music, which makes the copyright process much more complicated.


www.derekmok.com

mok,

how can you get licience to use in a timely fashion. there are a lot of things that i would pay for but if its gonna take up more than 45mins a day to get what i need as far as permission that is not efficient enough for my extra small staff of 5.

and from previously trying to get an aqualung song it will take a dedicated person to simply find the contact. if the industry really wants copywrite obediance it would seem to be in everyones best interest to have a site that makes it easier to get these releases.

i am gonna try bens site suggestion.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

> and from previously trying to get an aqualung song it will take a dedicated person to simply
> find the contact. if the industry really wants copywrite obediance it would seem to be in
> everyones best interest to have a site that makes it easier to get these releases.

I tell this story all the time: A film student I once worked with got a Belly song (Sire Records) in two days.

If you don't have that time or money, then don't use copyrighted music. Simple as that. Put a composer on staff. Use Soundtrack Pro. "But pop songs sound better" is absolutely no excuse.

> if its gonna take up more than 45mins a day to get what i need as far as permission that is
> not efficient enough for my extra small staff of 5.

Oh my God...are you serious?
You really mean to tell us that, since you don't want to bother spending 45 minutes a day to legally obtain music, you're going to use music to which you don't have the rights and hope nobody notices? And your broadcast clients actually accept your delivery? Then all of you are opening yourselves up to some major trouble.

The RIAA would have a very simple answer for you: "What you need" is illegal. And it's not "what you need". It's "what you want". You want to use a certain song but don't want to pay for it, so you use it anyway without paying. That's like coveting a Porsche but not having the money money to buy it, so you take the keys and drive the car away.

Go out and listen to some musicians. Get their CDs. Ask them if they want their music to be on TV or in a film. If they say yes, put it into a contract. Using copyrighted music without a license or permission, and making money from the product, is theft.

If you absolutely must use big-name popular music, get a blanket license. That allows you to choose from a list of songs without having to wait for approval. You still have to pay a lump-sum fee for the entire list.

The company I cut commercials for needs music all the time. Same time and money constraints. So we get a composer, or we use library music. That's the way it goes. If your clients want big-name pop music, get them to fork over the money and time to get the licenses.

You've got to shake off this idea about a "grey area". There isn't one. Just because you love some songs doesn't mean you have the right to put them into your product.


www.derekmok.com