# Offending a board member - mechanical (recording) license



## JLNorthGA (Aug 26, 2012)

We have a lot of concerts at our venue. At least one a month, sometimes more. One of the board members of our organization decided to record concerts with his video camera. He did it for one of our more recent concerts and was passing out copies at the board meeting. I let that one slide as he had already recorded.

When he showed up at last nights concert with video camera, I called him on it. I also enlisted the support of the VP - as he was going to record anyway. Managed to stop him from recording. Naturally he is POed as he was thwarted in his desires.

I've read the copyright threads. I've also researched mechanical licenses online at Harry Fox and Library of Congress and other places. I really haven't seen anything on recording copyrighted material for "archival" purposes except for software and the like. What I've basically seen is that if you want to video (or phono) record something, you should have a mechanical license. Can anyone point me towards something that says whether or not recording is legal or not? I've no problem with one or two DVDs or CDs - but when you are talking about multiple copies, I have a problem.

I also know that this issue will come up for dance recitals at our facility as well as other events such as plays.


----------



## gafftaper (Aug 26, 2012)

Spend some time looking through Law Offices of Gordon P. Firemark - Top Los Angeles Theatre and Film Entertainment Lawyer. He has ton's of stuff on the site. Here's a question of mine that he answered that may help you and there's much more on the site. Don't miss the FAQ section as it lists lot's of questions.


----------



## FACTplayers (Aug 26, 2012)

I understand video recording for archival reasons and it's a pretty gray area. If he really is doing it for archival reasons and those reasons only, then I personally don't see any harm in it. It may be breaking/bending the law; however, it seriously is a victimless crime as long as the video is not used for anything except storage. Posting clips on YouTube and Vimeo, etc wouldn't be acceptable, so just keep that in mind.


----------



## pmolsonmus (Aug 26, 2012)

Making the copy for archival purposes - he should be fine EXCEPT for plays/musicals where there is a contract that may prohibit even that. As soon as he duplicates and "passes out copies" he is breaking copyright law. No wiggle room there - free or selling it is a violation unless all of the works and arrangements were in the public domain.

Harry Fox website also has lots of information.


----------



## jglodeklights (Aug 26, 2012)

This can get especially troublesome if you have union members on stage or creating any artistic element such as lights, sound or set. Equity, SDC and IATSE are very clear about what you can do with recordings and the notifications you must give actors and artists. I'm sure the same applies to union musicians and dancers. As already stated in the linked pieces, publishing companies are also very picky about these things. Even non-union artists may have clauses in their contracts and riders about this. 

Just don't do it unless you have all your ducks in a row on paper.


----------



## SteveB (Aug 26, 2012)

jglodeklights said:


> This can get especially troublesome if you have union members on stage or creating any artistic element such as lights, sound or set. Equity, SDC and IATSE are very clear about what you can do with recordings and the notifications you must give actors and artists. I'm sure the same applies to union musicians and dancers. As already stated in the linked pieces, publishing companies are also very picky about these things. Even non-union artists may have clauses in their contracts and riders about this.
> 
> Just don't do it unless you have all your ducks in a row on paper.



The union issue is contract dependent. Our IATSE Local One contract states more then 1 camera, the crew gets a video fee (+$1.50 hr.). One camera and it's an archival. I have seen producers SCREAM at their hired vidiot for setting up the second camera !. 

Many of the performing unions have clauses that any recording needs permission. So if it's an AEA, or other union representing the artist and the performance is under a contract, then nobody can photograph, video or audio record.


----------



## tk2k (Aug 26, 2012)

I had to deal with something like this as well once, except it was at a college.

Basically, I explained to them that, by allowing him to record you are A: violating a contract with the performer, B: putting the organization at financial and legal risk, and C: making it extremely hard for security/event staff to tell anyone else to stop. I produced some cases where universities were sued for this sort of thing and it cost a lot more than he thought it would.

In the end, he understood my concerns, and I asked him to draft a letter I could send to the artists he wished to record, and we added a line to the new contracts about 'in house recording for review and training' basically making it clear that the video was not for public consumption. While I am sure he took several of those videos home and showed them to his family, that moved the legal burden to HIM, for misuse of material, not the university/venue.


----------



## gfiremark (Aug 27, 2012)

FACTplayers said:


> I understand video recording for archival reasons and it's a pretty gray area. If he really is doing it for archival reasons and those reasons only, then I personally don't see any harm in it. It may be breaking/bending the law; however, it seriously is a victimless crime as long as the video is not used for anything except storage. Posting clips on YouTube and Vimeo, etc wouldn't be acceptable, so just keep that in mind.




There's nothing gray about this. The Copyright law is very clear. It can be found at Title 17 of the United States Code. It says that it is unlawful to copy a work that is protected by copyright law, without the consent of the author of the work.

Videotaping a concert or other performance is the making of a copy of the underlying work(s), (the songs, if a concert, the play, if a show, etc.).

Penalties for such copying can be severe (like $150,000 per infringement).

there's no exception for "archival" recording.

As for "victimless"... tell it to the songwriter(s) or playwright(s) who count on performance and synchronization royalties for their livings. 

To be clear, 

NO COPYING is legal without consent, except in VERY circumscribed conditions, covered by section 107 of the Act.

-Gordon Firemark
Entertainment Attorney/Producer/Consultant


----------



## TimmyP1955 (Sep 2, 2012)

gafftaper said:


> Spend some time looking through Law Offices of Gordon P. Firemark - Top Los Angeles Theatre and Film Entertainment Lawyer. He has ton's of stuff on the site. Here's a question of mine that he answered that may help you and there's much more on the site. Don't miss the FAQ section as it lists lot's of questions.



I could not find anything about live recording on there ;-(


----------



## josh88 (Sep 2, 2012)

TimmyP1955 said:


> I could not find anything about live recording on there ;-(



Well he did just respond above you, so I think that getting it from the source instead of the website is easier haha. And I think it was pretty clear


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## deadlygopher (Sep 2, 2012)

SteveB said:


> The union issue is contract dependent. Our IATSE Local One contract states more then 1 camera, the crew gets a video fee (+$1.50 hr.). One camera and it's an archival. I have seen producers SCREAM at their hired vidiot for setting up the second camera !.



I wonder how this works when large Automation systems come into play. I know some shows have multiple camera angles that are being recorded so that the automation moves can be reviewed if necessary.


----------



## museav (Sep 3, 2012)

JLNorthGA said:


> We have a lot of concerts at our venue. At least one a month, sometimes more. One of the board members of our organization decided to record concerts with his video camera. He did it for one of our more recent concerts and was passing out copies at the board meeting.


Change "passing out" to "distributing" and at least one issue becomes pretty clear, that of it involving not just recording but distribution. Even if an archival recording were legal in the situation, creating and distributing multiple copies seems to cross beyond it being about an archival copy.

This touches on a related issue where it has become very common to copy music, effects, recordings, etc. to and from a show computer, laptop, etc. as you may also have to consider how those duplicate or copied files relate to legal use and even if legal at times, when they may have to be deleted or removed.


----------

