another copyright question..

[telaak]

Quote:Quote:the (UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED) part is so I can attach a sheet saying AFTER a deal is made we discuss a fair split of the $ - recording & taxi costs...I think this is a really *bad* idea...you should spell out what percentage you want to give them and what the cap should be (if any) in the release itself."Discussing fair splits" AFTER deals have been struck is usually a recipe for disaster and can destroy friendships. I would strongly advise against it.mattothanks all..that's what I need to hear..I guess I have to take what was posted earlier in this thread and figure a formula for percentages...I usually do most guitar parts/vocals myself, occasionally bring in a lead player,always use a drummer and frequently use a bass player {sometimes do it myself}my current project - i'm doing all bass & guitar parts as well as vocals..i'm bringing in a girl to do some backing vocals, using a drummer - using a producer/engineer...everyone's working on "spec" I think the term is..{they get paid/if I get paid}the producer/engineer could possibly play an instrument here & there..i'm guessing his share should be healthy..I really just want to be FAIR..i'm not really good at this sort of stuff..if anyone wants to create an example..feel free...I write alone and all songs are "finished" before they get to the studio..so the compositions are mine...i'm blown away by the knowledge here..these questions have been kicking around my head for years now..THANK YOU later..john

[Casey H]

I would leave out "Unless otherwise specified" completely. If you ever make a special deal, you could edit the contract. Leaving this in might just add confusion.Also suggest: WITH RESPECT TO YOUR PERFORMANCE AS A (guitarist, drummer, vocalist, etc.) ON THE COMPOSITION(S) LISTED BELOW AND OTHER MATERIAL ENTITLED:Consider adding this first sentence in this para. (or similar):YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR WORK WAS PERFORMED AS A "WORK-FOR-HIRE". ALL MASTER RECORDINGS AND ALL RECORDS AND REPRODUCTIONS CREATED, TOGETHER WITH MY PERFORMANCES EMBODIED THEREIN, ARE YOUR PROPERTY, FREE OF ANY CLAIMS WHATSOEVER BY ME OR ANY PERSON DERIVING ANY RIGHTS OR INTERESTS FROM ME, WITHOUT LIMITATIONS.Disclaimer: This is NOT legal advice, just thoughts from what I've seen on other similar agreements.Casey

[avillaronga]

Quote:I would leave out "Unless otherwise specified" completely. If you ever make a special deal, you could edit the contract. Leaving this in might just add confusion.Also suggest: WITH RESPECT TO YOUR PERFORMANCE AS A (guitarist, drummer, vocalist, etc.) ON THE COMPOSITION(S) LISTED BELOW AND OTHER MATERIAL ENTITLED:Consider adding this first sentence in this para. (or similar):YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR WORK WAS PERFORMED AS A "WORK-FOR-HIRE". ALL MASTER RECORDINGS AND ALL RECORDS AND REPRODUCTIONS CREATED, TOGETHER WITH MY PERFORMANCES EMBODIED THEREIN, ARE YOUR PROPERTY, FREE OF ANY CLAIMS WHATSOEVER BY ME OR ANY PERSON DERIVING ANY RIGHTS OR INTERESTS FROM ME, WITHOUT LIMITATIONS.Disclaimer: This is NOT legal advice, just thoughts from what I've seen on other similar agreements.CaseyI am certainly not able to provide legal advice since I am not a lawyer and while I hate to contradict the advice from more senior members I have to insist that maybe using the term "work-for-hire" does not apply to this situation. I work for a company that produces legal software (copyright included), I have taken several courses on Copyright law and studied the subject a lot due to the work I do. Again, I am not a lawyer but in everything I've learned, the term "work-for-hire" carries a specific meaning under U.S. Copyright law, that is, a work that was created by someone as part of their work or by commission but whose authorship is attributed to the employer (or the person who paid for the work) instead of the actual creator of the work. By using that term on the contract you are implying that the musicians created their parts and could be considered the author under Copyright law but are giving up that right by signing the contract. If they simply performed music that was written by the composer, they never had that right so they don't have to say they're giving up on their claim of authorship because they never had any. You could say something like "you acknowledge that [YOUR NAME] is the author of this work and that you make no claim of authorship on the work performed under this agreement" or something to that extent.Now, in the case of a recording engineer, the "work-for-hire" is applicable, but not on the creation of the music, it is applicable on the creation of the Sound Recording. The engineer is the creator of that master recording but if you paid for it to be created, you are the "author" of that master under the "work-for-hire" clause of U.S. Copyright law. That is the typical application of the "work-for-hire" term.There are several good books on the subject (I can't think of any titles off the top of my head) but I'd suggest that if this is something important to you, write the contract and spend $100-300 having an attorney review it. While a lot of lawyers would do anything to get your money, there are a few honest ones that will simply bill you their hourly rate if all you want is for them to review something you've already written. As my wife could tell you, there is also a strong possibility that I am completely wrong in everything I've said so take this as one more opinion and NOT as legal advice.Antonio

