Advice on ownership issue

ConorC

New member
Hi guys,
I haven't posted on this forum in a couple of years but now I need some advice. I host an open mic show in Ireland once a month and we record the show and make videos of some of the performances, only 2 - 3 per month because of the time it takes to edit all the stuff. We post the videos on Youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTVLugcJ2wAe2wjWSkOoaYg

One of the acts has stripped the audio from a video we made and are selling it on Bandcamp as a live EP. If they had asked me if they could do this I probably would have said yes, go for it, and I would have sent them the mastered audio from the live perfoirmance instead of them having to strip the compressed audio from Youtube. But they didn't ask. They just did it.

My son recorded this band, I mixed it all on my own gear in my own time. I feel that I own it. I feel that if they are selling it then I should get a cut. Is that right? If they don't want to give me a cut I want them to stop selling it.

I'd appreciate any advice anybody could give me here.

Thanks

Conor
 
It's a dick move but I'm leaning towards it being legal. It's their songs/performance. Had another band done the same thing and passed it off as their work, of course that's a problem. But since they 'own' the music and you offered to record/distribute it for free, then I'd say you're out of luck. If you supplied them with masters then perhaps you could have also asked for mixing/production credits. But since they took the "video" portion of the audio as-is, I'm leaning toward them being in line with the agreement. Your verbal contract would imply the service you provided was free and the fact you distributed it free on the internet indicates you are not holding any special rights to the performance or presentation, unless you specifically note that on the Youtube channel. And if not, maybe you should do that starting now to avoid this in the future.

I kinda doubt any band's recording at open mic night is going to generate much revenue, so I suggest moving on and use it as a learning lesson. Think of it this way, you did a good enough job recording they thought it was worthy of being released even in compressed youtube quality. Theft in the music world can be seen as a form of flattery. :D
 
It's a dick move but I'm leaning towards it being legal. It's their songs/performance. Had another band done the same thing and passed it off as their work, of course that's a problem. But since they 'own' the music and you offered to record/distribute it for free, then I'd say you're out of luck. If you supplied them with masters then perhaps you could have also asked for mixing/production credits. But since they took the "video" portion of the audio as-is, I'm leaning toward them being in line with the agreement. Your verbal contract would imply the service you provided was free and the fact you distributed it free on the internet indicates you are not holding any special rights to the performance or presentation, unless you specifically note that on the Youtube channel. And if not, maybe you should do that starting now to avoid this in the future.

I kinda doubt any band's recording at open mic night is going to generate much revenue, so I suggest moving on and use it as a learning lesson. Think of it this way, you did a good enough job recording they thought it was worthy of being released even in compressed youtube quality. Theft in the music world can be seen as a form of flattery. :D

Hi Pinky
It is their songs and performance, that is not the issue. I claim absolutly no rights to those things. It is however, my recording. I make these recordings and videos as a sort of altruistic thing to help bands promote themselves, because there is some great unknown talent out there that I'd love the world to hear and in some small part I think I am helping these people with that. I am a musician myself and I'd love if somebody would do this for me. It costs me time and money to do this and I feel that these guys have stolen from me. If they had asked me I would have said yeah sure do it, because what else was I going to do, but now I'm not so sure. If this EP sells 10,000 copies (one can live in hope) I feel I deserve a piece of that pie. I'm just unsure of how to proceed.

Anyway, I will definitly be more specific about the rules of the game going forward. I will make it clear that I own the recordings and videos. And I do give the artists veto, if they don't like a performance I pull it immediatly, no questions, and I do not monetise the videos on Youtube, mostly because the beaurocracy of getting permissions from the artists, sending all that to youtube would just be a nightmare and more work than I am willing to do.

Thanks for the advice. I will contact this act, I wanted some other opinion before rushing in guns blazing. I will state my position and see where it goes from there.

C
 
Hey now you know how us musicians feel when people download and file share our music illegally.
Welcome to the modern world.
 
It costs me time and money to do this and I feel that these guys have stolen from me.

