Recording for free

[pandamonk]

Because that other thread got closed I thought i'd dedicate a thread to this subject. Anyway, to carry on from that discussion:

That's not true. Whoever pays for the recording owns the recording. That's why labels almost always own the recording. If no one pays for it, then the person who does it for free is the person losing out, so effectively they've paid for it, and therefore own it.

No THATS not true. Nor is this:

He owns the only copy of the music. He owns the copyright. They own the copyright to the music and lyrics, but not that recording.

Sorry,but you are wrong. Lemme explain:

I own a coffee table. I hire you to fix it. I dont pay my bill. Who owns the coffee table?
I DO.
Its MY coffee table, always has been. I hired you to do a job, you are a hired hand and work for me. Can you hold the table hostage until I pay? Probably, at least for a while. But its not yours, its MINE.

The engineer= hired hand. Absolutely, positively. The only problem is that the OP was unwise and didnt discuss his fee IN ADVANCE. He provided a service. As a session musician, I provide a service too. People pay me, I play. I own nothing. The same thing with the guy who fixes the coffee table, he provided a service and owns nothing. Can he hold the CD hostage? Maybe, but read his words:

I am not charging them... as they have no money to invest.

He's not charging them. To me, that is crystal clear, it means that he is not charging them. If he told them he wasnt charging them so be it, he cant change the rules. As I said before, he is in a no-win scenario.

Record contracts are 100s of pages long, I have one on my desk. They are that long for a reason. There is no contract here, just some dudes getting a free recording.

Ok, let me show you where you've misunderstood. I'm not talking about owning the song(table). I'm talking about owning the recording(the work that was done and the materials used). The table isn't really a good analogy, but hopefully you'll see my point. He won't own the song, but he will own the recordings of that song.

Just because he doesn't charge doesn't mean that he has surrendered all rights to anything to do with the music. They have obviously asked him not to charge because they have no money.

Ok, I'll make an analogy: Say for instance you have a house(song), and you want to sell(record and promote). You go to an estate agent(record label) and they come and take pictures of your house(record your song). It doesn't sell, so you decide to go to another agency. Now the first agency have really nice pictures of your house. You want them for the other agents to use, but they aren't your pictures, even though they are of your house. You either have to buy the pictures from the agency, or take other pictures.

That's a bad analogy. I'll try again: You go for a photo shoot. You get really nice photos taken, but don't pay the photographer. It's upto the photographer if they give you the photos or not. They are the photographer's photos, even though they are of you. You can buy the photos, come to an agreement about %s if they are going to make money, or go elsewhere. Get my meaning?

If there's no contract then whoever paid for it owns it. They can destroy it if they wish. It's their CD. They bought the blank cd. They used their equipment. It's theirs. The song is the band's, but not the recording, unless they pay for it. Ask a lawyer.

 

[cmhansen]

I do get your legal points here, but, if the guy is doing it for free and doesn't want any compensation at all, including the recordings, then I don't really see why it would be his. Doesn't he give up the rights to the SR copyright in this scenario?

 

[DavidK]

Pandamonk,

the basic principles and tenets of intellectual property laws go back to the ancient Greeks. There were publishing laws before Guttenberg printed the Bible. Shakespeare was published. Handel and Beethoven had constant publishing battles. We are talking about centuries and centuries of LAW. What you are talking about seems to be property law. This is intellectual property law. Its not even apples and oranges, more like apples and squid. They have little in common and have hundreds of years of precedent. My opinion, your opinion, anyones opinion is irrelevant. We are dealing with the rule of established law.

Our friend squiksilvery chooses to ignore that. He believes that it works like a 4th grade schoolyard romp to decide who owns the football. He cemented that by locking his thread and insulting people, literally "taking his ball and going home". He chooses to make his own rules and use 4th grade logic to interpret extremely complex laws. Fine. But it aint the law.

Squiksilvery has no LEGAL right to copyright ANYTHING, regardless of anyone's "opinion". There are no opinions involved, only established intellectual propery laws. This is not recess and doesnt involve trading baseball cards and indian givers, this is law. He does not own the copyright, will not own the copyright, and has no moral, ethical or legal claim to the copyright. Put simply, it aint his.

He made it very, very, very clear: he told some friends he would record them for free, changed his tune and now wants some kind of approval. Nope, none can be given, it is not his product.

If there's no contract then whoever paid for it owns it.

500+ years of law says you are as wrong as can be. Not even close . This isnt baseball cards, it is intellectual property law and it simply does NOT work like that. Another one:

The simplest way to copyright is to send a cd to yourself through the post and don't open it. It should be stamped and dated, so this will be proof that you have the first copy of the recording.

