Login / Register
 
I am a couple thousand into a recording at a studio
New Reply
Subscribe
#31
26th February 2012
Old 26th February 2012
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Halloween's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,052

Halloween is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by slaphappy View Post
OK, then to simplify- your opinion is that a studio HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT to withhold a client's recordings, even after a client has PAID his bill in full?

So does that mean (in your opinion), that the studio actually LEGALLY OWNS those recordings (unless there was a contract that states otherwise)? And if they do NOT OWN the recordings, what is the LEGAL STATUS of those recordings? Does no one own them?

And if the studio LEGALLY OWNS those recordings, then what? Can they sell or license them? Put them on a compilation of other music that they've recorded and have not been given permission to use (I suppose they do not need permission)? Can they erase them before the client (who has paid in full) takes possession?

And even after the client takes possession, does the studio still own those recordings?

So it seems in your view, every studio session, requires a specific written contract. And if this is really such a cut and dry legal issue (that the studio is the default owner of all recordings), then those 'session contracts' would be a common thing at most studios.

I'm curious how you've arrived at such a contrary view of who owns the recordings (when a client has paid their bill). You seem so confident that the law is behind you on this- could you tell us the reasoning behind your opinion.
Don't put words in my mouth, I said he could, I never said he could legally, I only said that he could, take a pill or something, you're wound too tight. Taking that into consideration, the rest of your post is pointless to comment on.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
__________________

The mix is ALLLLLLLLLLMOSSSTTTT 'perfect'.
#32
26th February 2012
Old 26th February 2012
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halloween View Post
Don't put words in my mouth, I said he could, I never said he could legally, I only said that he could, take a pill or something, you're wound too tight. Taking that into consideration, the rest of your post is pointless to comment on.
So then this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halloween View Post
I'm sure if you take the case to court the 2nd district county clerk/judge would be totally hip to the last 50 years of "whats cool bruh" and out would end up looking like the climax from bill and teds adventure.
and this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halloween View Post
I would ask the said atty to please prove that the money spent was for the physical tracks and not the time recording them, when he couldn't, I would tell him to quit wasting my time, unless he wanted another bill. If its not in writing, you are screwed.
Are not in line with the fact that you now AGREE that there is no LEGAL right for a studio to withhold recordings that have been paid for. Which is what I've been saying all along. And that there is clear legal recourse.

And the only reason this matters to me is because it is wrong- legally and ethically for a studio / engineer to kidnap recordings and hold them at their whim.

I'm sure you would agree.
#33
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Halloween's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,052

Halloween is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by slaphappy View Post
So then this:



and this:



Are not in line with the fact that you now AGREE that there is no LEGAL right for a studio to withhold recordings that have been paid for. Which is what I've been saying all along. And that there is clear legal recourse.

And the only reason this matters to me is because it is wrong- legally and ethically for a studio / engineer to kidnap recordings and hold them at their whim.

I'm sure you would agree.
I'm just talking about a realistic situation, if the guy really wanted to he could just delete the whole thing. I dont think we have the full story. I think money is still owed. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and in this case the musician holds the burden of proof. The op won't just walk into a court room and make everything better. Anyone who believes that to be the case is nieve. I would rather point out what the case could very well become than to sit around and say "op you are in the right" with only hearing one side of a story.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
#34
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halloween View Post
I'm just talking about a realistic situation, if the guy really wanted to he could just delete the whole thing. I dont think we have the full story. I think money is still owed. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and in this case the musician holds the burden of proof. The op won't just walk into a court room and make everything better. Anyone who believes that to be the case is nieve. I would rather point out what the case could very well become than to sit around and say "op you are in the right" with only hearing one side of a story.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Sure- if he owes money, he doesn't get his work. That is obvious.

And if he's all paid up, he gets his work, no excuses, no major delays, no BS from the studio.

What happens MANY times, is that the client starts to not like a studio or engineer (for whatever reason) and wants to bail. When the client tells the engineer that they want their files and will be taking the rest of the project elsewhere, the engineer balks and starts playing games and withholding recordings because they do not want to lose the business.

And that is legally and ethically wrong. Unless there is a contract for a MINIMUM amount of studio time / fees, then a client can leave for whatever reason and get whatever work has been done up until that point.

And yes, the client needs to keep a record of payment to the studio in order to make a case.

As far as speculation about the OP's situation, he's going to fall into one of these categories: paid or unpaid. None of us know for sure what the deal is, but we do know what the legal rights are for each party.

