Pitfall of registering multiple songs in a collection...

[Johnny-Boy]

Something I never considered before pertaining to registering multiple songs in a collection to save money.

 

Yes, it does save you a lot of registering fees.

 

However...

 

Keep in mind the suite/collection can't be broken up into parts. If an exclusive publisher signs one song from this "collection", he basically owns the entire collection of songs. Furthermore; if selected songs are signed (from this collection) to more than one publisher, the publisher with the earliest signing becomes the owner of all songs in this suite/collection.

 

Best, John

 

Read Stu's posting on copyright registration. Stu's an entertainment lawyer and nailed the question of copyrights on this thread: http://www.jpfolks.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=11&Number=846827&Searchpage=1&Main=93137&Words=&topic=1&Search=true#Post846827

[michael_B]

I think the era of copyright registration is quickly becoming obsolete. (or maybe it's already there...)

 

Yes, it saves money, and for most people it doesn't really matter. Better to concentrate on selling mugs and tshirts at gigs so you can recoup the cost of the CD's you have to give away.

[Johnny-Boy]

Where did you get this information? It doesn't make any sense. Unless you've signed an amazingly bad contract with somebody, you are the only person who owns your work and you are the only one who should be on the Copyright registration. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how it was registered if you sign a sing song contract with somebody for one of the songs in the collection. Is it possible that you're actually talking about PRO registration?

 

Actually got the info from a lawyer. Depends on whether you sign an exclusive or non-exclusive agreement. Yes, your name would be the only one on the copyright registration, but you won't own the tracks if signed exclusively.

 

John

[flatfinger]

Actually got the info from a lawyer. Depends on whether you sign an exclusive or non-exclusive agreement. Yes, your name would be the only one on the copyright registration, but you won't own the tracks if signed exclusively. John

 

So is what you are getting at this ? ;

 

If you have a copyright ( which is a one shot , one number assigned to it deal ) and it is a collection ( even though you can use an extended form to list each song by title) a publishing deal usually ( but not necessarily) entails signing said copyright over to the publisher , so you end up giving them rights to all the songs in the compilation/Group that you copyrighted as one unit to save $$$?

 

 

It seems to me that there ought to be a way to revise or just remove one song from the compilation/group in order to give it it's own copyright assignment.

[daddymack]

Actually, it's not a one-shot deal. You can re-register the individual work later if it gets picked up and you want to make sure it has proper protection. When you register a collection, you check a box on the form that says it's a collection of works. When you register an individual song, you register it as a distinct work. They're two totally different Copyrights and they are not mutually exclusive.

^ this is why collections is the way to go if you have a bunch of songs. They can be individually copyrighted at a later date if need be....like if someone is going to do a publishing deal, but why not negotiate for the entire collection?

[Johnny-Boy]

Bottom-line: the only time a copyright registration will be needed is in a copyright infringement case. It would be very unlikely any of us will ever experience that.

 

So the “multiple song” issue is inconsequential to the majority of us. Just an interesting aspect of copyright law I never considered before.

 

Personally, I'd rather have all the money back that I wasted on copyright registration in my lifetime.

 

John

[Johnny-Boy]

Here's a reply I got from an entertainment attorney:

 

Think about it this way-

If you register the copyright to a book, can somebody take a chapter and use it without your permission? Of course not. If you register several songs together as one work, can somebody take one of the songs and claim that they're not infringing? No way.

Now consider this - If you are the author of the book, and you decide to take one of your chapters and separate it out, say for serial publication in a magazine, can anyone tell you that you can't do that and you have to use the entire book every time? Of course not.

This "suite" advice doesn't make sense.

There is nothing to prevent you, as the owner of the copyright, from dealing separately with a part of your registered work. As long as you can sufficiently define that part of the work you are dealing with, you can license part of it the same way you could license the whole thing.

 

Best, John

[Johnny-Boy]

Read Stu's posting on copyright registration. Stu's an entertainment lawyer and nailed the question of copyrights on this thread:

 

http://www.jpfolks.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=11&Number=846827&Searchpage=1&Main=93137&Words=&topic=1&Search=true#Post846827

[flatfinger]

Thanks for that link JB!;

 

 

Just a note on something we should all keep in mind ...... when you ( or much better yet , someone who does it full time for there livelihood does this for you !!!!! I.E. Entertainment lawyer)

 

 

There is no such thing as a "standard contract " A contract is whatever the two party's make it .

