Live Regis and Kelly theme song

[Casey H]

Dec 5, 2008, 5:54am, mojobone wrote: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I sleep next to one. Best way to cut down on those legal expenses!!

[davewalton]

Dec 5, 2008, 5:54am, mojobone wrote:Normally, I'd bow to your superior experience, Dave, but this is a contest and NOT the standard arrangement; I'm aware that "work-for-hire" doesn't usually mean no royalties, but in this case, I think it might. There are a couple of different pages I looked at; one appears to cover what the Mouse can do with submissions to their websites (plural), another deals specifically with Buena Vista Entertainment and the Regis & Kelly theme contest; as I read the language, it sounds like a buyout, but hey, what do I know? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I sleep next to one.;DWell, in that case you leave me no other choice than to say... http://taxi.proboards27.com/index.cgi?b ... e=1#106250

[aubreyz]

Dec 5, 2008, 5:54am, mojobone wrote:Dec 5, 2008, 5:22am, davewalton wrote:No, no, no... Maybe Matto can expand on this but work-for-hire is a standard arrangement for writing music for tv and film... doesn't have anything to do with getting or not getting royalties.The "Oprah" thing is a work-for-hire. Right at the top of my last contract... "Tenth Addendum To Work-For-Hire Agreement". We all get royalties, etc. Normally, I'd bow to your superior experience, Dave, but this is a contest and NOT the standard arrangement; I'm aware that "work-for-hire" doesn't usually mean no royalties, but in this case, I think it might. There are a couple of different pages I looked at; one appears to cover what the Mouse can do with submissions to their websites (plural), another deals specifically with Buena Vista Entertainment and the Regis & Kelly theme contest; as I read the language, it sounds like a buyout, but hey, what do I know? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I sleep next to one.;DThe thing is, ASCAP, BMI, etc... won't honor a work for hire agreement that cuts the actual writer out of a minimum 50% share of performance royalties. Synchronization fees and mechanical rights are a different matter, but a work for hire agreement definitely does not mean no royalties for the writer- even if someone else owns the copyright.HTH,Aub

[kitz]

Thanks for looking at this you guys,Mojo's right, I realize the odds are slim and don't want to give one of my better little pieces up to Disney with no hope of compensation. On the mail in form you have to initial a box that says: I understand and accept that:_________ my audio file and any other submission materials, once submitted, may not be modified by me in any way, will NOT be returned or acknowledged, and become the sole property of "Live with Regis & Kelly" Another part of the "Terms of Use" concerns unsolicited material, describes what it is and then says this.DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ANY UNSOLICITED SUBMISSIONS; NO IMPLIED CONTRACT. Our long-standing company policy does not allow us to accept or consider Unsolicited Submissions so please do not Distribute Unsolicited Submissions on or through any WDIG Sites. We want to avoid the possibility of future misunderstandings when projects developed by us or under our direction might seem to others to be similar to their own creative work. We therefore ask that you not Distribute any Unsolicited Submission. In any event, you agree that any Submissions you make is not being made in confidence or trust and that no confidential or fiduciary relationship is intended or created between you and us in any way, and that you have no expectation of any review, compensation or consideration of any type (other than any stated Consideration).. Except as expressly stated in these terms of use, the provisions of these terms of use apply equally to Unsolicited Submissions and Solicited Submissions. Accordingly, we, our licensees, distributors, agents, representatives and other authorized users shall be entitled to exploit and disclose all Submissions, and we shall not be liable to you or to any person claiming through you for any exploitation or disclosure of any Submission. So basically it looks like if you submit anything unsolicited they own it too.Many Mo B-days JoBone!!

