Copyright Issues.

[Danelectrico]

dividing songwriting credits among band members

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.

hey dope. There are many ways of dividing songwriting credit among the band members. Some of these things have been known to tear bands apart and cause intense jealousy, so be careful! do make sure everyone agrees on this BEFORE you register the songs.

what happens is, when you register a song with COMPASS - either for the purposes of collecting public performance royalties or if you assign them administration rights in respect of the song's publishing rights - one of you will break down each song into the percentage entitlements of each of the members. however each band member will have to sign an agreement with COMPASS still so they can become entitled to receive their royalties.

Now, how do you divide credit? This depends on your band. From a legal point of view, COMPASS only cares about the 2 aspects - the COMPOSER (ie the musical work portion) and the AUTHOR (of the lyrics, ie the literary work portion). Let me give you 3 suggested methods that have used by different bands. For royalties collected, the Composer(s) is/are entitled to 50% and the Author(s) is/are entitled to 50%.

1. Everyone gets an equal share. Some bands like REM - even though Michael Stipe writes all the lyrics, and mainly Peter Buck writes the music, every member of the band is credited with equal authorship of the music and lyrics, to enable every member to earn on royalties. This is the most democratic measure, as arguably the song wouldn't be the way it was without the input of everyone in the band, therefore everyone should get an equal share.

2. apportion credit where credit is due. other bands are more specific and identify for each song exactly who wrote the lyrics, and who wrote the music (or had a share in writing the music). So perhaps the lyricist gets full credit for the AUTHOR aspect, while the songwriter or songwriters get an equal share in the COMPOSER aspect. Alternatively, each band member could share equally in the COMPOSER aspect since arguably when the song is recorded, everyone's has contributed in a manner that allows the song to turn out as the way it is. This method allows more recognition for the lyric writer - it's usually used by bands where the lyrics are an integral aspect of the band, or which the band's chief songwriters are preparing to eventually kickstart their own songwriting career.

3. using the ratio method. Another method which can be used is a system of credits which doesn't really view the lyrics as being so key that it alone garners 50% of the share. in this aspect, say there are 5 band members...Adam, Ben, Chris, Dan and Eric. Start of with giving each band member one credit for their input in writing, arranging and performing the song which eventually made the song turn out the way it were. Adam is the singer and main lyric writer - since he writes all the lyrics, he gets an additional credit. The song evolved from one of Ben's chord progressions - he gets an additional credit. Chris then wrote the killer middle 8 that made the song so memorable - everyone agrees that he deserves another credit. so you have as your base, 5 credits plus one each from Adam, Ben and Chris - your baseline is a fraction of 8 credits, and each member gets a pro-rated share according to the credits he is entitled to.

So at the end of the day, Adam, Ben and Chris are each entitled to 2/8th or 1/4 or 25% of the royalties while Dan and Eric are entitled to 1/8 or 12.5% each. So every member walks away with something.

Of course, feel free to tweak any of the the above formulas to your liking and according to how each band views the importance of lyric writing or song writing. or feel free to come up with your own method!

 

[Danelectrico]

Re: ...

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!)

Allow me to elaboarate and clarify on the below definitions. Dope, this is a great job! Good one.

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

i.e. the "musical work". Do note that in the industry, when you refer to a musical work most people mean it to be a collective reference to the music AND lyrics (item 2 below - the "literary work"). however when you start spouting the legalese, be sure to separate them for the Copyright Act offers separate protections for musical works and literary works.

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

i.e. the "literary work". a literary work can also mean a story, poem etc.

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

...which is not credited or recognised or rewarded with any royalties whatsoever in the normal context of songwriting. Usually an arranger would be the case where someone arranges a work in the public domain - eg a traditional folk song, an 18th century classical piece, or the national anthem - any work where copyright has expired. i believe an arranger may have some rights in respect of a public performance of his arranged work, or where he records it then of course he will control the rights as to the sound recording of it. but he won't be entitled to any form of royalties for the arranged work is not an original work.