[Casey H]

Quote:I have taken several courses on Copyright law and studied the subject a lot due to the work I do. Again, I am not a lawyer but in everything I've learned, the term "work-for-hire" carries a specific meaning under U.S. Copyright law, that is, a work that was created by someone as part of their work or by commission but whose authorship is attributed to the employer (or the person who paid for the work) instead of the actual creator of the work. By using that term on the contract you are implying that the musicians created their parts and could be considered the author under Copyright law but are giving up that right by signing the contract. If they simply performed music that was written by the composer, they never had that right so they don't have to say they're giving up on their claim of authorship because they never had any. Antonio1... 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... 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... Now ask me a question about C programming, and I might be qualified... Warmest,Casey

[sgs4u]

Hi Casey, Telaak, and everyone else,I don't wanna get into a debate about the ethics or morality of work-for-hire stuff, but I do want to explain something. If this sparks a fiery debate, well, it is a potentially contentious issue. And in case you think this is sour grapes from me, I just want to publicly declare, that I am playing keys and/or producing at least a half-dozen taxi members' recordings, and volunteering with no strings attached, because I believe in them as people. I plan to continue this. It's my way of giving back. making a difference, and it makes my life better. So here are my thoughts; If you put a work-for-hire/release form, in front of a musician at any time during a session (and offer them $100 for their time spent working on your song), it makes it pretty obvious that you: 1) expect the end product is going to be listened to by whoever it's being made for and 2) that you are business savvy enough to know, the right people, and 3) it blows the "We're In This Together," vibe all to hell, because you're obviously not. What I think is that we have to look at a work-for-hire agreement thing, as a WIN/WIN from the musician's perspective. If you can think like that, this stuff becomes quite easy. Guys will work for $100, to be part of a team. Call your work-for-hire contract, something else, that is more team minded. And put language in it that specifies how the team concept works, if the recording about to be made, becomes marketable enough to be accepted and placed. When any session player, producer or anyone else for that matter, works on a recording, they expect that their contribution, helps the artist or writer get ahead. A producer wouldn't have a musician in the recording session unless they thought that the person's contribution was going to be the right choice, to make a recording more marketable.As a union cat myself (tho I dislike the union and it's old school mentality), there is a standard union rate for musicians, which is quite high, just for demos. They also have a demo rate, that they expect you to bump up (with a second pay scale) if that demo master gets used for anything else, other than just as a song demo, which includes film & TV use, or someone else re-cutting a song...A work-for-hire, implies that the musician's input, was simply a cog in the wheel. Musicians don't ever like release forms, for good reasons. There is a often a stigma that a producer is out to screw them, by sticking a release form in front of them... and it's happened often enough for all of us to be wary, of small time writer/producers, who are demoing something on the cheap, in order to shoot at a big payout or contract. You don't want musicians feeling sabotaged or compromised by a work-for-hire agreement, they're suspicious of. Because musicians have a strange way of rebelling against the perceived man(think Jack Black). So the language in the contract, should never be a surprise, on the day of a session.I'm just giving you my opinion here. If you want to get a musician's BEST work and focus, make sure they know exactly what's gonna happen cash wise with your song, long before they show up. If you really want a musician's best work, pay them when they walk in the door to set up their gear. Everyone gets relaxed when the cash is handled quietly, and efficiently. If you're paying a drummer a decent demo rate, let's say $100, for playing drums, make him/her a promise to bump that price up, if the song gets cut, or used in any other way. Matto's explanation of how to do this, is very clear, at least to me. If you had to hire that drummer to make anything other than a demo, the union price would be a little over $300, for a 3 hour session. Really good players will do demos for $100, if they think there's a reason to get involved. IE: they like the song, producer, artist or TEAM. I simply want to tell you guys that expecting a GREAT musician to work for $100, and sign away all the rights to further