Copyright Issues.

[gutturalpiss]

i often find my melodies in other artistes' tracks...

 

[MadWerewolfBoy]

ehhh...if we're thinking about the same thing...yes bro. and i do appreciate your loan of the Fuzz Factory some time back...gracias!

oh my... ur $5k pedal board... many insane!!! haha :wink:

 

[Danelectrico]

It is not a given that should you have a publisher that they control all the rights to your creation. What they can or cannot do with your creation, your intellectual property is dependent on the contract that is signed by both parties. If you so choose to surrender your rights to them then that is your choice. Just remember that it is not necessary to do so.

technically a copyright owner can dictate the parameters and terms when licensing his work to a publisher. however practically more often than not, the publishers require a full complete assignment (ie no residual right) with regard to a particular territory. this is out of practical necessity. if 2 parties have equal rights over a work, then each party will be able to bind the other party to certain obligations as the rights are shared. likewise what if each party strikes separate conflicting deals with a third party - then what happens? the parties could cover all this in a contract and stipulate each one's specific rights and obligations in relation to the work to ensure there's no conflict; however for ease of administration, many publishers would require a complete assignment. this is generally the case in Singapore.

other kinds of deals are offered. for example, a strict administration deal whereby the publisher's only task is to use its resources to help collect royalties on behalf of the rights owner. then the publisher would only be entitled to a smaller admin fee. to my knowledge, this is not common practise in Singapore among the publishers, but COMPASS provides similar services if you choose to request for them to administer your publishing rights.

the exception is where co-publishing is concerned. traditionally when a songwriter assigns his rights in a song to a publisher, the royalty split is 50% each. recently however, common practise in the US and UK has led many songwriters to set up their own independent publishing company. thereafter co-publishing means the rights are shared between the publishing company and the songwriter's independent publishing company - which essentially means the songwriter ends up getting 75% of the royalties. as far as i am aware, these deals are not offered in Singapore. mostly it's a 50-50 deal and if you're lucky a recoupable advance.

even in co-publishing or administation deals, the publisher generally administers the entire copyright completely - it sets out the terms of the licenses, issues the paperwork, sets the rates, collects the royalties.

In Singapore, the common deal offered is the straight up full assignment to the publisher, for 50% of the royalties. some reasons could be because of the limitations and smaller size of our industry which is less sophisticated than those elsewhere in the world. and because publishers have greater bargaining power and they know that generally you need them more than they need you, they're not likely to budge too much on the type of "standard form" agreements they issue.

 

[DoubleDecker]

i often find my melodies in other artistes' tracks...

Do you always send out demo to let your friends hear?

DD

 

[RoRK]

The industry here does what it does because they've been doing it all this while. There is no good reason to continue. The fact is that owners, or originators of intellectual properties should treat their intellectual properties as if it is a tangible asset, to the extent that it is not something that should be administered by someone else at their whim and fancy without any regard for you as the originator.

Think of it in terms of a patent. When someone or an entity licenses a patent, the contract pretty much takes good care of the originator - as a generality. This is vastly different from the going-ons in the recording industry.

What Singapore bands should do is to not sell their souls to the publishers; COMPASS or any recording company or music publisher.

The fact is that you can and should exercise more control over the rights of your creation.

The fact that we have a small market here should even more preclude outright sell-out of one's rights to 'local' publishers. Unless the publisher has the marketing know-how and the financial commitment to go through with the A&R to overseas markets then it is fool-hardy to sell your songs outright to these publishers.

You have a choice. Choose wisely.

Lastly, Publishing your own music is really really really easy.

Perhaps Danelectrico can share some of his experience on this.

