Songwriting credit for a guitarist?!

[FinishMedia]

Yes, he wrote a riff. But that riff wouldn't be on sheet music if we put it out. It's not integral to the song...I read this and thought it was put very clearly here:

"To be a co-writer," says copyright expert Steve Fishman, "a person must contribute more than mere ideas. They must provide concrete material, such as lyrics or music." For songwriting purposes, "music" generally refers to the melody, chord changes, and order of the parts (verse, chorus, bridge, etc.). It does not usually refer to riffs, solos, and harmonies. Think of it in terms of sheet music: The song consists of the elements that are included on sheet music or tablature. Anyone who contributes substantially to these elements would be a co-writer.

A lot can happen to a song after this basic structure is created. You can, for example, create a terrific interpretation of it in your performance. But don't expect songwriting credit for being a great musician. Band members may add fabulous drum beats, swinging bass lines, incredible guitar solos, and beguiling vocal harmonies-but these "arrangements" do not qualify you as a co-writer. As one court stated, "Neither rhythm nor harmony can in itself be the subject of copyright."

[FinishMedia]

You know you're not saying what I want to hear. tutt

And say I was considering being unnecessarily generous. How much is a riff really worth? I mean, besides the fact that it's barely a riff, it's more like chords, it's not like it's "Whole Lotta' Love" or something.

5%? 10%? Dude thinks he should get 25-50%!?!?!

[FinishMedia]

Mind you - his riff(chords) were based on the progression I came up with. He just added a little rhythm. And I told him, yeah, that's why you get 25% of the master like eveyrone else! It's called "arrangement" not songwriting.

[Doc Vigilanti]

Well I think him getting 25% is a fair deal. I mean everybody in the band has to eat I don't understand why he thinks he should get more than everybody else. He should be lucky he is even getting that, you could have insulted him by offering him 0%. Not to mention songs are a fickle thing, sometimes you have to look at like this, would that song be doing what it is now, if it wasn't for that riff? Just little stuff like that.

[tampa]

Good luck man, This kind of thing always gets nasty.

[Lute]

"Great gig in the sky" The Great Gig in the Sky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She got quite a lot of money from that around 30 years after she recorded it. If your song takes off and it's the riff that sells it, there might be a world of pain waiting. Guitar riffs are often crucial, look at Smoke on the Water, Whole Lotta Love, Sweet Child of Mine, etc, etc. Nothing without the riff.

Personally (and as a guitarist), I'd pay the guy. Up to you of course. Hope there's not too much trouble anyway

[ionian]

As much as it goes against the fairness of it all, I'd say have him pistol whipped if you know people who can take care of that kind of thing for you.

That's about the only way he'll get the idea and you'll get him to back off.

I say if there's a chance that you do as well, take advantage of it. When people think that writing a riff constitutes songwriting the time for a fair and equitable solution is over. Of course I'm referring to a riff that doesn't sell the actual song for example. Not if it's a monster riff like "Smoke on the Water" which Deep Purple stole from Gil Evans so I'm not sure that's the best example anyway!

Good luck.

Frank

[viberunner]

In song-writing it's known as "a word and a third".

Victoria Beckham did it in Out of Your Mind. True Steppers & Dane Bowers did everything, she came in, changed a word or two, and demanded a third of the song-writing credits/royalty.

Her "people" also had them sign that they "would not look her in the eye".

[FinishMedia]

The other 2 band members have already signed off saying that I get 100% of the publishing. I dunno if that helps me if this guy decides to litigate.

As far as the riff being integral, it's absolutely not a Zeppelin tune or anything close. It's a pop song. His riff is really just an intro. Once the lyrics start, the riff is over.

Eh. Seems like everyone has their own opinion on this. I understand how the guy feels, but that doesn't mean I need to sympathize with him, right?

Besides, me and my wife are dead broke. I really can't afford to give away money that I feel is 100% mine to begin with.

This crap sucks. But I do appreciate all the feedback!

[kafka]

Originally Posted by FinishMedia

OK. Here's the deal. A song I wrote for a band I fronted years ago was illegally used in a commercial setting. We're suing. But until I can begin the process I need everyone to sign off on it.

There are two violations here; the songwriter's rights, and the sound recording owner's rights. They probably don't need to be pursued together, although they could be. As the songwriter, if you properly registered the copyright way back when, then it would be just the sound recording owner's rights that would be in question.

However, I'm going to hazard a guess that that is not the case, and that the piece was never registered. You could go without him, but you know he's going to sue you, so you're going to have to come up with a number to keep him from doing that.

The thing is, if they lifted your recording, then as a contributer to an arrangement made with the songwriter's (i.e. your) permission, then he could correctly be listed as a co-author of that arrangement.

