Getting Copyright Music License for my website

[eninja]

Hi, I stay in Singapore.
I create videos of wedding day, and use background music from downloading on internet and post it on my website.

Recently I read that I need to pay fee to Singapore for the use of music on my video that I post on my website.

Can they really sue me because I post a music video without fee on internet?
I mean its the internet, you can be in any country uploading it.
Would it be different if I was in different country, posting on my website, but my website audience is on Singapore?

For those who post their videos with music online, do u practice this?

Thanks Guys.

 

[gbchriste]

Every nation's copyright laws are different. As to which apply, where you are doesn't matter. It is where the copyrighted content is displayed that matters. If you are in Singapore and put something on your website that violates U.S. Copyright Law, and that web site is accessible in the U.S., then then the U.S. based copyright holder could come after you.

I have no familiarity with Singapore copyright law so can't be specific to that situation. But I have worked with U.S. Copyrights regarding music quite a bit. There are actually several different kinds of music copyright permissions that you might have to deal with.

A mechanical license is what you obtain when you just want to release your own recording of someone elses song - you've got your own garage band that just recorded an album of Beetles classics and you want to sell it on CD. In that case you request and pay for a mechanical license.

Then there is a public performance license. This is what you request and pay for when you want to perform someone elses music in public. If your band is performing those Beetles classics in a night club, either you or the club owner has to pay a public performance fee. A public performance license is also required if you are playing pre-recorded music in a public venue. So if a restaurant has a CD player that they pop a Beetles CD in to to provide background music for their customers, they need a public performance license.

Probably what you are interested in is what is called a video synchronization license. This is the license you require when you want to take someone elses music and use it as background music in an audio-visual presentation, film, etc.

There is much confusion and misperception regarding the use of music on the Internet but in a nut shell, you always need permissions and to pay and required licensing fees to reuse and redistribute any copyrighted music, no matter the form or forum.

U.S. law provides an exemption to this requirement through what is called the Fair Use Doctrine. Fair use allows someone to reuse or redistribute copyrighted works without a license or fee but what comes under fair use is fairly limited - uses such as academic/scholarly work (e.g. quote song lyrics in an academic journal), news (e.g. report on concert attendance), public commentary (e.g. critical review of a performance), etc.

Some people think that if they don't make any money redistributing/copying another's work that that is OK. Wrong. Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is irrelevant. The driving factor is that the copyright owner owns the work and enjoys the right to control how/when their work is distributed and to be compensated anytime their work is distributed.

The sad truth is that copyright violations are now so rampant on the Internet that the publishers and copyright owners can't keep up with it so the chances of a small time operator like a local photographer or videographer being caught and fined are small. However, that shouldn't dissuade you from doing the right thing. So do some research in to the copyright laws and licensing requirements that might affect your work and abide by them.

 

[bluemoon]

few thoughts. . .
If you did not record it, you do not own the rights to it (unless you pay). Thus using other people's music is most likely against the law.
There are web sites that offer royalty free music that you can use in the background. That is a legal and ethical solution to your problem. here's a link to one of such sites http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/collections.php

pierre

p.s. just imagine somebody using your pictures to sell a product on TV or in paper without paying you!

 

[sarcanon]

Some people think that if they don't make any money redistributing/copying another's work that that is OK. Wrong. Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is irrelevant. The driving factor is that the copyright owner owns the work and enjoys the right to control how/when their work is distributed and to be compensated anytime their work is distributed.

While you provide a very good overview, the above statement is not entirely true. Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is in fact very relevant in the analysis of whether the use constitutes a 'fair use'. Section 107 of the Copyright Act enumerates four factors to be weighed in making that determination. They are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

So, I'm not saying the original poster's use of the copyrighted work would fall within the Fair Use exception or not. Even if he's not charging for access to his video because it's freely available on the internet, his use still may be deemed commercial in nature if he received compensation for producing it.

 

[eninja]

Hi thank you for the sharing very informative and well written infos.
I am not against in paying fee, as long as its easy to pay and amount is not ridiculous.

I ask because I also want to know my rights. And I know the music is not mine and using it without permission is not good. And I want to know if there is work around.

And does the performance fee really goes to the creator?

By the way here is the website regarding the licensing here in Singapore.

http://www.rips.com.sg/wedding/

and here is my website with videos: http://www.sgphotog.com/Wedding/Vincent-and-Shonna

Could I just post link to youtube instead. Maybe will be more of a work around.

 

[Abn0021]

few thoughts. . .
If you did not record it, you do not own the rights to it (unless you pay). Thus using other people's music is most likely against the law.
There are web sites that offer royalty free music that you can use in the background. That is a legal and ethical solution to your problem. here's a link to one of such sites http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/collections.php

pierre

p.s. just imagine somebody using your pictures to sell a product on TV or in paper without paying you!

