Who owns/gets what? Writer/publisher share, collabs, work-for-hire, loops...

[AlanHall]

He sells all of his rights to Alice

The word "all" is pretty definitive

[AlanHall]

The word "all" is pretty definitive

That is how I see it too, Alan. And thanks for commenting on the other thread, but I did not want to hijack it. Essentially, this is like work for hire, even if it is retrospectively and encompasses composition. Unless there is something weird in music copyright law that you cannot sell certain rights, which would be hard to believe.

Tom

That is exactly the point I was trying to make in the other thread. Intellectual property is anything that a creative worker makes. When they make it, they own the rights. To sell or not to sell is their choice. That much is clear-cut.
Licensing is a whole 'nuther animal. When you give your publishing rights to a non-ex library, you've retained your publishing at the same time; and can give those rights over and over again to other libraries.
That's the way I see the sample libraries we purchase, the same kind of non-exclusive agreement for using/selling/publishing that material. The only difference is that with the advent of audio fingerprinting, If a sample can be identified by the AI, the first user of that sample becomes the de-facto owner and later users must be careful to disguise it or else find themselves drowning in potential litigation.

...yes, the machines HAVE taken over the world, we just refuse to see it

[ResonantTone]

This sounds confusing... maybe unnecessarily?

All of my collabs (vocal, composition, and production) have started with clarification before hand of a 50/50 split of everything not taken by the publisher for that project. Even if the workflow is skewed one way or another, building a relationship with that collaborator knowing it will even out in the future makes it worth while. It just doesn’t make sense to me to make it even more complicated, considering all the hands this information has to pass through. Confusion can inadvertently lead to frustration, and frustration can lead to burned bridges.

I’ve never come across the idea of maintaining rights to just the lyrics vs the rights to the project as a whole and would love to hear from others if this is a thing, how much of a headache it is, and how that works on the royalties side. From my understanding, you can’t separate the lyrics from the project itself in regards to royalties, but perhaps I’m mistaken.

Andrew

[hummingbird]

This sounds confusing... maybe unnecessarily?

All of my collabs (vocal, composition, and production) have started with clarification before hand of a 50/50 split of everything not taken by the publisher for that project. Even if the workflow is skewed one way or another, building a relationship with that collaborator knowing it will even out in the future makes it worth while. It just doesn’t make sense to me to make it even more complicated, considering all the hands this information has to pass through. Confusion can inadvertently lead to frustration, and frustration can lead to burned bridges.

I’ve never come across the idea of maintaining rights to just the lyrics vs the rights to the project as a whole and would love to hear from others if this is a thing, how much of a headache it is, and how that works on the royalties side. From my understanding, you can’t separate the lyrics from the project itself in regards to royalties, but perhaps I’m mistaken.

Andrew

You can't seperate parts of a song or parts of a master recording. If I say 'my lyrics are separate from the song and I can pitch them elsewhere' that has to be incorrect, just as much as the lead guitarist claiming her part of the project is hers to pitch elsewhere. A song is a song. One could argue the lyrics inspired the music or the music inspired the lyric, treating them as seperate entities for the purpose of copyright or licencing is not going to work.

Now, I did have an instance where a lyric of mine was put to music and the song was produced by the composer. We shared 50/50 ownership. However in the end, the instrumental portion was signed to an exclusive deal. Some years later I asked for permission to have my lyrics back and the composer graciously agreed.

Also, an agreement could be made between co-writers/collaborators that if the song gets no traction after a certain period (three years seems sensible), then their respective portions (if indeed they can be seperated) will revert back to each.

I am very certain any library or publisher would take a dim view of the idea that a song or instrumental has parts that belong to different collaborators. It's kinda like claiming the potatoes in the stew are yours, and the onions belong to the other guy.

H

[AlanHall]

Now, I did have an instance where a lyric of mine was put to music and the song was produced by the composer. We shared 50/50 ownership. However in the end, the instrumental portion was signed to an exclusive deal. Some years later I asked for permission to have my lyrics back and the composer graciously agreed.

To understand correctly, in this case, you had a 50% share in the instrumental track even though you had contributed nothing. So, of any income, you would get paid as much as the other person, who did 100% of the work? I suppose this could have been avoided with the split sheet I linked to earlier? Not sure.

Good question. Vicki, did you get 50% of the placed instrumental, or did you give up your share because the words weren't used?

[hummingbird]

The other question would be: I wrote lyrics/music, someone entirely else produced it. So, they own the master (if nothing else has been agreed). Would this automatically mean I have 100% writer's share, someone else has 100% publisher's share? But, I assume, to be able to do anything with it, this would have to be written into a split sheet.