Cheers
RoRK

 

[Danelectrico]

I am only puzzled on the part that all these are governed by "how many times it has been performed" and not "who author this composition"? Don't you agree it's weird to dictate ownership or rights of usage in this manner?

from their website, COMPASS lists 4 criteria in accepting an individual as a writer or publisher member (usually this means smaller or indie publishers) . for a writer, at least one work; for a publisher, at least 5 works which are

(a) commercially recorded (eg you have a CD which is sold to the public in certain stores)
(b) commercially published (eg your sheet music is published and sold)
(c) broadcast (eg radio plays your works)
(d) performed in public such number of times as the council shall in its absolute discretion consider appropriate having regard to the nature of the work and the performance or performances in question. (self explanatory)

nothing too onerous here - just reasonable measures to ensure the riff raff are kept out 8)

So in my instance, once the video producer has published the video with my track in it, that is the so-called "published copy" I have to furnish them? And not just the CD recording itself?

on a separate note, i would suggest to you that when you compose music for videos, TV shows, to have an agreement with the producer setting out the nature of the job and all the necessary and relevant terms and conditions (is it a license? or assignment? is payment one off or percentage based on income earned?). normally the understanding is (unless it is a collaboration), that it is a commissioned work, on a work for hire basis - which means your rights are completely assigned to the producer for a one off payment.

also, do note that the Copyright Act provides for separate rights in respect of sound recordings containing musical works that are embodied within the soundtrack of a cinematographic film (a cinematographic film includes any type of film or video). In other words, the audio track that is to be played together with the visual portion - this will have a different set of rights attached to it.

so when you write a musical work that will eventually be used in a video/film, copyright subsists in the musical work, the sound recording, and the soundtrack to the cinematographic film - each with a different set of rights, some set out in legislation, others to be dictated by contract!

confusing hey? every question answered begets more questions. unfortunately it is impossible to have this discussion emcompass all the situations that will arise in the real world's business practises, nor is it meant to be a comprehensive discourse on legal studies of contract, copyright and all that. just some basic ideas to think about...i hope you'll be able to find this useful so you'll know what to expect when you read the contract and you might know what are the terms you can realistically negotiate and which are not going to budge.

 

[DoubleDecker]

The industry here does what it does because they've been doing it all this while. There is no good reason to continue. The fact is that owners, or originators of intellectual properties should treat their intellectual properties as if it is a tangible asset, to the extent that it is not something that should be administered by someone else at their whim and fancy without any regard for you as the originator.

I agree on this aspect. This is why previously I actually said we are pretty much left with no alternatives through the way they are handling things here.

To put it bluntly, it's more like "if you don't agree to my terms and conditions, then be prepared to rot..." I ain't sure if this is a good word to use but somehow, it only leads me to the conclusion here that the music scene here is being "exploited" by major record labels for the sake of profit.

Sure, we do have to pay for administration of all the trouble, "protection" and paperworks they do for us, but to "force" us into a corner in giving up our rights over our works, I can't figure out another way to describe this.

I did have a chat with several producers who does mash-up of electronic music overseas and their reasons for setting up their own record label is primarily the same, that major labels are exploiting artistes too much especially when it comes to ownership of their tracks. This is actually one area which disturbs me alot. Having said so, I also understand copyright is actually only a small portion of the entire production, but still a very important aspect of it.

DD

 

[DoubleDecker]

(d) performed in public such number of times as the council shall in its absolute discretion consider appropriate having regard to the nature of the work and the performance or performances in question. (self explanatory)

While my work has failed to meet the requirement of the top 3, the last applies to me best. BUT, as such right now, my track is being used for a single video, which means that only implies a single usage. And now, COMPASS cannot register me for this.

It's hard to digest how it end up this way. Having my track only used once is not valid enough to secure a membership there to be able to fully utilize what COMPASS is meant for.

I don't belong to any record labels right now, and I don't forsee myself going to that stage because I very much prefer to stay in the back-stage and do music majorly. So COMPASS is my only hope of getting these legal stuffs settled BUT YET there's no way to get around it.

confusing hey? every question answered begets more questions. unfortunately it is impossible to have this discussion emcompass all the situations that will arise in the real world's business practises, nor is it meant to be a comprehensive discourse on legal studies of contract, copyright and all that. just some basic ideas to think about...i hope you'll be able to find this useful so you'll know what to expect when you read the contract and you might know what are the terms you can realistically negotiate and which are not going to budge.

No worries, but you did bring up some controversial factors and shed some light in the process. Nobody has ever done it better than you so far. Thanks for everything!

