another copyright question..

A creative space for business discussions.

Moderators: admin, mdc, TAXIstaff

avillaronga
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:12 am
Gender: Male
Location: McLean, VA
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by avillaronga » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:35 am

Quote:1... Our wives should talk... 2... I can't debate legal issues since I am not qualified. But I think the very definition you gave above is the whole point-- you are the employer who commissioned someone to do the work and want that to be clearly stated... But I'll bow out and leave it to those with law degrees... Commissioned to create the work, not perform it. The thing to remember is that "work-for-hire" is used to determine who is the "author" of the work under copyright law. If the performance creates a part of the work that wasn't there then the issue is debatable, this is a common source of conflict with arrangers (but that's a separate topic). Now, it is entirely possible that some people have used that term, or the absence of it on a contract, to try to claim they should get royalties and that the term is now being used as a CYA instead of its true legal meaning. Again, a quick call to a qualified attorney should clear that up. FWIW, I don't use that term in my master releases. Quote:I hope that whoever reads this thread takes away ONE thing: That you should get a proper release form from demo musicians. Exact verbiage on a message board from anyone is dangerous (USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!) and I probably already contributed to that potential problem... Absolutely. Especially for film/tv/library contracts, you will need this before you can sign and you don't want something as trivial as that stopping you from getting a deal.Quote:Now ask me a question about C programming, and I might be qualified... Should my main() return an int or be void??

User avatar
sgs4u
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 3122
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:39 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Vancouver
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by sgs4u » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:45 am

I totally got you Antonio, and my intention is to be agreeing with you, and elaborating on why the term WORK-FOR-HIRE sucks. Sometimes it's just so damn tough (for me) to write on a forum without the vibe being misconstrued. Sorry about that, pal.I am indeed laughing. Quote:Steve,I agree with everything you said. One of the reasons I am advocating against using "work-for-hire" in this situation (besides the fact that I think the term was being used incorrectly) is exactly what you're talking about: what the musician's union deems to be a fair price. On my first reply to this thread I said union musicians will have a hard time signing anything that says "work-for-hire". To go back to telaak's original intention of being fair to the people who contributed to his recording, having a contract that promises to make up the difference between what you paid and the current scale pay is a good way to do this fairly, even if the people involved are not unionized, there is a third-party who has given you a specific figure of what is considered to be a fair price for that work. And it is very simple, just find out what the current scale is in your area.

User avatar
Casey H
King of the World
King of the World
Posts: 14163
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by Casey H » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:07 am

Quote: Should my main() return an int or be void?? void main(void) {/* LOL */} Casey

User avatar
Casey H
King of the World
King of the World
Posts: 14163
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by Casey H » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:23 am

I think there are multiple issues running at once. One is the right terminology for a musician's release agreement and that involves legal stuff I am not qualified for... Antonio, as MY wife says, "I could be wrong"... I've heard that WFH term in the industry for a very long time so I assumed it was the correct one. One thing I learned is you never stop learning even when you think you know a subject well.Next is the problem of musicians doing session work at non-union fees. I have a feeling that the problem here would not be what you call it, "work-for-hire" or other... The problem may be more that they can get in trouble if they worked at sub-union scale wages which they sometimes do. In these cases, the musicians may be reluctant to sign anything with their name on it at all.Then there is friendly collaboration. This is great! Bear in mind that the person you helped by working on their track will probably need a document in writing that says the work is free and clear because some music libraries/publishers insist on it. And it is not in their best interest not to have an agreement, because (even though YOU wouldn't do this Steve - I know that ) if the song does well later, the musician can suddenly come after them for money or hold up a licensing deal. Every contract you sign with a library has a clause whereby you state you own all rights to the master and are liable for any claims and damages.If a musician doesn't want to do session work at $100-$150 and give up all rights, they certaintly don't have to. They can say no or ask for terms that include percentages of earnings as already discussed.Well, gotta get back to my "C" programming... Casey

avillaronga
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:12 am
Gender: Male
Location: McLean, VA
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by avillaronga » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:44 am

Quote:I totally got you Antonio, and my intention is to be agreeing with you, and elaborating on why the term WORK-FOR-HIRE sucks. Sometimes it's just so damn tough (for me) to write on a forum without the vibe being misconstrued. Sorry about that, pal.I am indeed laughing. I know you were saying the same thing... I was re-agreeing Someone needs to come up with "tone of voice" markings for this type of communication (emoticons are not enough sometimes...) (See, I'm laughing too...)