Thanks,
Tom

Technically yes, they own the master recording if nothing else was agreed. They can register it as an adaption of your composition and pitch it. They will not get any songwriting royalties, however, and they can't place it for sync without someone getting a licence from the songwriter. Think of it the same as someone doing a cover of a hit song and pitching it to a library. They can only get the performance royalties, the underlying song doesn't belong to them and the entity using it for synch or broadcast has to get a licence to use it (handled in Canada by the CMRRA). The songwriter gets 100 percent of songwriting.

jmho, if you really want to get this info all legal, speak to an entertainment lawyer.

[hummingbird]

Now, I did have an instance where a lyric of mine was put to music and the song was produced by the composer. We shared 50/50 ownership. However in the end, the instrumental portion was signed to an exclusive deal. Some years later I asked for permission to have my lyrics back and the composer graciously agreed.

To understand correctly, in this case, you had a 50% share in the instrumental track even though you had contributed nothing. So, of any income, you would get paid as much as the other person, who did 100% of the work? I suppose this could have been avoided with the split sheet I linked to earlier? Not sure.

Tom

Did I contribute nothing? I spend time with the composer. We discussed the lyrics, for sure. I listened to the drafts for melody and made suggestions for changes. I helped pay for the singer who was a work for hire. I listened to mixes and gave feedback. I helped pitch the song.

The philosophy of the (quite wonderful and experienced) composer involved was that you really can't weigh up someone's contribution in a collaboration. They liked to think that maybe in one case, they might do more than 50 percent but in another case they might do less, so it made sense to them to call it 50-50 across the board. I took that to heart and anything I've co-written since has had equal shares.

We're talking about collaborating here. Of course people can agree to anything they want. I just don't like the 'well I played guitar and sang, so I get to have more than you did, cause you just bla bla' very much. As a creative person, I can't seperate one from the other. If a lyric inspires me to write something beautiful or meaningful, that has a worth I can't put in dollars and cents.

Anyway, all just mho.

[hummingbird]

Now, I did have an instance where a lyric of mine was put to music and the song was produced by the composer. We shared 50/50 ownership. However in the end, the instrumental portion was signed to an exclusive deal. Some years later I asked for permission to have my lyrics back and the composer graciously agreed.

To understand correctly, in this case, you had a 50% share in the instrumental track even though you had contributed nothing. So, of any income, you would get paid as much as the other person, who did 100% of the work? I suppose this could have been avoided with the split sheet I linked to earlier? Not sure.

Good question. Vicki, did you get 50% of the placed instrumental, or did you give up your share because the words weren't used?

See my post above. I wasn't asked to 'give back' any rights at the time because the composer felt I had contributed to the composition as a whole and that my part of the composition couldn't be separated.

Would the composer have composed that instrumental without the inspiration of my words?

[jaywilliams]

//
Assume Alice produced 67% of the recording and Bob 33%. Don't they now also have to define the ownership of 2 (of the master, as 67% / 33%) so they can go ahead with business? But the splits sheet does not seem to allow that.
//
P.S.: This was the work load:

Lyrics: Alice 50%, Bob 50%
Music: Alice 50%, Bob 50%
Production/recording: Alice 67%, Bob 33%

Splits sheet said:
Lyrics: Alice 50%, Bob 50%
Music: Alice 50%, Bob 50%
//

Hi Tom.

disclaimer: I'm not an attorney and suggest you consult with one, these are my opinions.

I think you are over thinking this by at least a little bit.

The split sheets will allow whatever you want them to allow, as you (or your attorney) are in charge of creating the split sheets.

In the scenario you outlined above, where the splits for the master recording differ from the splits for the writing, just use 2 split sheets, one for writing credit and one for the master recording.

In the situation where placing the song requires giving up publishing rights then yeah someone might get screwed as you put it, or would want to negotiate all that up front when working the split sheets.

Ultimately, as Andrew and Vicki have mentioned, its about collaboration and doing what works best for you and your collaborators.

The split sheets and work for hire documents are for your benefit and for the benefit of the publisher who needs to be legally responsible for the track.

On a slightly related tangent, when we self-publish our tracks and register them with the PRO, we have to allocate 200% for each track (100% writing and 100% publishing). It makes for some interesting math.

Jay

[AlanHall]

See my post above. I wasn't asked to 'give back' any rights at the time because the composer felt I had contributed to the composition as a whole and that my part of the composition couldn't be separated.

Would the composer have composed that instrumental without the inspiration of my words?

Hi, Vikki. Sorry I did not see your detailed post. I assumed you would get 50% of the writer's share, but did not know. I'd think (having never entered into one) that any collab arrangement depends on the good will and graces of each party involved. A different composer may have felt more possessive?