Do I have to sign the recording studio's split sheet?

[Kolstad]

Yeah, Casey has a point here. You still own the copyright, assuming you had music and lyrics before you entered the studio. But you are in dispute on owning the master recording. If they won't sign a work for hire, they make claims to the recording of your song. This means you cannot use the recording at all, before the ownership of the master is settled. Chances are it won't be, unless they sign a viable work for hire contract, so you need to put the recording on the "dues" self. If you try to sell it on iTunes ect. they can in fact sue you for trying to sell something you don't officially own. Crazy world, I know.

Assuming you had a full song (music and lyrics) before dealing with the studio, you can get a recording done with another studio, this time making sure in advance that they sign the proper paperwork ahead of the session.

But, same "not lawyer" disclaimer here fwiw.

[bohemianlife]

Thanks again guys,

Here's a question. The Nashville lawyer says I have no problem, and he's been in the music business since 1983. He said it's strictly a work for hire no matter what the circumstances. I'm going to see a second lawyer in Washington, DC to get a second opinion. She's been in entertainment law since 2002, a Harvard lawyer, although apparently experience is more important. If two lawyers and one former lawyer say no problem, what would you do? I'm writing down every fact that happened to tell the DC lawyer. Thanks again for everything.

[Casey H]

Thanks again guys,

Here's a question. The Nashville lawyer says I have no problem, and he's been in the music business since 1983. He said it's strictly a work for hire no matter what the circumstances. I'm going to see a second lawyer in Washington, DC to get a second opinion. She's been in entertainment law since 2002, a Harvard lawyer, although apparently experience is more important. If two lawyers and one former lawyer say no problem, what would you do? I'm writing down every fact that happened to tell the DC lawyer. Thanks again for everything.

One problem is some publishers and libraries request copies of your work for hire agreement as a condition of signing your songs. And with good reason... Your being legally right is not the issue. It's the potential legal hassle and client relationship damage of a lawsuit.

Also, if this was done in Nashville with union musicians not charging union rate, there can also be lots of problems as far as it being a work for hire.

Although I am not a lawyer and who am I to argue with one? ... I would definitely NOT pitch this recording for film/TV. The same is probably true for selling CDs and downloads.

Are you spending money on legal fees? I'm sure they add up. It might be better just to put that money toward getting a whole new recording done from a reputable studio with a proper work-for-hire agreed to up front. Also, many Taxi members right here on this forum offer work-for-hire production services. Most do much better work than the studio mills, especially with their knowledge of Taxi listings and the Film/TV market.

And regarding lawyers... Many entertainment lawyers are not familiar with Film/TV pitches and music libraries. If you talk to one, make sure they really understand the Film/TV music library world.

PM me if you want to talk more offline about your situation.

Best,
Casey

[bohemianlife]

Thanks a lot Casey,

I was wondering about that. If I make a whole new recording in another studio, can the previous studio make any claims if I own the original copyright? I'd rather just bury the previous work and start over.

Also, I have written by them in my email correspondence that they do not care if I sell on itunes, cdbaby, bandcamp, or do a youtube video. So I was thinking of trying to recoup my losses that way. They just want a cut from movies and TV, or DVD, and that I have to inform them.

Finally, the contract they want me to sign is a hack job, which is what the lawyer said. They spelled "whether" as "weather". Can you believe that? And they got some Billboard 100 guy to go through.

Thanks for your offer. I might have to get in touch with you so I can get a really nice recording. Right now I'm doing end of school year stuff, so I'll try to get in touch with you soon.

Thanks again, guys.

[Kolstad]

To understand some of the basic terms, I suggest reading this great 101 from Taxi http://www.taxi.com/transmitter/0908/mu ... g-101.html

Legal stuff is all about precision in terminology. Good to hear you have a lawyer (and Casey )

[bohemianlife]

What is a Copyright? This is an intellectual property that exists in two forms... one is the sound recording, which is owned by the person who paid for the recording, and the other is the composition, which is owned by the person who wrote the song or published the song.

Here's a quote from the TAXI page you posted. So then I'm the owner of both the copyright and the sound recording, which also means I'm the owner of the master, correct? I paid the money for the service. They didn't pay anything. I solicited them for service. They did not solicit me. I also wrote the song with melody, lyrics, original beat, and I have a previous version with song chords. So that means the Nashville lawyer is right. Correct?

[Casey H]

What is a Copyright? This is an intellectual property that exists in two forms... one is the sound recording, which is owned by the person who paid for the recording, and the other is the composition, which is owned by the person who wrote the song or published the song.

Here's a quote from the TAXI page you posted. So then I'm the owner of both the copyright and the sound recording, which also means I'm the owner of the master, correct? I paid the money for the service. They didn't pay anything. I solicited them for service. They did not solicit me. I also wrote the song with melody, lyrics, original beat, and I have a previous version with song chords. So that means the Nashville lawyer is right. Correct?

Hi.... No, not correct.

There are two types of copyright as mentioned: The composition (music and lyrics) and the sound recording (aka the "master"). You DO own the copyright to the composition. What's in question here is the sound recording. You lack written documentation that you have all rights to that.

If you had a totally new recording made by someone else, the first studio would have absolutely no claim to it (different sound recording) assuming they didn't truly write any portion. By "write" any portion I mean go significantly beyond basic arrangement: writing lyrics, melody, significant changes to chord structure, etc. If they added a signature riff that truly defined the song (I'm talking at the level of "Satisfaction" or "Day Tripper" here), that might be different. You should be OK with a new recording barring the above which I'm going to assume for discussion here does not apply.

And if you give the new studio your original scratch recording and not let them even hear this production, you are definitely safe.

Non-lawyer disclaimer.

Casey

[Kolstad]

The good thing is that the studio can't do anything with the master either, as you own the copyright and haven't signed their papers. So their best shot would be to sign the master over to you for a fee. I wonder what you actually paid them for, since they wanted a piece of the copyright (which could be considered payment)?

Be aware that some studios does demos at lower rates for songwriters, that doesn't need the master rights. If you pitch the song to a publisher, it is not a commercial exploitation of the demo, so a songwriter doesn't need the master rights (NOT so with film/tv pitches). In some cases you can get the master rights for those demos for a fee, but not always, as some demo artists or their new labels doesn't want others to exploit their talents.

This is why you need to make sure what deal you're going into, in advance, with studios.

Non-lawyer disclaimer (copied without formal release from Casey's post, claiming "fair use" ).

[bohemianlife]

...one is the sound recording, which is owned by the person who paid for the recording

But isn't the TAXI post saying who paid for the recording is the sound recording owner? This is what the lawyers I've talked to are saying.

[Casey H]

...one is the sound recording, which is owned by the person who paid for the recording

Not necessarily- an over-simplification. It is only true if there was an agreement that the work was done as work-for-hire with all rights to master and composition remaining with the songwriter.

People can pay for recordings under lots of different terms. Just because you paid for the recording does NOT mean you own the rights to it.

Casey