DD

 

[RoRK]

Danelectrico, correct me if I'm wrong but Singapore does not have an explicit set of IP laws. All IP cases, here, essentially use the UK or US for court precedents.

Following are a few sites that will provide good information for all. Take note that although it is largely US-based stuff, they are essentially applicable here in Singapore - see para one above.

Downloadable music-related contracts
http://www.musiccontracts.com/

Knowing the difference between work-for-hire versus contract work. As creators or orginators, one should never perform work-for-hire projects. As Danelectric mentioned earlier, the end result is that you do not own the rights to your creation. essentially, once you deliver the goods, you no longer exist. Sad but true. Be wary of video/mivie production companies, broadcast stations who ask for this type of work from you. Insist on a contract where it is clearly stated that your work is not one based on work-for-hire. Then tighten the contract further by stating that the rights to your creation is held by you during and after delivery of the contract deliverables, be they accepted in part or in whole.
http://www.music-law.com/workforhire.html

http://www.music-law.com/setuppubco.html

HTH
RoRK

 

[Danelectrico]

The industry here does what it does because they've been doing it all this while. There is no good reason to continue. The fact is that owners, or originators of intellectual properties should treat their intellectual properties as if it is a tangible asset, to the extent that it is not something that should be administered by someone else at their whim and fancy without any regard for you as the originator.

You hit the nail on the head, Rork. If you ask me, the whole concept of copyright is crazy in this digital age. The whole thing begs a rethink.

However, that's the theory. In the meantime we're stuck with the system here. One that offers scant protection for "moral rights" - which is a concept in some civil law jurisdictions allowing a songwriter for example to still have some aspect of control over his work, even if he has assigned them completely.

Think of it in terms of a patent. When someone or an entity licenses a patent, the contract pretty much takes good care of the originator - as a generality. This is vastly different from the going-ons in the recording industry.

Yes. Copyright was envisioned as a means to protect the author - not the multimilliondollar companies which writers are practically browbeaten into assigning all their rights and the fricken kitchen sink to.

However copyright and patent are 2 completely different models of intellectual property protection. Unfortunately, for music, only copyright holds. So this is the system we have to work within.

What Singapore bands should do is to not sell their souls to the publishers; COMPASS or any recording company or music publisher.

If you know what you can reasonably expect, and what your rights and options are, you can cut deals with any of the above entities that are beneficial to you. Sometimes you have to work within the system. For example, COMPASS is authorised by law to distribute public performance royalties collected and their rights are exclusive. If you don't register with them, your royalties are held in the accounts - no one benefits from this.

But I agree that for administration of music publishing and your recorded music, there are other options to consider. Go in with eyes open and with some knowledge so you won't be hogtied to the first shitty deal that's thrown your way.

The fact is that you can and should exercise more control over the rights of your creation.

Yes. I agree with you completely. Especially in our industry here - no one's going to pump money into you anyway.

The fact that we have a small market here should even more preclude outright sell-out of one's rights to 'local' publishers. Unless the publisher has the marketing know-how and the financial commitment to go through with the A&R to overseas markets then it is fool-hardy to sell your songs outright to these publishers.

Yes. Do you really want to sign a publishing deal with one of the Big 4 - for 50% of your royalty earnings, no advance (an advance is common in almost all overseas publishing deals but a rarity here - among other things, an advance ensures the publsiher will be looking out to make more money for you, as it is all recoupable anyway!) - and no guarantee that the publisher will do anything more than halfheartedly send off a few copies of your tapes to overseas offices, where it will likely be unilaterally rejected?

Go where the business is. If an independent publisher (or you yourself who so chooses to set up your own publishing company) feels that they have the contacts and ability to successfully commercially exploit your work - get it covered in different languages, have it used on the next Lexus ad, have it included in the next season of the O.C. - then for certain, go for it. but shopping for such opportunities is itself a game of contacts and who knows who. If you know someone who knows someone who knows someone else who happens to be mr rainmaker - then you have a chance. If you don't, you're screwed. This goes for every aspect of the industry - whether in the big pond or the small pond.

Lastly, Publishing your own music is really really really easy.

