Legal question for rewriting my own song

[Chili]

I collaborated with someone on a song where I provided the music and she wrote the words. I performed and recorded the song and she put it up on her website. We agreed to a 50/50 cut on any future action. I pretty much didn't think anything would come of this song and my relationship with the lyricist is very informal.

Several months later, I had the opportunity to write a song that will go on someone's dvd. I reworked that song with my own words, performed and recorded it and gave it to the dvd author for his use. Basically, I put down a new vocal track with my words and kept the melody pretty much the same. Instrumental tracks are all the same.

Now the lyricists from the first song informed me today that the song might be picked up by a band in the UK.

Am I stepping on my own toes by having used the same melody and backing tracks twice?? I know the supreme court said John Fogerty can't plaguerize himself, but can I use the same melody in two different songs?

Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Chili/Dave

[dementedchord]

i dont think you're in much trouble yet.... that wont come until you have to assign the publishing rights...

[mikeh]

I've never run across this specific copyright issue in anything I've researched - but I will share my interpretation of how I think copyright law would apply.

You and the lyricist created a work in which you contributed the melodic/harmonic content and she contributed lyrics. You both agreed to share in the proceed of that specific work.

In theory - since you "own" the copyright on the melodic/harmonic content, you should have "the right" to use it in other artisitic works - and if you completely changed the lyrics, it then becomes a new work, which you should have full ownership/copyright on.

However - and here is the potential problem. If you and she agreed to a 50/50 on the original work (which was a combination of melodic, harmonic and lyrical content) with no specific agreement and/or documention of who contributed what - she could argue, that your 50/50 agreement applied to the whole "work" (the combination of melody, harmony and lyrics) - thus, any proceeds generated by any part of that work (including re-recording and/or publishing the melody - even with different lyrics) still is 50% hers (in essence, she owns 50% of the melodic/harmonic content).

If you did copyright the original work and clealy indicated: Music by: Chili, Lyrics by: Chick Lyricist - then maybe, you are in the clear. Unfortuantely, if the original copyright indicated: Song by: Chili & Chick Lyricist - then she may have a legal grounds to demand her 50%.

Unfortunately, legal issues are very often subject to interpretation - and there is never a slam dunk on how a judge or jury would interpret/rule.

Keep in mind, legal battles cost a lot of money - and unless your new "re-writen" song gernerates a lot of revenue, her incentive to actually pursue a law suit would be limited (just hope her cousin is not an attorney willing to work "pro bono").

Here is my "disclaimer" - I am not an attorney and I am not licensed to practise law. I am simply someone who works with legal contracts and agreements often, who has worked closely with attorneys to draft contract wording (in fact I now often prepare a lot of contract wording on my own and simply have the attorneys proof read it) - so while I am no expert, I have more than a limited understanding of contract law.

[omo]

Just dont tell her

[Chili]

Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts. They are in line with what I was thinking and to hear it from others, just confirms that I really don' t need to worry about this. Especially, the "Don't Tell Her" part, which is my intended course of action. The copyright PA form was written with our specific contributions.

I wasn't real keen on the idea of re-using the same tracks and melody, but I needed a quick turnaround on the song for the dvd.

Thanks again!!!
Chili