telaak
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:24 am
Gender: Male
Location: buffalo, NY
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by telaak » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:44 am

sorry if I caused any problems with this thread..definitely not my intention..anyway..been realy busy w/my day job {chef for hire/caterer}..tis the season I start tracking drums tonight and everyone on this project is cool about working for spec..I haven't had time to get the percentages right for the releases..I have a drummer, producer/engineer, female background singer and my contribution will be producer/coproducer, guitar/bass/vocals/keys..if anyone wants to break that down with their expertise i'd love to hear it..we're all non union and the producer/engineer is also donating his studio time..on a side note...I learned quite a bit from the arguing..so if this meltsdown again it'll still help thanks..john

matto
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:02 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by matto » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:09 am

Quote:I start tracking drums tonight and everyone on this project is cool about working for spec..I haven't had time to get the percentages right for the releases..I have a drummer, producer/engineer, female background singer and my contribution will be producer/coproducer, guitar/bass/vocals/keys..if anyone wants to break that down with their expertise i'd love to hear it..we're all non union and the producer/engineer is also donating his studio time..Hey John,you're really the only one who knows exactly what each contributor is doing on a song by song basis so you're the only one who can come up with the percentages. With the information I previously gave you it should be pretty easy to figure out a fair solution.Since you'd also be receiving the sync half of any license fees plus your writer's royalties in case of any broadcasts (to keep for yourself assuming you're the sole writer), you can afford to be generous with the percentages on the master half of the license fees.I think it's also important that it is clear to all of the contributors that IF "something" happens with this music, that something is not likely to make them rich... but that they will receive a fair share of whatever it is that these recordings are making for you.Chef for hire huh? I love the variety of day jobs people have on this forum! Best of luck, in the studio and at the stove !matto

User avatar
mazz
Total Pro
Total Pro
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:51 am
Gender: Male
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by mazz » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:32 am

Quote:[quote author=telaak board=general thread=1196594805 post=1197207880]Since you'd also be receiving the sync half of any license fees plus your writer's royalties in case of any broadcasts (to keep for yourself assuming you're the sole writer), you can afford to be generous with the percentages on the master half of the license fees. Best of luck, in the studio and at the stove !mattoI think that this points out what appears to be commonly misunderstood, which is: the underlying composition is considered a seperate entity from the recorded version of that composition. That's why you hear sound alikes on commercials. It's much easier to get the sync rights to re-arrange and record the song than it is to get the rights to the original recording!So much to learn, thanks for bringing this up!Mazz
Evocative Music For Media

imagine if John Williams and Trent Reznor met at Bernard Hermann's for lunch and Brian Eno was the head chef!
http://www.johnmazzei.com
http://www.taxi.com/johnmazzei

it's not the gear, it's the ear!

User avatar
Casey H
King of the World
King of the World
Posts: 14163
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by Casey H » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:12 pm

telaakCheck your pronouns... e.g. "You"... I think you have it confused somewhere in there... I'm not going to suggest any more specific wording for a contract on a public forum. We may be treading into dangerous waters here where opinions get misconstrued (not necessarily by you) as legal advice or "gospel". Everything here gets read by a lot of people, both as forum members or by Google. And everyone reading doesn't see all the history or disclaimers.That's just me... It's starting to make me nervous. I am very happy that you, one way or another, are getting this taken care of.Best of luck!!! Casey

telaak
Impressive
Impressive
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:24 am
Gender: Male
Location: buffalo, NY
Contact:

Re: another copyright question..

Post by telaak » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:01 am

Quote:telaakCheck your pronouns... e.g. "You"... I think you have it confused somewhere in there... I'm not going to suggest any more specific wording for a contract on a public forum. We may be treading into dangerous waters here where opinions get misconstrued (not necessarily by you) as legal advice or "gospel". Everything here gets read by a lot of people, both as forum members or by Google. And everyone reading doesn't see all the history or disclaimers.That's just me... It's starting to make me nervous. I am very happy that you, one way or another, are getting this taken care of.Best of luck!!! CaseyThanks Casey..I think I fixed it see *MY* on both contracts..I hear you about the legal stuff..i'll go back & type a disclaimer on the release...never thought of it that way...if it still looks wrong someone feel free to edit W/DISCLAIMER..later..john

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests