http://www.videolicence.co.uk/ Web Site

62 replies [Last post]
Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

Has anyone seen the above site, aimed at us users. Has any one seen the prices £79.90 for up to 5 copies of the video.
If you just want to film the service the license is £17, I am sure the original CCLI one was only £12?
personally I would have have thought £40 was more reasonable. Is the new way to print money?
One Wonders how we can explain to the client that apart from th PRS License in the reception for the disco/band and the CCLI License the church has for the hymns, plus the extra payment to have the video in the church, they now have to pay an extra £80 odd quid for a different license required by the law, for music they probably all ready have.
Seems as we may lose business to those who do not bother with such things.

You have to laugh.....don't you?

[This message has been edited by Z Cheema (edited 28 December 2003).]

[This message has been edited by Z Cheema (edited 28 December 2003).]

branny
Offline
Joined: Nov 6 2001

Great minds thinking alike this morning!

Do not follow, I may not lead. Do not lead . . . I may not follow.

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

Empty

[This message has been edited by Z Cheema (edited 28 December 2003).]

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

Who said they have to buy it?

You can still do it the old way and buy the licences you need, tailored to a particular wedding.

Can't you??

Arthur.S
Offline
Joined: Jun 2 1999

How do we know this is 'pukka'?

branny
Offline
Joined: Nov 6 2001

Do not follow, I may not lead. Do not lead . . . I may not follow.

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

I've looked at the site already and have been aware that for some time that a wedding video license, encompassing the whole day, was in the offing.

However, Z. Cheema seems to think it is required by law to buy this all encompassing license.

I don't.

It's far too expensive for a start and I've heard of no law to ban a person from buying the individual licenses as and when you need them.

Who's behind it anyway?

Last I heard C.C.L. where trying to do this but couldn't get P.P.L. to put in a realistic price.

I've just put my busiest wedding this year into the price calculator and it came out at £280! The quietest was £79.80.

Looks like they're determined to make that fancy website pay whoever it is.

They won't be getting my money.

[This message has been edited by red (edited 28 December 2003).]

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

Red, what is the price you have at present for the license's per wedding? or perhaps some one else will divulge.

The site seems to indicate that all license's are covered, with their license. PPL, MCPS, etc

Looks as I did not make my self clear on the license Red, what I mean is some form of license is required by law, and the site seems to indicate that this is the only one, it makes no mention that there are other routes possible.

I will contact CCLI and see what if it is business as normal, I did look on there site and saw no mention of a filming license apart from for non profit use.

the people running it are
"European Copyright Licensing Ltd" who are in Bournemouth, the same place I think CCLI are located.

[This message has been edited by Z Cheema (edited 28 December 2003).]

Arthur.S
Offline
Joined: Jun 2 1999

What I'm getting at is that "where does their authority to do this come from"?

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

Sorry, had to go away for a few days.

Yes Z. you are right the license to film church hymns etc has gone up. This is because CCLI no longer do it if you want to buy it individually. That's probably because they are behind the new Wedding Video License, although they say it's because they always sold it discounted as agents for M.C.P.S.

Anyway, I understand you can still buy it from M.C.P.S freestanding or just select the Hymns and worship only option on the www.videolicence.co.uk website and it'll cost £17.63 whereas it was £11.75.
---------------------------------------------
M.C.P.S also collect the royalties for the people who wrote the music and you need their L.A.P.L. (limited availability product licence) for music played while signing the register, group in the evening, disco etc.

This one goes on a sliding scale £17.63 to £70.50.
Midway is £35.25. That's for 1-100 copies and up to 90 mins of live music. You get the idea.
--------------------------------------------
P.P.L do the Video Dubbing Licence. Through this they collect the royalties for the copyright owners i.e. Sony etc. You need it if you want to dub from a commercial c.d. onto your wedding video.
They now operate a sliding scale, 5-9 copies are £7.99 each, 100-199 are £6.17 each, 200plus are £5.88 each.
There is no distinction between master and copy, all priced the same. There lies the kick in the teeth.

