Hello Everyone! But I its been a long while. Copyright question

[jimbroni2]

Once again its been a long long while since I've posted here. And I've never been able to recover my original profile since the HC 2.0 switchover. Anyhoo, I've been quite busy in my life, and have been working a project as well. I hope everyone is doing well and enjoying your endeavors..

 

So I've been working with a lyricist, and we've came up with some pretty unique tunes. And we'd like to copyright them, however I have questions regarding the whole thing.

 

1) In order to copyright the lyrics, should we copyright them separately from the music so the writer has complete control over that aspect? It seems like the clean way.. and do we have to do each song separately?

 

2)As far as the songs go.. We have some recordings where a handful are currently being mastered. What does the sound recording copyright protect exactly? Does it simply protect that recording? or does it protect the actual songs themselves?

 

3)If not what steps are involved in protecting the musical composition.

 

4)Now days there are a lot of electronic transactions available. What are some good options? Meaning cost effective and not scammy. How is legalzoom in this regard?

 

Thanks in advance for any advice

[Folder]

 

1) In order to copyright the lyrics, should we copyright them separately from the music so the writer has complete control over that aspect? It seems like the clean way.. and do we have to do each song separately?

 

You need to figure out how you are going to divide the copyright. Traditionally a lot of rock bands would divide the copyright 50/50 between the lyricist and the person who wrote the music but you can divide it anyway you want. It you want to give the drummer 10% because he came up with a cool groove that's fine. Technically only lyrics and melodies are supposed to be copyrightable but in practice it's whatever the parties agree to. I've never heard of separate copyrights for lyrics and music not sure what the purpose would be.

 

2)As far as the songs go.. We have some recordings where a handful are currently being mastered. What does the sound recording copyright protect exactly? Does it simply protect that recording? or does it protect the actual songs themselves?

 

The sound copyright only covers the recordings not the songs themselves.

 

 

3)If not what steps are involved in protecting the musical composition.

 

What protects the composition is the song copyright. I've always heard that you can't copyright a chord progression and many years ago I believe it was common to copyright only the melody and lyrics but a chord progression with lyrics is copyrightable. Also your sound recording copyright should protect your musical arrangements. I'm not sure how it works with sheet music notation.

 

copyright

4)Now days there are a lot of electronic transactions available. What are some good options? Meaning cost effective and not scammy. How is legalzoom in this regard?

 

Well you are technically copyrighted as soon as you make a fixed recording of the song. But you can also register your song at the US Government Library of Congress copyright website.

[jimbroni2]

Thanks for responding. Your post led me to look up some more things. So I went to the Library of Congress copy right website. Looked at the forms, they look about the same as I remember from years ago. I'm not sure where you designate percentages like you say. But you can specify which authors are responsible for what. It does seem like the sound recording copyright covers the music and lyrics, though its a bit unclear. I despise legalspeak it reads so ambiguous to me sometimes.

Form SR should be used when the copyright claim is limited to the sound recording itself, and it may also be used where the

same copyright claimant is seeking simultaneous registration of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work embodied in the phonorecord.

So does this mean SR is for only the recording but if we are the writers then we can register the music composition and lyrics as well? If so is the SR by itself good enough or do we have to use a continuation form?

Also we don't currently have enough songs finished with the mixing and recording to put out the whole album, but we do want to get 4 songs out there right away So we don't have a title for a 4 song EP so to speak, though we easily come up with an appropriate title . Is it better to just copyright each song individually? Is there any disadvantage to copyrighting all 4 songs at once on one recording? Will the songs be registered under the Title associated with the EP name as opposed to the song titles themselves? I don't mind paying the 35 dollar fee for each song individually if they are better protected, but I also don't to spend extra money if its unnecessary.

[UstadKhanAli]

I am not a lawyer, and this is not my area of expertise, so take what I'm going to write with a grain of salt.

 

I've read over and over that it is better to copyright each song individually. By this I mean two things: 1.) not as a "suite" or group of songs, and 2.) using Forms PA and SR. But I've also read that if you choose to copyright the songs as a "suite", they are still fairly well covered, but are just a little harder and more complicated to prove should ligitation ensue.

 

BTW, SR is for that specific recording, and I've also read that it's not a great way to actually copyright the song (lyrics, chord changes, whatever).

 

As always, YMMV. I hope this helps.

[jimbroni2]

yeah its all pretty ambiguous for us non lawyers.. After reading the PA form, thanks for the suggestion, that seems to cover the "important" part, the music and words. It clearly states if you want to register underlying content use PA and if want to register the recording use SR, and you can register both at the same time. But then if you read further it says the SR form can be used to register both content and the recording. Why does it have to be so confusing? In the end I think you might be right, in doing both Forms.. Meaning 70 bucks per song. If thats what it takes so be it.

[Folder]

So does this mean SR is for only the recording but if we are the writers then we can register the music composition and lyrics as well? If so is the SR by itself good enough or do we have to use a continuation form?

