Deejay Corny
Hi there deejays around the globe!
I would like to start a topic here about the legal issues concerning the use of videoclips as a DJ. All views, opinions and thoughts are welcome, as long as they concern this question. So, please feel free to react!
First of all, I would like to know if I got my facts straight:
1. The way I see it, our mission as a DJ is (and has always been) one and the same: to make certain people come at a certain moment to a certain place and stay there for a certain time to do certain things. Wow! I re-wrote this sentence a couple of times, just to get it right, but in the end it has gotten rather vague, didn't it? Well, in a real-life situation this mostly translates into a DJ trying to get people to come to a club and dance and consume beverages. But there are also many other possibilities: A DJ playing music and making the people enjoy themselves at a family reunion, a weddiing, or a christmas party, comes to mind. Or a DJ entertaining the people visiting a fundraiser or a promotional event, etc. etc. So, we see that there are four different scenarios possible: the event you play at is either commercial (as in: making profit), or it is not. And you, as a DJ, are engaging in a commercial activity (meaning: getting paid for it), or you're merely enjoying your hobby, in a non-profit, leisurely way.
2. A DJ will seldom organize his or her own event (Come to think of it: I normally have to, but then again, I live on a very small island, with practically no nightlife to speak of). That means, there will almost always be others that organize the event, and host your gig on their premises (either open-air or a club). If the event is a commercial one, then these people will also organize their source of income to pay for the event (including you), and generate profits (most likely by selling food and/or beverages) for themselves.
3. DJs used to play records to achieve their goal. After that came the CDs, then the MP3s. Now, we can even play videoclips. But no matter what media we choose, as a DJ we are using audiovisual works, made by other people, to complete our mission. And by doing so (broadcasting certain music), we help promoting the artists that made that music. Remember: the object of a commercial artist is gaining profit from the sales of his music. The more people that can hear it, the more likely it will be that the music will reach the ears of someone who likes it enough to go out and buy the CD. Before the video clip era, the DJ would mention the name of the artist and the title song. Nowadays, the people on the dancefloor merely have to look at the big screen to be able to read that info at the beginning and the end of the clip. So we see, a DJ benefits from the music made by another artist, and at the same time, that artist benefits from the promotion his music is getting by being played by the DJ.
Now, if these fact are correct, then I can only reach the following conclusion:
1. If a DJ uses audiovisual works made by other artists to make a profit, then logic dictates that part of this profit should go to the artist. But the same can be said for the artist: If an artist makes a profit by being promoted by a DJ, then the artist should give part of this profit to the DJ. It is my humble opinion, that one should neutralize the other. In other words: nobody needs to pay the other, because the fact of muisc being broadcasted is beneficial to both the DJ and the artist. The same goes for a non-profit DJ: Your goal may be different from making money, but you still achieve it by using other people's work of art! So the equation stays the same.
2. According to the law (at least here in Spain), the obligation to pay the appropiate fees of broadcasting copyrighted works lies with the organizer of the event, NOT with the DJ. So if the event is commercial, if the organizer is making a profit, then he or she should give part of this profit to the artists whose music is being used. On the other hand, there is the matter of promotion: if the work of an artist is never broadcast, then he or she would sell very little CDs, simply because nobody would know about the music! So, once again, the benefits are mutual. I therefore feel that the law, in this case, is wrong: there should be no fees for broadcasting audiovisual works of art!
LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR: THE SITUATION AS IT IS, IS NOT CORRECT. IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT, AS A DJ, YOU HAVE TO BUY THE VIDEOCLIPS YOU WANT TO PLAY. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT SITUATION AT ALL. THE VIDEOS SHOULD BE PLACED AT OUR DISPOSAL AS DIGITAL DOWNLOADS BY THE RECORD COMPANIES FOR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES AND WITHOUT ANY CHARGE.
BUT FOR US (OR OUR EMPLOYERS) TO HAVE TO PAY LICENCE FEES FOR BROADCASTING VIDEOS OF COPYRIGHTED MUSIC IS ABSURD! THOSE VIDEOCLIPS ARE NOT ONLY A MEDIA FOR ENTERTAINING. THEY DISPLAY THE NAME OF THE ARTIST, THE TITLE OF THE SONG, AND THE NAME OF THE RECORD COMPANY. THESE VIDEO CLIPS ARE, IN FACT, PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL IN VIDEO FORMAT TO ADVERTISE A CERTAIN PIECE OF MUSIC THAT IS SOLD IN AUDIO FORMAT (CD OR DIGITAL DOWNLOAD). THE ACTUAL PRODUCT AND THE PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! THINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN THIS CLEAR, PRIOR TO THE EXISTENCE OF VIDEOCLIPS: BROADCASTING A VIDEO OF A SONG IS PROMOTING THE MUSIC OF THE ARTISTS IN QUESTION!
(And before anyone can think it: I'm a DJ alright, but I'm not prejudiced: I have written three books, several articles and one interview. One magazine published my interview, putting another name as the author, and, of course, without paying me for it. Another magazine published an article, after a payment agreement, and simply never paid. So, I know what it is to have someone use your hard work and make a profit, without you seeing any reward...)
So... what do you think?
;)
I would like to start a topic here about the legal issues concerning the use of videoclips as a DJ. All views, opinions and thoughts are welcome, as long as they concern this question. So, please feel free to react!
First of all, I would like to know if I got my facts straight:
1. The way I see it, our mission as a DJ is (and has always been) one and the same: to make certain people come at a certain moment to a certain place and stay there for a certain time to do certain things. Wow! I re-wrote this sentence a couple of times, just to get it right, but in the end it has gotten rather vague, didn't it? Well, in a real-life situation this mostly translates into a DJ trying to get people to come to a club and dance and consume beverages. But there are also many other possibilities: A DJ playing music and making the people enjoy themselves at a family reunion, a weddiing, or a christmas party, comes to mind. Or a DJ entertaining the people visiting a fundraiser or a promotional event, etc. etc. So, we see that there are four different scenarios possible: the event you play at is either commercial (as in: making profit), or it is not. And you, as a DJ, are engaging in a commercial activity (meaning: getting paid for it), or you're merely enjoying your hobby, in a non-profit, leisurely way.
2. A DJ will seldom organize his or her own event (Come to think of it: I normally have to, but then again, I live on a very small island, with practically no nightlife to speak of). That means, there will almost always be others that organize the event, and host your gig on their premises (either open-air or a club). If the event is a commercial one, then these people will also organize their source of income to pay for the event (including you), and generate profits (most likely by selling food and/or beverages) for themselves.
3. DJs used to play records to achieve their goal. After that came the CDs, then the MP3s. Now, we can even play videoclips. But no matter what media we choose, as a DJ we are using audiovisual works, made by other people, to complete our mission. And by doing so (broadcasting certain music), we help promoting the artists that made that music. Remember: the object of a commercial artist is gaining profit from the sales of his music. The more people that can hear it, the more likely it will be that the music will reach the ears of someone who likes it enough to go out and buy the CD. Before the video clip era, the DJ would mention the name of the artist and the title song. Nowadays, the people on the dancefloor merely have to look at the big screen to be able to read that info at the beginning and the end of the clip. So we see, a DJ benefits from the music made by another artist, and at the same time, that artist benefits from the promotion his music is getting by being played by the DJ.
Now, if these fact are correct, then I can only reach the following conclusion:
1. If a DJ uses audiovisual works made by other artists to make a profit, then logic dictates that part of this profit should go to the artist. But the same can be said for the artist: If an artist makes a profit by being promoted by a DJ, then the artist should give part of this profit to the DJ. It is my humble opinion, that one should neutralize the other. In other words: nobody needs to pay the other, because the fact of muisc being broadcasted is beneficial to both the DJ and the artist. The same goes for a non-profit DJ: Your goal may be different from making money, but you still achieve it by using other people's work of art! So the equation stays the same.
2. According to the law (at least here in Spain), the obligation to pay the appropiate fees of broadcasting copyrighted works lies with the organizer of the event, NOT with the DJ. So if the event is commercial, if the organizer is making a profit, then he or she should give part of this profit to the artists whose music is being used. On the other hand, there is the matter of promotion: if the work of an artist is never broadcast, then he or she would sell very little CDs, simply because nobody would know about the music! So, once again, the benefits are mutual. I therefore feel that the law, in this case, is wrong: there should be no fees for broadcasting audiovisual works of art!
LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR: THE SITUATION AS IT IS, IS NOT CORRECT. IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT, AS A DJ, YOU HAVE TO BUY THE VIDEOCLIPS YOU WANT TO PLAY. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT SITUATION AT ALL. THE VIDEOS SHOULD BE PLACED AT OUR DISPOSAL AS DIGITAL DOWNLOADS BY THE RECORD COMPANIES FOR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES AND WITHOUT ANY CHARGE.
BUT FOR US (OR OUR EMPLOYERS) TO HAVE TO PAY LICENCE FEES FOR BROADCASTING VIDEOS OF COPYRIGHTED MUSIC IS ABSURD! THOSE VIDEOCLIPS ARE NOT ONLY A MEDIA FOR ENTERTAINING. THEY DISPLAY THE NAME OF THE ARTIST, THE TITLE OF THE SONG, AND THE NAME OF THE RECORD COMPANY. THESE VIDEO CLIPS ARE, IN FACT, PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL IN VIDEO FORMAT TO ADVERTISE A CERTAIN PIECE OF MUSIC THAT IS SOLD IN AUDIO FORMAT (CD OR DIGITAL DOWNLOAD). THE ACTUAL PRODUCT AND THE PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! THINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN THIS CLEAR, PRIOR TO THE EXISTENCE OF VIDEOCLIPS: BROADCASTING A VIDEO OF A SONG IS PROMOTING THE MUSIC OF THE ARTISTS IN QUESTION!
(And before anyone can think it: I'm a DJ alright, but I'm not prejudiced: I have written three books, several articles and one interview. One magazine published my interview, putting another name as the author, and, of course, without paying me for it. Another magazine published an article, after a payment agreement, and simply never paid. So, I know what it is to have someone use your hard work and make a profit, without you seeing any reward...)
So... what do you think?
;)
geposted Tue 07 Jun 11 @ 1:02 pm
ClubBusta
why don't you bring this demand right to the record labels. i bet they would be happy to discuss this with you. i can give you their addresses and we can even get you transportation too. and dont worry, we will set up a big net outside underneath the window to catch your ass when you come flyin back out! gotcha back brotha! SMH
geposted Wed 08 Jun 11 @ 1:09 pm
Deejay Corny
Pfew! Thanx ClubBusta! I must admit I was getting a bit worried there 'bout having said something inappropriate... Seeing the lack of reactions, and all...
But, yeah. I guess you're right: this isn't a perfect world... and money still rules.
But, yeah. I guess you're right: this isn't a perfect world... and money still rules.
geposted Thu 09 Jun 11 @ 8:08 am