Compare the price of M.C.P.S' 100 copies to P.P.L's 100 copies!

I think the best way to approach this issue is to use noncopyright music where you can get away with it.
If you do need a licence use it as frugally as possible. Like any good business keep your costs down by doing a bit of research and know exactly what you need.

By the way, the 'wedding video licence' doesn't cover you against members of the choir or the organist who step out and ask you for £20-£30 quid under the Performers Protection Act. Pay up or don't film me.
If you haven't come across it yet you will. A lot of them belong to the Royal School of Church Music who make them aware of copyright.

CCLI TEL 01323 436103

PPL TEL 0207 534 1000

MCPS TEL 0208 769 4400

Also, the people at mcps have a way of explaining their licence (lapl) that makes you think it covers the lot. It doesn't.

[This message has been edited by red (edited 08 January 2004).]

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

Forgot to say, minimum PPL video dubbing licence is £39.95 (5 tapes).

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

Thanks for that red, You mention being frugal with the music, if you go the the site and and select the disco option, then it's the full cost, so even avoiding the Church and the dubbing they screw you with the disco as there is no way round unless you dub afterwords with Copyright Free music.

What happens to all the wedding booked on the basis of the same costs as last year. Do I now ask for more? , plus the £100 for the church?
I despair at their daylight robbery

robo
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2000

two points, firstly every time I try and get the www.videolicence.co.uk site to calculate a price for me it just hands me back to the 'how much will it cost' page, secondly, if like me you live in an area where the expected cost of a wedding video is still £500 at most then this new pricing structure puts the touch of death on wedding videos.

branny
Offline
Joined: Nov 6 2001

Any other 'Wedding Video Pros' know of legitimate alternatives, especially as Church officials may be braced to take action?

Do not follow, I may not lead. Do not lead . . . I may not follow.

BrianReed
Offline
Joined: Oct 19 1999

I can't believe that nobody has replied to Branny since 15 Jan re. this important issue which effects all wedding videographers.

Seems to me that we have no alternative to obtaining the "church" licence through www.videolicence.co.uk as the old CCLI site doesn't give that option anymore.

Can we still get the PPL dubbing licences (Option 1 - 25 tapes for £148.87 inc VAT and Option 2 - 4 tapes for £26.80 in VAT) direct from Phonographic Performance Ltd? If so, it would be cheaper to get a church licence from www.videolicence.co.uk and a PPL licnce direct from PPL unless covering the evening dancing, in which case I guess that the combined licence offered by Videolicence would be the cheapest option.

Any further thoughts or info, guys?

Brian Reed
Spectrum Video Services
Chippenham, Wiltshire

[This message has been edited by BrianReed (edited 17 February 2004).]

Brian Reed
Devizes, UK

branny
Offline
Joined: Nov 6 2001

Brian,I think it's called the 'head in the sand' approach . . .

Do not follow, I may not lead. Do not lead . . . I may not follow.

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

have you given a thought they they may be doing stuff but no answer yet, getting info is like pulling teeth.

i am with the IOV and am in contact about this with them and things are in progress, but it costs money....

if it has been that long have you come up with any alternatives.

I am with Brian and wish some of these questions to be answered, i give a bell on Wednesday and see whats happening.

branny
Offline
Joined: Nov 6 2001

I am sure the IOV will be first to let members know of any major changes to the licencing and hopefully negotiate on behalf of all wedding videographers.

Do not follow, I may not lead. Do not lead . . . I may not follow.

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

My perspective on this,

There has always been mass advoidance of paying copyright fees for wedding videos.
We are so small they'll never catch us and if they did so what! The amount of profit we made will never be worth the chase through the courts. So true!

Until Wedding Videos Direct!

This company, and fair play to them, has realised there are massive profits to be made by 'nationalising' the wedding video market.

Inevitably competitors are springing up and when you get this big you cannot ignore copyright.

So we've gone from local small business' to massive nationwide coverage.

Who noticed??

CCLI that's who!

