TAXI.com

Hi guys,

Ok so if you had an instrumental you wrote, you are credited on it as sole writer/composer and master owner and it has been picked up (non exclusive) with a library and then an artist writes and sings a topline on it does it become a new composition?

How does that work? I'm guessing the topline writer should be added to the credits? Does it then become a new track? Do I have to go back to the library and my PRO and redo the copyright splits for the instrumental?

Thanks!

Is this a trick question?

It's the same song, because the melody is the same, if not it's a different song. The lyrics would be a copyright unto itself. If the library is non-exclusive, why is it necessary to notify them unless you want to include the version with lyrics?

topline lyric melody...say written by separate writer.

Track Music = writer A (instrumental)

Topline Lyrics/Topline Vocal Melody = writer B (vocal version)

if you are using the same master recording of instrumental that was signed exclusively... then no, it's not a different composition and you may not sign that instrumental + vocal to any other entity or you will be in violation of your contract.

If you take that chord progression and produce a new instrumental backing with vocals then it's a different master recording and a new composition.

JMHO, I am not a lawyer.

Thanks Vikki that helps clear things up.

I had noticed an instrumental by DVBBS & Borgeous called TSUNAMI. The vocal mix, retitled "Tsunami (Jump)", featured vocals from rapper Tinie Tempah.

Writers for the instrumental are:
Alex van den Hoef, Chris van den Hoef, John Borger, Niles Hollowell-Dhar

Writers for the vocal mix:
Alex van den Hoef, Chris van den Hoef, John Borger, Niles Hollowell-Dhar, Patrick Okogwu

As you can see Patrick Okogwu aka Tinie Tempah was added to vocal mix. So the vocal mix became a new master and additional credit was added.

"Top line writer" means a new melody and new lyrics, so in my opinion, what you have is a derivative work, which can and should be a new copyright, but if the underlying work is signed exclusively, you may have a problem. This is a similar situation to when English lyrics are applied to a foreign language song, except there's no pre-existing melody. Compounding the troubles, there are four copyrights involved, or is it three? I think it's time you consult a publishing professional. One thing I'm pretty sure of, you don't have to redo the splits on the original instrumental; the topline writer shouldn't expect to participate in fees/royalties on that item.

mojobone wrote:"Top line writer" means a new melody and new lyrics, so in my opinion, what you have is a derivative work, which can and should be a new copyright, but if the underlying work is signed exclusively, you may have a problem. This is a similar situation to when English lyrics are applied to a foreign language song, except there's no pre-existing melody. Compounding the troubles, there are four copyrights involved, or is it three? I think it's time you consult a publishing professional. One thing I'm pretty sure of, you don't have to redo the splits on the original instrumental; the topline writer shouldn't expect to participate in fees/royalties on that item.

Thanks Mojo. That sounds clear. Good thing I dont have that situation. I was just curious as I've seen a few songs end up like that where the instrumental was released and then couple years later vocals were added.

The other issue becomes when a library requires the instrumental version of all vocal tracks, which is your original instrumental afterall.

The cue sheets for the PROs would normally simply list the same title either way, so you would need to make sure that the non-exclusive library could somehow link the instrumental to the original for purposes of pitching, but use a completely separate title and registration for the instrumental so the top liner would only get royalties on the version that uses vocals.

An excellent point; this is a case where re-titling isn't just advisable, but probably necessary.