[sgs4u]

So I think you have every right to feel confused by this, as this discussion proves. No one actually seems to know here for sure. I would think Matto knows but then again it is a contest situation. These contests always seem to be new opportunities for big business to make sure they minimize their losses, or reward their shareholders. The contest is legit the reward is pretty clear and to win it, well - BIG CREDIBILITY AND CLOUT. The thing that bugs me about what I've read so far is that they hold onto your piece even if they don't choose it?... Then again, that might only be a for a short period. When big companies like that wave around a $100,000 prize, they know they may well be saving money by doing the buyout. They also generate loads of advertising for the show. The guy that runs that show, is VERY SMART. The people that run Disney, VERY SMART. How much money do they have to pay for lawyers? LOTS. Again, enter at your own risk, be prepared to kiss that piece of music good-bye, and learn as you go. Or refuse to enter, because your song is so good and important that you know you can find an even more palatable deal for it. http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.htmlHere's part of it. Not posting it to suggest this is what they mean in the Disney contract. This is one website's interpretation of a work for hire agreement. I don't agree or disagree with what I'm posting here, it's just information on the definition of the term, Work-For-Hire. Quote:What is a Work for Hire? One way to acquire rights is by license. With a license, you do not obtain total ownership of the final work, but rather certain limited rights to use it. These limited rights can either be exclusive or nonexclusive. A license can further be defined -- or limited -- by territory, duration, or even media. As a rule, hiring parties prefer to obtain rights on "work for hire" basis (shorthand for "work made for hire"). With a work for hire, the hiring party steps into the shoes of the creator and becomes the author of the work for copyright purposes. With a work for hire, all of the attributes of copyright ownership -- including credit and control -- vest in the hiring party, not the creator.Important! There are only two situations in which a work for hire can exist. They are: (1) a work created by an "independent contractor," and a (2) "work prepared by an employee" within the scope of her employment.A. Works Created by Independent Contractors For a work created by an independent contractor (or freelancer) to qualify as a work for hire, three specific conditions found in the Copyright Act must be meet:1. the work must be "specially ordered" or "commissioned." What this means is the independent contractor is paid to create something new (as opposed to being paid for an already existing piece of work); and2. prior to commencement of work, both parties must expressly agree in a signed document that the work shall be considered a work made for hire; and3. the work must fall within at least one of the following nine narrow statutory categories of commissioned works list in the Copyright Act:(1) a translation, (2) a contribution to a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (3) a contribution to a collective work (such as a magazine), (4) as an atlas, (5) as a compilation, (6) as an instructional text, (7) as a test, (8) as answer material for a test, (9) or a supplementary work (i.e., "a secondary adjunct to a work by another author" such as a foreword, afterword, chart, illustration, editorial note, bibliography, appendix and index).TIP! As this is being written, the law is unsettled over the issue of whether a work for hire agreement signed after the work has begun is valid. However, you are strongly advised that all work for hire agreements be signed before any work commences. Without an agreement signed by both parties before work begins, the status of the parties' relationship (and copyright) may be in dispute.I did my best to eradicate my overuse of commas. But, one, of my favorite, heroes, is, Bill Shatner.

[mazz]

A work for hire agreement in no way precludes performance royalties which are paid out of blanket fees that broadcasters pay the PROs (ASCAP, BMI, etc.). A work for hire means that the entity that commissions the work (for instance, Harpo Productions) and pays for that work, owns the copyright and usually the publishing. But the composer still gets performance royalties. The production company (the commissioner of the work) is legally supposed to file cue sheets with the PROs every time a piece is used (whether they do it in a timely fashion is another story!!). The PROs then pay the composer performance royalties. Since the broadcasters have already essentially paid the royalties by paying the blanket fee to the PROs, they don't have to keep track of the accounting beyond filing the cue sheets.In the case of this contest, the license fee is a nice fat 100 large and performance royalties would be generated every time it plays, with the composer getting 50% (100% of the writer's share) and the commissioner getting the other 50% (100% of the publisher's share).This is a very basic tenet of the music business.Mazz

[sgs4u]