This is referred to as an old wives tale. This is SO remotely not true that if you truly believe it, your perception of law is solely based on rumors and urban legends.

The song is the band's, but not the recording, unless they pay for it. Ask a lawyer.

Dude, the guy offered to do it FOR FREE. Ask a lawyer what "free" means. Its real easy, free means free. Thats the only thing these knuckleheads even discussed. As the band apparently will find out, sometimes you get what you pay for. Their "mate" who offered to do it for free is now trying to back out of it.

They can destroy it if they wish.

Now THIS is true. He can be a prick and destroy his friends work. Since there is no contract, nothing anyone can do. However, that is LIGHTYEARS from him copyrighting it Again, do not confuse property laws with this, we are not talking about that.

They used their equipment. It's theirs.

Read his first post. This guy is gonna be lucky if he sees the gear in one piece since the band has it.


What this guy is doing is almost extortion. He has a free, verbal deal with THE BAND. He does not have a deal with THE MANAGEMENT. Not at all. He will learn the hard way when they laugh their asses off. A percentage??? Geez Louise, thats ridiculous. If they wanted to pay a studio, they would have paid a studio. He has abolutely no legal right to a cent. Yes, he indeed can be a prick and destroy the tunes. There would be nothing they could do. But he has no legal ownership of the intellectual property and never will, no matter where it is. This is not property law.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Never say never. They could always negotiate to give him a cut...Im not sure why they would though

Appeal to tradition is going out the window as we speak though. Just because something was done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean itll keep going that way. Things are changing FAST.

Even the stock market is learning that. Economics have reached their ultimate end goal, where "investment" means finding someone dumber than you to buy a piece of paper that will never in a thousand years pay for itself unless they find someone even dumber to buy it from them.

 

[Xeries]

Pandamonk,

the basic principles and tenets of intellectual property laws go back to the ancient Greeks. There were publishing laws before Guttenberg printed the Bible. Shakespeare was published. Handel and Beethoven had constant publishing battles. We are talking about centuries and centuries of LAW. What you are talking about seems to be property law. This is intellectual property law. Its not even apples and oranges, more like apples and squid. They have little in common and have hundreds of years of precedent. My opinion, your opinion, anyones opinion is irrelevant. We are dealing with the rule of established law.

Our friend squiksilvery chooses to ignore that. He believes that it works like a 4th grade schoolyard romp to decide who owns the football. He cemented that by locking his thread and insulting people, literally "taking his ball and going home". He chooses to make his own rules and use 4th grade logic to interpret extremely complex laws. Fine. But it aint the law.

Squiksilvery has no LEGAL right to copyright ANYTHING, regardless of anyone's "opinion". There are no opinions involved, only established intellectual propery laws. This is not recess and doesnt involve trading baseball cards and indian givers, this is law. He does not own the copyright, will not own the copyright, and has no moral, ethical or legal claim to the copyright. Put simply, it aint his.

He made it very, very, very clear: he told some friends he would record them for free, changed his tune and now wants some kind of approval. Nope, none can be given, it is not his product.



500+ years of law says you are as wrong as can be. Not even close . This isnt baseball cards, it is intellectual property law and it simply does NOT work like that. Another one:



This is referred to as an old wives tale. This is SO remotely not true that if you truly believe it, your perception of law is solely based on rumors and urban legends.



Dude, the guy offered to do it FOR FREE. Ask a lawyer what "free" means. Its real easy, free means free. Thats the only thing these knuckleheads even discussed. As the band apparently will find out, sometimes you get what you pay for. Their "mate" who offered to do it for free is now trying to back out of it.



Now THIS is true. He can be a prick and destroy his friends work. Since there is no contract, nothing anyone can do. However, that is LIGHTYEARS from him copyrighting it Again, do not confuse property laws with this, we are not talking about that.

Read his first post. This guy is gonna be lucky if he sees the gear in one piece since the band has it.


What this guy is doing is almost extortion. He has a free, verbal deal with THE BAND. He does not have a deal with THE MANAGEMENT. Not at all. He will learn the hard way when they laugh their asses off. A percentage??? Geez Louise, thats ridiculous. If they wanted to pay a studio, they would have paid a studio. He has abolutely no legal right to a cent. Yes, he indeed can be a prick and destroy the tunes. There would be nothing they could do. But he has no legal ownership of the intellectual property and never will, no matter where it is. This is not property law.

David made a good point that should remain THE issue. They have a verbal contract, also called an "oral contract," which should be legally binding: The guy agreed to do the recordings for FREE.

I say he should just give them away, or at least a few of them, and then maybe management will throw him a bone.