Originally Posted by FinishMedia

Of course, the stubborn as hell guitarist thinks that his riff constitutes songwriting. He refuses to accept that since I wrote the lyrics, chord progression and melody that I own 100%.

100% of the original song. But probably not 100% of the arrangement that was lifted if he contributed significantly to it. And by significantly, I mean just enough to make your life hell if you ever see a dime from this.

Originally Posted by FinishMedia

Now I know some bands out of the kindness of the songwriter's heart, share credits. But technically, I wrote the song!

Kindness? No. To get him off your back so you can settle the case and get some money? Yes.

Originally Posted by FinishMedia

So...any ideas here? Anyone else deal with this kind of thing? I knew this was going to happen as this guy is notoriously controlling and thinks he's the boss. Actually that's the main reason we're not playing together anymore.

What would you guys do?

The way I see it, you're broke, and you can either do some work and get some money, or maybe do more than twice as much work, and possibly end up with less. You're hoping they settle, because that means you get paid without doing much work. Maybe there's some way you can keep it all, but probably not. The minute your and his lawyers start billing, you're both losing money. And let me tell you, lawyers make more than musicians, even when musicians are right.

Work a deal with him. This is accidental money. You were lucky the piece was stolen, otherwise you'd be getting nothing for it. You said you thought he would go for 25%, so see if you can steer him in that direction.

[FinishMedia]

He's entitled to 25% of the master. That's how. Stealing, really? I'm not a jerk, I just want what's rightfully mine. I brought the song to the band and we arranged it (ie. came up with parts based on the chords and melody and predefined song structure) together. So it's not like he's not going to get paid if we see money. Just not any of the publishing side.

[creegstor]

This whole thread makes no sense...

Dude if it's your song you don't need anyone else to "sign off on" you suing copyright infringers. It's your song. So sue them if that's what you want to do. You don't have to consult with anyone.

[Ru_C]

Originally Posted by viberunner

Her "people" also had them sign that they "would not look her in the eye".

What ????? lol ...do tell more..this sounds juicy

[TC Custom Audio]

Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti

Well I think him getting 25% is a fair deal. I mean everybody in the band has to eat I don't understand why he thinks he should get more than everybody else. He should be lucky he is even getting that, you could have insulted him by offering him 0%. Not to mention songs are a fickle thing, sometimes you have to look at like this, would that song be doing what it is now, if it wasn't for that riff? Just little stuff like that.

25% of publishing royalties is totally bonkers.
25% of mechanical royalties is totally legit.

Does the OP understand this distinction?

[musikwerks]

Mate, 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. You keep going round and round on this and you're going to miss the train. Give the guitarist what he wants and get on with it.

[TC Custom Audio]

Originally Posted by kafka

There are two violations here; the songwriter's rights, and the sound recording owner's rights. They probably don't need to be pursued together, although they could be. As the songwriter, if you properly registered the copyright way back when, then it would be just the sound recording owner's rights that would be in question.

However, I'm going to hazard a guess that that is not the case, and that the piece was never registered. You could go without him, but you know he's going to sue you, so you're going to have to come up with a number to keep him from doing that.

The thing is, if they lifted your recording, then as a contributer to an arrangement made with the songwriter's (i.e. your) permission, then he could correctly be listed as a co-author of that arrangement.


100% of the original song. But probably not 100% of the arrangement that was lifted if he contributed significantly to it. And by significantly, I mean just enough to make your life hell if you ever see a dime from this.



Kindness? No. To get him off your back so you can settle the case and get some money? Yes.



The way I see it, you're broke, and you can either do some work and get some money, or maybe do more than twice as much work, and possibly end up with less. You're hoping they settle, because that means you get paid without doing much work. Maybe there's some way you can keep it all, but probably not. The minute your and his lawyers start billing, you're both losing money. And let me tell you, lawyers make more than musicians, even when musicians are right.

Work a deal with him. This is accidental money. You were lucky the piece was stolen, otherwise you'd be getting nothing for it. You said you thought he would go for 25%, so see if you can steer him in that direction.

Well, accusing the OP of being broke and desperate might be a stretch. But, otherwise this advice is solid. Here's another vote for keeping the lawyers from getting the money. Better that your guitarist gets paid than them.

To the OP: unless you put everything in writing way back then, you better be prepared to work it out.

Life is not fair. That's how it is.

EDIT: OK, I guess the OP admits to being broke. Well, everybody wants what they're due (rich and poor alike), right?

[Doc Vigilanti]

Originally Posted by TC Custom Audio

25% of publishing royalties is totally bonkers.
25% of mechanical royalties is totally legit.