Yup. As I said, all you need is basically to sell your CD at Roxy or HMV and voila! it's published! however - after you publish it - what next? do you have the expertise, the time, the know-how to actively push your work, to promote it beyond these shores, to exploit it so you can maximise revenue? can you effectively collect the royalties owed to you for mechanicals, synchronisation, advertising? what if they default or refuse to pay, do you have the money and conviction to take them to court and fight your way to the bitter end? Do you know the industry well enough to make thought-out, strategic business discussions to increase your standing and expose you to more business deals and opportunities? If you do, screw the big boys! who needs em? strike out on your own. this is how some of the most successful independent publishers, managers and record labels are made. it all starts somewhere, and if you dream big and have the know-how and the acumen - maybe it just might happen.

i would honestly love to share my personal experiences on this, but for fear of breach of confidence, i don't think i can (and it'll scare too many people away from having anything to do with this crazy industry, i promise). i will, however, be happy to share my feelings and or loose change worth accumulated from 13 active years in the industry/scene/whateveryoucallit. i believe in knowledge and education being key - that's the most important thing.

 

[DoubleDecker]

i would honestly love to share my personal experiences on this, but for fear of breach of confidence, i don't think i can (and it'll scare too many people away from having anything to do with this crazy industry, i promise). i will, however, be happy to share my feelings and or loose change worth accumulated from 13 active years in the industry/scene/whateveryoucallit. i believe in knowledge and education being key - that's the most important thing.

I'm honestly waiting for this to come. Why should you be afraid?

We are already having day-dreaming bands who want to achieve fame by doing as LITTLE as they can, taking the easy way out - which shouldn't be the case. There's no free meal in this world so I think your personal experiences will come in very handy. At least, it prepares everyone who is thinking of going professsional, gives them a first-hand account of how it works, be it ugly or beautiful.

If they are not going to work their brains abit, expecting to be spoon-fed, then they are definitely better off as hobbyist.

DD

 

[Danelectrico]

Danelectrico, correct me if I'm wrong but Singapore does not have an explicit set of IP laws. All IP cases, here, essentially use the UK or US for court precedents.

sorry bro, the buzzer goes "bzaaaat!"

singapore is a common law jurisdiction that has its heritage from UK law, but which has since gained almost entire separation since. we have our own legislation like the Copyright Act (cap 63), and acts for trademarks, patents and designs. We have also ratified international treaties and protocols to recognise and protect intellectual property which was first created overseas in many different countries.

we will use UK law as precedents. they are not binding though - merely persuasive. US cases - even less so. they may be used as a guide however. however in the case of IP, since we don't have a have a huge collection of precedents to work with, it is likely that US and UK cases will be examined carefully and their effect really depends on whether the judge buys your argument and how far it relates to our local copyright laws. no hard and fast answers here - if they did, no one would ever need to go to court anymore! :lol:

Following are a few sites that will provide good information for all. Take note that although it is largely US-based stuff, they are essentially applicable here in Singapore - see para one above.

Downloadable music-related contracts
http://www.musiccontracts.com/

Very good work finding and sharing these! after all, alot of the contracts that are signed locally are largely based on contracts which were initially drafted overseas. and the general principles of copyright law are largely the same whether in US, UK, Australia or Singapore - only the details are different in each jurisdiction.

And to reiterate on the work for hire. This is a bad thing. Naughty naughty! Retain your rights and license your work to them instead.

Sometimes it's worth consulting a lawyer, or if that puts you off, a friend who practises law or even a law student or even better, an independant consultant who will render good practical advice and even draft agreements at a reasonable price (insert shameless plug here). In Singapore the only time people think about consulting a lawyer is when the shit already hits the fan. In other countries, alot of freshie brand new artistes have to consult lawyers and kiss goodbye to a large chunk of their earnings - but then again you'd be crazy not to when contracts which can do as much damage as gunfire but which promise undreamed of fame and riches are thrown all about you. hmm. win some, lose some.

 

[RoRK]

If you publish your own material then you have the option to join COMPASS solely for them to collect your royalties. This is what BMI and ASCAP do in the US for small and big publishers and what COMPASS does here.

If you are a publisher, you essentially retain control over the rights of your music. COMPASS, for a fee, will handle the logistics and mechanics for collecting royalties and making the necessary payments.