The issue with this statement is that you provided all your services for free with only a verbal agreement that doesn't even specifically address this scenario. At the very least you need to lock down the rights/permission on youtube to prevent them from being able to legally do this in the future.

I'm sure the band will see how you feel slighted, and perhaps they can update future distributions to include your info (or even better, offer them the masters for a better quality product that also gives you proper credit?). Assume it's a mistake on their part until you learn otherwise. :)
 
It is their songs and performance, that is not the issue. I claim absolutly no rights to those things. It is however, my recording.

You can copyright the written song (theirs)...you can copy right the sound performance (theirs)...you can't copyright the recording process (yours).

So recording really comes down to it being a work for hire...which it wasn't, since you did it for free.
Bottom line...it's shitty of them to use you like that, but you have no contract to fall back on.

IMO...the best thing would have been for you to approach the band and tell them you would like to record them again, and provide them with better quality audio to sell...but that you would like to at least be paid something for your recording work.

AFA you posting their music/performance on YouTube....to tell the truth, without an agreement, they have more rights to those videos than you do. It's them...it's their performance...it's their music...so if you attempt to "lock down" the YT videos so they can't strip the music...they can actually come after you, since you are using them and their music.
Granted, the actual work of the video and the video itself is yours...BUT...the content is theirs, and that rules.

Get an agreement up front, or you will face the same predicament with other bands.
 
I disagree with most everything everyone said here.

The songs are theirs, the recording is yours. They should not have stripped the recording from your youtube video. Whether you got paid, offered it for free or anything else, doesn't matter. Revenue, fees, payments, etc or lack of, do not have a bearing on ownership.

It's not a work for hire because there was no stipulation to that point in writing.

A “work made for hire” is defined as (1) “a work ...." ; or (2) “a work specially
ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a
part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a
supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer
material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument
signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.”

If a band goes into the studio and record their songs, the songs are theirs, the recording is the studio's. The only way ownership of the recordings would go to someone else, like the record company, would be if it was in writing and agreed to.

BTW: This is according to what I know about copyright law in the US. It might be different in Ireland.

On the other, you put anything up on YouTube and it's fair game; legal or not. This is not your father's internet. :) My suggestion would be to reach out to the band and let them know in the future, you would be happy to share the recordings and for them to give credit where credit is due. I think it's cool you are trying to help local talent with promotion.
 
It's not a work for hire because there was no stipulation to that point in writing.

But that's the point...nothing was in writing...so the guy doing the video taping has no claims of any kind...however, the content, the performance, the music...is the bands, and at most, THEY are the ones who can stop the YT playback, since the OP has nothing written allowing him to use it.

Example...you go to a concert and tape a band, and then put it up on YT...the band can claim copyright infringement.
It matters not that YOU did the actual recording at their concert.

That said, I agree that the band is being lame for striping the audio and using it for profit, knowing that the guy did it for free for them. So...they could have offered him some compensation...but hey, the fact that it was not a work for hire, and the guy was doing it for fun, for free, nothing in writing...they can also feel that they can use it as they wish.

The mistake is that no agreement was made.
To now attempt to get some compensation from the band if they don't wish to give it...or to somehow stop them from using the audio...would be a rather silly and pointless endeavor, and would probably cost more than whatever profits might be shared or gained in the end.
Again...the best approach IMO would be for the OP to approach the band in a friendly way, and try to nail down some agreement for future work, for a cut of the profits.
Without the bands...the OP has nothing to post on YT.......

To tell the truth, all the concerns about copyright and profits are probably overblown, as I doubt any serious profits are going to be made by anyone. I think it's more about poor form by the band...and the bruised feelings of the OP, which is understandable. I would be pissed too...and would not deal with them again.
 
As a member of two gigging bands, if you take video/recording/photos of me playing my songs, and you do it for free without my knowledge or consent, then that shit is mine if I want it. And it happens all the time. I personally don't care if someone takes pics of me or shoots some video. We're all small-time nobodies. I'm usually just happy to see some cool pics of myself playing. But if you are trying to make a profit off of me, then we'll have a problem. If I didn't agree into a mutual contract with you about recordings or video, then whatever you do is also mine and I'll do what I want with it. So I'm siding with the band on this one.
 