Dec 5, 2008, 10:17am, mazz wrote:A work for hire agreement in no way precludes performance royalties which are paid out of blanket fees that broadcasters pay the PROs (ASCAP, BMI, etc.). A work for hire means that the entity that commissions the work (for instance, Harpo Productions) and pays for that work, owns the copyright and usually the publishing. But the composer still gets performance royalties. The production company (the commissioner of the work) is legally supposed to file cue sheets with the PROs every time a piece is used (whether they do it in a timely fashion is another story!!). The PROs then pay the composer performance royalties. Since the broadcasters have already essentially paid the royalties by paying the blanket fee to the PROs, they don't have to keep track of the accounting beyond filing the cue sheets.In the case of this contest, the license fee is a nice fat 100 large and performance royalties would be generated every time it plays, with the composer getting 50% (100% of the writer's share) and the commissioner getting the other 50% (100% of the publisher's share).This is a very basic tenet of the music business.MazzIt isn't a basic tenet when it comes to hiring musicians on Work for Hire contracts Mazz. In the case of hiring musicians using Work for Hire agreements, the musicians do not receive royalties. So I find the Disney language to be confusing. You may believe this to be a basic tenet of the music business, but it is actually open to interpretation. I really think that the language is not as important as the precedent DISNEY sets. There are many cases where Work for Hire means what you know it to mean, and many others where it turns out to be what I think it means. What it actually means in this particular case, is what Disney means. Because you the more experienced composer, I would tend to expect that your understanding is more likely the correct one. It would seem crazy to me that ASCAP BMI or Sesac would not pay royalties. But someone has to register the tune, and if Disney says they own it lock stock and barrell, are they going to put you down as writer, wen they register it's use with the cue sheets?I'm not saying I know more than anyone else, obviously I don't It's just a very confusing term to me.

[matto]

(I'm not a lawyer, but:)1- Nothing I read in the submission terms of this contest would lead me to believe that no broadcast royalties would be paid. The term "work-for-hire" is standard in film tv music, virtually all underscore and theme compositions for major tv shows and studio motion pictures are work-for-hire...2- Nothing I read in the contest language would lead me to believe Disney has any intent to commercially exploit all the thousands of submissions they receive; the language seems boiler plate contest legalese intended to protect them from future infringement lawsuits (they are one of the most paranoid companies I know when it comes to that).3- Notwithstanding number 2, in order to have any chance of winning this contest, you'd have to write a very specific piece of music that accurately fits their needs and description. Such a piece won't have a great deal of value beyond the intended use, neither for the composer nor for Disney, so even if they DID hold on to it I don't think it would be such a big loss to the writer, as it might be quite difficult to exploit it otherwise.I think it's very important to be protective of our music and to be careful about what we sign, but it's also important not to be paranoid about it and let great opportunities slip away because we clutch each and every one of our creations to our chest like a precious newborn baby...

[Casey H]

Dec 5, 2008, 5:02am, mojobone wrote:Umm, "work for hire" means no royalty checks. Ever. What Dave and I were addressing was the fact that this statement as an absolute is incorrect. The problem may be that the term "work for hire" is being used in different ways. One is when a musician plays on a track as a hired session musician and signs away all rights in a release, there are no royalties for them-- the agreement specifies that the session fee is the only compensation they will ever be entitled to (unless specified otherwise). This is often called a "work-for-hire".The other way the term is used is when musicians are commissioned to write a piece such as Harpo commissioning Dave to write something. In this scenario, the musician may be entitled to the Writer's share of performance royalties. It's not clear to me whether this has to be so (as Aub pointed out by the bi-laws of PROs) or is at the discretion of the entity doing the hiring & can be done differently by contract. Someone like Matto could clarify that. Casey

[kitz]

Matto,Here's what gets me!The CD submission form states:I understand and accept that:_____ my audio file and any other submission materials, once submitted, may not be modified by me in any way, will NOT be returned or acknowledged, and become the sole property of "Live with Regis & Kelly"._____ sampling or third party materials are not allowed and have not used any such materials in my entry. I have read the Official Rules and the Copyright Tips, available at the LIVE website contest entry page for more information. I further understand and accept that no pornographic, offensive, indecent, hateful or violent music is permitted as part of any entry. Impersonating others is not permitted. I have respected copyright laws andunderstand only original music will be considered._____ from the contest entry pages at the LIVE website, I have linked to, opened, read and agree to the Terms of Use. My audio submission does not violate the Terms of Use._____ I own or have obtained all rights necessary to upload this audio file and to authorize the uses permitted in the Terms of Use. By submitting my entry I am granting Contest Sponsors (as defined in the Official Rules) a license to make all such uses of this music.The first and last clauses give me the creeps. I just took a 3 minute song and cut it down to 1:30 for this contest and I want to be able to use it as a 3 minute song if I want - they are saying I can't modify it and it becomes the sole property of Sponsor.