Does the OP understand this distinction?

I sure do understand the distinction, but what it sounds like to me is after more info has come to light, there seems to be more going on then what he is telling us.

[TC Custom Audio]

Originally Posted by FinishMedia

...Eh. Seems like everyone has their own opinion on this. I understand how the guy feels, but that doesn't mean I need to sympathize with him, right?

Besides, me and my wife are dead broke. I really can't afford to give away money that I feel is 100% mine to begin with.

This crap sucks. But I do appreciate all the feedback!

Dude, I think you're totally missing the fact that there actually is a consensus here:
Be pragmatic. Work it out. Get paid.

Give the dude 25%. Guess who should have filed for a copyright? YOU! But, you didn't. Deal with it and move on.

[TC Custom Audio]

Originally Posted by Doc Vigilanti

I sure do understand the distinction, but what it sounds like to me is after more info has come to light, there seems to be more going on then what he is telling us.

I'm quite sure you're correct. But, the OP asked for advice and that's what I'm trying to provide.

Armchair quarterbacking rules!

[Doc Vigilanti]

Originally Posted by TC Custom Audio

I'm quite sure you're correct. But, the OP asked for advice and that's what I'm trying to provide.

Armchair quarterbacking rules!

Lol, I completely agree. You can only do with what you are given right?

[viberunner]

Originally Posted by Ru_C

What ????? lol ...do tell more..this sounds juicy

Subscribe to Popbitch. Best spam you'll ever get.

[Led]

An intro riff is not writing the song. You don't need anybody to sign off if you wrote the whole thing - meldoy and chords. Proceed and let him sue you if he thinks he has a leg to stand on.

[musikwerks]

Originally Posted by Led

An intro riff is not writing the song. You don't need anybody to sign off if you wrote the whole thing - meldoy and chords. Proceed and let him sue you if he thinks he has a leg to stand on.

Tell that to Men At Work!

[The MPCist]

Originally Posted by musikwerks

Tell that to Men At Work!

Exactly.

[viberunner]

The Men At Work case is instructive. The copyright-owners of the flute riff wanted up to wanted 60% of the royalties, after the court case they were awarded 5% and even that wasn't back-dated.

So yeah. Unless the guitarist has given a really distinctive riff, claim it all. Otherwise offer 5%. But yeah, you don't need him to sign-off.

[Eclypse]

"OK. Here's the deal. A song I wrote for a band I fronted years ago was illegally used in a commercial setting. We're suing. But until I can begin the process I need everyone to sign off on it. Of course, the stubborn as hell guitarist thinks that his riff constitutes songwriting. He refuses to accept that since I wrote the lyrics, chord progression and melody that I own 100%."

Does the band have any proof/papers that prove that they played the specified instruments/vocals on the specified track ?

If you signed the track as being your own creation, but have "used the band to express it" kinda way, than you can let him sue you, he offered his work for free.

Does any of the papers specify a percentage of the income on the song for any of the bandmembers ?

There are some questions to be asked, but I'm tired and it's kinda late. I`ll get back in the morning. Hope to have some answers for tomorrow.

[dannygold]

Originally Posted by viberunner

In song-writing it's known as "a word and a third".

Victoria Beckham did it in Out of Your Mind. True Steppers & Dane Bowers did everything, she came in, changed a word or two, and demanded a third of the song-writing credits/royalty.

Her "people" also had them sign that they "would not look her in the eye".

I had a friend who did some consulting work at Paisley park and was told not to look Prince in the eyes... though he was not required to sign anything.

[6strings]

AFAIK, you need him to sign a "work for hire" contract" which states that you'll pay him a certain amount for his performance and he is not entitled to any rights (it's in the contract).

If he's not into it and wants a cut, then he probably has a case against you. Negotiate a percentage, put it in writing, and then proceed with the original lawsuit.

At least that's what I'd do given my understanding of the law.

In the end, you have to weigh legal costs (including with any lawsuit from your former guitarist) versus what you think you might actually gain in earnings from your lawsuit. Very possible when it's all said and done you could end up in the red (and with an ulcer to boot).... I'd settle with the guitarist.

PS. I'm not an entertainment attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[kiopo]

Studied this a lot this year. You should get a session musician contract to pay him for his performance, but you are absolutely right that writing a simple riff does not gratify a share in publishing / songwriting credit. Of course, if the song is almost entirely based around that riff, that would be a different story, but you yourself have said it was your lyrics, melody and chord progression. But if we are not talking about a key creative element in the song, you are fine.

However, how myself and my band have always done it is to split everything equally, just to save these kinds of disagreements.