Mechanical Royalties?

[recordinghopkins]

Those of you that do location recording, do you ever collect mechanical royalties when the recordings you make are sold? I am curious to know what standard practice is for compensation. One time fee, mech royalties, or both?

[Murton]

I've been going along th elines of this so far:

Who ever pays for the recording owns the recording. So if someone hires me to record a live recording and pays me, they get the masters and the 2 track stereo mix I present them down the line ready for master.

If I don't get paid, I own the master session and will either get paid before giving them the session/stereo mix or I get a mechanical royalty for the release.

[oshimmy420]

thats sound like a good deal...of course if you don't get paid you will keep the masters...but i was under the impression that mechanical royalties were related to publishing???

[recordinghopkins]

oshimmy420 welcome to GS!

Thanks murton, I am gonna watch this thread for a while before I respond with more questions. I am interested to see what others do as well.

[NorseHorse]

You can write it into your contract. Here, Plush notes how he gets a royalty for each copy for an organ project: (really) tall mic stands for organ recordings

And on a related note:
Oh my! - Royalties & licensing fees for CDs: Free, Archival & Unreleased.

[mixedupsteve]

Mechanical royalties are paid to the songwriter for making a recording of their song.
A sound recording has a copyright too and it can be owned by anyone provided that's what the agreement between everyone says. If someone hires you to record them with the understanding that you will be paid for your work and then doesn't pay you I don't think the copyright just becomes yours. However if you record someone and have an agreement that the copyright of the soundrecording will be yours then that should be fine. You're really acting like a record label in that case.
In any case you wouldn't own the copyright on the song, only the sound recording.
Work for hire has been changing recently and gets pretty complicated:
Work For Hire
The best thing is to have a clear signed agreement between everyone involved (and an attorney)

[Murton]

Yeah, I always get confused over all the copyrights involved. I was referring to the recording copyright of the actual recording, there is also performance copyright and songwriting copyright, so take a live recorded cover of another bands song, you have to get permission to release the cover, pay them a royalty for it, then from the airplay etc of the release, a performance royalty, mechanical royalty and the royalty for who owns the song is taken out.

I'm still not sure how it works.

All I know is whoever pays for the recording, owns the recording itself, all the other copyright iossues to do with songwriting and performing I'm not up to stratch with.

[Bob Olhsson]

Whoever makes the recording including the performers owns the recording unless they release ownership.

[BenFranske]

Who owns what copyrights to what can get pretty complicated pretty quickly. I generally advocate work for hire in these situations where you turn over any claim of copyright to the person paying you and charge accordingly. Usually collecting royalties isn't worth it anyway and some clients will only do business with people who do work for hire.

As a side note As a customer I will generally only hire someone (for personal or work purposes) on a work for hire basis (including photography, artwork, logos, etc.) so that I clearly own the copyright to their work.

[recordinghopkins]

Some great info here.

What would any of you think about joint copyright of the recording between the recordist and the performer? That's how I list it in my CONTRACT and I mention that it is the responsibility of the client to notify me before the sale of the recording and that we may draw up an additional contract regarding mechanical royalties. I only seek royalties if I record for really cheap, and not at all if the client pays full price. If a client wishes to sell the recording and I don't care about royalties, then I will give permission in writing to do so, but still hold a joint copyright.

Any reason why this wouldn't be an acceptable course of action?

[mixedupsteve]

Originally Posted by recordinghopkins

Some great info here.

If a client wishes to sell the recording and I don't care about royalties, then I will give permission in writing to do so, but still hold a joint copyright.
Any reason why this wouldn't be an acceptable course of action?

Why would you do that?

I think you need an attorney to review your contract.

[recordinghopkins]

Originally Posted by mixedupsteve

Why would you do that?

I think you need an attorney to review your contract.

I haven't studied copyright law yet, but I assumed that in order for me to use the recordings to promote my business I would need to reserve the right to do so. Am I going about this the wrong way?

[Bob Olhsson]

Mechanical royalties are specifically music publishing royalties due the owners of the underlying composition.

That's not the same thing as royalties paid to the owners of the recording.

Click this for a link to some definitions for common music biz. lingo I wrote up several years ago.

