Members D-Sect Posted June 7, 2008 Members Share Posted June 7, 2008 Hello, I have a legal release that my band was asked to sign. I have concerns that it contains broad, general, and vague language. The release is in front of us because we’re playing a show that will be videotaped. A record company is making a DVD out of the performances and it may include our performance. In general, I am concerned that the language gives away more rights than is needed for simply releasing one track to appear on a compilation. I am not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with music law, however I have seen some contracts in my time and appearance of a lack of boundaries on this contract raises some red flags with me. I would like to know if you think that this contract signs away such rights as merchandising rights. Specifically, can this record label make shirts of our band and sell them? There are other specific questions: Do we retain publishing rights to the song? If we re-record it, can we release it? We are not signed to any label at this time and we currently retain all rights to everything we have. The full 2-page release can be found here: http://www.hardresponse.com/public/DVD.Waiver.doc Here is the section that is suspect. No names have been changes to protect the innocent: WAIVER AND RELEASE This agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into as of [DATE OF AGREEMENT], by and between the artist professionally known as [NAME OF ARTIST] (“Guest Artist”) and [NAME OF OUTSIDE RECORD COMPANY](“Outside Company”) (Guest Artist and Outside Company are collectively referred to as “You”), on the one hand, and Eulogy Recordings, Inc. ("Eulogy "). The undersigned hereby acknowledge and agree: Reference is hereby made to Exhibit “A” attached hereto, the terms of which are incorporated herein. 1. For valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which you hereby acknowledge, Guest Artist performed recording services on the audio-only and audiovisual recordings entitled [NAME OF TRACK] (collectively, the “Masters”) and you hereby irrevocably grant to Eulogy, its parent, affiliates and divisions, and their licensees, distributors, and assignees, in perpetuity throughout the universe, the unconditional and exclusive right to advertise, broadcast, distribute, exhibit, promote, publish, web cast and/or otherwise commercially exploit Guest Artist’s recorded performance on the Masters and all versions thereof as well as Guest Artist’s name and likeness, by any and all means, media, devices, processes and technology, whether now known or hereafter developed, including, without limitation, television and the internet, and either factually or with such fictionalization, portrayal, impersonation, simulation and/or imitation or other modification as Eulogy determines in its sole discretion. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you understand and agree that said exclusive right includes theatrical, television, dramatic stage, radio, internet, sound recording, music, publishing, commercial tie-up, merchandising, advertising and publicity rights. You reserve no rights whatsoever with respect to such uses. (All rights are hereinafter referred to as the “Granted Rights.”) You further acknowledge that you are to receive no further payment with respect to any use Eulogy and/or its successors, assigns, licensees and distributors may make with respect to the Granted Rights except as expressly set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Eulogy may freely assign or license any and all of the Granted Rights. The bolded and italicized section is what I’m concerned about. Do you think we are granting more rights than need be to appear on a DVD compilation? I’m not sure, which is why I’m asking. What about and all versions thereof ? Does that mean we can’t record this track at a later date? The reason I question this is because I’d searched for some of the contract’s language online and found an article by professional poker player Andy Bloch, who is Harvard Law graduate and bar member. He voices his objections about overreaching contract language here: http://www.spicejar.org/asiplease/archives/000385.html Please let me know if think that this release, in its present form, encroaches heavily on us. We're a very small band, but we want to be cautious in what we sign. I also want to know if I am being overly cautious about this situation. Thank you and please let me know what you think. www.myspace.com/hardresponse www.hardresponse.com PS - Thank HC! Nice site and I hope to post more here as I am kinda new to this site! Original 2-page release: http://www.hardresponse.com/public/DVD.Waiver.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted June 7, 2008 Members Share Posted June 7, 2008 What about and all versions thereof ?It means other versions of their recording. They reserve the right to put out alternate clips, partial clips, MP3s, MPEGS, full on video for television, etc etc. In fact, all of this refers only to their videotape and the sound recording it contains. They do not claim ownership to your songs, nor could they. They are claiming the right to market and distribute their video any way they can, through merchandising, advertising, teasers online, etc etc. Record companies do the same thing-claim ownership of the recordings they make (the masters) while you retain ownership of the songs. Looks like a fairly standard agreement to me, but you ought to ask an attorney who specializes in contract law. To my knowledge, no one here is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members masterbuilt Posted June 8, 2008 Members Share Posted June 8, 2008 I'd Google this company and check with the BBB to see if there are any complaints. It looks as though they are trying to control their intellectual property (I hate that term). They are pinning down every possible avenue of revenue, present and future. I get a kick out of the "universe" being there. I would nmot consider this a compilation work at all. It is a taping, so to speak, of a live performance. Therefore, it is really not a compilation. Still, I would establish clearly that the rights they claim are not for the content, but for their taped performance. Rights to the songs should be retained by the individual copyright holders and not be transferred to Eulogy. Still, Google them and do some research. An Entertainment lawyer would be who to ask about this, not just any business lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members D-Sect Posted June 8, 2008 Author Members Share Posted June 8, 2008 Thanks for the info, guys. I'll have to see what the other guys want to do, also. Eulogy doesn't seem to be too shady, as we know a handful of bands signed to them, but just like any company, they have their best interests in mind when constructing deals. That concept alone keeps me on-guard when signing legal documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starlite Posted June 9, 2008 Members Share Posted June 9, 2008 Hire a lawyer... I am not one, but I would not sign that contract if I were you. The language is too broad and not specific enough, which means that it keeps the door open for future dispute. I really think that you need a lawyer who represents YOUR interest to go over the contract word by word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jk2171 Posted June 10, 2008 Members Share Posted June 10, 2008 It sounds like what the other poster said above....it gives them the rights to do anything they want with the recorded live version of the song from THAT performance. I don't think it curtails your rights to the song in any way shape or form in the future. Looks pretty standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny-Boy Posted June 10, 2008 Members Share Posted June 10, 2008 It sounds like what the other poster said above....it gives them the rights to do anything they want with the recorded live version of the song from THAT performance. I don't think it curtails your rights to the song in any way shape or form in the future. Looks pretty standard. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you understand and agree that said exclusive right includes theatrical, television, dramatic stage, radio, internet, sound recording, music, publishing, commercial tie-up, merchandising, advertising and publicity rights. You reserve no rights whatsoever with respect to such uses I'd say they own the exclusive rights to the songs as well. John:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarmusic Posted June 17, 2008 Members Share Posted June 17, 2008 "Guest Artist’s recorded performance on the Masters and all versions thereof " Basic sentence structure folks. "all versions thereof" refers back to the sentence subject "Guest Artist’s recorded performance on the Masters". You are signing away your rights only to their recorded version in whatever format they choose to release it. This is not to say some slick lawyer might not try to twist it in the future, but that is what it says. I wouldn't stress about it. "Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you understand and agree that said exclusive right includes theatrical, television, dramatic stage, radio, internet, sound recording, music, publishing, commercial tie-up, merchandising, advertising and publicity rights. You reserve no rights whatsoever with respect to such uses I'd say they own the exclusive rights to the songs as well." - Note the comma between the words "music" and "publishing". They have the right to release the music as they have recorded it and to publish their work. They do not own your "music publishing" just because the two words appear next to each other in a list seperated by a comma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.