Members nerol1st Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 So here's is the story: Band I just got done recording is done with there stuff, stuff is mostly paid for (90%) and they just changed singers. Well that's not really accurate actually. Apparently they liked the bass players voice better so they "suggested" that they swap out (take turns or something I dunno). Singer says {censored} that and walks. - This is the story I got. Now the band wants to redo the vox with the other guy. I have no problem with this personally since they are willing to pay however here is the problem: The guy who walked was the guy who paid. He called tonight and put it like "would I be a dick if I didn't let them use the tracks" and I said "I have no idea do you own the copyright?". Apparently nobody has bothered with copyright . Well crap okay so I said "well since your the one who has paid the money I think you have the right to do what your doing since (in my book) you own the recording. Okay so now that you have the story I have what do I do? Am I right? Does the man with the cash make the rules? Oh and just because of this I have come up with a studio policy that I am now kicking myself for not having. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members witesol Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 seems like they have to work out the financials amongst themselves, Copyright has little to do with it at this point. The guy who paid calls the shots. They can't just start paying you for the additional overdubs and expect it to be their project. What about all the basic tracks and such? I suggest not doing more tracks until the parties can work something out. If you get too far into re-doping overdubs these guys will feel they have some vested interest in the project too since they just paid for all these new vocals. If they happen to have given money to your payer guy, they have to work that out and buy him out for the tracks. If he doesn't want to budge on that issue, they'll have to redo the tracks. If they want to compensate the guy who left for the work, that's cool. Who owns the copyrights doesn't matter unless they think they can take someone's name off the authorship. And, until "copies" are made it doesn't matter. If form SR gets filed then perhaps there is something to work out on the recordings themselves. At this point that's not an issue. Heck, I can record their songs if I want. I can't however, put my name on them as writer, nor can I legally distribute them and benefit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JohanV Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 I think it's fair if the band pays back the guy who paid if they want to continue using the tracks they recorded. I don't think he's an asshole for not wanting to let them use the tracks. They should have had a clear agreement on who pays for the recording and who owns it untill it that person is fully paid back. I believe that the legal owner at this point is the guy who was booted out. I've actually heard of a couple of similar situations and it always ends up to be a pretty sour affair with one party always losing out. I've found that a lot of musicians are the most unetchical people you will ever meet. I was in a band a couple of years ago and things were going really well for us. My 2 bandmates felt that we needed to record our first full-length album at a "big name" studio, which obviously cost big bucks, which no-one had. We had done demos in my home studio, which sounded good, but they felt that a "name" studio would help us get places. I went ahead and did a stupid thing and took out a loan for it. About a month after the recording (the album wasn't even out yet), they both came to me and said that they didn't wanna continue with the band because of the amount time it was starting to take up, the dodgy nature of the music industry, etc. After a lot of discussion and fighting they paid me back their 2 3rd of the recording, but I still took the loss of my 3rd. Not to mention the amount of energy spent on making the album. I'm also not friends with either of them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catscurlyear Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 yeh on the face of it they sound like a right bunch of arsholes,but you don`t know whats gone down in the past,maybe other members have paid for things before when the singer didn`t. are you sure the singer as`nt got L.S.D. (lead singers disease) its quite common you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 The shortest contract beats the longest memory. Seems like they have to work out the financials amongst themselves, Copyright has little to do with it at this point. The guy who paid calls the shots. There are indeed copyright issues, and the person / persons who wrote the song own the copyrights for the songs. Who paid for the recording has no bearing on that, as Kelly said. However, there is also a copyright for the sound recording itself, and who owns that is going to be the trickier question. I'm not an attorney, so I'm not giving you legal advice, but here's my take on it. The person who paid owns the recordings. You were technically entitled to the SR copyright since you did the actual recording, but unless you had them signed to some sort of production contract, that work was most likely a "work made for hire" situation, where you were doing work at the bequest of others in return for a fee with no claim to "ownership". IMO, the person who paid has the right to the actual recordings. However, if that person did not write the song / songs, and if the song is previously