They've gone from a holier than thou licence for the church institute to a cut your throat pay me or bleed website.

You do not have to buy your license via www.videolicense.co.uk

Mix and match. PPL and MCPS will still sell the licenses individually.

If a couple will willingly take copyright free music then give it to them.

Do not give in to the pariahs, understand what you need and tailor each individual wedding accordingly.

A good business pays attention to costs.

rgds red

gerry roffey
Offline
Joined: Jun 7 2001

I certainly look forward to enjoying those ‘massive’ profits in my leisure time.

I’m personally all in favour of a one-stop licence providing firstly it is of reasonable cost and secondly that is applied across the board – i.e. every single person using commercial music on their wedding films has to buy a licence.

Because the majority of wedding video guys are small operations, policing any system has got to be a very difficult, nigh on impossible, job; yet therein lies the key to making a licensing system viable for all concerned.

No doubt the answers are out there, but at the moment it is still very much work in progress.

Gerry Roffey
Director
Wedding Videos Direct Limited

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

Red said "If a couple will willingly take copyright free music then give it to them"

Good in practice, thing is if you film the first dance or disco they are demanding you have the license, and if you look at costs it's the full wack £80. So thats £80 for a couple of songs, recorded using the built in mic heard with crowd music, hardly worth the money.

I do believe you should pay them for dubbing, AKA as copying their music, but not ambient in actuality sounds, in fact if they want it removed perhaps we should charge them in additional editing time trying to remove it.

Bob Barker Again
Offline
Joined: Jul 30 2001

Gerry,

In your opinion do you think the one stop shop from videolicence is reasonable.

and has your company started using them as licencing source.

BBA

gerry roffey
Offline
Joined: Jun 7 2001

No. I think the ‘right’ price for a one-stop licence should be about £50. If the cost is reasonable then this ‘should’ encourage more professionals to buy the licences – thus cutting down on the cost of policing any system.

If the cost has to be £90 then so be it – but then the system must be such that ALL wedding videomakers have to buy it – and this is properly administrated. Otherwise there is no level playing field.

Personally I simply cannot see how the current system can be workable – if ‘XYZ video’ films weddings and uses commercial music and doesn’t buy a licence then he could probably do that for years without reprimand of any description.

One of the problems is that the relevant licensing bodies have never quite worked out a system between themselves – as they all have different interests – and also (mainly) that they simply don’t understand the wedding business. That’s understandable however as – although we are seeing this specifically from one industry and one perspective – we are simply one of a very wide number of industries that the licensing authorities are dealing with – and, quite frankly, not a particularly important nor lucrative one (in the scale of things). Far greater abuse of music copyright going on out there every day.

I think the most workable solution would be to have a yearly licence on a sliding scale – almost like a road tax. The video operator buys a yearly licence. The first on the scale can cover up to (say) 50 weddings and will cost (say) £1000. The next licence up to 100 weddings and costs £2000 (or a little less or whatever). The next up to 200 weddings and so forth and so forth. You simply buy into your yearly licence at the appropriate rate rather like you pay road tax dependant on whether you drive a small car or a large HGV.

This licence then has to be held by all wedding videomakers unless that person or company never uses commercial music and never films in churches (fact is if everyone was licensed then I should think everyone would use commercial music rather than copyright free).

This system has got to be far easier to police because the relevant bodies only have to chase about 5000 wedding video companies each year instead having to keep track on 150,000 individual wedding videos (and their copies). Surely the latter is an impossible task.

This system would also, I’m sure, be fairly self-policing, because if wedding videomakers realise that their competitors were gaining a financial advantage by not having the licence then I’m positive the ‘whistleblower’ hot line would be buzzing.

An annual, one-stop licence, on a scale to suit the number of weddings, which everyone will buy. Easy to police and administrate. Everyone’s a winner!

On your second point. No – we’re still doing it the old way with individual licences. My colleague, Jan Parry is still an agent for PPL and as about 60% of our weddings are civil, we don’t buy the (old) CCL for those – ‘cos there’s no need. In fact that latter point regarding civil services is one that the one-stop hasn’t taken into account in its pricing – simply because the various bodies (particularly CCL) think that everyone gets marries in a church – and haven’t realised that actually, most people don’t!

