Copyright Issues.

[DoubleDecker]

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).

Ok now I get where you are coming from. Very fruitful exchange of information here.

Meanwhile, while I have to wait til morning before anyone ever picks up the telephone in COMPASS - In your opinion, would a written expression like in the form of a letter be sufficient enough to indicate my sole ownership? The production is already almost done, at the stage of post-production and finalisation, it does sounds ridiculous for me to bring up a formal lawyer request at this point.

DD

 

[DoubleDecker]

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.

Thanks ... very very helpful. I am still trying to digest everything. LOL!

 

[Danelectrico]

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:

When i say "indie" I generally use it as the term was first intended - ie I mean "independent" - not as a reference to a certain genre of music heheh!

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.

yes, there's a possibility they meant otherwise and will concede on that - that would be good news.

However if they insist it was a work for hire, then you have to really think about whether it means enough to you to fight to recover it. You're looking at THOUSANDS of dollars in legal fees - of which you'd never recover much damages, since there was no actual damages, and you might be out for costs as well if the judge feels that the case is frivolous or could have been better settled elsewhere instead of wasting the court's time.

and that, would well and truly, indeed, suck.

or you might consider just walking away from the whole thing and treating it as a minor burn - only your first battlescar with more in time to come, i regret to inform you - but a darn good lesson learnt at that.

 

[DoubleDecker]

Alrite ... all points noted ... looks like I have alot of phonecalls and reading/digesting to do over the next 2 days. Not forgetting the amount of fags I'm going to burn ... such headaches! Can't we just do music in peace? ROFL!

 

[Danelectrico]

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.

Still is somewhat inadequate IMHO - in legislation, where fair use / safe harbour in respect of musical works is concerned especially. and case law concerning musical works hasn't exactly built up in huge amounts either.

technology advances way more than the law can keep up with.

 

[Danelectrico]

Meanwhile, while I have to wait til morning before anyone ever picks up the telephone in COMPASS - In your opinion, would a written expression like in the form of a letter be sufficient enough to indicate my sole ownership? The production is already almost done, at the stage of post-production and finalisation, it does sounds ridiculous for me to bring up a formal lawyer request at this point.

A letter is a unilateral statement - it's not an agreement it won't help you sorry.

i don't think it is too late to get a contract drafted and finalised. leave the lawyers out of it for the moment. talk to the producer and bring this up - that you need to have an agreement because it was never your intention that this be a work for hire, so you wish to set out the terms and conditions of your license to them for their use of your track.

Once they say go ok, someone will need to produce a draft contract for negotiation. you'll therefore either need to draft one, or review their draft.

and this is when you'd need a lawyer 8) take heed - this won't come cheap. see if you can have any lawyer friends help you out.

if they say "no it was a work for hire" - then you have a severe difference of opinion. you can consider threatening to withdraw the work, but that may damage your relationship.

i assumed the work was already included in the soundtrack to the video, but lucky for you it has not been the case and there's still time. there is still room for negotiation and either way, nothing has been finalised yet either party may still walk away without fear of having caused any actual damages.

 

[DoubleDecker]

BUMMER! LOL!!! Talk about headaches ... :?

Points noted. Thanks alot!

 

[RoRK]

Yo DD
Goto http://www.musiccontracts.com/ and use those contracts there. It shouldn't be too difficult to make use of those for your needs, with some minor changes done.

Cheers
RoRK

 

[DoubleDecker]

Yea thanks, I'm reading through them.

DD

 

[Kash]

Do we need to buy the sample contracts online??

 

[DoubleDecker]

That site, we have to pay for the contracts. The first page is put out as a sample. It is advisable to know which contract we need first, before we download blindly.

I am using COMPASS as reference to know which contract I should be using first.

DD

 

[snuffleupagus]

I think that this thread should be stick-ied

Its good stuff for aspiring local musicians

Thank you guys

 

[blueprintstudios]

oh man you guys rock. i wanna ask questions but DoubleDecker can ask questions better than I do. so i'm just readin'.
and thanks to the law minds musicians.

-200¢ worth.

 

[DoubleDecker]

I think publisher and organisations like COMPASS does play a very important role and they are indeed necessary in the industry. But the only thing that bother me most is their "qualifying criterias".

It's not easy to shape and change whatever practices they have now, it's probably going to take a massive revolution and after a big think-tank session before we get to see any changes. But then again it boils down back to artistes too, are we ready to embrace the changes?

DD

 

[Kash]

I think that this thread should be stick-ied

Yes..I agree...

 

[Danelectrico]

I think publisher and organisations like COMPASS does play a very important role and they are indeed necessary in the industry. But the only thing that bother me most is their "qualifying criterias".

i don't think it's unfair for an organisation to have qualifying criteria. COMPASS' is rather easy to meet - it will allow for almost anyone genuine who works as a songwriter within the music industry to join. all you need is one published work, one work that has been broadcast on radio or performed in public enough times at their discretion. it's not hard to meet this criteria. back in the day, when all i had as a teenager was a demo tape of our band sold at Roxy, some coverage in BigO magazine and a song played occastionally on select radio shows - it was still considered enough for us to join as members.

don't forget. for each member added, COMPASS has to keep track of their status, their songs, their royalty entitlements. All these have time and manpower cost implications.

furthermore all members are entitled to unlogged performance allocations - which is a small amount maybe $100 or 150 once or twice a year, even if you haven't been submitting any new songs and your songs haven't actually garnered any royalties in years. this is to compensate for times when your music may have been performed in public but it was not logged or accounted for.

i'm sure from COMPASS' viewpoint, they wouldn't want to grant membership to simply anybody who's written say one or 2 songs in their lives but which have not actually had any commercial use or active role in the industry - and giving these guys a handout every year for the rest of their lives.

