Copyright gray areas:

  • Thread starter Thread starter stray411
  • Start date Start date
stray411

stray411

New member
I have a couple questions regarding copyrighting that I'm looking for some clarification on. I've been to the US copyright site, but the legal jargon confuses the shit out of me and I don't have money to throw to a lawyer to have it explained to me.

Here goes. If I make a complete musical composition and send it to a songwriter who writes lyrics TO the music, who should own the better part of the copyright? If the lyrics have a different melody than the composition but are in harmony with the composition and were written based on the harmony, the better part of the copyright should be owned by the composer right?

If an artist sends me a vocal track that contains a melody and I put a musical composition behind it, who should own the better part of the copyright? The composition is based on the melody of the vocal track so the writer of the lyrics and vocal melody should own the better part of the copyright correct?

Can I avoid all this gray area by just copyrighting the music first? I didn't think it worked that way, but there are alot of things about copyrighting I'm not too sure on. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Stray

www.mp3.com/PerpetualProductio
 
Legally speaking, the minute you recorded your song, it was copyrighted (whether or not you register it with the government).

And what exactly do you mean by better part of the copyright, there is no such thing (not even if the song is published, everyone cuts the money in equal amounts). Just copyright the songs under both names (so you can't rip each other off in the future).
 
musikman316 said:
...And what exactly do you mean by better part of the copyright, there is no such thing (not even if the song is published, everyone cuts the money in equal amounts). Just copyright the songs under both names (so you can't rip each other off in the future).
Click to expand...

Actually, you can have different cuts on the royalties when a song is published. It is a royalty split, but it does kind of break down into a "who OWNS more of the song" vs. "who OWNS less." This is completely negotiable between the parties involved. Usually, just to make things easier, most people will just split 50/50. Or 25/25/25/25, etc. But these split amounts have nothing to do with copyrighting.

You do not indicate pecentage of ownership when registering for copyright. You simply indicate WHO did WHAT.

Stray, I would recommend waiting until the full song is written - then copyright it with you as the composer of the music and the other guy as the author of the lyrics. You guys should split the cost of copyright - $15 a piece (without postage).

You CAN copyright just the music now, and then make a new registration when the lyrics are all done. The second one (with lyrics) would, in effect, be an addendum to the existing copyright. The first one (music ony) would indicate you as the sole writer of music.

The second one (that's another $30 if you do it this way) would list you as the composer of music and Other Guy as author of lyrics. This copyright would indicate that music was pre-existing (and have a reference # to the first copyright) and it would have some notes indicating what new material was added.

For instance, it might say:

Added lyrics; music pre-existing. See PA-XXX-XXX



Now, if you guys get the song published and you members of a performing rights society, THIS IS WHEN YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PERCENTAGE.

As to who is entitled to more or less is really up to you guys. I, for one, think that music and melody is more of factor in a song's market value than the lyrics, but I know a few lyricists who would strongly disagree. Hey, if the guy writes fabulous words and you want to work with him again, consider a 50/50 split. Think about this - if the song goes nowhere, who cares what the splits are. If the song goes to number one, who cares who is more of a millionaire? Oh wait, I guess some people do care. I wouldn't so much, as long as I was rich too. But that is another story. My point is - the ownership percentage (which plays into royalties) is really up to you guys. Unless you both have lawyers and/or managers. Then you could just let them duke it out over a steak and martini lunch.


Brad
 
I think Brad explains this pretty well. The only thing that I would add are a couple of practical points. Brad is absolutely right when he says copyright and publishing are two different animals, but unless you and the lyricist have a separate written agreement, such as a publishing contract that spells out your respective ownership interests in the completed song many courts and arbitrators will look to the copyright filings to determine royalty fee splits. So, if you're listed as the composer and someone else is listed as a lyricist, that might be considered evidence of a 50/50 split.

Despite that, I have to say that in 25 years of songwriting, I have never seen a publishing contract offered by a legitimate music publisher which did not specify the split between co-writers. I strongly suggest that if you intend to compose professionally that you get ahold of a decent book on music publishing like Randy Poe's "Guide to Music Publishing".
 
Thanks for the info here guys. It sounds like I'm confusing copywriting and publishing. I'm going to heed your advice here and put my nose in some literature regarding the subject. Thanks for the taking the time to get me straightened out.

Stray

www.mp3.com/PerpetualProductio
 
Anyone want to comment on mechanial versus performance rights?

What happens when someone joins you in the studio and plays a slight variation on one particular riff? Do they get credit? Is it just a performance royalty they generate from the recording itself, or would/could they demand a cut of the mechanical royalty?

Ciao,

Ben
 
Ben - I'll take a crack at your mechanicals question, but I think a lot depends on the specific facts.

1. You're the songwriter/recording artist. You hire the hottest sudio guitar player in town to play on your session. He runs through your charts and says "You know it would really sound great if I played -." That's part of what you're paying him for and he doesn't get a share of the writer's credit. Of course, he's not under any legal or moral obligation to tell you your charts stink or could be better, but that is what good studio musicians do and why they are usually paid above scale to work on sessions.

2. You've got some songs you've written and are hangin' out in your home studio laying down tracks with some friends. If what they bring to the session is their own work, something they've come up with apart from what you've already written and it substantially enhances the song, I'd say they've got a claim for co-writers' credit. But, it has to be a substantial contribution to the song. I think that's when it becomes a matter for negotiation.

There are many other scenarios, but these are a couple of the obvious ones I could think of. I'm sure people could come up with more, which is why a generalized answer is probably wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top