Also we don't currently have enough songs finished with the mixing and recording to put out the whole album, but we do want to get 4 songs out there right away So we don't have a title for a 4 song EP so to speak, though we easily come up with an appropriate title . Is it better to just copyright each song individually? Is there any disadvantage to copyrighting all 4 songs at once on one recording? Will the songs be registered under the Title associated with the EP name as opposed to the song titles themselves? I don't mind paying the 35 dollar fee for each song individually if they are better protected, but I also don't to spend extra money if its unnecessary.

 

Like Ken I'm not a lawyer but I think it would be better to copyright each song individually as songs. Meaning the chords, lyrics and melody not the recordings of the songs.

When you copyright a recording you are essentially just copyrighting a performance and I'm not sure that would technically protect your songs. Lets say somebody heard your CD and recorded a version of one of your songs. If you never copyrighted the songs themselves then they might try to say that they wrote it. Now you could say that your copyrighted recording came first but I'm not sure that is proof that you wrote the song.

 

Maybe they have a way to copyright the songs by the recording itself, I don't know. I've got tons of songs that I don't know what chords I'm playing. I could tell you what key and mode they are in. But the names of the chords? I don't have a clue. Now I could sit there and figure them out to the best of my ability but it would be much simpler to just copyright the recording.

 

One of the reasons you have copyrights for both songs and recordings is that in the old days songwriters would pitch their songs to multiple artists. One artist might have a hit record with a song then six months later another artist might record a different version of the same song. By copyrighting the recording then the artist gets paid even if he didn't write the song. The songwriter on the other hand gets paid for every version recorded.

[UstadKhanAli]

If you look on CDs and LPs (since we can't look on "MP3 albums ), you will notice that if they have the copyright information, it is listed as PA and SR. These bean counters would not do so if it weren't prudent.

 

The Library of Congress really does regard Forms PA and SR as doing two different things, and I would encourage you to look at them similarly. One is for the copyright of the song, and the other for the actual recording.

 

Recording Boot Camp says this:

 

"PA Forms are used to copyright the composition itself, while SR Forms are intended to protect the sound recording of intellectual property. It is important to understand the difference between these two forms. Theoretically, you could copyright a terrific song using the PA Form, record your project and start selling your CDs in stores everywhere. But if you had never registered the sound recording of your song using the SR Form, another band could send in the very same recording using an SR Form and claim that your recording belonged to them. You would be credited for ownership of the song, but they would get the credit for all your hard labor in the recording studio and collect all the mechanical royalties! Hopefully that brief scenario shows just how important the SR Form really is."

 

http://musicbootcamp.com/copyright-forms-sr-pa-tx/

 

[Folder]

But if you had never registered the sound recording of your song using the SR Form, another band could send in the very same recording using an SR Form and claim that your recording belonged to them.

 

 

That seems pretty unlikely to me. Most artists have distinctive, identifiable qualities. I think a bigger problem would be the other way around, where you only copyrighted the recording but someone else claimed they wrote the song. I think it would be pretty easy to prove a band didn't make a recording. Say a punk band like The Sex Pistols found the master tapes to something like "Close to the Edge" by Yes and copyrighted them as Sex Pistols songs or vice versa. Nobody would believe it. Including the judge.

 

Unless you plan on selling a boat load of CDs or you are planning on licensing the recordings then I think copyrighting the songs themselves should be your fist priority.

[jimbroni2]

Thanks a million guys. And thanks for the link, that clarifies it quite well.. Each song individually seems to make the most sense, since the entire album is not yet complete. Its still somewhat debatable as to whether or not the SR form is adequate to protect both. According to that link with proper word smithing the SR should be enough, considering we are not associated with a label and I did the engineering. It largely depends on how we decide to split up the credit as Folder suggested in his first response. Looks like I have to have a conversation with the guys. I probably will do both forms, based on the way the songs were created and simply because I want to ensure lyricist's protection is rock solid.

[jimbroni2]

Now I'm thinking of something else. Even though I'm responsible for the engineering and recording, I am hiring a studio to master the works. Is it wise to list the Mastering Studio as a "work for hire" to register him as exactly that and not having creative control. Thus if for whatever he decided to be devious and attempt to file his own SR on the work, he would already be registered as work for hire, and thus rejected. Does that make sense or am I being paranoid?

[MrKnobs]

It says right on the form and in the instructions that SR alone is good enough for recording, lyrics and melody.

 

Terry D.

[JeffLearman]

IANAL. However, in the US:

 

As long as the attributions are identical for each song (that is, all the music is by X, and all the lyrics are by Y), you can copyright them together as a collection and save yourself the filing fees.

 

Registering the copyright gives you specific rights. (Examples: to file suit, you HAVE to file copyright first. If you sue and you did copyright before the breach, you can sue for more (attorney's fees and punitive damages); otherwise you cannot.) You have these rights regardless of whether you file individually or as a collection.

 

The instructions on Form PA say:

 

(1) File Form PA if you are seeking to register the musical or dramatic work, not the “sound recording,” even though what you deposit for copyright purposes may be in the form of a phonorecord.

(3) File Form SR if you are seeking to register the “sound recording” itself, that is, the work that results from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not the underlying musical or dramatic work.

(4) File Form SR if you are the copyright claimant for both the underlying musical or dramatic work and the sound recording, and you prefer to register both on the same form.

