Where does arranging stop & co-writing begin?

[Sofa King]

Originally Posted by C_F_H_13

This issue in general is such a joke in "legal terms".

Take a song like Beyonce's "crazy in love". If you took that same Lyric and Melody, but had wierd al sing it over an accordian and a steel drum......according to the LAW it is THE EXACT SAME SONG. Regardless of arrangement changes, or anything..///

The laws of songwriting and copyright need to be re-addressed.

This is incorrect.


Parody use, can fall under fair use, where a third person can use a copyrighted work if it meets certain criteria.

But if you were to register a copyright, either PA or SR, you would need to denote it as based on a previous work or derivative work, and the previous composers must be credited.

Not to mention that the parody lyrics would be different than the original work.

So in no way is it viewed as "THE EXACT SAME SONG" by the library of congress.



Best,
Sean

[gregohb]

As several people have said, a song is words and melody - and not harmony or chords. Its a legal defintion but obivously an unfair one. Chords can add a lot to a song - and its easy to see that - just sing the song acapela without any chords, and compare with a full arrangment. I guess the "good news" is that you could take any top selling song - and simple using a new melody and words over the same chords and its perfectly legal. If you think about it, where would you draw the line? If the guitarist comes up with a cool riff? If the bass player comes up with a killer line? If the drummer added a cool beat, should he get songwriter credit?

By the way, I think one of the members of Depeche Mode left over this issue. Martin Gore wrote the songs, but Alan Wilder would spend all night making the arrangements, and getting absolutely no royalties for taking a simple song and making it into a Depeche Mode song. Somewhat the same thing happened with the Commodores not liking Lionel Richie's songwriting royalties.

[StudioKing]

I have no real point to make here. I just wanted to chime into this thread because I have been in this kind of situation and it really can be tricky.

I have been in situations where absolute no hopers have turned up at my studio with little more then a crappy poem on a bit of paper, with no real idea of melody, certainly no chords, no idea of production other then 'I want it to still sound like me' with no idea what they sound like anyway.

I know, this is what happens if do work with pros, but I was just starting out and any work sounded good to me back then.

So any way, they would leave will a fully produced song, very often I had added verses, choruses, middle 8 etc, re worked the lyrics, produced the record. Very often I felt that I had done everything myself and infact it would have been much easier if they werent there at all.

Do you think any of these idiots ever wanted to concide that they didn't write the song? Of course not, they all actually went away thinking how great they were.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Digitar

Doorknocker, I agree that the genesis of a song could start with jamming over a signature groove, but we're talking about laying LEGAL CLAIM to the SONG. Without a piece of paper to back you up, technically there is no agreement. In my mind Satisfactions bass riff is the most interesting part of the song. But look at the credits on the song and you will see Jagger and Richards. Not Jagger,Richards,Wyman,Watts, and Jones.

What came first the chicken or the egg? In the end, it doesn't matter. What does matter in the end is who created the Words and the Melody, whether anyone likes it or not, in court it's going to all come down to this.

We could debate copyright law forever, but the facts, are the facts and until they change it, all of us must play by the rules.

Digitar,

I'm perfectly aware of the 'rules'. My point being that these laws are outdated and NEED to be changed. The issue goes way deeper as it incorporates sampling/older copyrights becoming ipublic domain/digital distribution/etc. We need a new model because insiting on a vastly outdated one willl only lead to the vanishing of any copyright for music. This IS already happening and therefore it's extremely important that the rights of the writers and perfromers are respected.

You can't simply say 'This is the way it always has been done' because you might totally get run over ion the digital highway, so to say. In a way, it's the same with studios where saying 'Big studios were always there and so why should we change anything' might put you out of the spotlight faster than Hillary Clinton.

Personally I think that giving the perfromers a piece of the cake is the right solution. Germany (still one of the biggest markets in the world) has been doing this since quite a long time, if you perform on a recording (whether you are the writer or not) you get a smalll percentage of the collected licenses. Switzerland started a similar model a few years ago and in fact I just read in an article about the Eagles that Don Henley has been advocating a similar model for the USA. In the light of online subcription models and rapidly waning physical sales of recording it seems to be the right solution - even though it'll be a hard fight.

And then there's the whole issue of publishing which opens up another big can of worms.

But whatever the 'model' will be - all I can say it's really important to define this whenever you are co-writing with somebody - BEFORE you start a project.