Yes, there is a lot of shit out there. It helps if you're good but even then the tide is against you before you even dive in.

For those creating music for the visual industry here, things are a little more rosy. Unless you meet up with a snake as a client and/or you don't know your rights and how to operate such that you retain the rights to your creations then things are generally decent.

The recording industry is of course an entire beast altogether. ;-)

Cheers
RoRK

 

[Danelectrico]

The recording industry is of course an entire beast altogether. ;-)

Ha ha! Don't even get me started on that :lol:

 

[Danelectrico]

We are already having day-dreaming bands who want to achieve fame by doing as LITTLE as they can, taking the easy way out - which shouldn't be the case. There's no free meal in this world so I think your personal experiences will come in very handy. At least, it prepares everyone who is thinking of going professsional, gives them a first-hand account of how it works, be it ugly or beautiful.

True. Maybe over my 9th drink at the Wine Bar or Ice Cold, I'll let the juicy goss fly. But if there's anything i've ever learned from my defamation or confidentiality classes is - don't evah post this shit on a public forum ;p

and further i'm not here to talk about myself or brag about how much i've done or how much I know. I started posting here for one reason only - i couldn't bear to see misinformation on something as crucial as this topic being perpetuated ad infinitum, as i've seen it before at other times in other discussions.

if anyone is thinking of going professional by all means, i would wholly encourage you to talk to as many people as you can - to learn, as well as for future networking purposes. i'm sure many people are willing to share some experiences and insight once you get to know them. i wouldn't count on it being via a public forum though!

If they are not going to work their brains abit, expecting to be spoon-fed, then they are definitely better off as hobbyist.

hell yeah. it's a whole different ball game, doing this stuff for fun and actually setting out to make a name or living. to all those who do - whether it's by working in studios, as sound techs, or whether as indie bands or cari makan musicians - you all have my humble respect. it's a bugf*ck industry that as Rork said is stacked against us from the start. perseverance may well be a sign of insanity, but it does have its often intangible rewards from time to time, for sure.

 

[DoubleDecker]

For those creating music for the visual industry here, things are a little more rosy. Unless you meet up with a snake as a client and/or you don't know your rights and how to operate such that you retain the rights to your creations then things are generally decent.

I don't actually do that specifically for the visual industry simply because I don't actually see myself as someone who compose commercial jingles. :lol:

It all came as a surprise when a video producer friend told me about her looking for a piece of music to go along with her video, I sent her mine, and in return she sent out to several other related parties in the project. One week later, she gave me the thumbs up and said everyone like it. they wanted my track to be in. (Every 1% chance is still a chance, who wouldn't want to grab it?)

Of course, I do not worry about DJs picking up the track/s and putting it out because that's technically considered airplay anyway. I'm much relieved that clubs are paying a standardised fees to COMPASS for that manner of "broadcast". However, the problem seems to be more complicated on my side, especially with potentially 3 more tracks coming up, I want the groundwork to be laid down properly. That's in case in the process of sending out demo - someone somehow somwhere do the unimagineable - it does not only concerns me but that also means jeopardize the entire project.

On this part, COMPASS is unable to register for some simple facts, it has NOT been published officially yet, and it is only going to a single project for this particular track. These two factors has already ruled out any possibilities of me signing up with COMPASS to secure the authorship, especially if it ever ends up in ownership dispute. Afterall, the production company is the one negotiating with the client and not me. I'm more like a "contractor" to the production company. (I'm not going to debate on status, I'm happy where I am right now)

DD

 

[Danelectrico]

While my work has failed to meet the requirement of the top 3, the last applies to me best. BUT, as such right now, my track is being used for a single video, which means that only implies a single usage. And now, COMPASS cannot register me for this.

It's hard to digest how it end up this way. Having my track only used once is not valid enough to secure a membership there to be able to fully utilize what COMPASS is meant for.

Yes i can understand your predicament. It's a catch 22 situation.

You can try a few things. Talking to the people at COMPASS, trying to convince them it's worthwhile to take you on for as a future writer you aim to be serious about it and start actively writing. Speak to Rachel or Melvin. Explain your position and maybe you can persuade them.

