Whats the point in having the Work for hire agreement?

[Kelil]

Yeah but IMRO are pros for the songwriters only. I got contacted by the woman from there who works for film and t.v. Basically they've never heard of it or encountered it. They said there is a pro company in Ireland that also collects pros but in addition to that they collect performance royalties in order to keep in with Irish law that all performers must have their performance royalty paid out to them.

Also that the master recording isnt an issue here but is in the states, I cant ''own'' a recording because it is a socialist government not capitilist one which allows for that. Although Imro collect pros for songwriters and have affiliates like ascap and bmi, they cannot collect performers royalties because there is no law in the states that allows for this. so neither Raaps nor Imro ( who dont collect performance royalties anyway ) can collect performance royalties from the states. So me having to have session musicians sign such an agreement contradicts irish law. I've also been advised by Imro to hop on to the hotpress year book and look for a legal adviser in that matter which I'm on this week.

If you ask me, not only should american libraries recognise that their european people have a law against the work for hire, but Imro should also know what a work for hire is in order to inform the mis-informed like myself. they had something about the work for hire on their site but nothing in relation to session musicians signing one. Its a big mess and I cant get any answers. Because if its all made clear for me then I can proceed with doing everything in my power to get the musicians authorization for the track.

But right now I'm totally at a loss for correct info at the moment. I'd love to have the pm of the e-mail indeed. I'll keep banging their door. I dont think its fair they know ''a little'' about a work for hire ( because of one article on their website ) and then I get a person dealing in film/tv tell me shes never heard of one and pass me on the hotpress directory for legal advise

[matto]

Stephen,

I think there is a lot of unnecessary confusion here. What *most libraries by far* require, and what you need yourself as well to protect yourself, is a *release* from your performers which details which rights to their performance they are releasing to you and what they are getting paid in return.

Without a release you have no control over the master recording whatsoever and cannot exploit it commercially at all without the okay of each one of your performers every step of the way. W
And without a clear definition of what and how they are getting paid, you and any company that might decide to business with you with respect to the master recordings will run the risk of being sued by the performers should you be lucky enough to land a particularly lucrative or even just highly visible placement. Right now the performers might tell you they "don't want any money from ya" but they may well change their tune later on if they think you are raking it in BIG time with their performances...it certainly wouldn't be the first time this has happened...

A release will define three basic things.

1- The performers will either release ownership of the master recording to you, or appoint you as their exclusive agent in charge of exploiting said master recording. This gives you the right to negotiate and enter into contracts with third parties ( libraries, publishers etc) with respect to the master recording.

2- It will be detailed if, and if yes how, the performers will participate in money *you* are being paid as a result of the commercial exploitation of the master recordings (in other words sync license fees, master license fees, blanket license participation, and writer's royalties). Even if the agreement is they are not entitled to any share of this money this has to be made clear in writing or they could most certainly lay claim to a portion of it on the future).

3- It will clarify that the performers understand that they are not entitled to any portion of any earnings which a contract you may enter into with a third party in the future assigns to that third party. In other words, they won't be able to lay claim to a portion of the library's earnings. This is obviously a really important clause and without it no library will touch the song.

As you can see, there is no reason to use the term 'work for hire' if this doesn't jibe with the laws in your country and there is no reason why there can't be a clause in the release (or even WFH, for that matter) stating something to the effect of 'for those territories where royalties are being collected for performers on master recordings, xyz will receive such royalties directly from the collecting society he is affiliated with'.

So, your lawyer should have no problem drafting a release that satisfies both the legal requirements in Ireland and will still be acceptable to *most* US libraries.

Granted, there will be some libraries, particularly ones who are part of a major multinational music conglomerate such as UMG or Warner Chappel, that will have their own release crafted by their lawyers and those will usually be work for hire. If you are offered a deal with such a company the deal will most likely be conditioned on all performers signing the release provided, and if they refuse the deal will be off.

It is my (non-attorney) opinion however that even if they signed such a WFH deal it would not preclude them from collecting their performer's royalties for those territories in which such royalties are paid. Because the WFH only denies them a share of your or the publisher's royalties which are entirely separate from performer's royalties (in the territories where performer's royalties exist).

HTH,

matto

[Kolstad]

I don't think there's much of an issue, Kelil.

It's true that work-for-hire is a specific term in the US Copyright law (see §101 - the definitions section: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 ), and the US copyright law is the most specified of the bunch, Internationally.

While the US specifications work specifically for the US, the same terms is called something different in some other countries, like "corporate authorship" (see wiki for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire ). Here is also a specific reference to Irish law: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/ ... c0023.html . To me that doesn't look very different, but bw I'm not a lawyer.

I will say, though, that among musicians it is a common misconception to confuse these things, so don't invest everything in what your friends are saying. Even people in the industry are not always well rehearsed in copyright law, especially not what's viable Internationally. Far too many seem to think that our worlds are way more separated, than they in fact are in terms of legislation (not to say there isn't any differences, though).

Regarding pitching tracks to US libraries and publishers, in the US Copyright act (the same definitions section §101: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 ) it says that if a work is published first in the USA, it is considered an "United States work", which in consequence eliminates any dispute whether you need a WFH or not. You DO!