compensation, is a kick in the nuts. If someone wants to pay $100 per musician to create a work of art that is destined to make a lot of money, why should a musician be expected to accept less than what the musician's union deems to be acceptable? And I guarantee you, any time you offer a musician a measly $100, for a 2 or 3 hour session (which is almost always what it takes if you're expecting a great job), there is a vibe that you generate that is not good for your recording. Use a respectable and decent pay scale, that rewards musicians for having put in the time it takes, to become proficient at their craft. GREAT musicians will help any track sound better, or get forwarded, every time. Hobby players, well, not so much. You end up having to do more editing,, and more takes... it all takes longer to finish, and you're second guessing yourself the whole time. Just create a sliding scale, that shows a musician how they will earn more money, if the song gets picked up in the future, based on the earnings it makes. You may be writers, and think you're at the bottom of the food chain, and thus entitled to ask musicians to work as cheaply as possible. But you don't get someone's best work anytime they think you're going to screw them over. If someone wants to hire me (and I've done a few thousand sessions), I say no to leaving the house for $100, unless it's a situation where I believe the opportunity is too good to pass up. An opportunity to earn $100, just to play piano on a song, without any further compensation down the road, is something I say NO to, quite effortlessly. If you need really good live musicians, treat them fairly. If you are making a recording that you believe will be enhanced by live players, you are creating a musical work, that is benefiting from their contributions. Its much different from being one person, one studio. There are many guys like me, w studios, that try to do everything, but the truth is, one musician can rarely attain the kind of live sounding track that a bunch of players together, can effortlessly paint with great TEAM sound and energy. I've edited Matto's post (without his permission ), to re-iterate the easiest way to do this. Actually, the easiest way to get a musician's best work, is to pay him/her what they think they're worth, based on what you tell them the recording is gonna be used for. The 2nd best way, is to promise something extra, if they work on a demo for cheap. It could be quite simple, like promising an extra $200, to bump the session fee up to union scale, if the recording makes money, or you can do what Matto suggests, here.Quote:The easiest way is to cut them in on a share of future master license fees. When your music is placed in tv shows or movies, a license fee is usually paid to you or a publisher representing you.Half of that license fee is considered the "master license fee" and is for the recording (the other have is considered the "sync license fee" and is for the composition). You'd split the sync fee with your co-writers (if any) and the master fee with your co-performers/producers. Figure out how much each of the performers and producers (including yourself) on the recording contributed to that recording percentage wise. There are no set rules for this, obviously, the more tracks somebody contributed and the more "important" those tracks are (lead vocal, a solo) the higher their percentage should be...put that percentage in their release.Next, figure out how much you would've paid them had you paid them upfront. Take 150% of this and put this as a ceiling into the release (xyz will be entitled to 15% of any and all master license fees received by [you] as a result of film and tv placements of the master recording up to a cumulative sum of $___) or something like this...(I'm not a lawyer, this is just for illustration purposes).The reason you give them 150% of what you would've paid upfront is to reward them for working on spec.Every time you receive a check you have to make an accounting to each performer and producer and send them their respective shares, which can be time consuming and possibly complicated with people moving and such. This is why it's usually easier to pay people upfront and get a release from them at the time of the recording session.IF you have the money to do so...matto

[avillaronga]

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??

[avillaronga]

Quote:I simply want to tell you guys that expecting a GREAT musician to work for $100, and sign away all the rights to further compensation, is a kick in the nuts. If someone wants to pay $100 per musician to create a work of art that is destined to make a lot of money, why should a musician be expected to accept less than what the musician's union deems to be acceptable?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.

[sgs4u]

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.

[Casey H]

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

[Casey H]

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