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

a publisher's job is also to maximise the commercial exploitation of a musical work. they use their networks and contacts and affiliations with other record labels or publishers to source for other artistes to cover the song; to adapt the song in other languages; to have the song included on film, TV, advertisements etc so as to earn synchronisation and advertising royalties, and to have the song included on compilations so as to earn mechanical royalties. they also source out potential sub-publishing deals which allow them to administer foreign works in the country where they are on behalf of the main publisher.

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

...or performed live too. basically public performance rights means any rights payable when the musical work is performed in public. for example if a radio is played in a cafe, or a club plays records, or a pub has a live band covering top 40 hits, all establishments pay a blanket license for this. all songs played there are supposed to be logged; if logging cannot be accurately done, then by sampling (average playlists used in a day or week etc). note that public performance rights are only in respect of a musical work. Singapore does not yet have legislation permitting sound recording owners to claim for public performance of the sound recording. Other countries like Malaysia have that, and the US has sound recording performance rights for digital transmission.

COMPASS as the authorised collecting society for performance rights, is empowered by legislation to collect all public performance royalties on behalf of the songwriters (ie its members who will be songwriters and publishers operating in Singapore). COMPASS has reciprocal license agreements with foreign collecting societies so COMPASS is allowed to collect royalties on the behalf of their members and vice versa - so if your music is publicly performed overseas, you will be able to collect royalties for that too.

6. 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.)

Mechanical rights or reproduction rights are rights accruing when a musical work (as embodied within a sound recording) is recorded, reproduced, or affixed, to any medium - whether a CD, MiniDisc, cassette tape, vinyl record, or MP3 or any computer file or any data readable on an electromagnetic device. These royalties (royalties being fees paid in exchange for the license granted) are payable by the party so recording or affixing the work (usually a record label) to the songwriter (usually the publisher or authorised publishing administrator of the musical work).

For mechanical rights, the requisite royalties are paid direct to the publishers or rights owners themselves, unless the publishers/rights owners specifically assign one body to collect on their behalf. For example, for digital and mobile music sales, the publishers in Singapore (or at least the Big 4 plus quite a lot of the bigger independent publishers), under the umbrella of AMPS (Asian Music Publishers' Association) have recently authorised and assigned COMPASS to be their official collection agency in Singapore for mechanical rights. So COMPASS is the "one-stop shop" for obtaining rights to use a musical work for digital online and mobile distribution of works.

Hope this helps.

 

[DoubleDecker]

Re: ...

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.

That's of course. I am not saying it's unfair, but rather - assuming my track has only been used once for a single purpose; be it video or live.

In this aspect, yes I failed the requirement. The criteria here is to have been performed for a number of time at their discretion. There's nothing wrong with setting rules, we have that in schools, we have that in office, we have that in law so on so forth. But does a track having only been played once, not deserving enough to warrant a membership which may in turn encourage the artiste to take it a step higher?

I don't think "the numerical measurement" of a piece of work is a good tool to balance between practicability to substain a business and also function as a passion and service to the industry. That's my personal feel though...

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.

Then this is the part they have to look into, no doubts about it. Instead of making this mandatory, perhaps they could alter this part of the payments. Like for example, a scale can be structured, between 1 to 5 usage $x amount of royalty to be paid. Between 10 to 15 usage, $z amount of royalty to be paid. And with all corporate budgets, there is always a cap. There is hardly any infinite figure. The only infinite figure a business wants to see is PROFIT.

I agree, these essentially means MORE work to be done. Don't ask me, if it was me, would I want to do more work? My answer is ... IF COMPASS employ me, yes... IF there's a realistic need to do more work to function better, I will. But that's beside the point. To generalize everything as a whole, it does reap a fair share of benefits. But at the same time, we shouldn't generalize too much just to make things easy for ourselves.

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?

Yes, no doubts. I agree to this somewhat. Assuming I am a businessman, and I started my own business. Can we acknowledge that having start this business, as an owner I am also aware of the risks involved and undertake these risks as my responsibiity to see it out?

While we cannot hold a business that is not making profits, but too much emphasis on this, will derail the actual purpose of COMPASS. That is to secure and protect the copyrights with their expertise in general. (The education of piracy and stuffs are beside the point... These are essential activities.)