This is a relief- I really thought you were saying that the studio has a RIGHT to keep files from a client that has paid in full. That's like saying a client has the RIGHT to take a couple of u87 from a studio that is withholding files.

Which we both know is wrong. Right?
#35
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,902

Duardo is offline
Quote:
the engineer/ producer/owner refuses to give me several tracks now on anything but a rough mix on CD.
The thing that makes me wonder is your use of the term "producer"...did you hire him simply to engineer your stuff, or did you hire him to actually produce it? Did he have any hand in the songwriting, arrangement etc?
#36
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #36
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 23,295
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is online now
To those attacking Halloween - he never said he would agree or would do what you're attacking him for, he's just saying the other guy could, and the attorney might not have a case. You're shooting the messenger here.
__________________
Recent Indie credits include:

Jack Robert Hardman (New EP now on sale), Morgan Joanel,
Edens March
and High-Tails.

If I've helped you out, please consider supporting these artists as a favour to me!

Major label credits include Pharrell/Alicia Keys, Ricky Martin (Aus #3), John Legend, Taylor Henderson (Aus #1 ARIA Album), Di-Rect (Dutch #1 single), etc
#37
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
To those attacking Halloween - he never said he would agree or would do what you're attacking him for, he's just saying the other guy could, and the attorney might not have a case. You're shooting the messenger here.
It's taken a lot of effort to get to an understanding of what the actual rights are here.

Again, the client COULD take those vintage u87's and hold them until he gets his tracks. We can say COULD all day long, as long as that means you have the ability, but not the right.

When the messenger encourages unlawful and unethical behavior, then of course they should be shot.
#38
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #38
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 23,295
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by slaphappy View Post
When the messenger encourages unlawful and unethical behavior, then of course they should be shot.
That's the point though - he's NOT encouraging it. He's not even speaking to the studio owner is he - he's talking to the client. He's just pointing out what the other guy MIGHT do, and how much of a legal ball ache it could be.

If I tell you not to go to a certain part of town at night, because you might get beaten up, does that make you think I'm supporting mugging? or am I just passing on a warning?

Actually encouraging the behaviour means he's not a messenger anymore, he's part of the opposing forces, and yes should be argued with.

Halloween - correct me if I've got your meaning wrong here!
#39
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #39
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 11,356

joelpatterson is offline
If we just shoot everybody, then there's no more argument...
#40
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Well, if you really want to know what he thinks, just look to page 1:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halloween View Post
This whole thread is dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halloween View Post
haha! The reason I say what I did is because normally the paranoid guys like this aren't very good to begin with and its always some melodramatic question session that starts with "So, when I get signed...." I've been known to kick these people out of my place back in the day.
Go ahead and work with that.

Listen, this is cut and dry.
Paid up= get recordings without hassle.
Not paid up=don't get recordings until payment

Good golly- I'm not sure what the problem is here. When you start saying that a studio COULD keep your paid-in-full tracks, then I'm not sure what the point is. Yes, they COULD. And you COULD steal some microphones. What's the difference?
#41
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
If we just shoot everybody, then there's no more argument...
Just shoot me and put me out of my misery.
#42
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #42
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 11,356

joelpatterson is offline
Tempting... would it set a precedent?
#43
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
Tempting... would it set a precedent?
Well, I do believe that shooting the precedent is against the law.
#44
27th February 2012
Old 27th February 2012
  #44
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 11,356

joelpatterson is offline
Well DAMN!
#45
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Halloween's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,052

Halloween is offline
This thread is dumb, please prove it otherwise. I never said the guy should hold the tracks nor did I say he had any right to do so. Monkey has the brains around here. From my honest opinion we don't have the whole story and this thread has been tailored to support the op. I think perhaps money hasn't been posted, or he owes for mixes that he was not happy with buy were still done, if I was owed money for work I had done and the clients skewed for the raw tracks they could eat cake until I was paid.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
#46
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by slaphappy View Post
Well, I do believe that shooting the precedent is against the law.
No way is the entire thread dumb, not even.

I mean, did you even get that brilliant pun that I pulled off? Hint: It's a form of character assassination. Another hint: John Wilkes Booth

And when it's all said and done, here we are agreeing that a studio cannot legally withhold tracks that have been paid for. And a client does not have a right to tracks that have not been paid for.