I'm not going to smartass myself on Irish law, but to me (the non-lawyer), the section referred earlier, reads the same:

(quote from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/ ... c0023.html )
The author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright unless—
(a) the work is made by an employee in the course of employment, in which case the employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work, subject to any agreement to the contrary
(quote end)

I think that settles it pretty much. The business principle at hand is, that whenever you require someones services, YOU are the employer, and THEY are your employee. THEY will be compensated from YOU for their work, like in any other work relationship. THAT is exactly a work-for-hire! You may want to consult a lawyer for details, though. Spend some time finding one who has good experience from the music industry, and set up a consultation. You may never need more than 1 hr., if you send the lawyer some material in advance to look over (BW, you also pay for that time), and show up prepared with your questions.

But bottom line, if you have other musicians playing your music, and you want to be in control of your master recordings - to be able to pitch it directly to any market, you need formal agreements to protect both yourself AND equally important, the people who's working with you (publishers, libraries ect.). Don't get too hung up by the name of an agreement, as long as it clearly states that the musicians (employee) sign their contribution over to you (the employer) for the agreed compensation. BW, if you pay nothing, the agreement might be invalid, and the employee can still sue you. It has to be a reasonable/fair agreement (at the time of signing).

I have found the agreement Robin Frederick has in her book on writing for TV/film, page 213, very useful, as it uses the Internationally viable legal terms "employee/employer", and can easily be adapted to your needs. http://www.robinfrederick.com/

[Kelil]

Songcabinet and others thank you for your great research and help. I've been gone a long time trying to get answers. An entertainment lawyer who is no longer as of a couple of months ago due to a change in jobs passed me on to another music lawyer to get advice. But he did say that it would be possible to make a work for hire that included they get ''performance'' royalties from their pros. But that confuses me all the more because if they get royalties and the libraries are looking for completely royalty free tracks I'm not sure how that would work.

I'm only half way there just yet. Getting a music lawyer is proving to be a difficulty here in Ireland but I'm on it and have been a busy little bee lately with it all.

Kelil.

[Kolstad]

... But that confuses me all the more because if they get royalties and the libraries are looking for completely royalty free tracks I'm not sure how that would work.

Who says the libraries are looking for royalty free tracks? Not the libraries I'm working with, so it's way too big a generalization! "Royalty free" stuff usually comes from the lower end libraries, or buy out deals, where you get paid for the music up front. Royalties are back-end payments for uses in different media, like Radio. Most of the time in the tv/film business, unless your music is released on soundtracks ect., you get licensing fees and syncronization fees. Some great resources to understand the business end of this are:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Musicians-Guide ... 300&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Music-Business- ... 872&sr=1-2

It's really, really important to study the business end of things. So now that you are into it, I suggest these for the particular issues you inquire about. Not that I'm the big business guru, actually, quite the contrary, but I've learned that you can do almost everything yourself, with careful research and studies. It's the DIY age, remember. Chewing a couple books will help you achieve the Mattheus effect, which is to be able to understand what the contracts are saying and what your lawyer is telling you. As the money is out of the music business, you must also understand that, untill you have a big name, we're talking about peanuts.

You know, the International royalty systems are working really well, and the solid music libraries in the US are doing a great job, also for us overseas musicians. You know, they all meet every year in France and Germany to the MIDEM and PopKom conferences, so we're not that much of a stranger. Of course you need to take care of business, but be aware there's a LOT of people working for you already. When you sign with a library, they are also on your side, in my experience. So is your PRO, not to mention TAXI!

Libraries just don't have time to deal with a lot of wheelings and dealings, negotiations and hassle, so they want music from musicians/producers who owns ALL the rights to the music, so they just have to deal with ONE person. That's the most cost effective for them, and production music is meant to be cost effective. All the rights means both the copyright to the composition AND the sound recording. If you are not the sole performer on the recordings of your music, you need a formal agreement for the other performers to be able to prove that you own the recording. That is the work-for-hire thingy. Music libraries don't have time for crazy musicians who doesn't understand the business, and threatens to sue them because they played the kick drum on some obscure track that was featured 5 seconds on the Weather channel, 5 years ago. It's YOUR job to protect them against this, by having the formal paperwork in order. That's the difference between the naíve amateur and the knowing professional. If you are looking for deals and relationahips in the music business, you will be wheighed by how business savvy you are, among other things.

So, in order to attract good deals, you need to make sure that you own all the rights to the music you submit. If you do that and have quality music that matches what their clients need, you should be able to get good deals and get paid.

Taxi is a GREAT place to be, because here you are not forwarded to the risque low end libraries, who doesn't provide cue sheets, sell your music for almost free ect. If you watch Taxi's Ustream shows, you know this.

Another place to study is the musiclibrary report site, where you can do some research on the companies who offers you deals, and read about experiences from other musicians/producers who's been down that path.

[mazz]

Magne, I've already suggested several books to the OP from other threads.

There seems to be a general misconception, which could be cleared up easily enough with some basic study, about royalties and how they are paid and by whom, and the difference between performance royalties and sync and license fees and where those come from as well.

I'm not going to go into it here because it's simply the very basics of the whole thing, and the information is out there in several books, not to mention Matt Hirt's videos on YouTube.

Teach a man to fish...............if he is willing to learn.

[Kelil]

well songcabinet your post has certainly put me in a better mood thats for sure. I have taken your advice on board and will do my best to have it covered in future.

*back to writing and recording new material*

[suzdoyle]

This is an interesting discussion . . .

As Matto said, having signed performer release forms (and co-writer/ publishing contracts) are essential if you'll be signing your work to production music libraries. These clarify who the administrator of the song is (who can sign the deals on behalf of the composers & performers), and what rights participants do and don't have re: the song itself and the recording.

It's more about everyone clearly understanding things that anything else -- and also about making it simple for the rights to a song to be marketed.

Let us know what you find out from your lawyer!

Suz