A fee can be charged for handling these legal procedures. For example, 30% of the royalty goes to COMPASS just for administration and enforcement, but I retain the full rights to my works. Meaning, they are the administration assigned to do up paperworks necessary, but I will do my own marketing. But now, are they going to accept that? Or are they still demanding full rights? It dawns on me, if not all or some, it's a situation where "either you give up your full rights" or you get nothing at all.

Let's say, I have been dead against war. So I do not mind my music being used for fashion video BUT not any videos with war and bloody contents, be it good or bad purpose. This is something I have no say in, once I've given up full rights to whichever record label.

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.

So can we actually read COMPASS as - just like any other record labels in the market?

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.

Yes, food for thought indeed. Been reading and thinking alot about all these issues. COMPASS and other record labels are essential, that's a demand in the market we cannot deny. Without them, we will be spending more time doing legal groundwork than doing music proper.

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.

It's not concluded yet... LOL!!! But yes, you said it. It does give me that impression.

For mechanical rights, the requisite royalties are paid direct to the publishers or rights owners themselves, unless the publishers/rights owners specifically assign one body to collect on their behalf. For example, for digital and mobile music sales, the publishers in Singapore (or at least the Big 4 plus quite a lot of the bigger independent publishers), under the umbrella of AMPS (Asian Music Publishers' Association) have recently authorised and assigned COMPASS to be their official collection agency in Singapore for mechanical rights. So COMPASS is the "one-stop shop" for obtaining rights to use a musical work for digital online and mobile distribution of works.

For my case, I think mine falls under Synchronisation Rights. Dan, mind sharing with these guys Synchronisation Rights compared to Mechanical Rights? I can't actually describe it as professional as you.

(Sorry dude, your knowledge and expertise is fully exploited here. LOL! For the benefit of those who wants to make it a career in the music industry.)

Cheerz,

DD

 

[Danelectrico]

Re: ...

That's of course. I am not saying it's unfair, but rather - assuming my track has only been used once for a single purpose; be it video or live.

If you ask me, I think COMPASS may be wary of accepting your track (being used once only on video) because it looks suspiciously like a work for hire! and as i said earlier - work for hire means rights are no longer with the songwriter but with the assignee. so...there's no way they'll touch it.

I don't think "the numerical measurement" of a piece of work is a good tool to balance between practicability to substain a business and also function as a passion and service to the industry. That's my personal feel though...

i'm sorry i don't understand what you mean.

Then this is the part they have to look into, no doubts about it. Instead of making this mandatory, perhaps they could alter this part of the payments. Like for example, a scale can be structured, between 1 to 5 usage $x amount of royalty to be paid. Between 10 to 15 usage, $z amount of royalty to be paid. And with all corporate budgets, there is always a cap. There is hardly any infinite figure. The only infinite figure a business wants to see is PROFIT.

just to clarify...there is some sort of a scale. each time a song under a member songwriter's catalog is logged as being performed - whether live, or on radio, aired in a club, or TV - royalties are paid. COMPASS has their own scale and method of calculation which i have no idea how it's done, but their statement does somewhat break down each song's performance and how much royalties are earned in that performance per half year.

the unlogged performance allocation is paid additionally to compensate the member for times when his song may have been played, but has not been logged by the system (either because it fell through the gap in the sampling method or whatever). so a songwriter who perhaps wrote a few songs years ago which aren't played much nowadays annd therefore hasn't logged any royalties in years, will still be entitled to this small amount.

I agree, these essentially means MORE work to be done. Don't ask me, if it was me, would I want to do more work? My answer is ... IF COMPASS employ me, yes... IF there's a realistic need to do more work to function better, I will. But that's beside the point. To generalize everything as a whole, it does reap a fair share of benefits. But at the same time, we shouldn't generalize too much just to make things easy for ourselves.

i also think there is more that COMPASS can do in certain areas. but that's just my opinion. i will say however it is NOT easy getting for COMPASS to get an accurate breakdown and log from each establishment. if you owned a cafe that paid a license to COMPASS and you played your own CDs there, would you faithfully note each fricken song you play every minute of every day for 6 months and give it to them when their request for the logs comes in? nobody has that kind of time.

tracking music played anywhere in the world is a headache. in the US, public performance collecting societies have gotten loads of heat for failing to pay their members on time or a severe lack of accountability. in this respect, Singapore's relatively small size makes it easier for a society like COMPASS to do their job better.