[Bounce]

Originally Posted by Digitar

Bounce,

With your logic every rock song written over that famous Chuck Berry rhythm is co-written by Chuck because that's his chord progression. What I've found is that people that usually have that logic don't write songs on their own, and feel that because they were THERE during the creation of the song that they also co-wrote it. If that was the case every song recorded in Nashville, LA or NY by the session cats would be CO-WRITTEN by whatever group of musicians were on the session. NOT SO.

Hey, Digitar, while I appreciate your interpretation of my viewpoint, I must restate that this is part of the agreement between those involved and that it is specific to the writing of a specific song. There's a lot more to it than just a chord that leads a singer down a certain melodic road. Voice weight within the chord and harmonics can actually be a big part of that. Now of course, the law defines it in black and white and as an overall general rule but each situation is different. There are two valid sides to this argument. Now of course if the the singer listens to chords I "wrote" and comes up with a melody and then cites, say the beatles, as the source of that melodic inspiration because their chords were exactly the same, that is a loophole the singer could take to get me out of the equation. Was it true? Maybe, maybe not.
I do wholeheartedly agree with drawing the line between arranging or session work and writing and the fact that if I play on a session and create parts, that I am only getting musician credit. That's clear and lines up with the "lyrics and melody" law and is not even necessarily arranging, but session playing (interpreting an existing song). I've been doing it for over 20 years now(wow, that long? freaks me out a little). However, you do have to think about how if I added the ninth to a straight minor chord from which the melody was created and then an 11 to the next chord and the singer then changes the melody to the ninth then eleventh, that's interesting food for thought in the writing department, no? Now I know how it's been defined for years. I get the old school mentality (and current law of course if a song is contested/disputed) and I have played along forever and usually it's absolutely right and clear with no issue. Nashville, LA, NY all over. I get it and I play the game that way with publishers, writers, licensing splits, etc. I have written and co-written many, many songs and currently have material out all over the world (yeah yeah who cares haha). But just because something has been a certain way for years does not warrant thought and rethought and addressing each situation as its own. That is what I mean, people need to assess IN THEIR SITUATION for a specific song, how it came to be what it is melodically and lyrically.

Now, to counter my own logic, let's say I'm writing with someone and I play a progression of F#min to A maj7 flat 5. Well, when I played the second chord a truck outside just happens to blow his horn and it sounds out a perfect B note changing the chord a bit. Do I give the truck driver credit when the singer sings the nine on the A chord? Well...
Haha. There's grey area all over and the law has to define it somewhere. Each situation is each situation.


You said:
"You said it's all about where the melody came from. No, it's about (in the laws eyes) WHO the melody and lyric came from. Now certain bands do create the whole song together and deserve and get credit. If I'm not mistaking I think U2 are like that. But a chord progression is NOT copyrightable. A drumbeat is NOT copyrightable. But a Lyric and a Melody are, and a Sound Recording is. Drummers or any musician in the band not creating the melody and/or the lyric are making the song GROOVE in the arrangemaent, not writing a song. "


Yeah yeah, I get all this but we are talking about the inception of the tune I thought. This is where all this gets defined (hence the U2 reference you made).

There are several grey area parallels here when producing music as well (which can be very grey between the "hands off" type producers and "full tilt, hands on" type producers. Production as well as the creation of melodies are really just about choices made to get a particular emotion across, no? Sometimes the production of a song may revolve around something as simple as telling a singer who has been singing a song for months or years in chest voice to sing the song in falsetto and the impact totally changes. Or the producer saying, "Hey, instead of playing 8th notes in this song through a distorted mesa boogie, let's play quarters through a fender twin." A little arranging, a little production, or just a guy making friendly suggestions? Gotta define it before or when it's going on. There's a tilting point to where something is defined as production or just good suggestions. Same with songwriting, I think. Something leads to the result.

Just my 2 cents which may be against the tide a bit but that hasn't stopped me from playing the game when needed and working towards a fairer scenario for all involved in specific situations (I've split publishing with many clients/collaborators in THEIR favor or mine based on conversations about how the song was born regardless of old school definitions). It's all about talking it out.

No hostility intended. Just a point of view! :-)

[doorknocker]

The problem with standard copyright laws is that the composer is thought of as an inventor of a totally unique piece of work. This really is coming out of the Romantic period in the mid/late 19th century where musicians stopped being servants to God and/or Royalty and became 'geniuses' in the true sense of the word.

SO much of popular music- especially since the rock and roll era of the 50ies - is about taking age-old folk themes and turning them into something 'original' by re-assembling, varying and quoting. And that's great because it's a constantly evolving thing that reflects the status quo both socially and technically. Sampling for example was only possible thru technical progress and thus became an artistic factor only recently.