unpublished, the songwriter(s) can prevent him from releasing them commercially, since right of first publication / release is that of the song's copyright owner. I had a similar situation once where someone was backing a artist, they had a falling out, and both parties wanted to put the studio in the middle of things. I wouldn't release it to either one (take me to court folks if you want to - we'll let the judge sort it out ) until they came to an agreement. What they finally decided was the artist would buy out the original backer, and they agreed to a price and conditions, wrote something up and signed it. Once I had a notarized copy of that - and verbal confirmation from both parties - I released the masters to the artist, we continued on and finished the project. I don't know if push came to shove if I could have made the refusal to release position work if the original backer would have wanted to try to push it, but I sure didn't want to get into the middle of THEIR battle, and IMO, neither should you. Cover your backside as best you can. IOW, my advice is to make THEM work it out and try to stay neutral as much as possibe. (And when in doubt, contact an attorney for advice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted July 16, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 16, 2008 Crazy crap.The name of the thread says it all. The band should indeed pay the singer back before they move forward. As the recordist though, there's not much you can do about it. Except... jeez, I'd be tempted to fire them. "No thanks fellas, but I think your ethics are suspect. Let me give the files to man who has paid for them and let's call it a day..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jackcheez Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 If it were me... In the absence of any contract or copyright, the guy who paid would have only to ask for his hard drive (the media I work in) which I would then give to him. In the past he would have asked for his tapes. At that point I would wash my hands of the whole deal. but I would need to know that the money came out of his pocket, and wasn't a deal where everybody ponied up to him and he wrote the checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted July 16, 2008 Author Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he is the one who paid. He walks in with the entire band their and hands me $400 in cash. I think I know what I am going to do. Thanks guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueHeaven Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 Copyrights really have no bearing on the situation unless the guy who is leaving starts to make money off of the songs he takes, and that has nothing to do with you. If he paid for the recordings, they belong to him, not the actually songs, but the production of them. I guess what the band needs to do is buy him out, as thats the only fair thing I see in this situation. But the fact that only 90% has been paid for so far means the recordings still belong to . . .YOU, don't give anyone anything till 100% has been paid for. (if im understanding what you meant by 90%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fuzzball Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 Under law it is a tough situation. I suggest holding out until they get a signed agreement (and you get a copy). This prevents you from getting in trouble for releasing the property to the wrong party. There are copyright issues involved for the sound recording as well as the owner of the actual songs (who wrote them). I would stay out of the fight as much as possible and act as a kind mediator adding suggestions of a win-win situation. I am not a lawyer, but I do work a great deal with business law (and I teach business law at the college level). Take my advice or leave it the choice is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weasel9992 Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 Under law it is a tough situation. I suggest holding out until they get a signed agreement (and you get a copy). This prevents you from getting in trouble for releasing the property to the wrong party. There are copyright issues involved for the sound recording as well as the owner of the actual songs (who wrote them). I would stay out of the fight as much as possible and act as a kind mediator adding suggestions of a win-win situation. I am not a lawyer, but I do work a great deal with business law (and I teach business law at the college level). Take my advice or leave it the choice is yours. It does indeed get complicated. Years ago I interned at a studio where a very well-known local band recorded part of an album, then split up and this very situation ensued. Problem was, not only were there disputes over who paid for what (no label involved), but there were disputes over who owned the copyrights to the songs. The long and short was that the studio owner did what Phil suggested...he hung on to the tapes until the legal wrangling was over. That was **5 years** later. Everyone but us ended up losing in that situation, a fact that you might want to point out to each party individually. Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fuzzball Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 That is a great point, and suggest a mediator if necessary (not you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jackcheez Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 When talking about the law, remember the old saying... Posession is 9/10 of the law. Now I'm not an attourney, but I'd be thinking to get it out of my hands because that gets me out of the middle of somebody elses squabble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weasel9992 Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 When talking about the law, remember the old saying... Posession is 9/10 of the law. Now I'm not an attourney, but I'd be thinking to get it out of my hands because that gets me out of the middle of somebody elses squabble. I hear you...but what happened with us is that handing the tapes over to one party or the other would have involved us just as surely. Each side promised to drag us right into it with them if we cooperated with the other. Keeping the tapes was a stroke of genious in this case....it kept us out of court for the most part, and prevented us from having to hire legal representation and everything else. Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fuzzball Posted July 16, 2008 Members Share Posted July 16, 2008 When talking about the law, remember the old saying... Posession is 9/10 of the law. Now I'm not an attourney, but I'd be thinking to get it out of my hands because that gets me out of the middle of somebody elses squabble. That statment is not really that accurate, in this case not giving them to the wrong party could save them from potential damages claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 The reason I didn't release to either party until I had a signed agreement between the two is exactly what you guys have been talking about. At that point, the worst they could do was haul me into court for not releasing them, but I felt that if I explained the situation to a judge and expressed concern over the copyright and ownership dispute, and a full willingness to comply with the court's decision, I couldn't really be faulted for it. WITHOUT such an agreement, I could easily have been sued by either side for releasing the masters to either party, since ownership was indeed in dispute. IOW, I feel that releasing them too early, while the dispute is still active and without a release from both parties, puts you into legal jeopardy. Again, talk to a lawyer to be sure, but I feel releasing it without permission of all concerned is potentially VERY risky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fuzzball Posted July 17, 2008 Members Share Posted July 17, 2008 Phil, I am not a lawyer, but I have many law classes under my hat. I am a business instructor which also teaches busines law. Not that it means anything but in my opinion I think you did the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bardsley Posted July 17, 2008 Members Share Posted July 17, 2008 Posession is 9/10 of the law.: It's a quote that long ago lost its origins though. It originally referred to the fact that 9/10 of law was about possession. It gets made out to be some sort of nietchzien will to power thing, but it's a statement about the amount of laws that cover possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted July 17, 2008 Author Members Share Posted July 17, 2008 This situation has resolved itself. Everything worked out no problem. Band decided to buy out the singer. But let this be a lesson for anyone who does this even as a favor to someone else for next to no money: GET A STUDIO POLICY!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted July 17, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 17, 2008 Glad it worked out. This is something I've never encountered but I'm glad you've brought it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fuzzball Posted July 17, 2008 Members Share Posted July 17, 2008 This situation has resolved itself. Everything worked out no problem. Band decided to buy out the singer. But let this be a lesson for anyone who does this even as a favor to someone else for next to no money: GET A STUDIO POLICY!!!!! I have always been big into having a contract, but keep in mind that some situations may still slip through the policy. So how do you intend to write a policy on this particular subject? (it may be tough to write). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Phil, I am not a lawyer, but I have many law classes under my hat. I am a business instructor which also teaches business law. Not that it means anything but in my opinion I think you did the right thing. Actually it means a lot, and while I feel I did do the "right thing", I appreciate your confirmation and POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted July 18, 2008 Author Members Share Posted July 18, 2008 I intend to have wording along the lines of "whover has the money makes the rules". Well in so many words . If the whole band pays then the odd man out is SOL, I'm not dealing with it at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fuzzball Posted July 21, 2008 Members Share Posted July 21, 2008 I intend to have wording along the lines of "whover has the money makes the rules". Well in so many words . If the whole band pays then the odd man out is SOL, I'm not dealing with it at that point. PM me when you get it more fleshed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SeanithanEgan Posted July 21, 2008 Members Share Posted July 21, 2008 I'm pretty sure that if you have a hand in writing the song you have part ownership in that song. If any member who helped write the song was to leave they have equal say in what is done with the song (unless a contract is written up). It really doesn't matter who paid the most money when it comes to copyright law. This is also true with anyone who plays an instrument on the track. They take part ownership of the songwriting unless otherwise stated somewhere. I'm pretty sure I didn't mess that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.