Once again, obviousness prevails.
#47
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #47
Lives for gear
 
suedesound's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: san francisco
Posts: 1,279

suedesound is offline
this thread seems to be getting angry. i offer an antecdote. i worked on mixing an album for a band a cpl of years ago, this was a hybrid with pt and an ssl/outboard gear. they decided to go elsewhere after a lot of time had been put in. they got the hd back, i offered to print stems with the outboard for my standard rate. they didn't want to pay so they pretty much got back what they started with plus some automation. we all walked away happy. story over.
#48
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Ward Pike's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,748

Ward Pike is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halloween View Post
This whole thread is dumb.
I couldn't agree more!! If I ever get in a client with such a limited grasp of the way the industry works or a complete lack of common sense/street smarts, I'll put everything off on a DVD(s) and say "Good luck".

Anything that inane is an indication of problems about to happen.
__________________
--
What signature?
#49
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Halloween's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,052

Halloween is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Pike View Post
I couldn't agree more!! If I ever get in a client with such a limited grasp of the way the industry works or a complete lack of common sense/street smarts, I'll put everything off on a DVD(s) and say "Good luck".

Anything that inane is an indication of problems about to happen.
Quoted for truth. preach on, amen.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
#50
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ward Pike View Post
Anything that inane is an indication of problems about to happen.
There are other indicators of potential problems...let's say the engineer has a huge ego (thinks they are more successful and skillful than they actually are), and treats their clients as such.

Or maybe they are unable to effectively communicate...that would certainly be a warning flag for a client to stay FAR AWAY from said engineer(s).

Yep.
#51
29th February 2012
Old 29th February 2012
  #51
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,524

3rd Degree is offline
My only thoughts is that the engineer may be using this as a tactic to make you pay more (likely for mixing) and is the type of person who feel like he owns that material from a psychological standpoint until he is done. Obviously, I am speculating but I know people who have been caught up in this situation before.
Bigdorkus
Thread Starter
#52
1st March 2012
Old 1st March 2012
  #52
Gear Head
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 31

Thread Starter
Bigdorkus is offline
Yeah 3rd degree thats my concern here. Our agreement was five songs to completion, of which at this point is down to vocals and some color tracks. All tracks up untill now have been payed as we go. I am wondering if he thinks I will take the tracks, mix them myself or take them some place else. Or at the end of this when its finished there will be an "added value tax" kind of ugly surprise. I have every intention of staying till they are done and the rough mix he gives me is fine for what I need to do with it but I don't want to get screwed. Its his unwillingness to load the tracks to my HD that gives me pause. And my position, as it has been underscored here, that I have payed cash and I have nothing in writing.
This is my first time in the studio and this guy seemed knowledgeable and professional, so I have followed his lead on most every aspect of it. I have one more question perhaps someone could answer for me. In the end when I am finished and he has mixed it, what is the common practice? Do I get the tracks and the finished product ? I appreciate all the views and perspectives on this. Thanks
#53
1st March 2012
Old 1st March 2012
  #53
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,524

3rd Degree is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdorkus View Post
In the end when I am finished and he has mixed it, what is the common practice? Do I get the tracks and the finished product ? I appreciate all the views and perspectives on this. Thanks
I always know upfront what I am getting so there isn't any speculation but it depends on what I am doing. If I am only tracking at a studio, they give me the PT file at the end (or each track if they don't use PT). With mixing, it depends on the engineer. Some will give you the session when you are done, many will only give you the 2 track.

You may have some issues if you let him mix it in terms of getting your individual files. I would be as upfront as you can NOW with the mixing. Or, if you do in fact want him to mix, you may never see your individual files.

If I was doing both tracking and mixing, I would have an agreement up front that I would get each session before it goes to mixing. I leave it up to them if they are willing to give me the session post mix, I usually would want it but I understand why people don't give you your session post mix.