Look up a blues tune like 'Walkin' Blues' and you find the basic same song credited to different people all claiming to be the author.

When Bob Dylan recorded 'Rollin' and tumblin' on his last record, it was credited to 'B.Dylan'. Yet it's the very same song (with a few small lyric variations) that Muddy Waters recorded in the 50ies. But if you go further back all the way to the 30ies, you find a recording made by and credited to one Hambone Willie Newbern. So what Dylan did was the same thing that Muddy did. They took a song that basically is P.D and made it their own, with the obvious intent of collecting the copyright. And with Dylan's album taking the #1 spot on the charts, that makes for quite a few dineros.

Now if you record 'Rollin + Tubling' with your blues band, who would you credit it to? Surely not to to Dylan I guess, although Dylan now HAS a copyright on a song called 'Rolling + Tumblin' that uses most of the words that YOU will sing even when you pattern your version on say Muddy or Cream.

Actually, Jeff Beck did a fantastic version of the very same tune a few years ago (with Imogen Heap on vocals). he credited it to Muddy Waters even though Beck's version is IMO way more innovative and unique than Dylan's.

And more recent styles like hip-hop or Techno are actually very similar to blues in the sense that it's not melody or original lyrics that are the main ingridients. So the 'melody and lyrics' theory fails here as well. It doesn't matter whether you say 'This is not real songwriting because the guy is only rapping over a beat' because that's purely an aesthetical judgement.

Sorry for ramblin' (to stay with blues talk) but the whole issue is anything but clear-cut and in desperate need of adjustment.

[zooloo]

If "lyrics and melody" is unfair, what would be fair?

[Chucho]

Originally Posted by zooloo

If "lyrics and melody" is unfair, what would be fair?

Fair is - crediting Page for writing the riffs that Plant sang on and crediting Bonham for the drums on 'rock and Roll' which Page played on and then Plant sang on.

[Mr. Z]

Well, this is a very interesting thread. The first thing that comes to my mind is that things are not legally set in stone. I'm not an attorney, but I have researched this issue over time as a composer/producer. I think the law evolves in the courts, particularly in the past few decades as new forms of music, like hip hop, continue to bring forth new disputes and interpretations of Copyright law.

This forum has mostly focused on rock/pop music, but hip hop has brought many challenging questions. Obviously, the sampling issue has been a big part of it, but let's leave that aside. Assuming a rap "song" is created with an original track and lyrics, it's usually a 50/50 split between composer (producer) and writer (rapper). In this case, melody and chord progressions are often nonexistent. What does exist, however, is a distinct piece of music that is completely original. It may just be a groove that stays in A minor for the whole song. There may be no melodies played by the instruments, just creative elements, such as a percussive sound that is distinct and unique. I believe the uniqueness is what constitutes a composition. In my opinion, this is where the line should be drawn between arrangement and writing. If you're re-creating and making the music original and unique, that's a co-writing situation. Just my opinion of course, and I don't believe there is a definite right answer: ultimately these things are resolved in court.

[Digitar]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

Digitar,

I'm perfectly aware of the 'rules'. My point being that these laws are outdated and NEED to be changed.

Personally I think that giving the perfromers a piece of the cake is the right solution. Germany (still one of the biggest markets in the world) has been doing this since quite a long time, if you perform on a recording (whether you are the writer or not) you get a smalll percentage of the collected licenses. Switzerland started a similar model a few years ago and in fact I just read in an article about the Eagles that Don Henley has been advocating a similar model for the USA.

Doorknocker, Don't shoot the messenger! I didn't make the rules, but if I expect to protect my compositions I'd better KNOW them.

The performers DO get a royalty TODAY, without any changes to the law, it's called a performance royalty. Like your example of "Satifaction",Jagger and Richards get the Song royalty and all of the Stones get a performance royalty and a mechanical royalty from the sound recording.

By the way the royalties we're talking about ARE the publishing.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that all these fabulous musicians deserve a cut of the recording, but I don't agree that anyone other than those who wrote the SONG deserve a cut of that. What's fair is fair.

I'm a Guitar Player and a Composer and just want my fair share of whatever I contribute to a project. I'm TOTALLY against anyone being used and abused in this business. But just because you think that 9th chord makes that song doesn't mean the songwriter does.

[Digitar]

Originally Posted by Bounce

Hey, Digitar, while I appreciate your interpretation of my viewpoint, I must restate that this is part of the agreement between those involved and that it is specific to the writing of a specific song.