Robert Charles
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2002

Does all this licensing apply to guests who film the wedding and the party and enevitabily record the music as well?

Why can't the onus be shifted onto the couple? Have a clause in your contract with them that they will pay for any charges due as and when someone comes looking for payment.

If I video my daughters birthday, and add songs from CD's I have purchased, and the Video I make is for personal use and not public viewing, as most Wedding videos are, then what is the harm?

If we ask the couple to give us the music they want added and they need to own the CD's is it then not their problem. They bought the music, they own the CD's, they are playing their owned music on their Video for private viewing?

Rob.

harlequin
harlequin's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 16 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Robert Charles:

If we ask the couple to give us the music they want added and they need to own the CD's is it then not their problem. They bought the music, they own the CD's, they are playing their owned music on their Video for private viewing?

Rob.

but

you edited it.
you put the music in.
you are the person responsible under copyright law.

the chances of being caught may be low , but then so is winning the lottery and everyone is willing to take that gamble.

i know local wedding companies that put the peoples songs on for them ..... i just hope they don't get caught out.

Gary MacKenzie

sepulce@hotmail.com ( an account only used for forum messages )

Thinkserver TS140 , 750ti Graphics card  & LG 27" uws led backlight , Edius 8

Humax Foxsat HD Pvr / Humax Fox T2 dvbt

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

A one stop wedding video license that covers all aspects is a brilliant idea. I support this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would.

£50 seems about right, although the initial agreed price was £39.95 when the idea was first floated.

Anything above that would really eat into the profits of a small business.

What you say Gerry, £1000 for 50 weddings and so on is definitely the way forward, a great idea born of experience, that works out at £20 per wedding.

Now if mass avoidance stopped and everyone paid their dues, lets say that's 150,000 (weddings per yr) x 20 = £3,000,000.

That's a lot of money the licensing people, in particular PPL (because they insist on holding us to ransom) are missing out on.

Let's face it, we all want to be legal but when the licensing fees are 50% of the profit margin what choice do people have?

Robert Charles,
You cannot pass the buck, the onus is on both parties to ensure copyright, they ask for it , you provide it.

Fergie
Offline
Joined: Jan 9 2001

Has anyone ever actually heard of, or know, anyone who has been prosecuted, taken to court and fined over the issue of music copyright.

               
                  Fergie
There's only one eF in Ferguson

I now seem to spend a lot of time arguing with inanimate objects

gerry roffey
Offline
Joined: Jun 7 2001

It just gets more ludicrous! The latest thing is that videolicence (which are actually CCL) are now writing to all the venues in the UK and asking the wedding co-ordinators (often also the banqueting managers) to check all the video guys licences when they arrive at the venue (be that for a civil wedding or after a church wedding). Should they not have one then they are supposed to not allow filming

Ah well, that will work then. Firstly, and quite naturally, they don’t feel inclined to police the system, secondly, they don’t want to be causing upset in any way on the day and thirdly it’s not their place to give a toss anyway!

Videolicence (who are after all, just a normal company with a product to sell – not a legal entity) seem determined to blunder their way through this ill-thought out system.

branny
Offline
Joined: Nov 6 2001

Just a thought.
Have the APV or IOV tried to have direct negotiations with this company? if only to thrash out an acceptable level of licencing.
I would think everyone would contribute to the pot, if it were a sensible fee and the licencing system was straightforward.

Do not follow, I may not lead. Do not lead . . . I may not follow.

gerry roffey
Offline
Joined: Jun 7 2001

Both the IoV and APV have dealt with the various bodies for ages. In the case of Jan Parry at the APV she has been pushing for a simple licence system for years. Yesterday she was on the phone to CCL and MCPS for some time, trying to get them to see this (the above post) from the videomakers point of view.

