Members niceguy Posted March 9, 2011 Members Share Posted March 9, 2011 I play in an original rock trio. I do EVERYTHING in my band: all songwriting, artwork, promotion, booking, engineering, producing. It's to the point where I'm wondering, "Why even bother with the band?" The only instrument I don't play is drums, and there are more than enough professional drummers in my city. I'd rather just pay someone to play per song. And for well-paying gigs, I don't mind hiring a backing band. So, if I dissolve this "band" I'm in, do I get to keep doing whatever I want with my masters? I recorded and engineered the songs on my own computer, and I hold the songwriter copyrights to all my songs. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gtrjones Posted March 9, 2011 Members Share Posted March 9, 2011 Do you have any kind of agreement with the band? Did any of them pay or contribute to the recording? Technically, if you didn't pay for their services during recording (even $1), they're 'part owner' of the masters... how much of a part? It depends (on how much documentation you can provide about actual costs, contributions, etc)... Owner of the songs, and owner of the recordings are separate... but if it were me, I'd do what I wished with the masters until someone else found a way to make me stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted March 9, 2011 Members Share Posted March 9, 2011 When this masters are worth any future revenue, then you may pay the contributing musician of this recordings, and make a master (licence) agreement with all participating parties signing that you own the masters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members niceguy Posted March 9, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 9, 2011 Well, we never had an agreement. I didn't pay anyone; we each played our parts, but I did all the audio engineering. So, looks like I can keep on doing whatever I want with the recordings. But, I'm the songwriter, so my ex-bandmates would need my permission in order to do anything with the songs, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted March 9, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 9, 2011 I would suggest that you offer them some small remuneration for their time and effort, and get a release from them saying this was a work for hire. Then file a form SR copyright under your name, and you are 'clean'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members niceguy Posted March 10, 2011 Author Members Share Posted March 10, 2011 I would suggest that you offer them some small remuneration for their time and effort, and get a release from them saying this was a work for hire. Then file a form SR copyright under your name, and you are 'clean'. Well, here's the thing: I already have the SR copyright for all of my songs. The songs I submitted for SR copyright were just my vocals and acoustic guitar, so there is a record that I am the composer of the lyrics and melody. Am I still covered here? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted March 11, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 11, 2011 No...totally different. The SR form is for a SPECIFIC SOUND RECORDING. The one with the full band is not the one you filed, see?This is about using their performance, not about your ownership of the songs.If you want to use their work, you need their agreement, especially if you intend to sell those tracks. Get the guys to sign off on a release...then, like I said, you are 'clean'. If the shoe was on the other foot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted March 11, 2011 Members Share Posted March 11, 2011 Well, we never had an agreement. I didn't pay anyone; we each played our parts, but I did all the audio engineering.So, looks like I can keep on doing whatever I want with the recordings.But, I'm the songwriter, so my ex-bandmates would need my permission in order to do anything with the songs, right? How I see your case knowing only the information you posted ---> you own those tapes and the songs recorded on the tape, because only your songs are on those masters, but only when you also bought the tape, you personally payed this tape and nobody else, if not, that could be a total different case, and in the worst case you are not even permittet to make a copy of this masters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Surrealistic Posted March 12, 2011 Members Share Posted March 12, 2011 Well, we never had an agreement. I didn't pay anyone; we each played our parts, but I did all the audio engineering.So, looks like I can keep on doing whatever I want with the recordings.But, I'm the songwriter, so my ex-bandmates would need my permission in order to do anything with the songs, right?I think the other points you raised have been answered, but not this one. If you mean they'd need your permission to play the songs then no, as I understand it they don't. Copyright doesn't prevent others from performing or recording their versions of your songs, otherwise every cover band out there would need permission for everything they do and there'd be far fewer cover songs in the charts. What it does do for you is ensure that any royalties accruing from performances or recordings go to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted March 12, 2011 Members Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yes, this law Surrealistic speak about says ---> once a song is released, then anyone can perform, and also record the song, and can also release the song on a carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.