question ?

[donmartin]

We've all seen these types of listings -An XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Co. that is starting a new Online Media Channel is seeking great .......... Songs must be Broadcast Quality (excellent sounding home recordings are OK). If a lyricist hires a studio to write the melody and prepare the demo , does the "work-for-hire" status then entitle the lyricist to submit this demo and claim all rights to profit if it is used (as is) commercially on air ?Don

[matto]

If the person who wrote the music was stupid enough to sign a document waiving all his claims of authorship and signing them over to the lyricist, then yes, technically speaking, the lyricist would be entitled to all potential proceeds.However, it would be highly unethical for the lyricist to ask the composer to do this. A lyric is not a song, it's 50% of a song at best. The other half rightfully belongs to the composer.matto

[donmartin]

Quote:If the person who wrote the music was stupid enough to sign a document waiving all his claims of authorship and signing them over to the lyricist, then yes, technically speaking, the lyricist would be entitled to all potential proceeds.However, it would be highly unethical for the lyricist to ask the composer to do this. A lyric is not a song, it's 50% of a song at best. The other half rightfully belongs to the composer. I always enjoy reading your responses Matto , and have to wonder in this case if perhaps my question wasn't worded clearly . If the demo was a collaboration production with a musician(s) , then naturally equality would be understood and expected . My question was with regards to a recording studio who is hired to write the melody and do the demo production , for which they are then paid for all services (hence - work-for-hire status) . Don

[matto]

Don,I think I understood you correctly.In my opinion, if someone writes music to your existing lyrics, what you have is a de facto collaboration under the Copyright Act, even if the parties were never in the same room.Both parties, the lyricist and the composer, would be considered co-authors of the song (as defined by copyright law), because there was no SONG before the composer's contribution, there was merely a lyric.The same would apply if you wrote a lyric to an existing piece of music. You would be a co-author, because before your contribution there was no SONG, only an instrumental piece. The idea of hiring somebody to write music to your lyric and then claiming sole authorship over the resulting song is, in my humble opinion, a direct violation of, at least, the spirit of the Copyright Act. Doing this is not the same as hiring somebody to produce a demo or play or sing on one, because those people would be considered "hired guns", not co-authors. In other words the SONG existed before the demo was made, before the hired guns' contribution. Do you see the difference?Now I realize there are studios out there who offer this kind of "service" and that you didn't come up with this idea on your own in an attempt to swindle this person out of their legitimate claim of authorship . This is why I said "if they're stupid enough to waive their rights..."Nonetheless, I would encourage you to stay away from this kind of arrangement in the future. There's a right way to do things, and there's a wrong way, and these practices undermine the legitimate and legal rights of authors everywhere and should be discouraged. You should instead find a talented composer to write the song with, and then hire a studio to do the demo only. You will probably end up with a better song, since this composer will have more of an incentive to write the best music possible, given that he'll be the co-author. The composer may even have a home studio and agree to do the demo for free if you agree to pay for the singer. So you may even save money.Best of all everything will be on the up and up, both legally and ethically.matto

[53mph]

I know that in the Lyric Lovers section there are a fair few people who write lyrics and send them off to other people to put the lyrics to music. If I understand, this then mean that the musician owns 50% of the song.So, by hiring someone to put your lyrics to music you are starting a co-writing collaboration and thus have 50% division of the copyright to the song, but who owns copyright to the physical recording?I would have thought that the person paying for this service would own these rights because they have paid for them in the fee (altough something in writing would be advisable). This would then mean they can do what they like with the 'physical recording' as long as any money made from performance of that track in a public space or on other mediums gets divided between the writers. Ie. Money made from radio and TV play.This type of payment is not the same as sales of records and CD's though, because (if I remember rightly from when I had to sort out copyright for use of music at my old company) the copyright for the physical product is different to the 'use' of the music. I did this in the UK, not the US, so the laws may be very different.Here's a simplified version. A famous band wrote a song called 'Butter Sweat Sympathy'. They used a very famous sample from a 'Bowling Tones' song. They didn't clear the rights for the 'use of the sample in other mediums' (Ie not just on their record) and because of that the owner of the sample got all the royalty checks whenever the song was played on radio, TV etc...(which was alot) whilst the 'Nerve' only got money from sales of records.**Some names and facts may have been changed to protect innocent people from libel cases

[matto]

Quote:But who owns copyright to the physical recording?I would have thought that the person paying for this service would own these rights because they have paid for them in the fee (altough something in writing would be advisable).Whenever there's even the slightest chance that you'll use the recording for anything other than a demo, you should get written releases from all parties involved in creating the recording.That's really the only way you can be sure you'll never be sued.mattoAaah, "Butter Sweat Sympathy", I can hear it now

[hookstownbrown]

And your last point is the most important point, Matto. He may have a winning arguement in a lawsuit, but the main idea is to eliminate the possibilty of being sued. Winning that arguement in court will, no doubt, cost lots and lots of money...

[joneshouse]

A producer/writer who is competent enough to create broadcast quality material probably knows that any time writing is done, it's always split ownership. I only "work-for-hire" for production services and never writing. DanJonesHouse Music Productionhttp://www.joneshousemusic.com