While we cannot hold a business that is not making profits, but too much emphasis on this, will derail the actual purpose of COMPASS. That is to secure and protect the copyrights with their expertise in general. (The education of piracy and stuffs are beside the point... These are essential activities.)

no. COMPASS' role is not the protector of IP rights - it's to distribute and collect royalties earned public performance of its members' works.

A fee can be charged for handling these legal procedures. For example, 30% of the royalty goes to COMPASS just for administration and enforcement, but I retain the full rights to my works. Meaning, they are the administration assigned to do up paperworks necessary, but I will do my own marketing. But now, are they going to accept that? Or are they still demanding full rights? It dawns on me, if not all or some, it's a situation where "either you give up your full rights" or you get nothing at all.

DD, I said earlier - COMPASS does do admin deals in respect of the publishing right. you still assign them the song, but only because it's a legal technicality. the amount they take is in the region of 10 to 15% admin fee. far less than the 50% taken by a Big4 publishing company.

Let's say, I have been dead against war. So I do not mind my music being used for fashion video BUT not any videos with war and bloody contents, be it good or bad purpose. This is something I have no say in, once I've given up full rights to whichever record label.

record labels - different story but yes, if you do an admin deal with COMPASS, they'll definitely check in with you on the rates and permission. at least in my dealings with them.

with publishers, i am not so sure about that.

So can we actually read COMPASS as - just like any other record labels in the market?

no. they are not a record label at all.

 

[Danelectrico]

Re: ...

For my case, I think mine falls under Synchronisation Rights. Dan, mind sharing with these guys Synchronisation Rights compared to Mechanical Rights? I can't actually describe it as professional as you.

Synchronisation rights are the rights accuring to a songwriter when the musical work is used as part of the soundtrack to a cinematographic film (i.e., TV, movie, music video etc). I suppose the name comes from the fact that the music is sycnrhonisised together with the video visuals.

Advertising rights are a subset of synch rights - in this case, when a musical work is used as part of an advertisement.

 

[DoubleDecker]

Re: ...

If you ask me, I think COMPASS may be wary of accepting your track (being used once only on video) because it looks suspiciously like a work for hire! and as i said earlier - work for hire means rights are no longer with the songwriter but with the assignee. so...there's no way they'll touch it.

Same sentiments.

i'm sorry i don't understand what you mean.

Nvm forget about that part, not really THAT important at this point.

no. COMPASS' role is not the protector of IP rights - it's to distribute and collect royalties earned public performance of its members' works.

no. they are not a record label at all.

Now, this is the contradicting part. First, they are not the protector of IP rights, at least in musical sense. Yet, at the same time they are not a record label, or not like a record label which also markets the music, collect the royalties, and distribute to the artistes signed under them. The only main difference I see here is, unlike record labels and other publishers, they do not provide recording facilities. Some recording labels and publishers collects the tracks and make ready (with mixing and mastering) the track for sales.

So with this, what does COMPASS represents? At least from all the image they have projected all these years, COMPASS is already a "household" name when it comes to copyright dealings. Or perhaps some are seeing them as a "regulatory" or "enforcement" agency... but still it doesn't make any sense.

DD

 

[Danelectrico]

Re: ...

Now, this is the contradicting part. First, they are not the protector of IP rights, at least in musical sense. Yet, at the same time they are not a record label, or not like a record label which also markets the music, collect the royalties, and distribute to the artistes signed under them. The only main difference I see here is, unlike record labels and other publishers, they do not provide recording facilities. Some recording labels and publishers collects the tracks and make ready (with mixing and mastering) the track for sales.