That said, I am sure there are many people who have been doing this for much longer than I have so I hope others chime in.
#54
2nd March 2012
Old 2nd March 2012
  #54
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,658

doom64 is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdorkus View Post
Yeah 3rd degree thats my concern here. Our agreement was five songs to completion, of which at this point is down to vocals and some color tracks. All tracks up untill now have been payed as we go. I am wondering if he thinks I will take the tracks, mix them myself or take them some place else. Or at the end of this when its finished there will be an "added value tax" kind of ugly surprise. I have every intention of staying till they are done and the rough mix he gives me is fine for what I need to do with it but I don't want to get screwed. Its his unwillingness to load the tracks to my HD that gives me pause. And my position, as it has been underscored here, that I have payed cash and I have nothing in writing.
This is my first time in the studio and this guy seemed knowledgeable and professional, so I have followed his lead on most every aspect of it. I have one more question perhaps someone could answer for me. In the end when I am finished and he has mixed it, what is the common practice? Do I get the tracks and the finished product ? I appreciate all the views and perspectives on this. Thanks

Hey I'm glad you posted a follow-up. The moral of the story here is communication and planning. ALL of this stuff about track ownership and deliverables should have been discussed prior to any handshakes or money changing hands.

We're past that now so let's see where we stand. You have a 5 COMPLETE tracking/mixing (mastering?) agreement with an engineer. Nothing in writing. Things are good except he won't give you tracks yet.

In the United States the engineer, when not agreed that he is a "work for hire", does indeed own the recordings. However you own the performance, lyrics and melody so it's not like he can sell the tracks for profit or anything.

You definitely need to have a one on one with this engineer. He may be getting paranoid that you are going to screw him over. I've had it happen to me where I released stems and the next thing you know the band is using a cracked version of Pro Tools or whatever DAW they got and we never finished their album. Having my name on a record that was poorly mixed tarnishes my reputation.

As far as written agreements not being the case at studios I'm not sure. I do written agreements all the time now so expectations are clearly layed out.

Here comes the most useful post I've ever put on GS, some of my contract provisions:

- Contract is governed by the laws of New York. New York, being a media center, has a lot of specific laws relating to recording studios that are clearly spelled out. If a lawsuit is ever filed this would be advantageous

- Usage for marketing. Most bands don't have a problem with me posting a sample of their songs on the studio website. But if relationships ever go bad I'd like to keep the option of marketing work I am proud of.

- Copyright ownership. Typically I give ownership to the recordings to the band. For free work I will put a 10,000 sale/copy cap because you never know what band may hit it big...And yeah signed bands will typically re-record at a bigger/higher end studio but for potential box sets or b-releases they would like those earlier recordings, no doubt.

- Deliverables, timeliness (when things are due) and price. Also at which landmarks in time are payments due. I typically do 1/2 to reserve studio time, 1/2 before we start recording day-of, 1/2 retainer for mixing and final payment due upon satisfaction of client. Then the rest spells out what exactly they get (disc with data, playable music CD, mp3 on FTP server, etc.)

- Lateness provisions. Studio time starts at reserved time not when client decides to show up. If client finishes up early they do not receive money back for unused time.

- Credit, for myself/my studio on the band's website (wherever they post tracks) along with on any CD booklet materials.

- This is a very important one. I'll copy and paste it right from the legalese in my contract:

RIGHT TO CURE

No failure by xxx xxx, xxx Studio or [artist] to perform any Licensee’s obligations hereunder shall be deemed a breach hereof, unless the party gives the other parties written notice of such failure and the latter party fails to cure such nonperformance within thirty (30) days after former party’s receipt of such notice.
------

In other words if somebody f*cks up you have to give them time to correct their mistake.

- Arbitration clause (to avoid having to go to "real court"):

8. ARBITRATION: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association.


and finally the all important clause that will save your butt if ever sued. The provision that says only the stuff in writing counts:

4. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties thereto relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, whether oral or written, pertaining thereto. No modifications, amendment, or waiver of this Agreement or any of the terms or provisions hereof shall be binding upon the parties unless confirmed by a written instrument signed by authorized officers of the parties.


That's all I got for now, peace out gentlemen.
#55
2nd March 2012
Old 2nd March 2012
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
In the United States the engineer, when not agreed that he is a "work for hire", does indeed own the recordings. However you own the performance, lyrics and melody so it's not like he can sell the tracks for profit or anything.
But unless there is a written agreement that says otherwise, isn't the default role of the engineer as 'work for hire.' He is providing goods and services and is getting paid an agreed upon fee.

Could you (or anyone) point me to the law that says a recording engineer owns the recordings, and can choose to either not give or give those recordings to the client, even after full payment has been made. I'm not buying that an engineer has the default legal right to withhold recordings.
#56
3rd March 2012
Old 3rd March 2012
  #56
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,658

doom64 is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by slaphappy View Post
But unless there is a written agreement that says otherwise, isn't the default role of the engineer as 'work for hire.' He is providing goods and services and is getting paid an agreed upon fee.