I was the first to advise the guy to get paid up front. He should give away what he said he was going to give away and hope that they use his services if and when they get a PRODUCER.

 

[pandamonk]

I do get your legal points here, but, if the guy is doing it for free and doesn't want any compensation at all, including the recordings, then I don't really see why it would be his. Doesn't he give up the rights to the SR copyright in this scenario?

No because he has still effectively paid for it. Unless he signs a contract giving away the rights, then they are his.

 

[pandamonk]

Pandamonk,

the basic principles and tenets of intellectual property laws go back to the ancient Greeks. There were publishing laws before Guttenberg printed the Bible. Shakespeare was published. Handel and Beethoven had constant publishing battles. We are talking about centuries and centuries of LAW. What you are talking about seems to be property law. This is intellectual property law. Its not even apples and oranges, more like apples and squid. They have little in common and have hundreds of years of precedent. My opinion, your opinion, anyones opinion is irrelevant. We are dealing with the rule of established law.

Our friend squiksilvery chooses to ignore that. He believes that it works like a 4th grade schoolyard romp to decide who owns the football. He cemented that by locking his thread and insulting people, literally "taking his ball and going home". He chooses to make his own rules and use 4th grade logic to interpret extremely complex laws. Fine. But it aint the law.

Squiksilvery has no LEGAL right to copyright ANYTHING, regardless of anyone's "opinion". There are no opinions involved, only established intellectual propery laws. This is not recess and doesnt involve trading baseball cards and indian givers, this is law. He does not own the copyright, will not own the copyright, and has no moral, ethical or legal claim to the copyright. Put simply, it aint his.

He made it very, very, very clear: he told some friends he would record them for free, changed his tune and now wants some kind of approval. Nope, none can be given, it is not his product.



500+ years of law says you are as wrong as can be. Not even close . This isnt baseball cards, it is intellectual property law and it simply does NOT work like that. Another one:



This is referred to as an old wives tale. This is SO remotely not true that if you truly believe it, your perception of law is solely based on rumors and urban legends.



Dude, the guy offered to do it FOR FREE. Ask a lawyer what "free" means. Its real easy, free means free. Thats the only thing these knuckleheads even discussed. As the band apparently will find out, sometimes you get what you pay for. Their "mate" who offered to do it for free is now trying to back out of it.



Now THIS is true. He can be a prick and destroy his friends work. Since there is no contract, nothing anyone can do. However, that is LIGHTYEARS from him copyrighting it Again, do not confuse property laws with this, we are not talking about that.

Read his first post. This guy is gonna be lucky if he sees the gear in one piece since the band has it.


What this guy is doing is almost extortion. He has a free, verbal deal with THE BAND. He does not have a deal with THE MANAGEMENT. Not at all. He will learn the hard way when they laugh their asses off. A percentage??? Geez Louise, thats ridiculous. If they wanted to pay a studio, they would have paid a studio. He has abolutely no legal right to a cent. Yes, he indeed can be a prick and destroy the tunes. There would be nothing they could do. But he has no legal ownership of the intellectual property and never will, no matter where it is. This is not property law.

I'm sorry David, but it's not just my opinion. It is what i was taught at college and learned through experience.

Ok, so Squicksilvery goes out and buys a CD-r. That CD is his. He records a band, and burns it onto that CD, that CD is his. The band does not pay for a copy, and that CD is still his. He owns the only copy of that recorded material. It is on his pc, recorded with his equipment, and burned onto his disk. Who owns it?

The band might have copyrighted the SONG beforehand, but without payment they do not own THAT RECORDING. You only own something if you pay for it or have a contract to say you own it. Squicksilvery pays for the CD-R and records using his equipment. He owns the copyright of the recording(not the song), unless the band pays for it.

Unless the band have proof of him telling them he'd record for free, they don't have a leg to stand on.

Bands have been caught out in the past like this. They have no copyright of the songs(lyrics or recording). They go to a studio and record for free without contract. Then the studio owner copyrights and releases the song by his own band. The band who wrote the song have no evidence to show that they wrote it first, or even that they were in that studio.

Here's a quote proving my point my point(emphasis added):

What rights are there in a recording of music?
It is important to understand that when reproducing a recording of music, there are two separate copyrights to consider:

• The right of the producer of the sound recording itself; and
• The right of the author/composer (or their publisher) in the underlying
composition (ie. the song or musical work and/or the lyrics)

Depending on the country in which you are located, the rights of the producer of a sound recording may be protected as “related rights” or “neighbouring rights”, rather than as copyright. Such copyrights or neighbouring rights are usually owned by the record company which produced and commercially released the sound recording.

