Copyrights & DVD Releases of TV Shows

I love watching television shows on DVD, and I'm not alone. According to Wired News, Copyrights Keep TV Shows off DVD (watch out for the pop-up Blockbuster ad!), we spent $2.3 billion on DVD releases of television shows in 2004.

The high cost of securing the rights to the music has held back several key DVD releases. The options include replacing the music (yuck!), substituting music, or paying the sometimes outragous licensing fees. An old favorite of mine, WKRP in Cincinnati, is featured in the story:

"The indication from the studios is that we may never see (WKRP in Cincinnati) because of all the music that would have to be licensed," said David Lambert, news director of TVShowsOnDVD.com, a clearinghouse of information on TV shows released on DVD. "As the DJ spins the record as he's talking to Loni Anderson, if there is music playing even for a couple of seconds, then the people producing the DVDs would have to license it."

My entire career has been involved in intellectual property work (software, writing and photography), so I know that people have to be paid for their work. It's just a shame that a reasonable value can't be placed on this type of usage so that we can enjoy more television shows on DVD.

Comments

[Tvindy]

This also happened to Season 1 of The Real World when it came out on DVD. All the great music was replaced by generic stuff. It's sad that even MTV, which exists to promote music, couldn't cut a deal with the artists to keep the original music.

[Michael Moulton]

This is completely stupid anyhow. If the studio has permission to use the music in the show (which they obviously do, since they did), that agreement should cover all aspects of the show-- they don't have to relicense the music to run the shows in syndication, so they shouldn't have to do it to release them on DVD. It amazes me that the music industry is this greedy.

""The indication from the studios is that we may never see (WKRP in Cincinnati) because of all the music that would have to be licensed,"

Why not replace that music with music they do own the copyrights to orcan get a hold of cheaply? I wouldnt mind. I didnt watch WKRP for the music.

And how come they had permission way back when the show originally aired, but not now?

[Mike Sw....]

I agree with Michael Moulton above. It's ridiculous. Think of how this would work if every "creative" work were treated the same: Imagine an old movie going to DVD and in one scene of the movie there is a piece of art hanging on the wall. Do we need to find the artist and pay an exhibition fee for that two second shot of his art in the background? How crazy! We could all come up with numerous analogies and frankly, it's time this be taken all the way to the high court if necessary.

[Frank]

Mike and Michael are wrong in their basic facts. It isn't "music industry greed." Firs tof all thses copyrights are hld more often than not by individual artists. It is the greed of the TV shows which don;t wish to pay for new rights for wich they are getting NEW revenue.

When you buy rights othe than outright universal rights you agree to a limited use. Additional uses, foreseen and unforeseen, would cost you more money at the time of purchase. They didn't pay then why should they get a pass now?

Let me get this straight, the owner of the show, the rental companies like netflix, the actors, and everyone BUT the creators of the music should get more money, but not the musicians?

Sheesh, they paid the lower fee than buying the rights completely or buying universal DVD rights in perpetuity.

The piece of art hanging on the wall is not a proper analogy. It isn't required to be licences in the first place. music in a film is.

I'm guessing that within the next few years, a system will be worked out so that everybody wins - the shows can be released on DVD as aired (and with reasonable prices) and the musicians can get paid a fair amount. Also, I'm guessing that music negotiations for current TV shows includes DVD rights as well as broadcast and syndication (most of the older shows mentioned in various articles predate DVDs). This used to be a problem for movies as well - the animated anthology film Heavy Metal had its video release held up for years due to music licensing issues...

[Aron]

Pretty certain I sent this to you first, Mike. No credit? ;)

[Tvindy]

My guess is that most of the problem is due to the big record companies wanting to squeeze every cent they can out of the music they have acquired. I bet most of the artists whose songs appear briefly on WKRP would be thrilled to allow their music to be on the DVD for little or no money. It's a good way to generate interest in their old stuff, and it's not like there's any danger of people pirating 10-second song clips with the actors' voices speaking over them.

[muse]

Soem seem to be arguing that everyone but the musicians should be sharing the new profits. Interesting.

It isn't a question of DVD viewers "pirating" the music. It is a question of the DVD rights owners and retailers making 100% of the money and refusing to give a red cent to the musicians.

If I produce a DVD using one minute or 30 second samples of films, I have to ask permission. If I only pay to use those rights for a limited purpose, that does not include permenant universal worldwide marketing via DVD I don't have a right five or 20 years later to massively profit.

