Many on Facebook expressed incredulity after learning about how song composers and lyricists are going to make couples pay for using copyrighted music in their wedding video montages (“They’ve only just begun – to charge,” Today, December 28, 2009).

Common responses by people who commented on the move are that a wedding is a private affair and why should couples have to pay to use these music. This was also the view expressed by a newly-wed interviewed in the article: “A wedding is a private event where you invite your close friends and relatives to celebrate together; not a public performance where you charge an entrance fee.”

Having just done a video montage for my brother’s wedding some two months ago, and being a stock photographer who for a living depends on payment from customers who use my works, I’m naturally keen to follow the development of this.

As far as I remembered, the issue of using copyrighted music in wedding videos first came up in photography and videography forums, where some questioned whether it was appropriate at all for these photo- and videographers to be using copyrighted music in their portfolio without paying the artistes.

There are two issues at hand: one, is a wedding truly a private event, and two, should composers and lyricists be paid for use of their intellectual property?

While Singapore laws do not explicitly define “public performance”—a right that is granted to copyright holders—US laws defined it as “to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered”.

A typical Chinese wedding dinner in Singapore involves at least hundreds of guests; it would be a stretch to compare a dinner with a few friends hosted in the privacy of one’s home to a wedding dinner with a hundred guests hosted at a public place.

My guess is that those who are upset are mistaking a public event with a commercial event. Regardless of whether the exhibitor have profited from the public performance of the copyrighted material, the copyright owner is deemed to have lost a potential source of revenue for the performance of his work when no royalty is paid to him.

Next, should composers and lyricists be paid for use of their works during a wedding? Most people who have expressed their unhappiness with the private-event reasoning seemed to think not: after all, these celebrities are already making big bucks, so why go after small private use like a wedding function?

But the royalties for public performances are not paid to the celebrities who sang the songs, but to composers and lyricists who have to earn their income through remuneration collected when their works have been published or performed.

Take David Cook’s Come Back to Me, which was composed by a Norwegian songwriting duo Amund Bjorklund and Espen Lind, and its lyrics written by Zac Maloy. Since the song was authored by three people, they each own one-third of the song. The authors Amund, Espen and Zac each gets an equal cut of mechanical royalty from the publisher for each copy of the recorded song sold. David Cook gets a cut too under a different deal arranged with the publisher.

But when Come Back to Me is performed in public, only the music authors Amund, Espen and Zac receive performance royalty, usually split 50/50 with the song’s publisher. Cook doesn’t get paid for merely singing the song, because he did not create the music and thus does not own the copyright.

Of course, there is also an increasing number of singer-songwriters, such as Jason Mraz and Lady Gaga, who’ll receive royalties for both the sale of their records as well as for public performance of their works. But that is hardly enough reason to justify not paying them for use of their work.

The problem is further compounded when people cannot detach the physical ownership of a work with what they can actually do with it. After all, if I bought the music on a CD, I should be able to do whatever I want with it right?

But that could not be further from the truth under copyright law. Ownership of a music CD or a film on a DVD merely grants the owner of the media the right to play the music or screen the film in a limited number of private settings and occasions. The owner of the media cannot for instance, make copies for resale, create works based on the original, or in this case, perform or display the work publicly.

Here’s another scenario: if someone commissioned me to take a portrait of them for personal use today, and he became famous 10 years down the road, he is not suppose to make a profit off the portrait by printing and reselling them.

But despite having the full legal grounds to pursue action against couples who flout the law, music authors are unlikely to go after the couples themselves for the offence lest a public backlash against them take place (it has already happened judging from the deluge of complaints over the internet).

It is clear that couples would not have to deal with these licensing issues themselves. They would, continue as they already do, approach wedding photo- and videographers with their requirements for their montage—including the list of music that they want included.

It is up to the photo- and videographers to take a profit cut to stay competitive, or try raising prices to cover the extra costs. Of course, it is only fair that couples manage their own expectations and be prepared to be more selective about the songs they want included to lower licensing costs.

But ultimately, music authors ought to be paid their deserved income when their work is used.

If you like this story, please consider making a donation to help further the Enquirer's cause.

Disclaimer: Comments left on articles in The Enquirer are contributions from readers and do not reflect the views of the editorial team. The Enquirer is not responsible for the comments and reserves the right to remove any comments deemed inflammatory or in bad taste.

Leave a comment or send us a letter?

Commenting is instantaneous and can be anonymous if you choose not to reveal your real name. A letter, however, cannot be anonymous and takes a day or two to be edited and published. The upside to a signed letter is that it is more prominent and credible compared with an anonymous comment tagged to the end of an article.