(5) File both forms PA and SR if the copyright claimant for the underlying work and sound recording differ, or you prefer to have separate registration for them

 

That seems pretty clear. If you want to share the SR copyright with the lyricist, you can use the SR form and do them together. Otherwise, file separately.

 

If there's good advice to file songs separately, it would be interesting to know why. It doesn't affect your rights, though it may affect how easy it is for someone to find out if your copyright applies to a work, which could affect punitive damages. It could also affect the way royalties are handled by performing rights organizations (PROs, like BMI and ASCAP), but if the same division between lyrics and music applies to all songs with lyrics, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

Filing is a good idea, but unless you can afford to pursue a lawsuit, it's not particularly significant. It allows your lawyer write a more threatening letter, and that's about it. (If you get PROs involved, the PROs may have things to say about this, which I can't comment on.)

[gdoubleyou]

Sorry I'm not in the business of giving my money to the government.

 

Register collections when ever possible.

[UstadKhanAli]

I choose to register collections of songs. I feel this protection, although perhaps not the most fantastic, is good enough and still provable in a court of law.

 

However, I do both Forms PA and SR.

 

As always, YMMV.

[WRGKMC]

I suggest you register for a copyright on line. Its free to register.

Once you do, they make a copyright packet available to download that answers all of these questions an

removes the myths an guesses from the discussion.

 

There are many ways to place a copyright. Main thing is its only a secure depository where you store the

proof you created the work. Its only there if you do run into a legal battle so you can access the evidence and win a case.

You still need to get a lawyer and win the case, and as well all know, there are good and bad lawyers, so even with a copyright

you have no guarantee of winning any case. It also has no protection to prevent any kind of piracy or stealing.

YOU have to initiate any fights against others. The copyright only gives you dated evidence you can use in a legal case

against another.

 

Once you record music its considered to be copyrighted already. Registering and storing it with the library of

congress as a hard copy or digital format is merely a backup of that evidence. By the way you can copyright

an entire CD of material and save on costs of single songs. There's two ways I figured out how to accomplish this.

The first would be to register it as "The Complete Works Of" the second would be to run a CD's music together

into a single wave file without edits so it comes out as a single wave file or MP3. If you were ever taken to court

you could always say you broke the song out into smaller ones after you registered. The fact would remain

that passage was already recorded and registered.

[techristian]

 

I have copyrighted and entire ALBUM as a single work before. (yes at the LOC as you Americans do) It is a little less complicated because my copyright is for me and my wife. HOWEVER , doing it that way, it is sometimes hard to remember whether I added that "song" after work #1 , or work #2 or if it was copyrighed at all? That is, trying to remember individual songs 10 years down the road or more. If you can afford it, then it is simpler to copyright each individual song.

 

Dan

[jimbroni2]

Well I think I will register them as individuals, mainly because I want to make they retain the association between the musical content and lyrics to the Song Titles.

 

And Many Many Many thanks for all the great advice and personal experiences. Thats exactly what I was looking for. Thanks guys!

[jimbroni2]

I suggest you register for a copyright on line. Its free to register.

Once you do, they make a copyright packet available to download that answers all of these questions an

removes the myths an guesses from the discussion.

 

There are many ways to place a copyright. Main thing is its only a secure depository where you store the

proof you created the work. Its only there if you do run into a legal battle so you can access the evidence and win a case.

You still need to get a lawyer and win the case, and as well all know, there are good and bad lawyers, so even with a copyright

you have no guarantee of winning any case. It also has no protection to prevent any kind of piracy or stealing.

YOU have to initiate any fights against others. The copyright only gives you dated evidence you can use in a legal case

against another.

 

Once you record music its considered to be copyrighted already. Registering and storing it with the library of

congress as a hard copy or digital format is merely a backup of that evidence. By the way you can copyright

an entire CD of material and save on costs of single songs. There's two ways I figured out how to accomplish this.

The first would be to register it as "The Complete Works Of" the second would be to run a CD's music together

into a single wave file without edits so it comes out as a single wave file or MP3. If you were ever taken to court

you could always say you broke the song out into smaller ones after you registered. The fact would remain

that passage was already recorded and registered.

 

 

Cool thanks, I did read there was an online process directly the at the library of congress website. I'll definitely explore this option, It may speed the process up too.

[MrKnobs]

 

If there's good advice to file songs separately, it would be interesting to know why.

 

About the only thing I could ever think of that would matter is if you want to assign some rights for ONE of the songs but not the others. Then you'd need to file a NEW form PA and in the box that asks if any of the material has been copyrighted before, you'd need to mention the collection copyright.

 

Terry D.

 

[MrKnobs]

I have copyrighted and entire ALBUM as a single work before. (yes at the LOC as you Americans do) It is a little less complicated because my copyright is for me and my wife. HOWEVER , doing it that way, it is sometimes hard to remember whether I added that "song" after work #1 , or work #2 or if it was copyrighed at all? That is, trying to remember individual songs 10 years down the road or more. If you can afford it, then it is simpler to copyright each individual song.

 

Dan

 

You can list each song's name under the collection name, then keep your paper copy for easy lookup of that information.

 

Terry D.