[mllrtms]

I think adding a provision within the contract for the artist to release the audio recording to you for promotional reasons would cover what you are trying for. I would make it clear up front that you intend to use these recordings to demonstrate quality and professionalism ONLY and that you will NOT be turning a profit in any other way connected with the release of the intellectual reserve by the artist.

Changing gears; I have seen other recordists link to the artists album for sell page, amazon, itunes, etc.. Usually the audio quality is less than desirable for promotional reasons but it is a convenient way to link potential clients to previous work you've done while avoiding copyright issues. This is obviously only a solution if the site selling the album has sound bits available before purchase.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by recordinghopkins

but still hold a joint copyright.

No, you don't. A study of what copyright consists of should be in order here.

Copyright is not the domain of the recordist. You may have "points", and you may be entitled to a cut, but the copyright © belongs to the composer (songwriter) and their publisher. Copyright of the actual physical recording "P with a circle around it" generally belongs to the record company - or perhaps in your case, to the person(s) who paid for the recording. If you want to negotiate a percentage (points) with them. More power to youthumbsupthumbsup But it is not your "copyright".

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by drBill

...Copyright of the actual physical recording "P with a circle around it" generally belongs to the record company - or perhaps in your case, to the person(s) who paid for the recording...

The copyright of the recording belongs to everybody who had a hand in making it unless they sign a release of ownership. In many cases it ends up being the recording artist who then licenses distribution rights to a record label. The most common term for this is master recording.

A producer who is getting a percentage exchanges their percentage of ownership in the master for their percentage of the income. Any individual who hasn't signed off, possibly somebody who didn't get paid, can slam the brakes on doing anything with the recording. Obviously abuse of this power would not exactly help somebody's reputation but I think it's important that people understand their rights.

[recordinghopkins]

Wow guys, I am really learning something here.... I knew I joined GS for a reason.

So are you telling me is that I wouldn't hold copyright of the recordings I make, no matter what? somehow that doesn't sound quite right...

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The copyright of the recording belongs to everybody who had a hand in making it unless they sign a release of ownership.

Any individual who hasn't signed off, possibly somebody who didn't get paid, can slam the brakes on doing anything with the recording. Obviously abuse of this power would not exactly help somebody's reputation but I think it's important that people understand their rights.

This sounds more like what I was expecting. From this I gather that I, having a hand in making the recording, am a partial owner of the recording and can release my share of ownership of the master, or not. Should I choose not to (perhaps at the expense of my reputation), I could prevent the artist from selling the recording. Is this what you meant?

Option 1: If I bill myself as for-hire, I would effectively be signing off any ownership of the recording and could preserve my right to use it for promotional purposes with a simple clause in my contract. This is what I am most interested in.

Option 2: Should I want residual income in the form of retail or wholesale points, I could negotiate a deal with the artist for me to sign off ownership in return for those points. Perhaps in exchange for discounting my rates? (i.e. I will record you for cheap or free, if I get a portion of the sales)

Option 3: The artist releases ownership to me, and I pay them royalties on the sales I generate, effectively acting as a record label.

Am I starting to understand? Please forgive my ignorance here, that's why I asked. Thanks again for your help guys, I look forward to my copyright law class in a few semesters.

[recordinghopkins]

Originally Posted by mllrtms

I think adding a provision within the contract for the artist to release the audio recording to you for promotional reasons would cover what you are trying for.

Do you think this revision is appropriate for such purposes?

Originally Posted by recordinghopkins

COPYRIGHT
Client warrants that any applicable license and/or royalty fees will be paid to their respective owners
before sale of any materials covered under this agreement to persons not part of Client's organization.
HMS makes no claims of a product's fitness for public sale. Client agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless HMS in any disputes that may arise regarding copyright. The product of HMS (in full or in part) may be used by HMS or Client for promotional purposes without financial liability to, or prior consent from any party involved in the performance, promotion, or recording of the event. Where the recording is used for such promotions, both HMS and Client shall be clearly credited for their respective roles in creating the recording.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by recordinghopkins

...Am I starting to understand? ...

Yes! It's easy and pretty logical to understand.

[recordinghopkins]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Yes! It's easy and pretty logical to understand.

Thank you sir... for having the heart of a teacher.

And thank you all for setting me straight!