You're forgetting again that a piece of recorded music comprises of 2 parts - the musical work and the sound recording. COMPASS' concern is only with the musical work, and only in relation to the public performance of it. Their administration the respect of the publishing rights is secondary.

They will protect their members' rights for anything related to public performance. For example, they will take to task any clubs, pubs, shops, restaurants and other establishments that are supposed to pay the blanket license fee for public performance but don't (ie any establishment that plays music, basically). Also, in the case of digital rights where the publishers have assigned COMPASS to collect publishing-related royalties (ie mechanicals) on their behalf, COMPASS will ensure that all telcos and other digital distribution platforms enter into a mechanical rights license and pay the requisite royalties.

All these will protect their members rights in a sense, but it also profit driven of course. for COMPASS is entitled to an admin fee/share in all the works it recovers royalties from.

But COMPASS seldom go around trawling for infringement cases, i believe they act only when altered to it. Lack of manpower (it's not a big office!). More traditionally, the publishers and record labels have been the ones vocal about infringement.

So with this, what does COMPASS represents? At least from all the image they have projected all these years, COMPASS is already a "household" name when it comes to copyright dealings. Or perhaps some are seeing them as a "regulatory" or "enforcement" agency... but still it doesn't make any sense.

They're a household name because almost everybody in a customer oriented business has to deal with and pay COMPASS! and somehow their name gets bandied about when people talk about having to pay someone to cover a song (it's NOT COMPASS. to record a cover on your album or any compilation album, you have to notify the owner of the musical work and pay the statutory license fee - ie, you notify the PUBLISHER!)

Actually you might be confusing the enforcers of copyright with the the RIAS (Recording Industry Association of Singapore), which members consist of the Big4 record labels, are far more openly vocal about their rights. Or even to an extent, RIPS (which covers the whole karaoke video licenses). RIAS are the guys who want to see the sound recordings being protected - they always make triumphant statements when a kid gets busted for filesharing MP3s. True, COMPASS is also entitled to collect in respect of the right to communicate with regard to the musical work embodied in the MP3, and they also have every interest to see piracy stamped out - but if you notice from reading the papers, RIAS is definitely more vocal and proactive about it.

Infringement of copyright has criminal penalties and is a cause for civil action. In other words, the Public Prosecutor can take their call from the police and charge you in a criminal court which can lead to jail and/or fines, AND the rights owners themselves can commence civil proceedings in court to seek damages. So both owners of musical works and sound recordings sue an infringer.

Interestingly enough does the artist whose works have been infringed ever see a cent of the recovered damages? Heh. That, is one of life's great mysteries 8)

 

[DoubleDecker]

Re: ...

Interestingly enough does the artist whose works have been infringed ever see a cent of the recovered damages? Heh. That, is one of life's great mysteries 8)

Exactly, this is what I mean by one of the perils of giving up full rights. You've given up full rights, I don't think one will ever get to see the recovered damages. Maybe you will see it, but see cannot touch. LOL!

 

[Danelectrico]

Re: ...

Exactly, this is what I mean by one of the perils of giving up full rights. You've given up full rights, I don't think one will ever get to see the recovered damages. Maybe you will see it, but see cannot touch. LOL!

Ha! Yup, artist contracts with record companies are notoriously unfair. But on the other hand - take an independent artist with his own label and controlling his rights. can he afford to take infringers to court? to waste precious time, which could have been spent touring and earning money, briefing lawyers, attending court sessions? you need a whole team behind you to do that. and that's something that's out of the reach of most indie artistes.

so yeah, the artiste gets exonerated but he'll probably never see a cent from the damages won in the lawsuits. after all, the music is now owned by a megamilliondollar corporation, not the artiste anymore. talk about win some lose some hey!

copyright was conceived with the aim to protect individual creators and enourage creation. not to aid monolithic companies in procuring ridiculous amount of riches and profits. ah well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[DoubleDecker]

Hence, the rise of independent record labels overseas. Perhaps in a way, I am expecting to see more of these locally, and if things are right and a little bit of luck, who knows these small unknown labels give the big boys a run for their money.

DD

 

[RoRK]

DD, do not be obssessed with being a member of COMPASS as your work sits in no-man's land as far as they are concerned.

