Legal usage of 1980s music?

Yodaman

Yodaman

Hey everyone,

I plan to make a movie that uses some rather well-known '80s songs (and some not-so-well-known). I will not be selling the movie (it will be made with a Canon HF S100) and will be posting it publicly to vimeo.com when it's done (in a year or so, depending on several things). My question is this; if I can get in contact with the people who actually wrote the songs (Howard Jones, Def Leppard, Heart, Bon Jovi), and told them that I would NOT be selling the movie (and gave them a preview), do you think they'd let me use their music? Also, do you think it's nothing more than a dream to actually get in contact with the people I've listed? Would anything else be required for me to use their music legally?

I'm very new at this, i.e., terms of legal usage of music. Usually I just use royalty free music created by Kevin MacLeod, but that simply will not work for my film. It needs a definite '80s sound to compliment its overall retro-feel/design.

Thanks to all who give me advice! :)
-Yodaman
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Sorry to bump this thread. I just thought I'd share this cool finding with you guys. :)

A couple of weeks ago, a friend mentioned the name of some music writing/composing software, called Mixcraft (link). I downloaded the demo a while ago (unfortunately I let it expire before I got to try it out entirely), and from what I saw, it is simply amazing. It has hundreds of "virtual instruments", which you can play by either typing or by plugging in an MIDI-capable keyboard (unfortunately my keyboard isn't MIDI-friendly). Of course, it doesn't sound quite as real as real instruments, but it's convincing enough that I know it will serve as a great way to compose my own '80s soundtrack. I've already spent a fair amount of time trying out the different sounds and seeing just what sounds "80s". And I've got a friend of mine helping me. She's excellent with music. I know I made the very right choice in choosing to write my own soundtrack for the movie. :)

So what do you all think of Mixcraft?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have a different view on this whole discussion. Do I think it's ethically and morally wrong to use "copyrighted" music in movies & television? No. Do I think it should be illegal to use old music? No. Do I feel like I am stealing from the artist themselves? No, Will it ever change? No. Sorry musicians, I bought your casette/cd/itune once already.
I think paying a one-time flat rate for the song is all that SHOULD be needed. This whole music licensing business has got way out of hand. Fee's to use the song for a certain period of time, more fee's for future airtime on television, fee's upon fee's upon fee's. It's a song within a movie. I'm selling the movie, not YOUR song. I think music artists should be greatful that their work is "possibly" going to be in a film that is "possibly" going to be seen by millions of people and in return "possibly" making them and the record labels MORE money. Look at what happened with Journey's "Don't stop believeing" after it aired on an episode of MTV's "Laguna Beach" a few years ago. The song/band was pretty much forgotten and this song played in part of the episode, the next day the song shot to #1 on itunes most downloaded. MTV obviously had to pay for the song to be played, but who was MTV "helping" at the end of the day?.....Journey & their label. I think the record labels owe the film/tv industry a HUGE apology and a thank you for allowing their music to be in their films/tv shows.

This is just my opinion, no offense to anyone who disagrees
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
aburke, If you're using a song in a production that you intend to distribute (profit or not), you're giving that song away to people. With a CD, you have A copy of the song. The artist gets paid for that copy of the song.

If you distributed, the artist doesn't get paid for that copy of the song that your audience is listening to, robbing the artist of potential sales.

Convenient isn't always right. It's not your song, you don't get to determine what's done with it... I like your car... If I take it and give it away, is that OK too?

I'm not offended, I don't disagree, but the reality is, you don't legally get to make the choice of how it is used.. and wishing it to be different doesn't make you less of a criminal when you do it.

If I wished it was ok to kill people, then did it, I'd still get arrested whether I agreed with it or not... I'd leave fingerprints or something, I'm a bad criminal :P

In the case of Laguna Beach, the results are irrelevant and a singular incident. Evidence supports the contrary position. I've got a friend who ended up having to stop making music and performing because his music got popular and everyone copied it to their friends... he lost money on it and had to break up the band for financial reasons... people with the same "I can copy it", therefore it's OK, mentality.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well comparing the usage of music in films to stealing a car or murder is a little ridiculous. And I don't believe you're "robbing the artist of potential sales" by putting their song in a film. It's getting major exposure and therefor making people want to seek out the song itself. How often do they play an entire song from beginning to end in a movie? There are a lot of artists that owe a lot to films for the exposure it gave them, either they were nobody's when their song was played or they were a dying artist who's career was revived after the exposure to younger audiences. And i'm not talking about "copying" or "stealing" music. If I the customer, paid a one time fee for that song then I believe that is all that is needed. I'm not stealing anything, I paid for that song once. You're only saying it's "copying & stealing" because that is what the law has evolved into. I'm just saying the laws on this issue are stupid and I disagree with them. like i said originally, the industry has gotten way out of hand with greed and it's not going to change. So here I sit with my thumb up my ass........
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Part of the problem is that most people think of music as music, whether it was made by a starving group of poor musicians or by the Big Name Label Band. Same with movies - my little $20,000 feature has to hold its own in the marketplace against the $150 million dollar Summer Blockbuster. The vast majority of art that is created in any medium is done by ordinary people who don't make much money, if any at all.