Another reason why they may not take it on is if they think your composition could be a work for hire, which would mean it's effectively owned by the video producer and not you. Short of having a contract confirm the position, it is possible that it was intended as a work for hire. that would not be good for you.

If it turns out you did own and control the right, then the question is, do any rights conflict between your residual rights and the video producer's rights? For example, his usage - is any of it exclusive? territory? or the use in similar video productions? this is why a contract is very important. it dilineates clearly all of these issues that would otherwise be vague and may lead to uncertainty and cause problems between the parties to escalate.

anyway. don't be discouraged, even if you cannot find representation yet. continue writing. once you have accumulated more songs and contacts within the industry, maybe you can consider setting up your own indie publising company in time to come. then COMPASS would almost certainly take you on as an administrator for your publishing. good luck!

 

[DoubleDecker]

anyway. don't be discouraged, even if you cannot find representation yet. continue writing. once you have accumulated more songs and contacts within the industry, maybe you can consider setting up your own indie publising company in time to come. then COMPASS would almost certainly take you on as an administrator for your publishing. good luck!

Erm... Errr... I do Tech/Hard-House, Electronica and Club. But I do draw some inspirations and tips from the indie bands. That explains my presence in SOFT. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Speak to Rachel or Melvin. Explain your position and maybe you can persuade them.

Thanks, I will keep these two names in mind. I will have to speak to the production firm again to accertain the contractual work. Not sure if they are willing to do it, or will I have to get my own legal avenues.

DD

 

[Danelectrico]

On this part, COMPASS is unable to register for some simple facts, it has NOT been published officially yet, and it is only going to a single project for this particular track. These two factors has already ruled out any possibilities of me signing up with COMPASS to secure the authorship, especially if it ever ends up in ownership dispute. Afterall, the production company is the one negotiating with the client and not me. I'm more like a "contractor" to the production company. (I'm not going to debate on status, I'm happy where I am right now)

Uh oh. based on your statement - looks like the video producer is convinced it is a work for hire - and unless there is any written evidence (or more tenously, an oral agreement) stating otherwise - it looks like if challenged, the courts are likely to treat it as a work for hire from an independent contractor as that is generally the norm here. why don't you talk to the producer, see what they say - maybe mention that you'd like to set out the scope of the arrangement in a contract. see if they bite.

no wonder as my previous post stated, COMPASS doesn't wanna represent your track - they'd end up suddenly as the middle party in a potential dispute over copyright! that's why they'd insist on a letter from the producer to say that the work is indeed yours (which of course you're at the producer's mercy of).

treat this as a good lesson learnt and work towards having a proper contract or terms of engagement that allow you to retain your rights over the work. build up your portfolio and in time to come speak to COMPASS again.

 

[RoRK]

Afterall, the production company is the one negotiating with the client and not me. I'm more like a "contractor" to the production company. (I'm not going to debate on status, I'm happy where I am right now)

I am hopeful that you read the part on work-for-hire. It seems that you are doing just that. Once you deliver the songs to your producer, it becomes his property - you lose any rights to, ownership of and identity with your song(s).

Take note that should there be no contract, then the law will advantage the hirer, in this case your producer, to the extent that the law will view your work as that of work-for-hire.

You must have a contract that explicitly states that the project you are working on is one which is
1) NOT work-for-hire
2) contractually based
3) that copyright to the song is retained by you at all times. take note that the producer may want limited rights to use the song for promotional purporses for the video inone or more geographical locations.

Again, without a contract to stipulate otherwise, your work will be viewed by the courts as that being one which is deemed work-for-hire.

Becareful! I provided you with three pertinent URLs. One of which has downloadable contracts. You'll want to look into them. There's quite a bit but you only have to do it once for each type of work that you are working on. Te second time around, just change the variables - names, dates, places etc.

And Danelectrico, I've only recently come back into music-making, after a 10-year hiatus. My last recall was that our copyright laws here was largely inadequate for a lot of IP related cases, especially with the Internet booming as it was when I was still fretting necks. It wasn't too long ago that the WIPO thingy was signed here.

Cheers
RoRK

[/quote]