[Johnny-Boy]

Your welcome flatfinger! I'm glad I found someone to give us the facts. So much misinformation on the Net. The first info I got from a lawyer - but not an entertainment lawyer. A huge difference!

 

Best, John

[Johnny-Boy]

"I always felt like the Copyright Office provided some pretty clear information ... they've got a fantastic FAQ page IMO ..." - Croakus

 

Yes, very clear on registering copyrights (and how much their monopoly is going to cost us) - but not how the copyrights relate to publishers and the real music world. That's where an entertainment attorney is needed to clarify all the music business jargon.

 

John

[sventvkg]

 

OK ... glad that you're talking to a lawyer, but ... you should never sign your Copyright over to anyone. You may grant them publishing rights, but that has nothing to do with your Copyright. If you're giving someone your Copyright (or ownership) of the songs, you are being screwed.

 

 

Exactly..I think the OP is a bit confused.

[sventvkg]

"I always felt like the Copyright Office provided some pretty clear information ... they've got a fantastic FAQ page IMO ..." - Croakus Yes, very clear on registering copyrights (and how much their monopoly is going to cost us) - but not how the copyrights relate to publishers and the real music world. That's where an entertainment attorney is needed to clarify all the music business jargon. John

 

 

READ:

 

http://www.ascap.com/musicbiz/ascapcorner/corner1.html

 

http://ericbeall.berkleemusicblogs.com/2008/06/18/who-needs-a-music-publisher/

[Johnny-Boy]

Exactly..I think the OP is a bit confused.

 

And no wonder with all the misinformation on the Net. Yes, I was confused by what the original lawyer told me. That's why I posted this on several websites. Finally an entertainment lawyer clarified it all in the link I provided (in which you obviously didn't read since I'm no longer confused). READ: http://www.jpfolks.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=11&Number=846827&Searchpage=1&Main=93137&Words=&topic=1&Search=true#Post846827

 

Here's the original info I accepted as fact (which I shouldn't have):

 

Some people work around the expense by copyrighting multiple works as a suite or in folios. Doing so has its limits in that you cannot split portions of the suite or folio among different publishers. So… if exclusive library A wants track #1 of your folio and exclusive library B wants track # 2, in theory the whole folio belongs to whoever you give the first track to, because the sutie or folio is one work, no matter how many parts it has.. Given the retitling model that so many are participating in — it gets dicey.

 

Hey, I'm just a dumb composer. Why wouldn't I believe this?

 

 

 

John:rolleyes:

[Johnny-Boy]

My point is, this is wrong. That's all I was trying to say.

 

Yes, I realize that now Croakus. The first lawyer didn't know what he was talking about. And I fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

Best, John:cool:

[Johnny-Boy]

Gotcha ... I wasn't sure which of Stu's posts you were referring to in the link and somehow missed that it had been cleared up. I just hated the idea that you might miss out on an opportunity b/c of a misunderstanding about Copyright versus publishing. I was also worried your publisher was trying to have you re-register the Copyright giving them creator's rights ... which would be pretty slimy. Now let's get back to making music

 

Thanks Croakus! You'll have to excuse my manners, I haven't seen my therapist in awhile.

 

John

[Johnny-Boy]

I was a little concerned since I always do the multiple song registration.

 

Though, I never registered my track that was used in "Inside the Michael Jackson Mansion". I reckon it's not necessary to register it now. I wonder how much music on TV isn't registered? Probably a lot.

 

John

[daddymack]

actually, any music used on an over air broadcast is supposed to be 'cleared' before airing.

[Johnny-Boy]

 

actually, any music used on an over air broadcast is supposed to be 'cleared' before airing.

 

 

Depends on the meaning of "cleared". I'd guess music is considered "cleared" if the client licensed music through a publisher. The burden of “cleared” would then be on the publisher – and in turn be on the composer.

 

On all my contracts there is a clause declaring it’s my original work. When I sign that declaration, I’m solely responsible for the originality of the music’s content.

 

I don’t think a registered copyright is needed to be cleared. I’ve never been asked by any publishers if my music is registered with the Library of Congress.

 

John:cool:

[Johnny-Boy]

More confusion from another lawyer:

 

Nothing is black & white in the law. AND entertainment law and intellectual property law are not the same thing.