But then, here comes somebody who says to heck with the artist's rights, I'm going to co-opt their work into my own and not give them any say in the matter, just cuz I forked over a few bucks for my own copy. You can't exactly have a law that says it's okay to rip off Journey, since they've already made their fortune, but not this artist over here who's never made a dime. The laws are supposed to protect all of us equally.

The starving artist is likely to give you permission to use her song free-of-charge anyway because, as you say, it's good publicity. But you don't want to use her song, you want Journey. Why? Because their notoriety is beneficial to your project, just like getting Tom Cruise to be in your movie. Tom doesn't need the money, either, but good luck getting him for free.

Nobody wants their rights trampled on. The 1% of artists who've actually struck it rich have the same rights as the 99% of us who haven't been so lucky.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't think I ever said any certain song is beneficial to the movie or tv show itself. It depends on the song. I'm not saying I would pick Journey over a lesser known artist just because more people know Journey's music, i'm saying any artist would benefit from the exposure. There is no downside to having your song in something of that level. You can argue that the label might not like the song the way it's used or the content it is involved in, but bottom line is that it's going to possibly be heard by millions, possibly all over the world depending on your film. and that equals more fans/money for the label/artist. Journey aired a song on a show aimed at teenagers who most likely have never even heard of Journey. Now Journey is introduced to a whole new generation.

and having a certain actor in your project is different than using a short clip of a song. Tom Cruise could sell a silent movie if he wanted. A song isn't going to sell the movie itself.

I just believe the laws have got way out of hand. Ok, lets say I give in and believe that artists should be paid to have their song in a project. Why not just pay a one time reasonable fee. Licensing songs for a certain amount of time? more fee's for future use on television? this is where it gets ridiculous. 5, 10, 20,000 for 10 seconds of a song? you have got to be kidding me. The "Happy Birthday" song is even copyrighted. Bravo record labels! you put this law out there and people fell for it, way 2 go! but i'm on to you *wink wink*
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would also argue that those artists (music, painting, acting) who have succeeded have done so by being very careful about how their works are used. Marilyn Monroe would go so far as to take a pin to negatives that she didn't want shown of her. The artists who control the distribution of their works (or overall image as a commodity) are the ones who have the control over the system that seeks to exploit them by putting their images and works anywhere it feels like.

These controls that you don't agree with are specifically in place to protect the artist's image and property. If you don't agree, feel free to produce your own works and release them to the world under the open works type of licenses and let other people use them freely. The problem is that those works aren't in the public view because they are just shotgunned out hoping they will stick... and the distribution system as it stands is structured by companies who wouldn't touch works licensed in such a way that wouldn't allow them control over its distribution (which takes money to do).

You can complain that the current state of affairs is wrong, but unless you're doing something to create an alternative distribution model that allows free access to the works and allows for people to profit from it as well, you won't make any headway on your argument.

Problems or solutions... two types of people in the world. I urge you to do something toward promoting your ideology without resorting to criminal acts to get your point across.

The Free Software Foundation did precisely this and in about 30 years of really hard work made an alternative to proprietary software ownership. Start now and work hard... by 2040, you can have a parallel musical universe that we all would love. Until then - disagreeing doesn't alter the reality of the situation. Make change and make the world better for everyone.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The artist chose to release their song to the public in the first place. If they are so worried about their image, then they wouldn't release it. They released it because 1. they believed it was good enough & the distributors agreed and 2. because they both thought it could make money. Then they discovered people were putting the songs in films and thought "hey that's cool, but maybe I could make them pay me for using it" (not even considering the exposure it will bring them)

I'm kind of shocked that more people don't agree. I understand the laws and how they came to be and why they feel they are right for doing it. But again, there is no harm done to the artist's image or property. If they want to act all "Kurt Cobain-ish" and whine that their music isn't being used the way they want, then don't release it in the first place. They are getting paid no matter what, it's just greed. Pure and simple.

I agree with you that all I am doing is arguing, and something should be done, but I don't think i'm the guy to bring change as you say, I'm not that passionate about it as I might sound, i'm just a guy having a discussion on a forum. and i've never tried selling anything with un-licensed material, I don't want to be sued. But the fact it's got to the point that people call it a "Criminal act" shows how insane it has become.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think part of the issue is that art has become ephemeral. If you make a lamp and sell it... there's a lamp in the world, you've sold it and you've made the money off of it you expect to.

When you make a song, you press 200 copies of it through your distributor and you expect that there are 200 copies of your song out there.

In the lamp case, if some one wants another lamp, the original manufacturer can make another and get paid to do so.

With files that can be digitized, the original artist can be easily taken out of this loop. They suddenly can't get paid to make another copy since the end user can make their own.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top