Originally Posted by quincyg
Thanks for the responses. Actually the derivative work is only the new material, be it a new sound recording or lyrics added to an existing instrumental. Here is a quote from the copyright office website:
"Copyright Protection in a Derivative Work
The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material."
So if you create a derivative work even with permission, the original owner still has authority over their part of the underlying composition. Unless they signed over all rights to their portion of the underlying comp.
It seems like the bottom line with splits of copyright and publishing is that the two parties have to come to an agreement, otherwise you may or may not have created a joint work. For example if a band comes up with a jam and they know it needs a melody and lyrics so a singer comes along and adds them. without and agreement in writing they would have a good shot at claiming that the result is a joint work. Furthermore without an agreement the whole composition would be split evenly between all of the band members and vocalists. This is why it has to be put in writing and clearly. I am now kind of stuck as to put it in writing as a derivative work or a compilation.
You're interpreting that wrong. If you record a cover of a song (with permission) you own the copyright to that new master. The pre-exisiting material is the song.
Or suppose you use a sample within a recording. You own that stereo mix file you made, but you don't have a claim to any of the pre-existing material liek the vinly record you took it off of.
If you want to try to interpret that as you own 90% of the new stereo mix file, fine, but that's semantics, because there is not way to separate the two. The new work, the derivateve work is that mix file. It seems obvious to me that puting someone else conten in your work doesn't give you a claim to go backwards to their content.
So, you create a track. You give persmission for the artist to use it in a derivative work with the undestanding that the ownership or income split or whatever it is that you want it X. They don't not have any claim to the trak that you let them use, ono the the new work which will be an inseprabel combination of the track + their contributions.
In the end, the default, whter you register the copyright or not, is that you own what your concerned about owning, and that doesn't change until you make an agreement that changes it.
There is no benefit to having the instrument track and the final song having the same or similar title, only the potential for confusion. I think you'd be foolish not to make them have separate names.