Here is a question: if the rights from old TV show is so vestigial, why not state that no one should pay and no one should profit? Let's just freely copy the DVD's, netflix can rent them out and pay no one at all? OK? We can all just post the shows on the net and pay no one? Do you see the problem?

That is the central qwuestion. There are new profits to be made. Some seem to be arguing everyone but the musicans should be making them.

Actors, writers, etc either got a very large upfront payment for all future rights or they got less upfront and held the right to get residual payments. The musicians and music rights holders got less money up front in return for only giving limited rights. The law is on their side completely and for good reason.

[Stephan]

What they did to the 2nd season of quantum leap was just murder. One scene with Al (sort of) dancing with his first wife lost its feel completely.

[sonja]

I'm sure when the shows were created, they did not plan on DVD taking off, and DVD on tv taking off the way it did. I know Season 2 of In Living Color replaced a lot of the music, but I did not really care too much, because the skits I was more interested in. But I've heard other shows have done this and that's part of the reason I rent the show first to make sure things are not changed too much.

I agree with someone else. The show has been taped and already in the can, I do not understand why the music companies feel the need to be so greedy.

[Hunter McDaniel]

The problem is the cost of the negotiations themselves when so many parties are involved. An old show like WKRP isn't going to bring in huge bucks to begin with, yet it has incidental use of music from hundreds of copyright owners - each of whom has a lawyer fighting for their 'fair share'.

My grandparents made the mistake of giving a small rural plot of land (< 1 acre) to their 7 children. When the next generation started to die off and there was no one left with any use for the plot, we had a HUGE problem getting authorization from all the heirs to sell the plot. It all literally cost more than the land was worth.

[Tvindy]

muse, actually I was arguing the exact opposite. The artists are being exploited by the record companies who own the rights to their creative work. The record companies don't care about the artists. They just want to milk the songs for every cent they can get. Meanwhile, the actual artists, many of whom would probably be thrilled to cut a deal for the DVD rights to their music, are unable to do so, because the record companies are demanding exorbitant sums. In other words, the artists have little control over the rights to their own music, and this is unfair.

[Gibby]

The "music companies" are in the right. A company doesn't just donate copyrighted music just you can have your WKRP unedited on DVD and someone else can make all the money off of it. Once you do that you've started a cycle of devaluing your work (or devaluing the properties you own). That's not a smart move. Forget the publicity of having songs on WKRP, IN LIVING COLOUR, and REAL WORLD DVDs. This is about the future. It's about that TV show in 2005 or 2006 or 2011 that wants to use your music. If you sell short for the WKRP DVD set, you'll be expected to sell short in the future.

You complainers have this backwards. It's not the "music companies" you should put pressure on. It's the companies releasing IN LIVING COLOUR and QUANTAM LEAP to DVD that you should be encouraging to expand their budgets for these projects to include the rights to the original music. If there's enough demand for it, I bet they would. If they'll respond to the demand for music rights resolutions for cult movies like HEAVY METAL and AMERICAN POP so they can be released to home video, they might also respond to a similar demand for old TV shows.

[Fred]

Unfortuantly a large portion of music (and photos) are owned by a few large coporatations. Just the cost to research all the rights is bad enough let alone getting the rights payed for. It's a shame really not just for WKRP fans, but for lots of documentaries. If you film someone singing Happy Birthday it will cost $1000s of dollars if they release to DVD.

[Eric]

I just wanna know, is THIS why there's no 'Rockford Files' on DVD? I know there's lots of old TV shows not on DVD, but 'Rockford' has a pretty rabid following, and they've been begging for it on DVD long time!

@Eric

From tvshowsondvd.com:

"6/09/2004
Some of Cannell's series, such as Baretta, The A-Team, The Rockford Files, and Baa Baa Black Sheep, are owned by others. In the case of these examples, it's Universal Studios, and The A-Team - Season 1 was just released yesterday on DVD. Baretta had a pair of releases (a best-of disc and a Season 1 set) in Oct. 2002. Rockford and Sheep are reportedly in-the-works from Universal, now that merger concerns with NBC are mostly behind them."

"8/22/2002
Wow, yesterday Universal annnounced a ton of TV shows they're working on for their "TV to DVD initiative". The series include Battlestar Galactica, Quantum Leap, Earth: The Final Conflict, Sliders, Dragnet, Magnum P.I., The Rockford Files and Emergency. Welcome to the party Universal!"

Maybe soon!

Eric

Netflix is showing "Rockford Files - Season 1" on their site. It is "released date unknown" but since they have it showing, maybe that is a good sign that it is coming soon.

[rr]

Sonja said: "The show has been taped and already in the can, I do not understand why the music companies feel the need to be so greedy."

Sonja. Are you saying the owners of the shows "already in the can" are not getting new money? You would be wrong. Dozens of participants are making brand new money. What you are suggesting is one rights holder, the musicians, be refused the additional profits the others are getting.

As with below the logical extension from your statement is netflix should purchase one copy, make copies of that copy and rent them. after all the film was already, "in the can."

Tvindy: "The artists are being exploited by the record companies who own the rights to their creative work. The record companies don't care about the artists. They just want to milk the songs for every cent they can get."

Tvindy, Again, as with above, by logical extension, the first person how rents it from netflix ethically should have no problem with putting it up on P2P and making copies for their friends since it is the "greedy" DVD rights holders who "want to milk" the tv shows??

FYI, it is DVD movie rights are much MUCH more likely to be held by large institutional corporations than music rights. Music rights are more likly to be held by individual artists.

TVindy: "Meanwhile, the actual artists, many of whom would probably be thrilled to cut a deal for the DVD rights to their music, are unable to do so, because the record companies are demanding exorbitant sums."

That is a falsehood. The rights held by large companies are NO problem. They are more often than not the SAME companies. They are really takng about scrwing the musician.

Those of you crying about the "big bad music industry" are actually parroting a big bad film industry atempted rip off of individual musicians. This entire push is about screwing the individual artists.

Just because some people are so used to rationalizing copying music at the expense of "greedy" corporations, a) it doesn't mean that rationalization makes any moral sense; b) it is not the issue here.

[Sonja]

By in the can I'm referring to the fact the show has already been taped, it's already been shown, and now it's simply sitting on the shelf, unless it's being shown in syndication. I'm aware the artist, or whoever holds the rights to the songs will be paid "new" money. From articles I've read seems when the show is trying to get the rights released for DVD they want to charge even more money. That's why Miami Vice had such a problem being released intially.

[Tvindy]

rr, in no way is P2P filesharing a "logical extension" of what I stated in my comment. A much more logical and fairly obvious solution to the problem that I laid out is to grant the musicians the right to directly negotiate the use of their material on DVDs. They would still share the same percentage with the record companies that own their songs. For example, they might only receive 5% of the DVD revenue, but at least there would no longer be situations where an artist who would like to be included in a DVD release isn't, because the record companies don't feel like negotiating. They'll still get their 95%, but the artist will be the one to determine how much that is.

[REN]

I'm jumping in to conversation here, but do you think that all artists want to negotiate with movie studios on every new project? A few things, what do they know about negotiating, and wouldn't be a huge hassle for movie studios to track down and reach agreements with individuals (who might not be individuals at all but a band) for every song they want to clear? If the record studios own the rights, they have prodcedures and people to handle licensing, and it is in the interests of both parties to reach the best deal possible. I don't think the studios would price things out of range to prevent a release, they know the music can replaced, and they don't make anything if it isn't used.

Also, Why should the artist who presumably doesn't own the rights to the material set the price for its use? Should the record company be happy that someone sold the rights for a $1 just because they get 95% of it?

[Tvindy]

"Should the record company be happy that someone sold the rights for a $1 just because they get 95% of it?"

I wouldn't imagine the record companies would be at all happy about that.

[Gibby]

When it comes to music for use in movies there are two sets of "rights" and many times more than one "owner".

There are the music publishing rights. These rights cover just the pure notes and lyrics. Often, but not always, these are owned by the songwriter(s).

Then there are the rights to a recording, which is typically where the record company's stake is and you'd have to go through them to get it.

If you want a song by Creedence Clearwater Revival in your movie, you could make a new recording of it by getting someone else to perform the song and then you'd only have to compensate and get permission from whoever owns the publishing rights, or you could use the original Creedence Clearwater Revival recording and go through more trouble and more money to get the rights for that.

(And I used CCR as an example because that case illustrates just how complicated the whole music rights thing can be. John Fogerty doesn't own the publishing to his old Creedence Clearwater Revival songs. When he had a solo hit in the 80s with a song that borrowed quite a bit from one of his old CCR hits, he actually got sued by the owner of the publishing for plagiarizing HIS OWN SONG.)

When there are many many songs in a movie or TV show that need to be licensed there all sorts of things that can get in the way. Aside from high costs, there are also many parties to deal with. Maybe you've secured the rights to 11 of the 20 songs you need, and the other 9 rights holders are dragging their feet.

The same thing is happening now with Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono over Beatles songs that Paul wrote (with and without Lennon) that Yoko now controls.