The right to reproduce the composition is often known as the “mechanical copyright” and such rights are usually administered by collecting societies representing the authors/composers who created them and their publishers.


What rights does the owner of a copyright or neighbouring right have?
The owner of a copyright or neighbouring right will have the right to control the exploitation of its composition and/or sound recording and prevent a number of acts which relate to the ways in which the composition and/or sound recording can be exploited. These include:

• The right to copy or reproduce on a commercial basis;
• The right to distribute copies to the public;
• The right to import or export copies; and
• The rights in public performances.

Therefore, it is only the owner of a copyright or neighbouring right in a sound
recording that can, for example, copy a sound recording on a commercial basis (subject to clearance of the mechanical copyright), and the copyright owner can take legal proceedings to stop anyone else from copying that sound recording. Alternatively, the copyright owner may grant a licence to another person to copy the sound recording, usually for a fee. The same principles apply to the owner of the mechanical copyright. It is usually collecting societies that grant the licence to copy the composition.

 

[pandamonk]

David made a good point that should remain THE issue. They have a verbal contract, also called an "oral contract," which should be legally binding: The guy agreed to do the recordings for FREE.

I say he should just give them away, or at least a few of them, and then maybe management will throw him a bone.

I was the first to advise the guy to get paid up front. He should give away what he said he was going to give away and hope that they use his services if and when they get a PRODUCER.

Oral contracts are only legally binding if there is proof of it, i believe. Ie a recording.

 

[Xeries]

It all comes down to a handshake, man. Ars Longa Vita Brevis, as Emerson once coined for the title song of an album. Yeah, the guy could go back on his word, but if he does, I wouldn't work with him, and neither will that band he recorded.

Much ado about nothing. What are we talking about here, 20 hours? Shit, I do that for my musician friends for free all the time. I record them, they lay down a track for me, at some point you have to let all the legal crap go. That's what intellectual property lawyers are for. The bands job is to make music. The engineer's job is to record music. The producer's job is to pay for the production. The lawyers job is to get in the middle of everything. Period.

 

[pandamonk]

It all comes down to a handshake, man. Ars Longa Vita Brevis, as Emerson once coined for the title song of an album. Yeah, the guy could go back on his word, but if he does, I wouldn't work with him, and neither will that band he recorded.

Much ado about nothing. What are we talking about here, 20 hours? Shit, I do that for my musician friends for free all the time. I record them, they lay down a track for me, at some point you have to let all the legal crap go. That's what intellectual property lawyers are for. The bands job is to make music. The engineer's job is to record music. The producer's job is to pay for the production. The lawyers job is to get in the middle of everything. Period.

I very much agree. I personally think he will do it for free for his mates without hassle, I was just giving the legal side of things(or my understanding of them at least) for anybody interested.

 

[Squiksilvery]

Me again!

I said i'd record them, they said they had no money, I said don't worry about it now, we'll see what comes of it.

I did not say "I'm not charging you for the production service" as DavidK assumes (oh and Thanks for the "Jackass" comment Dave... bit of a 3rd grade dig.

Pandamonk, thanks you have been very helpfull.

What a jolly discussion!

 

[DavidK]

Oral contracts are only legally binding if there is proof of it, i believe. Ie a recording.

There is proof of it. He said so himself on a recording website. Maybe you have a different viewpoint on perjury. He was as clear as an unmuddied lake (Clockwork Orange) He said he wasnt charging them. What can we do to convince you of that? He said it.

I'm sorry David, but it's not just my opinion. It is what i was taught at college and learned through experience.

And yet, you suggested that you can copyright your stuff by mailing it in a self-addressed envelope. Whoever taught you that was wrong.

Here's a quote proving my point my point(emphasis added):

It adds nothing to the discussion. How does it prove your point? Its talking about record labels, and in this case we know there is no record label.

It all comes down to a handshake, man. Ars Longa Vita Brevis, as Emerson once coined for the title song of an album. Yeah, the guy could go back on his word,

Yup, thats about it. The deal is a done deal. Either party can be a prick and lie. That isnt law, truth is truth. If the guy wants to lie, thats a different thread, one that belongs in the Cave.

 

[Squiksilvery]

shall we all take a deep breath...?

...and relax

no more jackass comments, I won't use the word **** again.... and we can all be friends!

 

[DavidK]

shall we all take a deep breath...?

...and relax

no more jackass comments, I won't use the word **** again.... and we can all be friends!

Fair enough. Now get over here and lets have a group hug!

Its a good subject however. I've had many years of frustration over royalties, residuals etc. My main goal is to help anyone avoid that.