 

Here are the appropriate comments from the copyright office. Read them and decide for yourself if there is a greenlight to split a copyright among publishers. I don’t think so.

 

“You may register unpublished works as a collection on one application with one title for the entire collection if certain conditions are met. It is not necessary to list the individual titles in your collection. Published works may only be registered as a collection if they were actually first published as a collection and if other requirements have been met. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Registration Procedures.”

 

“Unpublished Collections

Under the following conditions, a work may be registered

in unpublished form as a “collection,” with one application

form and one fee:

• The elements of the collection are assembled in an

orderly form;

• The combined elements bear a single title identifying the

collection as a whole;

• The copyright claimant in all the elements and in the collection

as a whole is the same; and

• All the elements are by the same author, or, if they are by

different authors, at least one of the authors has contributed

copyrightable authorship to each element….

An unpublished collection is not indexed under the

individual titles of the contents but under the title of the

collection.”

 

The issue is going from the unpublished state to the published state. Can you split the folio? Maybe, but you may have to re-register the individual tracks(s) under their published titles

 

John

[Johnny-Boy]

More confusion from a poster on another thread:

 

Here are several libraries that work on a copyright buyout basis with composers..

 

Megatrax

APM

KPM

Killer Tracks

Extreme

615

Manhattan Production Music

Opus 1 (sometimes)

Firstcom

Master Source

 

Things would get super complicated if one of these libraries wanted to buy a track that you copyrighted in a folio of works. The legal fees trying to unravel the situation would probably eclipse the phat $1000/track budget of these libraries..

 

Most of the time the libraries pay upfront for composers to make custom music, but they also actively buy copyrights of already composed material from time to time.

[Johnny-Boy]

More from the first lawyer (not Stu)

 

I am a lawyer and a composer — not in that order, for longer than I care to mention– all in exclusive libraries. I ‘ve been filing my own copyrights since I was 15.

 

As you may have observed there are two levels of copyright: one for unpublished works and one for published works. It gets deeper if you’re copyrighting the sound recording, as well as the underlying musical work.

 

The reason why you want to copyright your unpublished works is because you are presumably sending your work out to many libraries before its is published.

 

To be clear, we are talking about two different situations: 1) where you transfer ownership of the copyright to the library, and 2) where the library takes no ownership, but takes a percentage of the publishing.

 

Under the exclusive model, where you receive upfront money, you will most likely be transferring ownership of your copyright to the library (this must be in writing). You are NOT merely licensing the work to them. You should not get this confused with an exclusive licensing deal, which may be of limited duration.

 

Under the non-exclusive model, you do not, or should not transfer any ownership.

 

The problem, as I tried to explain, is that a collection receives one registration number, it is one work. You cannot split that one “work” among different exclusives who want to to own your copyright. You are asking for trouble. It doesn’t matter that youve given each section of the work a different title. It is one work. You transfer the whole enchilada. Further, your deal with the exclusive will require that the copyrighted material is yours to transfer. You cannot do that if you’ve already transferred the copyright to another owner.

 

Further, the law is designed to prevent the kind of work-around that you describe. In other words, the copyright office doesn’t want for you to copyright 10 unrealated tracks and call it a collection. When I’ve filed copyrights as a collection, all of the “songs” were published by the same entity as a collection, e.g. the “sports collection,” the cinema colection,” etc.

 

OK — before digress too far. The issue is transfer of copyright ownership, which arises under the exclusive model, not merely publishing shares as under the non-exclusive model.

 

That is why I said that you MIGHT limit yourself by copyrighting things as a collection.

 

I guess it's not surprising why I'm a little confused.

 

Best, John

[Johnny-Boy]

Actually, after re-reading both lawyer's replies, I think they're basically on the same page. The multiple copyright can have disadvantages, but only when there's a transfer of copyright ownership (which happens in more libraries than I was aware of).

 

John

[Johnny-Boy]

Another Lawyer:

 

"I will add the following: copyright infringement suits are filed in federal court. The jurisdictional threshold is $75,000. In other words, you must claim 75K worth of damages to even get into court. It is the rare library track that generates that kind of $$$. So…before you even get to the “long, expensive legal mess,” you need a lot of damages."

 

If this is true, there is absolutely no point in registering a copyright (for music library composers) since it's inconceivable to earn 75K on one track in a music library.

 

John:cool: