"Chart" or "list" of composer "to-do's" re-copyright etc..?

[88keys]

I've never understood the bizness side of our music business.
Re-Copyrights :
It's always been, you "could" copyright your music but you don't "have to." It "could be" useful "if" (how do you know ?) someone steals your music, but, it's not necessarily going to help. You have to prove "intent" then you may be dismissed anyway if the judge deems the work "frivolous" (cite Satriani versus Coldplay)....oh boy, is all this just pointless
(Someone recently mentioned the youtube ID as a great way of "registering" your works and has used this method against copyright infringements....O.K. I had no idea.)
The idea that copyright is inherent once it is in tangible form is all well and good, but, just because you have it on your computer, is it good enough ?

Re-titling Libraries versus Exclusive (that also re-title btw) :
a) do they re-title your work ONLY when it is about to be used, or, do they... "should they"...re-title upon acceptance into their library. Should this be a part of the contract ?
And, along this line, when the work is re-titled, does it appear in your "list of works" within your PRO ? If it doesn't, how do you get paid ?

Should we have a "sticky" here at the forum with a check-list of "to-do's" for all of us so that we know what needs to be done when we have signed a deal with a library, music-supervisor etc... ?
Something like :
1) Copyright your work.
2) Register work with PRO.
3) Include mandatory "re-title" notification stipulation in contract.
4) Verify re-title in your "list-of-works" with your PRO.
etc....
These are just off the top of my head, but, maybe some of you with better legal insight into what absolutely needs to be done can put together a real list.

[88keys]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but, regarding copyright, here is a beautifully explained section from another forum regarding the pitfalls of copyrighting your works "as a collection" and then signing only one of the compositions with a re-titling library :....(yes, this is posted by a lawyer...)

"...The issue with registering as a collection arises when you wan to split the collection among different publishers because a collection is a single work. Splitting up the collection among different publishers would be like having Random House publish a few chapters from a book, and Knopf publish a few more chapters, and Penguin publish some more chapters….

Registering a collection is not a problem if YOU are the only publisher. For example, you put all of your tracks into different RF libraries and DO NOT assign them publishing.

Registering a copyright DOES NOT protect your work. It is merely a threshold requirement to get into federal court if YOU want to sue someone for infringement. If your work is not registered and some one copies it, you will have no legal recourse. That said, the damages threshold to get into federal court is $75,000. Very few library cues ever get close to making that kind of money.

Another consideration: if you put your tracks into re-titling libraries and some one “steels” your music, it’s very unclear whether your copyright would have any value, especially if you registered a collection, and then put it into multiple re-title libraries. The re-titled version of your music is NOT REGISTERED and therefore not eligible for federal court. If I was defense counsel I would immediately file a motion for dismissal on the basis that the work in question was not registered.

And one final consideration, beyond the 75K threshold, set aside 100K for legal fees. Copyright litigation is very expensive...."

This is explained so well that I had to post this...more on this later....

[88keys]

...O.K....this is a continuation of the above and it gets lengthy, but, it's really worth reading. I never read it explained so simply and beautifully with an example or possible scenario at the end....(yes, posted by the same lawyer)

....."As I’ve stated before the music library business is a tiered business.
1) The top level exclusive libraries, that operate under the traditional business model, most often acquire music on a work-for-hire, or buyout basis, where the composer transfers copyright ownership to the library.

2) Re-titling libraries operate in a legally gray area. The composer does not transfer any ownership rights to the re-titling library. Instead the re-titling library changes the title slightly or adds a code, so that it can register that title with a PRO, as the publisher, and collect royalties. So, some writers put the same track into multiple re-titling libraries. As a result, the same piece of music, gets registered with your PRO many times under different titles. Broadcasters do not like this practice, among other reasons, because they end up paying for the same piece of music multiple times, when they should only pay once, under their blanket payment to your PRO. I’m not going to argue or debate the merits of the practice. Suffice it to say that many re-titling companies see the writing on the wall and are developing exclusive catalogs.