[Bob Olhsson]

I teach because I've seen too many people get screwed over!

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Go here for information on mechanical licenses including the cost Harry Fox Agency HFA.

It is something that the seller of the CDs or DVDs has to do before they can legally sell them. Lots of clients think that because they are non profit they can skip this or not pay.

[BenFranske]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The copyright of the recording belongs to everybody who had a hand in making it unless they sign a release of ownership. In many cases it ends up being the recording artist who then licenses distribution rights to a record label. The most common term for this is master recording.

I agree with Bob here. While we're not talking about mechanical licensing (that's the cover fee for recording other composers' and arrangers' music) unless you give it up you do pretty clearly share in the copyright of the recording itself.

Again, personally, I would advocate for giving clients (in writing) the copyright to your recordings upon full payment of the recording charges. You're likely to make more money this way on most recordings anyway and it probably helps steer you clear of the firing line when the artist decides to distribute and sell the recording without paying the mechanical license charge they're supposed to and someone comes looking to sue people.

[recordinghopkins]

Originally Posted by BenFranske

I agree with Bob here. While we're not talking about mechanical licensing (that's the cover fee for recording other composers' and arrangers' music) unless you give it up you do pretty clearly share in the copyright of the recording itself.

Again, personally, I would advocate for giving clients (in writing) the copyright to your recordings upon full payment of the recording charges. You're likely to make more money this way on most recordings anyway and it probably helps steer you clear of the firing line when the artist decides to distribute and sell the recording without paying the mechanical license charge they're supposed to and someone comes looking to sue people.

Sounds like a good plan to me. This is how I started out, but over the last year I have had bands offer to give me royalties from the recordings they sell if I record them for free. This is why I began to look into how it works a little more.

I think I will stick to giving them full ownership, with a provision in my contract that allows me to use it for promotion of my biz.

[recordinghopkins]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

Go here for information on mechanical licenses including the cost Harry Fox Agency HFA.

It is something that the seller of the CDs or DVDs has to do before they can legally sell them. Lots of clients think that because they are non profit they can skip this or not pay.

Thanks Thomas,

I learned a lot just from their FAQ.

[mllrtms]

Originally Posted by recordinghopkins

Do you think this revision is appropriate for such purposes?

I am not an attorney and make no claims to give legal advise, however; it does look as if you have covered your bases and that this would suffice for what you are looking to do. I would suggest having an attorney look over all of you contracts once you feel they are were you would like them to be just to be sure you have not overlooked some detail not clearly evident.

Its always good to have things checked and doubled checked, especially when it is done by professionals.

Good luck!

[recordinghopkins]

Originally Posted by mllrtms

Its always good to have things checked and doubled checked, especially when it is done by professionals.

Good luck!

Excellent advice.

[sonare]

Reading this thread illustrates how different things are in the classical world. Here the only point of concern is copyright mechanicals owed to the copyright holder of the music or edition that was actually recorded. Fortunately there is a LOT of classical repertoire in the public domain (thanks to dead white guys) but usually a replicator (and often the label also) MUST have the physical evidence that the fees have been paid BEFORE the physical product can be made. I have been told by people far more knowledgeable that it doesn't matter if the recordings are GIVEN away-- the copyright mechanicals still must be paid to Harry Fox or publisher.

Between Replicheck and the RIAA everyone is somewhat paranoid and rightly so-- my replicator was hit with a 5-figure fine by the RIAA several years ago.

I have never heard of the engineer holding any rights to the actual sound recording once his fee is paid. The producer may negotiate "points" with the entity who hired them but that is rare. The instance cited where Plush gets XX cents per CD was in lieu of payment for engineering the CD originally-- and did not have any connection with the mechanicals being discussed.

See Digital Copyright Slider to learn more about copyright ownership.

Again-- these comments pertain only to the "classical world"-- Hudson, Mark D and Silas can add to this I am sure.

Rich

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by sonare

...a replicator (and often the label also) MUST have the physical evidence that the fees have been paid BEFORE the physical product can be made...

In Europe, people must pay the mechanical royalties to the replicator.

[7rojo7]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

In Europe, people must pay the mechanical royalties to the replicator.

Even on blank CDs!!! That you may just want to use on data or some other non taxable use.