It's not easy to shape and change whatever practices they have now, it's probably going to take a massive revolution and after a big think-tank session before we get to see any changes. But then again it boils down back to artistes too, are we ready to embrace the changes?

now we're talking about a revolution - but what exactly do you want to revolutionize? what is it that you want? do you know what the roles of COMPASS and publishers and labels are? mind you first and foremost all this is a business. profit making is the numero uno concern. if you want them to make a change, you must first analyse what it is they do, and whether they are responsible for what it is you want to see in place. do they owe anyone a duty? if not, then who does? In a market that's ultimately economy driven, how and when can we expect or argue for grants, handouts, assistance?

the music market anywhere in the world is commercially driven. To have governments interfere in that might create an artifical demand or boost. but if such measures make you a success in singapore, that doesn't mean you'll automatically be able to stand on your feet outside these shores where the rest of the world is.

these are difficult questions - there's no right or wrong, but just hope they'll give you food for thought. to arm yourself with the ability to attempt to answer them, i can only say this - learn and study what our industry is like. compare it with different models in Asia, then the West.

I bet you'll come to the conclusion that Singapore's music industry thrives in its own little plastic bubble. quite far removed from that of the rest of the world's.

 

[Danelectrico]

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.

Just to clarify - i think i addressed this is some of my posts, but just in case there's some residual doubt...don't let this put you off. any deal - even a simple administration only deal, will also insist that you assign all your rights in respect of administration to them. this is logical. for if you kept some rights, what if you thereafter go and sign the same deal with 3 other companies, granting each one the same right? then who has the right? you could also end up cannibalising each other by each party trying to execute the deal separately and undercutting the other.

often, rights cannot shared without having serious implications. which could realistically end up leading to more conflict and lawsuits in order to determine who actually has what.

and you can't duplicate rights. A basic tenet of law - you can't grant to someone more rights than you actually possess.

exclusivity is thus necessary to facilitate administration and to clear all doubt that there could be someone else purporting to hold the same rights treading on the publisher's or administrator's turf.

 

[dope]

Who rightfully owns copyright?

Hey Dan,

Need your help with something, and you seem the most likely able to do it. Good job enlightening the rest of us by the way. *Thank you*

1. Songwriting process:
I've always seen myself as the songwriter in my band. But when it comes to copyright, I'm unsure whether to claim the full rights. The band's music is the end-result of the following processes:
1. I write the song (melody, riffs, verses, chorus, solos, lyrics, harmonies, etc.);
2. I arrange the song;
3. I share the chords, the arrangement with the rest of the band;
4. The band members figure out how to play their parts.
5. We play the song together.

I guess my question revolves around the legal understanding of 'songwriting' and 'performing' and if there are separate rights for them. I ask because while I would really like to claim ownership of the musical work, I understand that the end result is a product of the whole band. For example, having written the song, I share it with a different band to play. Is it then still the same 'musical/literary work'? Because in my mind, it is still the same song. But at the end of the day, there will be differences in that end-product and that done with the other band.

I am proud of the fact that I write the songs and as such, would like to claim credit (whatever form or magnitude it may take, royalties, recognition, etc.) for them. However, at the same time, the band deserves some form of shared ownership. Is there a way to copyright the same song in different ways - for example, I claim copyright for the 'musical work' and the band for the 'performance' or 'sound recording'?

2. What are 'performing' and 'mechanical' rights?

I know you've written a lot on this topic already but I hope that you'll find the time and patience to help shed some light on this.

Thanks!

 

[dope]

...

Hey guys, in reference to my previous post, I've just gotten off the phone with a guy from Compass and he's provided a great deal of clarification so I thought I'd share them with you.

I'll start with the their definitions of terms that are used in their administration of the music. Please note however that these are just loose interpretations of what was conveyed and is legally unreliable (so don't quote these in court!)

1. Composer - a person who comes up with the melody for the song. The tune, basically.

2. Author - a person who writes the words in the song, a.k.a the lyricist.

3. Arranger - a person who contributes some form of musical input to the final version of the song.

4. Publisher - a person (usually a company) who makes the work available to the public commercially.

5. Performing rights - rights claimable when the song is broadcast, published, performed, downloaded, used commercially, etc.

5. Mechanical rights - rights claimable when the song is to be covered by another artiste, or published on a different publisher's album (compilations, for e.g.)

Okay, how does this translate to you or your band?

Song-writing, in terms of copyright, is divided into two parts - music composition and authorship (lyrics-writing). If you've come up with the melody for most or all of the song, you are the composer. If you've written the melody with someone else, he becomes your co-composer. Same for authorship. If you wrote a song, share it with your bandmates, they figure out their parts and you perform the song together, you AND them are considered 'arrangers' for the song. If you write a song and go into the studio and your producer adds effects and sounds, uses a a different drumbeat even, drops the tempo of the song so that it goes from disco to sentimental rock, all without changing the melody of the song, he is still only a co-arranger.

Royalties:
For Compass, royalties are only assigned to composers, authors and publishers. Arrangers are not assigned royalties.

In addition:
You only need one member of your band to be registered with Compass in order to register your music. That person can register the song to include the names of all persons involved in composing, authoring and arranging the song.

I just answered my own questions.

Hope this helps.

 

[gutturalpiss]

indeed. should b stickied. lots of stuff to learn here.