Shhhh! It’s Event Videography’s Dirty Little Secret

Music copyright. The very mention of it makes event videographers cringe. Music copyright. A little shudder, right? Its almost as if we don’t want anyone to even bring the subject up, as if no one will notice what we’re doing if we just don’t talk about it.

There is no denying that the unauthorized use of copy protected music within content destined for any level of broadcast is illegal. There are systems in place internationally that allow compensation of the artists. The dilemma is that here in the United States a similar system does not exist for the producers of what is commonly called ‘domestic’ content - content involving one distinct customer and their relatives. It is noble to publicly express that you’d like compensate the artist, but at present there is literally no way to do that.

Others Can

The UK and Australia have music licensing fees for event videographers, so models do exist. The following is an excerpt from the Phonographic Performance Ltd’s description of what constitutes a ‘Private Function Video/DVD License’ (PDF) as offered through the APV:

“Acting as an agent on behalf of Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL), the APV is able to issue licences for the dubbing of audio recordings onto video tapes and DVDs of Weddings, Christenings, Bar Mitzvahs, Anniversaries and other similar family, domestic & private functions/events. This covers the UK only and is providing the produced product shall not be sold (other than to family members and/or participants of the private function). The PPL licence does not cover products that will be commercially exploited in any way, broadcast or included in a cable programme.”

Under the current pricing this arrangement would mean that 10 copies of a wedding DVD that included music under copyright would add approximately $128 (US) to the cost of production.

The Australian counterpart organization, APRA/AMCOS, has a similar structure but also adds a less complex annual payment that allows the producers of domestic content to use music under copyright for an annual fee of under $300 (US). This number may seem lower than the total than you may have read previously, and its just one example of the over-simplification of this subject. An amount of just under $600 is quoted in an authoritative article by Stephen Nathans in EventDV magazine. Unfortunately that information may either be outdated or have been misread. The amount that would apply to nearly all event videographers, were a similar system attempted in the US, is quite a bit less than stated when the value of the Australian dollar is taken into account in combination with the less expensive “Standard format” license, which is for video and DVD delivery only. Further decreasing the cost of the license is the option to pro-rate an individual license at the time of application to be in effect only for only the remaining months of the calendar year. Complete details of the license is available here. (PDF)

The Bottom Line

Can a licensing system like this actually come to fruition in the States? I’m of the opinion that before a precedent-setting case can be constructed there has to be the option of an alternative for the industry to participate in for the prosecutors to be able to say that compensatory options were available but ignored. Or will it take a precedent-setting trial to make the need for such a system noticed? Talk amongst yourselves...