 

[pandamonk]

There is proof of it. He said so himself on a recording website. Maybe you have a different viewpoint on perjury. He was as clear as an unmuddied lake (Clockwork Orange) He said he wasnt charging them. What can we do to convince you of that? He said it.

Yeah i thought of that too(saying it on here)

And yet, you suggested that you can copyright your stuff by mailing it in a self-addressed envelope. Whoever taught you that was wrong.

It is a way to copyright, although it doesn't really hold up in court, especially in the US. The "Poor man's copyright". Never heard of it?

The United States Copyright Office makes clear that the technique is no substitute for actual registration.[8] The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office discusses the technique but does not recommend its use.

I'm from the UK.

It adds nothing to the discussion. How does it prove your point? Its talking about record labels, and in this case we know there is no record label.

It says "usually owned by the record company". That's because they usually pay for the recording. What I've been talking about is neighbouring rights, sorry for getting the terminology wrong. If you read it, it explicitly says(the part i bolded) "The right of the producer of the sound recording itself". Squicksilvery is the producer, so his right is that of neighbouring rights, which if you read, give him(subject to clearance of the mechanical copyright):
• The right to copy or reproduce on a commercial basis;
• The right to distribute copies to the public;
• The right to import or export copies; and
• The rights in public performances.

Yup, thats about it. The deal is a done deal. Either party can be a prick and lie. That isnt law, truth is truth. If the guy wants to lie, thats a different thread, one that belongs in the Cave.

Yeah well, maybe(like he is claiming in this thread) he never said anything about it being free, but that they'll "see what comes of it". In which case, the terms of the agreement were not specified, and therefore it's not a legally binding oral contract. The same is the case if one or both parties were mistaken about a fundamental part of the agreement.

 

[pandamonk]

Fair enough. Now get over here and lets have a group hug!

Its a good subject however. I've had many years of frustration over royalties, residuals etc. My main goal is to help anyone avoid that.

I agree with you. I regard this as a friendly issue even though we disagree. No bad feelings ok

 

[DavidK]

It is a way to copyright, although it doesn't really hold up in court, especially in the US. The "Poor man's copyright". Never heard of it?

Oh, I've heard of it for 8 years on this site, every time shaking my head. Correct, it doesnt hold up in court so its worthless.

Squicksilvery is the producer,

Now THIS could be the subject of a whole new thread. Thats really open to debate of who is the producer. Legal debate, not internet debate. He is the engineer certainly.

The "producer" is essentially a human form of a label, a hired gun. The label is the producer. I produced an album for a label, (comes out in November). I definitely have no ownership, the contract clearly says that the label is the producer of the product. In this case, the band could be the producer or the management could be. There are two producers really, a musical one and a business one (executive producer). Clive Davis isnt setting up mics and pressing record, yet he is the man and gets the bucks.

I agree with you. I regard this as a friendly issue even though we disagree. No bad feelings ok

Yup. Learning is learning. If I can learn something I would be grateful, the music biz is a tough nut and one learns every day.

 

[pandamonk]

Oh, I've heard of it for 8 years on this site, every time shaking my head. Correct, it doesnt hold up in court so its worthless.

In the US. But in the UK it's simply "Not recommended" whatever that means(I've not had first-hand experience of it being used in court).

Now THIS could be the subject of a whole new thread. Thats really open to debate of who is the producer. Legal debate, not internet debate. He is the engineer certainly.

I agree, but he claimed himself as the producer(i'm sure) so I'll take his word for it on the internet debate.

The "producer" is essentially a human form of a label, a hired gun. The label is the producer. I produced an album for a label, (comes out in November). I definitely have no ownership, the contract clearly says that the label is the producer of the product. In this case, the band could be the producer or the management could be. There are two producers really, a musical one and a business one (executive producer). Clive Davis isnt setting up mics and pressing record, yet he is the man and gets the bucks.

Yes the label is the producer. But if there's no label... Then whoever produced it is(I'd assume). Depends what kind of things going on though. Could be the band, could be him, could be the management, could be all or any really. I don't know the situation well enough, but he claimed himself as the producer(I think), so that's all i went on.

Yup. Learning is learning. If I can learn something I would be grateful, the music biz is a tough nut and one learns every day.

I certainly agree with you. I haven't had a huge amount of experience(look at my age), but the experience i have had tells me that. I very much agree.

 

[cmhansen]

There actually has been a couple of threads in here, or was it in the cave, where the 'Poor Man's Copyright' did not hold up in court.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Poor man's copyright holds up about as well as any other IF it goes to court: it doesn't

A contract is only good between two honest parties. After that, whoever has the larger legal fund wins

Does anyone have a link to anyone who actually tried to go to court with an envelope they mailed to themself?