Jump to content

Song ownership


Fat Albert

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Yeah... you're going to stir up a hornets nest of misinformation and lazy speculation with any forum post concerning copyrighting.

 

Your post is no exception.

 

I say 99% of these cases are utter nonsense: amatuer and struggling musicians haggling over ownership of a property that has zero monetary value. They're really just a bunch of deluded swinging dicks, you know what I mean?

 

Still, I can't resist joining the buzz...

 

I'm no expert either, but here are the basics as I understand them: If this guy had a hand in authoring an original work and committing it to fixed media, he has a legitimate copyright claim.

 

That means he could be legally entitled to any money you make from the work, whether selling it in CD format and, yes, performing it live. Can he stop you? Of course not. You guys are owners of the work too.

 

But whoever said he can't do squat if he hasn't registered a copyright doesn't know what he's talking about. Registering a copyright is a legal formality. The copyright was created the second the original work was committed to a fixed form, which can be a recording or transcription, among other things.

 

As a former member of the band whom you said helped arrange these songs, it sounds like he has firm ground to challenge a registered copyright.

 

Of course, you can sue right back and argue he didn't do a damn thing but lay down the track you told him to.

 

Now keep it in perspective. Are you really going to make serious dough from this work? Is this guy going to arm himself with lawyers to ensure he gets his fair share of any money the work brings in?

 

This can probably all be ironed out if you guy sit down and hash things out like men.

 

http://www.bmi.com/career/entry/533748

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My understanding is that the lyrics count as half and the melody (how the words are sung) is the other half. Meaning if someone wrote melody and lyrics, and the other guy wrote music, that the first guy owns 100%.

 

Unless of course they agreed to something else between them.

 

Now, ownership of a recording of a song, that is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yeah... you're going to stir up a hornets nest of misinformation and lazy speculation with any forum post concerning copyrighting.


Your post is no exception.


I say 99% of these cases are utter nonsense: amatuer and struggling musicians haggling over ownership of a property that has zero monetary value. They're really just a bunch of deluded swinging dicks, you know what I mean?


Still, I can't resist joining the buzz...


I'm no expert either, but here are the basics as I understand them: If this guy had a hand in authoring an original work and committing it to fixed media, he has a legitimate copyright claim.


That means he could be legally entitled to any money you make from the work, whether selling it in CD format and, yes, performing it live. Can he stop you? Of course not. You guys are owners of the work too.


But whoever said he can't do squat if he hasn't registered a copyright doesn't know what he's talking about. Registering a copyright is a legal formality. The copyright was created the second the original work was committed to a fixed form, which can be a recording or transcription, among other things.


As a former member of the band whom you said helped arrange these songs, it sounds like he has firm ground to challenge a registered copyright.


Of course, you can sue right back and argue he didn't do a damn thing but lay down the track you told him to.


Now keep it in perspective. Are you really going to make serious dough from this work? Is this guy going to arm himself with lawyers to ensure he gets his fair share of any money the work brings in?


This can probably all be ironed out if you guy sit down and hash things out like men.



 

 

As long as they're only performing these songs, none of this matters. Yes, I suppose the bar owner is sending some performance money to ASCAP/BMI or whatever, but performance royalties are negligible in these situations. Owning a copyright on something doesn't mean you control who plays your song live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

As long as they're only performing these songs, none of this matters. Yes, I suppose the bar owner is sending some performance money to ASCAP/BMI or whatever, but performance royalties are negligible in these situations. Owning a copyright on something doesn't mean you control who plays your song live.

 

 

I think it does, actually. I could be wrong. I don't understand this stuff completely, but here's what the copyright office says:

 

Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You own the copyright, but you are required to grant a performance license to anyone who wants it for the statutory fee (which is what BMI/ASCAP collect).

 

 

So on a practical level, there's nothing to keep them from performing the songs--it all should take place between ASCAP and the venue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


I say 99% of these cases are utter nonsense: amatuer and struggling musicians haggling over ownership of a property that has zero monetary value. They're really just a bunch of deluded swinging dicks, you know what I mean?


Still, I can't resist joining the buzz...


I'm no expert either, but here are the basics as I understand them: If this guy had a hand in authoring an original work and committing it to fixed media, he has a legitimate copyright claim.


That means he could be legally entitled to any money you make from the work, whether selling it in CD format and, yes, performing it live. Can he stop you? Of course not. You guys are owners of the work too.


But whoever said he can't do squat if he hasn't registered a copyright doesn't know what he's talking about. Registering a copyright is a legal formality. The copyright was created the second the original work was committed to a fixed form, which can be a recording or transcription, among other things.

 

 

+1

 

Plus, no matter who registers what, or takes what steps, they are all just claims. They are not proof of either genuine authorship or cast-iron legal ownership. In cases of dispute about creation and ownership, the only way to establish who gets what is to thrash it out in court. There is no guarantee that the parties will accept that the outcome of such a process will be accurate or fair either.

 

The bottom line is - as Matximus pointed out - that in 99% of cases there's nothing of any real value to argue about. It's just a pissing contest that nobody else gives a damn about the outcome of.

 

The usual recommendations are:

 

1) Get a lawyer

 

2) Get over it.

 

 

In real life, No. 2 is generally the wiser option.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Boy, the folks in amps don't know dick.

 

 

 

No kidding!

 

Man, I don't think I've ever seen more bad information and advice in one thread. One guy even advocated the 'poor man's copyright'. I didn't think there was anyone left on the planet who still put stock in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No kidding!


Man, I don't think I've ever seen more bad information and advice in one thread. One guy even advocated the 'poor man's copyright'. I didn't think there was anyone left on the planet who still put stock in that.

 

It still comes up in this neck of the woods. It's addressed on the Copyright Office website, but it still has urban legend currency: My brother's friend is a lawyer and he says all ya gotta do is mail it to yourself and it'll hold up in court. :facepalm::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...