It's a thankless task and a fairly futile one, mainly because MCPS, PPL and CCL simply do not understand the wedding industry

Roger Gunkel
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2001

Hi all new to this particular forum,
What really gets up my nose about licencing for weddings is the sort of prices that are being asked for the use of commercially released music. I would normally use two pieces of music of the client's choice to top and tail the video. This would mean a licence cost of £79 for one video copy. This represents around £30 for each song. As the client would supply the music from a CD which he has already paid for and can presumably listen to as many times as he wants, why is he having to pay me £60 to listen to the same two songs on his video? I could go out and buy the two songs in a record shop for about £7 and give them to him without paying a licence fee for the priviledge. How does that make sense? I could understand it if people were paying to watch the video and thousands of potential record sales were being lost, but this is not the case here.
Roger Gunkel

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

Talking of prosecution, bearing in mind CCL's recent actions and business manoeuvres, I'd lay a bet on down @ Ladbrokes to say a few court appearances are not far away.

JOHN . A.V.
Offline
Joined: May 6 1999

Looks like the site is still bouncing when "calculating price". I don`t think these people have got thier act together.I`ll continue using MCPS until they tell me otherwise.

Roger Gunkel
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2001

I don't see why there is any act to get together.
The purpose of copyright law is to protect the rights of writers and composers from exploitation of their work by others who wish to make money or gain advantage from material which doesn't belong to them.
In the case of broadcasters and those with large audiences, it is quite clear that people would be able to listen to copyright material without having to purchase it, so a licence should certainly be paid for. Also in the case of corporate or sales videos, the company using it is enhancing its own image with the use of music, thus helping in the earning of income.
Wedding video however is something totally different. Firstly the client is supplying the videographer with music that he has already paid for. In addition the hymns, organ music etc. has also been paid for as part of the service supplied by the church or venue. The client is hiring the equipment and expertise of the videographer to record the day to a higher standard than would be expected from a friend or family member. The videographer would be quite happy to exclude music entirely if that was the client's wish, as he gains no financial advantage whatsoever in its inclusion. Neither has the copyright holder lost money as the music has already been paid for. If any money or licence should be paid at all, it should be on the same basis as record sales. I can't remember the exact figure, but it is around 40% of the retail price and the composer/publisher 8.25%.
On a compilation album, the retail is divided by the total number of tracks.
It would therefore be fair to take the percentage of music on a wedding video out of the total running time, and pay that as a percentage of the selling price of each copy - exactly what the MCPS does with music recordings. This would also mean that those who charge more for their copies would pay a higher amount.
This would seem to me to be a sensible approach for the wedding video industry to adopt and not to be bullied by companies who see the dis-organisation of our industry as an opportunity to make big money by frightening what they see as individuals with draconian threats and veiled warnings.
Anyone else agree?

Roger Gunkel

JOHN . A.V.
Offline
Joined: May 6 1999

In the USA they have "Fair use" in the UK they have "Let`s screw what we can" in the developing third world countries they have "What`s copyright?". It really does anoy me that the same people who are trying to enforce their will - with outdated unrevised laws without commen sense on people are the same ones who make the technology and media to do it with. So Total control is the industries objective and with that kind of idealogy Commen sense doesn`t prevail.
"How good it is to be Gamma, Because Gamma is good"

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

There is some sanity out here see this link...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36467.html

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

For dubbing license see here..(you will also require the MCPS one as well to do this)

http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lc.nsf/PDL/LicMSD-VidDub1?Opendocument
Thsi is for the artist performing the published song/music.

for a http://www.mcps.co.uk/ license, give them them a call tel: 020 7306 4500 and they will send an e-mail for an application. This is what you need for the person who wrote the original song/music. Covers you for school plays, live stuff and panto's. The PPL license is not required if just a live event.