3) Royalty Free libraries generally do not re-title, and they generally do not act as publishers. It might be easier to think of royalty free libraries really as “stores” where you sell your music.

AudioSparx offers the option of administrating writers’ publishing, in which AS essentially acts as the publisher. This AS option is not a retitling scheme, and it can be non-exclusive. In other words, you can put your tracks in as many other RF libraries as you want (except the “banned” list). This is not legally gray because there is only one publisher…AS.

SO, to finally answer your question, what I mean is that if you are going to register your works (copyright) as a collection there must be single copyright owner. Whether, you act as publisher, or you let a company, like AS, administer your publishing, you still own the copyright.

@Advice…the copyright in your music is established at the moment your work is contained in a fixed medium, be it a recording or on paper. A copyright registration is your ticket into federal court (which is where infringement suits must be filed). You are correct, that you cannot copyright titles. It is the underlying work that is “protected.” However, when a library re-titles, and does not reregister, no registration exists in the new title.

One of the most likely scenarios in which someone may copy your music occurs when a composer is given a temp track to work from. That is a nearly standard practice in the industry, where an editor cuts a film, or TV show with temporary music.

I’ll give you a typical law school hypothetical:

You write a song called “Blue Sky” and you register that title with the copyright office. Great. Then you give it to retitling libraries A, B, & C. A retiles it “Blue Skies.” B retitles it “A Very Blue Sky.” C retitles it “Blue Sky C-101.” The retitling libraries do not register the new titles with the copyright office. That would be illegal because they don’t own the copyright.

All of the libraries send out their catalogs gratis on hard drives. PlaidBoy Hipster, the editor for XYZ productions is working on a new reality show about tragic holiday cooking accidents called “Deep Fried Turkeys.” PlaidBoy puts “Blue Skies” from library A into his temp track. XYZ Productions then has a composer write music for the show, based on the temp track.

One night you’re watching “Deep Fried Turkeys” and you hear a piece of music that sounds an awful lot like “Blue Sky.” But, nothing shows up in your tunesat report. No cue sheets are filed with your PRO. You wait 6 months and no backend money arrives (but you already bought that new car!) Outraged, you call an IP attorney and convince him, or her, that you’ve sustained 75K in damages. You give the IP attorney a 10K retainer to file suit in federal court (meanwhile the meter is running).

In response to your suit, XYZ Productions hires a ruthless (me for example) attorney. I depose PlaidBoy who swears under oath that he used “Blue Skies” from library A in the temp track. He’s never heard of you or “Blue Sky.” Next, I depose the composer. He says that he was inspired by “Blue Skies” from Library A on the temp track. But, he says, “Blue Skies” contains so many commonly used loops and sounds that it’s almost generic.

Next, I search the Library of Congress for the title “Blue Skies” and find only one song registered under that title and its by Irving Berlin…not you. So, I immediately file a motion to dismiss your suit on the basis that you have no standing, because there is no registration for the title “Blue Skies” in your name. We never get to hear the underlying work because the judge grants the motion.

Alternatively, the courts agrees to proceed, at which point you write your attorney a check for another 10K. We enter a lengthy process involving expert testimony on both sides comparing your song “Blue Sky” to what XYZ’s composer wrote. Our experts successfully convince the court that numerous composers using the same loops and sounds has resulted in a proliferation of fairly generic music, that all sounds alike, and it would be nearly impossible to prove that XYZ’s composer copied any single work. As evidence we site the number of times fingerprinting detects the wrong title.

Next, I call you as a witness to explain to the judge why you registered your works as an unpublished collection to save a money, but then you published your works using a re-titling scheme, hoping that you’d make more money that way.

Finally, I introduce XYZ’s composer’s PRO statement into evidence, which shows that he made $2.25 for the 20 seconds of music you thought sounded like your song. Upon seeing that your liquidated damages are $74,997.75 short of the federal threshold, the judge dismisses the case. At which point, your attorney hands you a final bill for another 25K including his fees and expenses (experts aren’t cheap).