It is quite ironic that COMPASS, implicitly defines broadcast as sole being radio, TV or cinema. Corporate-type videos are not recognised by COMPASS for inclusion into their membership. They, however, will initiate criminal charges should one of their member's music be used within a corporate video without royalties being paid to COMPASS.

For your type of work, you'll have to ensure that proper written contracts are signed. Should an infringement be made against your creation, you are essentially on your own. But you can shame the perpertrator of the crome against your creation and hope for an out-of-court settlement.

If your work is good, in no time, you should be hearing some of your works on radio or TV. Give yourself time.

Again, folks see that being a member of COMPASS as being a sign that they have arrived in the industry. One really shouldn't look at it in this manner. It is unfortunate albeit perhaps rightly so, for logistical purposes, that they have a stringent criteria for entry which is skewed towards the 'broadcast' and recording/publishing industry.

Cheers
RoRK

 

[Danelectrico]

It is quite ironic that COMPASS, implicitly defines broadcast as sole being radio, TV or cinema. Corporate-type videos are not recognised by COMPASS for inclusion into their membership. They, however, will initiate criminal charges should one of their member's music be used within a corporate video without royalties being paid to COMPASS.

talk about going where the money is hey! from my experience, if you assign COMPASS rights of administration in relation to the publishing rights, they will negotiate when there are any dealings with a company for the use of your music in corporate videos / limited screening videos (eg in a community centre). since this still constitutes public performance anyway.

and just in case you didn't know - the Copyright Act was amended this year. The term "broadcast" has been subsumed under a new right - the "right to communicate". This right to communicate and make available a work will include the Internet, wireless transmissions etc as well.

For your type of work, you'll have to ensure that proper written contracts are signed.

Totally. Where IP is concerned, contracts are essential. if you don't have proper foolproof contracts to protect you, the party with deeper pockets will just argue that it's not clear and is vague - "so sue me". they know unless you have a watertight case against them - ie a well drafted, complete contract that addresses everything - a lawsuit will just cost you too much and you won't risk it. they've won before you've even begun.

Again, folks see that being a member of COMPASS as being a sign that they have arrived in the industry. One really shouldn't look at it in this manner.

true. it's not a contest. there's no status attached or implied. just keep writing good stuff, i'm sure in no time you'll have a catalogue of work which people would want to represent!

 

[DoubleDecker]

DD, do not be obssessed with being a member of COMPASS as your work sits in no-man's land as far as they are concerned.

If your work is good, in no time, you should be hearing some of your works on radio or TV. Give yourself time.

Thanks for the advice. Appreciate it. But I am not too concerned about getting famous or not. Like I mentioned much earlier, I'm contented with doing music backstage and not showing my face.

I'm more concerned about the passage in-between because of all the "stealing of tracks" I have enquired about, sadly not local examples, mostly points to the recording studio. I am not saying it's a conspiracy between engineer and someone else, it could simply means a case of someone happen to find a CD lying around and just pick it up. Be it work for hire or not, at least I want some idea how to protect myself and making sure the intention of usage remains consistent and legal before and after the creation.

DD

 

[DoubleDecker]

talk about going where the money is hey! from my experience, if you assign COMPASS rights of administration in relation to the publishing rights, they will negotiate when there are any dealings with a company for the use of your music in corporate videos / limited screening videos (eg in a community centre). since this still constitutes public performance anyway.

and just in case you didn't know - the Copyright Act was amended this year. The term "broadcast" has been subsumed under a new right - the "right to communicate". This right to communicate and make available a work will include the Internet, wireless transmissions etc as well.

Anyone interested and serious about a career in music should check out the COMPASS website where they have a section on this.

DD

 

[Ichiro]

copyright is not the right to copy. It’s not that simple.

it's true, it's true..... the best to describle copyright.... one day i gotta go to the library and borrow the "law of copyright book"..... it is very interesting and useful to know it.....

 

[DoubleDecker]

Recent case which reminds me of this thread.

Universal Music sues MySpace for property rights violations
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/technologynews/view/242215/1/.html