Ann Squire
Offline
Joined: Apr 13 2004

Help, I have just been given a leaflet about videolicence from our church. I am not a professional photographer but I have filmed a wedding. I did dub a song onto the video the bride asked for, she provided me with the C.D, but I did not charge them for the video. Does anyone Know which licences I am supposed to have how much does it cost and where do I get it from, bearing in mind I have no intention of selling any video,it is just a hobby.
Regard

Ann

Jim Bird
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

Hi,

I was taking to a student the other day, he was telling me that since the real world closed down the music web site called Napster, which was allowing people to download copyrightable material for free, there has been a boom in the same type of web site which operates using a different system.

Yes this new system is still illegal, but the trick is, it’s no longer one site, it’s 4 or 5 massive sites and they aren’t open to the public.

They have went underground, they now operate with a greater amount of stealth, they distribute the files (songs/music) that people want on lots and lots of different computers all over the world/internet and people download the stuff in small amounts from these areas and perhaps never the same place twice.

And so it’s almost impossible to detect and if it was detected it would only be one song and who’s going to bother.

The distribution of illegal music on the net using this method has become very popular and very difficult to detect.

It would appear that the music industry is now I a worse mess with copyright these days than it was in before it closed down Napster.

They should have sold music tracks for a pittance and that way they would have had a great many 10 pees amounting to a great deal of money, instead it seems they have only given themselves an even bigger problem, bless them.

Jim Bird.

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

Nanny Ann, you need an MCPS (£18) and PPL license for your video (£8), MCPS for the person who wrote the music and PPl for the people who performed the music. see further up for web sites.

The fact their is no money is irrelevant, even if they supplied you the music, logic would make you think it was OK, but we are not dealing in logic, we are dealing in the law which makes no sense.

robo
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2000

As a musician as well as a videographer I would like to say that, should I be playing at a wedding you happen to be filming, I like many many others, am not registered with PRS or PPL and so do not receive any money from them that they collect from you - Question - so who the hell does get all our (videographers) money?

BTW, since when did you ever meet a DJ who's paid his licence fees or completed his PRS return form?
Or (continuing the rant) did you ever see a hotel manager ask the live band for their set list so as he could complete his PRS return form?
OK, I know that two wrongs don't make a right but I can't help feeling we are being used as a soft touch and a whipping post.
And yes, I do think seventy odd pounds for one wedding is a bl...dy ridiculous amount to pay for what we get considering a great amount will be ambient sound. (taxing fresh air)

Well that's got that off my chest - thankyou for your understanding.

robo

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

Robo, I thank you for your comments, your not alone.
I assumed, that the PRS was a blanket license so no form filing is required.
As a musician playing live you are, I guess within your rights to be paid some fee for being filmed. I have been at weddings were the (pro)soloist wanted paying extra because of the video.

It's money for old rope as far as I am concerned or as you say ambient sound.

The DJ pays for the record, the reception pays PRS for playing the stuff. we pay to record it. and so on. What a money making machine.

See my posting on costing in another link, there is a cheaper way.

http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=000031;p=1#000013

robo
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2000

Thanks Z, as a musician I am employed, and payed by, the wedding party so as far as I'm concerned I can't realy stick out my hand and then say 'wait a mo' guv thats extra and costs' when someone pops up with a camera. I do however expect they have the good manners to ask first (as I do when I'm on the other side of the fence as a videographer)
All this assumes that you are dealing with a human being and not some precious superstar!

As regards PRS, AFAK musicians can register with PRS (presumably for a fee) and then fill out a form every time they do a public performance. This lists the set they have performed and shows which songs / instumentals are their own work. The form is then signed by the 'promoter' (owner or hirer of the venue)The 'promoter' is also supposed to complete an annual return to PRS which lists all the events where music (live or otherwise) featured and they are then billed for on a pre set scale.( over and above the fee already paid for playing recorded music in a public place - re little PRS sticker in shop windows)

My point here is that if you have the option of payment in arrears to PRS it may well be worth checking to see if these payments are still required if the perfoming musicians are not registered with PRS - if a musician who is not registered and who has no personal objections to being filmed I cannot see how they (PRS) can demand a fee to be paid.
Perhaps someone out there can enlighten us all?

robo

Jim Bird
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

Hi Robo,

Do we still have to pay the live musician/band even if they haven't payed their fees?

Jim Bird.

Ann Squire
Offline
Joined: Apr 13 2004

Thanks, Z Cheema, but I think I must be a bit dim. I looked futher up as you suggested but I'm not sure which web site to look at. As one said minimum of 5 videos and then the minimum cost of PPL was £40.95p not £18 and £8 so could you spell it out for me please. Also when I get these licences how long do they last? or do you have to get a new one for every film? sorry about basic questions, but this is all new to me.
Regards

Ann

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

Nanny A, sorry for the confusion, you are not dim it is me being unhelpful.

The MCPS Licence is £176.30p this is for a private function filming Licence, to pay the people who wrote the lyrics and music.
Phone 020 7306 4500.. http://www.mcps.co.uk/

The PPL Licence is for the people performing the Lyrics/music, this is for the VHS copies you make.
PPL's minimum Licence fee of £40.95 inclusive of VAT, which equates to 5 copies @£8.19ea. You get stickers to attaché to the VHS tapes.
http://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lc.nsf/PDL/LicMSD-VidDub1?Opendocument

They are valid i believe for a year.
You need one MCPS for every Function that you film that has music/singing in it, and one PPL for every VHS tape copy you make of that recording, especially if it has recorded music on it, but not if it is say a School play, as the children are singing.

Does that make any sense ?

branny
Offline
Joined: Nov 6 2001

I am happy to leave the negotiations of licences to the IOV, who have been in talks with the licencing bodies. I'm sure they will thrash out a more sensible 'all in rate' for videomakers.Once these packages are agreed they will hopefully become an accepted standard.

Do not follow, I may not lead. Do not lead . . . I may not follow.

PP
Offline
Joined: Jan 30 2004

I've just returned from filming a wedding in a large hotel in Grange, Cumbria. Whilst I was there, I was approached by the Manager, asking my opinion on copyright licences. She then showed me a letter and brochure from www.Video Licence.co.uk.

The flyer was all about "Capturing your Wedding Day on video? What about copyright?

It appeared to me that they were writing to hotels and trying to get them to check videographers licences !!

The hotel already had the appropriate licences for themselves but from the tone of the flyer, "videolicence" were putting the ball into the hotel's court to make sure that anyone doing videos should have the correct licences.

I can't believe that this hotel was just individually targeted, so how many of these flyers are in circulation, I don't know.

This seems to me to be trying to get people to buy their (videolicence.co.uk) licences via "the back door".

Anyone like to comment???

PP

Peter

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

I have spoken to MCPS & PPl people about this and they were surprised to hear it, The VL.co.uk are basically middle men and have lo legal entity. This is not the first time I have heard of it.

I do not carry my Licence with me and it is not the job of the Reception to be checking, in any way I should be checking to see if the are insured or have a PRS Licence.

If I can get hold of a brochure I would like to take it further with them, Peter

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

It's a scare tactic designed to make their licencing business money.

We have to hope the people who run the venues are not silly enough to police the licenses for them.

It's a sneaky, underhand way of doing things.
Gerry did warn about this.

Expect to see more of it, they have to make that website pay and justify their own wages (at our expense)

If you can lay your hands on the flyer PP post up what it says. The wording on this piece of paper may even be breaking the law if it's misleading.

If it is we can shoot back :D

Ann Squire
Offline
Joined: Apr 13 2004

Z, Cheema.Thanks, its getting a bit clearer. But I still have questions.If there is no music from the church on the video, would you still have to have both licences? For example you only use music dubbed onto the video. Also what about private functions or films of your children playing. Making videos of these and dubbing music onto them for private use only.
Regards

Ann

Ann Squire
Offline
Joined: Apr 13 2004

P.S The Leaflet you are talking about above, is the reason I started looking into this. Our Pastor had been sent a bundle of them, so I guess all churches have been sent them.
Regards

Ann

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

Nanny it all gets complicated and what with the all this stuff from VideoLicence.co.uk aka as the CCLI.

If you dub pre-recorded stuff you need to pay the people who wrote the music/lyrics and the people performing the music, thus the reasons for the two different Licence (MCSP/PPL) so still required whether church music or no church music.
No License's are required at private functions if there is no published music or records/disks/radio being played.

Technically the laws makes no distinction between Joe Public or Pro users, but for personally stuff you will have decide whether its worth the trouble, if they had their way you would have to pay every time you whistled a tune.
It beats me they want money for Mobile phone tunes and they really are naf.

if still not sure e-mail me your phone number and I will contact you run through it again, Nanny.

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

UPDATE.

I now have a copy of the CCLI flyer being sent out, e-mial if you require a copy (JPEG) mail me please

I have also spoken to a Richard Russell at the PPL and they have being getting a few complaints about the CCLI, and will be calling them in. If you wish to add your concern about the methods the CCLI are engaged in then please e-mail richard.russell@ppluk.com

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

Z, Please send me a copy to:

ddv@zoom.co.uk

Many Thanks, Red.

red
Offline
Joined: Oct 1 2000

Cheers Z,

First impression, it doesn't tell you what you don't need but that's not unexpected......

I'll have a real good look at it the next few days and try to find a chink in the armour.

By the way I have e.mailed my complaint to Richard Russell, I hope every wedding videographer who does not want to be ripped off by an entrepeneur will the same!

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

The IOV has issued a statement about copyright which you can read on their site.

www.iov.co.uk

branny
Offline
Joined: Nov 6 2001

I've just had a thought. . . What if. The video was filmed and edited for the client, but, the video/DVD was GIVEN, and not sold to them . FODD FOR THOUGHT?

Do not follow, I may not lead. Do not lead . . . I may not follow.

encore
Offline
Joined: Mar 25 2004
Quote:
Branny I've just had a thought. . . What if. The video was filmed and edited for the client, but, the video/DVD was GIVEN, and not sold to them

It would still need to be licenced if you give them away for free. Same would apply if you were to film a friends wedding and supplied copies for FREE you still need to licence them. Even if uncle George films the wedding and edits it himself with music etc. he still needs to licence it.

David James
Encore Productions

Z Cheema
Offline
Joined: Nov 17 2003

I think, that as soon as you start to record something that has copyright, even if you never play it back, you need a Licence.

I wonder what nightclubs / receptions that have CCTV with audio in the bar area do?

harlequin
harlequin's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 16 2000

would that not be incidental sound ? , and not the main sound , but i don't see many places recording sound along with cctv footage.

their prs/ppl license would already cover them for the sound being played in the building.

Gary MacKenzie

sepulce@hotmail.com ( an account only used for forum messages )

Thinkserver TS140 , 750ti Graphics card  & LG 27" uws led backlight , Edius 8

Humax Foxsat HD Pvr / Humax Fox T2 dvbt

Copyright Doctor
Offline
Joined: Jun 21 2004

MCPS and PRS (and I presume PPL), are not in the business of suing people. All they want to do is to make sure that the proper licence fees are paid for use of copyright music. Actual cases of taking DJs and video makers to court are non-existent, because as you rightly say, it is not cost efficient to do so. What these companies will do is insist that licences are in place.

You should be aware that duplication companies usally have a formal arrangement with MCPS to ensure that the licences are in place, and MCPS has the right to make unannounced visits toi these places to check if they are following the rules.

You should also be aware that in your competitive industry, it is not beyond the power of your peers to squeal you up to the powers that be, potentially provoking an investigation.

As you say, with all those weddings, the money soon mounts up. If you are not taking out the licences, you are breaking the rules. It should, as a matter of course, be part of your initial discussions with the client that there will be significant licensing costs that must be included in your fee.

The Copyright Doctor

Copyright Doctor
Offline
Joined: Jun 21 2004

The act of transferring music onto the soundtrack, however that is achieved (e.g. by dubbing, or direct recording at the event) incurs a fee, regardless of whether any other money has changed hands.

NB CCTV doesn't usually have a soundtrack, so no fee.

The Copyright Doctor