OK…that was a long winded, but hopefully humorous look at why gambling with copyrights and re-titling may not be such a hot idea.

Now to clarify a few legal points:

There are two ways to copyright a collection. Here’s the language from the law.

(A) In the case of published works: all copyrightable elements that are otherwise recognizable as self-contained works, that are included in a single unit of publication, and in which the copyright claimant is the same; and
(B) In the case of unpublished works: all copyrightable elements that are otherwise recognizable as self-contained works, and are combined in a single unpublished “collection.” For these purposes, a combination of such elements shall be considered a “collection” if:
( 1 ) The elements are assembled in an orderly form;
( 2 ) The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole;
( 3 ) The copyright claimant in all of the elements, and in the collection as a whole, is the same; and
( 4 ) All of the elements are by the same author, or, if they are by different authors, at least one of the authors has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element.

Note that in both cases, the copyright claimant (owner) must be the same. If you register an unpublished collection you can break-up the collection and reregister the works singly later.

You may find this helpful. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf.

[remmet]

Interesting reading! Thanks for posting, David.

Suffice it to say that for most of us, undertaking a copyright infringement action in federal court is unlikely to happen in our lifetime or anytime thereafter. If you are ever in a position to do so, count your blessings, because fortune has smiled upon you.

Richard

[DesireInspires]

Good info 88keys. MichaelL always has some great advice.

[88keys]

Interesting reading! Thanks for posting, David.

Suffice it to say that for most of us, undertaking a copyright infringement action in federal court is unlikely to happen in our lifetime or anytime thereafter. If you are ever in a position to do so, count your blessings, because fortune has smiled upon you.

Richard

Richard, your point is worth repeating..."undertaking a copyright infringement action in federal court is unlikely to happen in our lifetime..."

I think that this is well known by those who would wish to use this against composers. The example given by Michael L is copyright infringement re the use of "temp" tracks but it doesn't take much imagination to extend this to other possible scenarios.

[solidwalnut]

For my buck, the moral of the story is: don't sign with most re-titlers, non-exclusive deals if you want your work protected and you want to get paid what you're due. Sure, the lure of filling the pipeline with easy money seems like the right thing to do. Of course this lawyer is correct. You'd better have a ton of cake in the bank and there'd better be some cake that makes sense to pursue. The re-titlers are operating more in the 'dark gray' spectrum and are creating infringements up-front. All legally, apparently.

Stay the course, stay within copyright law. What this lawyer DIDN'T mention is that owning a copyright is key when there are settlements out of court. Not every issue will go to court. Keep it clean At least that's my tac.

Signing non-exclusive deals precludes me from every signing that work to an exclusive one. No exclusive library will touch that work with so many other permutations of the work out there.

[andygabrys]

thanks for posting that David

that was pretty awesome.

interesting that the threshold is $75,000. As far as TV commercial music its unlikely that an unknown or relatively unknown artist would ever reach that amount "lost" between sync / master and royalties paid. For a sync / master license of the music they would have to get more than $65k upfront and it would have to run constantly to even meet the threshold.

I wonder how many of these settle out of court? Only the ones where the lawyer fees would be more than $75k?

and a second point - so you have to register with Copyright.gov to be able to go to court. IMO doing some quick math, again, shows that in most cases for production music this is a complete waste of money. You have to show that you are out more than $75k.

very interesting.

[Casey H]

Hmmmmm.... I wonder if copying and pasting text here from another website forum is a copyright violation.

[Casey H]

For my buck, the moral of the story is: don't sign with most re-titlers, non-exclusive deals if you want your work protected and you want to get paid what you're due.

I strongly disagree with this and I think it's a bit dangerous to make statements like that. Many high quality libraries are non-exclusive with re-title and make good money for composers every day. One well known Taxi client out of LA is a great example of this.

Where it gets sticky is when composers place the same track in multiple re-title libraries. There is risk there and everyone has to weigh the risk/benefit for themselves. But the major risk is WAY less related to stealing and copyright issues (those are very rare) but more related to the future of re-titling, fingerprinting use in the future, etc.

Casey