Just to piggy back on the incompetech.com suggestion. I have been using http://freemusicarchive.org/ a lot and its so much better. Filled with tons of artists who with simple Attribution use. You can even search for commercial, non-commercial, and other license types.

Best thing is that it's real music from real bands/musicians and not midi-music. I've used incompetech a ton and it gets old FAST.

 

[eninja]

Hi guys, actually I am a spotify subscriber.

Do you mean there a music subscription service where in I can subscribe pay monthly and play their song publicly without worry about legal matter?

I just found this out about spotify business: https://www.soundtrackyourbrand.com/business

Thanks.

 

[Abn0021]

Hi guys, actually I am a spotify subscriber.

Do you mean there a music subscription service where in I can subscribe pay monthly and play their song publicly without worry about legal matter?

I just found this out about spotify business: https://www.soundtrackyourbrand.com/business

Thanks.

I think you might be highly confused as to what you can and cannot use. Being a spotify member only lets you stream music for personal listening. Spotify Business gives you the right to broadcast your music in a place of business or store. Using a regular spotify or pandora account to broadcast music in your restaurant/store is illegal and not part of their terms.

You need to use a website like premiumbeats.com or audiojungle.net and pay for the music from them. If you dont feel like paying you can use: imcompetech.com or freemusicarchive.org and follow their attribution and use policies.

Being in Singapore, things might be a little different but that's the standard policy. You can't just use music you want anywhere you want without permission even if it isnt for profit.

 

[gbchriste]

Some people think that if they don't make any money redistributing/copying another's work that that is OK. Wrong. Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is irrelevant. The driving factor is that the copyright owner owns the work and enjoys the right to control how/when their work is distributed and to be compensated anytime their work is distributed.

While you provide a very good overview, the above statement is not entirely true. Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is in fact very relevant in the analysis of whether the use constitutes a 'fair use'. Section 107 of the Copyright Act enumerates four factors to be weighed in making that determination. They are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

So, I'm not saying the original poster's use of the copyrighted work would fall within the Fair Use exception or not. Even if he's not charging for access to his video because it's freely available on the internet, his use still may be deemed commercial in nature if he received compensation for producing it.

I am aware of the elements that are taken in to consideration in a Fair Use determination. The point I was making and probably didn't express clearly was that profit - or the lack thereof - does not establish a prima fascia defense of Fair Use. It is only one element in that determination. And that is where so many people go so wrong. The prevailing attitude seems to be, "I'm not making any money by copying and distributing this, therefore it is OK." However the conclusion drawn does not automatically follow from the proposition offered.

In fact, there are many, many instances of huge copyright fines and penalties being levied when the profit garnered from the violation was in all respects - legally and technically - zero. Churches, which by definition do not make any profits because they are non-profit organizations, are among the worst offenders and also among the favorite targets of copyright police.

A favorite practice in churches now is to display the lyrics of songs on projector screens for the congregation to see. That practice is not legal without permission by the copyright owner of those lyrics. Sometimes those lyrics are overlaid on moving videos - which requires a completely different license. As a former church choir director, I frequently entered church music libraries to find literally hundreds, if not thousands of photocopied music pieces - all created on the mistaken notion that because a church is non-profit it can copy at will.

Church Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) is a company that was founded in 1988 to provide licensing and copyrights management services specifically to churches because the rate of copyright violations within the church community was rampant. And most violations were committed on the simple mistaken belief that because the church was not making money or charging for its services, it was OK.

As an IT consultant, I've also worked with churches where every piece of software in the church office was a pirated copy provided by some well-meaning church member who brought their own media in from home and provided it to the secretary. Each of those violations is potentially a $100,000 fine per pop. In fact the software piracy police have always made churches one of their favorite targets because the incidences of piracy are so high. And again, a church is by law and in-fact a non-profit organization therefore no profit can be legally ascribed to the use of these materials.

If I were to make a video of my grandson's birthday party, overlay a copyright song on it, and post it on YouTube, that clearly wouldn't come under any of the Fair Use provisions for scholarly research, news reporting, public commentary, etc. But if I were to be sued by the copyright owner, a court might conclude that while the use was technically not permitted, the fact that there was no profit and distribution had zero impact on the market value of the work in question, that I was OK.

However, if United Way - a legally not-for-profit organization - were to use that same song to back a commercial in their national advertising campaign and broadcast that commercial on national TV, distribute it via their web site, run it on YouTube, etc, and didn't first get the required licenses and permissions, I would imagine they would end up writing a fairly large check to the copyright owner at the end of the legal dispute.

And as an advanced amateur photographer, I can assure you there are untold myriads of non-Fair Use copyright violations that occur everyday when someone takes a copyrighted photograph from one site and posts it on their own without permission, even though no money ever changes hands. I have one professional photographer friend who has to employ a full time assistant who does nothing but patrol the web for unlicensed uses of her images and sends out take down notices to the offenders and their respective web hosts.