Could you (or anyone) point me to the law that says a recording engineer owns the recordings, and can choose to either not give or give those recordings to the client, even after full payment has been made. I'm not buying that an engineer has the default legal right to withhold recordings.
What we're talking about are the concepts of commissioned work, tangible forms of expression and creations. The sound engineer created the sound file or in the past tape by pressing the record button. By setting the microphones up and using his room/electric. The recording (the files, the tape reels) by default belong to the engineer.

Even though you commissioned (paid) him to make a recording and even if you purchased the materials (hard drive, tape reels) without a work for hire clause the recordings belong to him. Now, the content (the intellectual property and performance) on those recordings do not belong to him. And it is in fact illegal for him to destroy those master recordings.

See the Supreme Court case ccnv v reid. as well as http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf , Entertainment Law, Wallace Collins, Esq. : Work for Hire Issues and Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995
#57
3rd March 2012
Old 3rd March 2012
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,245

slaphappy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
What we're talking about are the concepts of commissioned work, tangible forms of expression and creations. The sound engineer created the sound file or in the past tape by pressing the record button. By setting the microphones up and using his room/electric. The recording (the files, the tape reels) by default belong to the engineer.

Even though you commissioned (paid) him to make a recording and even if you purchased the materials (hard drive, tape reels) without a work for hire clause the recordings belong to him. Now, the content (the intellectual property and performance) on those recordings do not belong to him. And it is in fact illegal for him to destroy those master recordings.

See the Supreme Court case ccnv v reid. as well as http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf , Entertainment Law, Wallace Collins, Esq. : Work for Hire Issues and Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995
Well, I'm not really seeing what you're seeing in those articles.

The work for hire issue addresses of the reversion of the master recordings from a record label back to the artist after 35 years. If the recording was a 'work for hire' (by an employee), then that reversion is not in effect (the label keeps the recordings). The case in question dealt with a record label and an artist/producer, not an artist and an engineer. Big difference, IMO.

According to the copyright office, an engineer does have copyright PROTECTION of their contribution in engineering a recording. This is not the same as default or exclusive ownership of those recordings. Not at all.

Lastly, the digital performance addendum to the copyright act, simply does not apply (different topic altogether).

Now...record labels will usually draw up contracts that stipulate that they own the masters (until the 35 year reversion time is up). And they probably are obliged by law to protect those masters (so they may be returned to the artist after 35 years). But a studio or engineer may in fact destroy or erase recordings that they have made, unless some other agreement has been made (they do it all the time).
#58
3rd March 2012
Old 3rd March 2012
  #58
Gear addict
 
Yeah, right...'s Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: New Zealand/Germany
Posts: 409

Yeah, right... is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
Tempting... would it set a precedent?
Possibly, but it will as sure as hell get you banned again...
#59
3rd March 2012
Old 3rd March 2012
  #59
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 11,356

joelpatterson is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah, right... View Post
Possibly, but it will as sure as hell get you banned again...
I dare them........
#60
4th March 2012
Old 4th March 2012
  #60
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,658

doom64 is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by slaphappy View Post
Well, I'm not really seeing what you're seeing in those articles.

The work for hire issue addresses of the reversion of the master recordings from a record label back to the artist after 35 years. If the recording was a 'work for hire' (by an employee), then that reversion is not in effect (the label keeps the recordings). The case in question dealt with a record label and an artist/producer, not an artist and an engineer. Big difference, IMO.

According to the copyright office, an engineer does have copyright PROTECTION of their contribution in engineering a recording. This is not the same as default or exclusive ownership of those recordings. Not at all.

Lastly, the digital performance addendum to the copyright act, simply does not apply (different topic altogether).

Now...record labels will usually draw up contracts that stipulate that they own the masters (until the 35 year reversion time is up). And they probably are obliged by law to protect those masters (so they may be returned to the artist after 35 years). But a studio or engineer may in fact destroy or erase recordings that they have made, unless some other agreement has been made (they do it all the time).
Yep and all this confusion is why anyone whether they are a musician, band or studio owner/engineer should talk to an entertainment attorney.

You know it's fun to read some of the complaints from major artists about how the record labels screwed them. What they forget is how no one would known them if it weren't for the money the labels poured into promoting them/their records not to mention the connections labels have. Sure the labels made lots of money but so did the bands/artist if the size of their homes is any indication.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.