As a member of two gigging bands, if you take video/recording/photos of me playing my songs, and you do it for free without my knowledge or consent, then that shit is mine if I want it. And it happens all the time. I personally don't care if someone takes pics of me or shoots some video. We're all small-time nobodies. I'm usually just happy to see some cool pics of myself playing. But if you are trying to make a profit off of me, then we'll have a problem. If I didn't agree into a mutual contract with you about recordings or video, then whatever you do is also mine and I'll do what I want with it. So I'm siding with the band on this one.

Except in this case, according to the OP, the band was asked and the band said yes.

Nor is the OP trying to make a profit. OP has said anything about monetizing the video.
 
Except in this case, according to the OP, the band was asked and the band said yes.
What band wouldn't? What band wouldn't say "yes" to some guy offering to shoot some video, apparently for free?

Nor is the OP trying to make a profit. OP has said anything about monetizing the video.
I guess I missed that part. My apologies.

So this guy jut shoots video of people, for free, then gets mad if they use it? Lol.
 
OP, why don't you offer the band the use of the uncompressed recordings in return for a fee to cover the work you put in?

If that doesn't work, I'd let it go. You said your motive was to provide exposure for local bands. If they make a record with those recordings, you'll still be doing that. It's so hard to make any money with original music, I would not begrudge them a chance to sell a few copies even if none of it comes your way. It doesn't sound like you had any expectation of getting paid.
 
Nor is the OP trying to make a profit. OP has said anything about monetizing the video.

Actually...he is.

I feel that if they are selling it then I should get a cut. Is that right? If they don't want to give me a cut I want them to stop selling it.

Since there was no agreement up front...and this was supposed to be a "for fun" exercise...I think all bets are off about sales and profits.
So...let YT put ads on the video, and you can get profit from that...if the band doesn't complain, since it IS their music.

You're in the weaker position to bargain now, after the fact.
Get over it...move on. Establish something positive for the future...with them, and/or other bands.
Again...without the bands and their performances...you have nothing.
 
His "recording" is their material. What did they do that was so wrong...besides have the balls to take back their intellectual property?

Yep, his recording. The one he made of their material and performance, with their permission, which he posted in the agreed upon fashion for their mutual promotional benefit. Now they're using his work in a way he did not agree to.

Perhaps they could have offered to credit him and let him monetize the video in exchange for him letting them use the audio more widely.
 
Yep, his recording. The one he made of their material and performance, with their permission, which he posted in the agreed upon fashion for their mutual promotional benefit. Now they're using his work in a way he did not agree to.

No, they're using their own work, which he offered to record for free. If he wants to poach off of musical talent then he should charge them up front or come to an actual monetary agreement dependent on sales.
 
I think everyone is agreed that the band move was/is lame, at best.
However, any legal procedure to argue rights and profits at this point would most likely be as lame, because even if the band is made to stops selling the audio...they will then probably counter and prevent the OP from showing the video, which they can do, since there is NO written agreement allowing the OP to do so.

And what will be the value in all of that....?
Nothing.

I still think that the OP has an opportunity to take the high road, and strike a deal with the band for the next performance, and then use that as a springboard for other band video recordings...and possibly put himself in a position to actually make some money in the long run.

Again...without the bands...the OP will have nothing. So I would avoid a negative relationship, and just let this pass and move on.
It's like that thing about getting you foot in the door of a record company. Sure, you want all that's due you to be paid to you...but if you are not established, and the record company decides to close the door....what do you have?
Nothing.
So...you give a little more the first time around, and get both feet through the door, and then you have something to bargain with once you establish yourself.

That said...if the OP has no intention of pursuing this as some paid for service with this and other bands...then really, what's it worth to argue over this one thing...?
Nothing.

I would love to hear how this ends up for the OP. :)
 
Back
Top