I do wholeheartedly agree with drawing the line between arranging or session work and writing and the fact that if I play on a session and create parts, that I am only getting musician credit. That's clear and lines up with the "lyrics and melody" law and is not even necessarily arranging, but session playing (interpreting an existing song). I've been doing it for over 20 years now(wow, that long? freaks me out a little). However, you do have to think about how if I added the ninth to a straight minor chord from which the melody was created and then an 11 to the next chord and the singer then changes the melody to the ninth then eleventh, that's interesting food for thought in the writing department, no? Now I know how it's been defined for years. I get the old school mentality (and current law of course if a song is contested/disputed) and I have played along forever and usually it's absolutely right and clear with no issue. Nashville, LA, NY all over. I get it and I play the game that way with publishers, writers, licensing splits, etc. I have written and co-written many, many songs and currently have material out all over the world. I get all this but we are talking about the inception of the tune I thought. This is where all this gets defined (hence the U2 reference you made). It's all about talking it out.

No hostility intended. Just a point of view! :-)

McKay, No hostility taken, I've been in this a long time, too.

Kobuk's, original thread was about being taken advantage of after the fact and where does the "line" get drawn. It's about setting up the ground rules beforehand. Whether it's a situation like U2 where they flesh out a tune together, or like Springsteen or Peter Townsend where they bring in THEIR tunes to record with the band adding their part.

It's all about clearing up all the misunderstandings BEFORE they happen, and unfortunately, it usually takes an experience like Kobuk's going through to open your eyes to the pitfalls of this business.

As a guitarist, composer, and producer I don't want to see anybody get ripped off. But just because someone THINKS they deserve a cut for their contribution of a chord, lick, or rhythm doesn't mean they do.

Digitar, Over and Out

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Digitar

Don't get me wrong, I agree that all these fabulous musicians deserve a cut of the recording, but I don't agree that anyone other than those who wrote the SONG deserve a cut of that. What's fair is fair.

That's absolutely not what I was saying. But I think I wrote enough in this here thread trying to make my point so I'll just leave it at that, no offence taken.

[lane thaw]

I work with a keyboard player who adds so much to what I do, so I took the song he added the most to and gave him full co-writer credit. Also, my arranger, has one song with co-writer credit. My feeling is be kind, find a compromise and give them some co-writing credits so it evens things out. I'm getting ready for my next CD and still have both of these talented people in my corner. You're only as good as the people you surround yourself with. I obviously pay for their time in addition to co-writing credits.

Think of it this way, the worst thing that could happen is you get a "hit" on one of the co-written compositions and have to split the royalties. You can bitch all the way to the band on that one

Good Luck

[Chucho]

Originally Posted by lane thaw

I work with a keyboard player who adds so much to what I do, so I took the song he added the most to and gave him full co-writer credit. Also, my arranger, has one song with co-writer credit. My feeling is be kind, find a compromise and give them some co-writing credits so it evens things out. I'm getting ready for my next CD and still have both of these talented people in my corner. You're only as good as the people you surround yourself with. I obviously pay for their time in addition to co-writing credits.

Think of it this way, the worst thing that could happen is you get a "hit" on one of the co-written compositions and have to split the royalties. You can bitch all the way to the band on that one

Good Luck

That's the point isn't it, not pissing off people who are good for you and your music.

[zooloo]

Originally Posted by Chucho

Fair is - crediting Page for writing the riffs that Plant sang on and crediting Bonham for the drums on 'rock and Roll' which Page played on and then Plant sang on.

How do you reduce that to something similar to "A song is melody and lyrics"?

[Vum]

Since you haven't defined the roles up front you can only (in this instance) salvage what you can. As a composer/producer type, I am in constant revision with what I write when it finally comes to the eyes of the musician.

As a non p***k, I always give credit where credit is due. There have been times when a musician has put in more work than just play an instrument and when i was younger, they definitely had to bring the subject to me that they wanted credit as a co-writer.

considering what you say you did on the record I'd credit you with the arrangement. on some songs though, it sounds like you definitely did more than arrange and on those tracks you can probably come to the agreement with the artist to share the writing credit.

Since everything was more or less a "gentleman's agreement" - a compromise will probably be your best path and in the end, it will save your relationship with this artist so that you can keep working with them in the future, of course, under different guidelines.

[Chucho]

Originally Posted by zooloo

How do you reduce that to something similar to "A song is melody and lyrics"?

Sometimes a song is melody and lyrics.

[zooloo]

Originally Posted by Chucho

Sometimes a song is melody and lyrics.

Indeed that's what the law thinks it is but you used an example where it arguably wasn't.

If we want to cover Bonham's drumming how would we phrase the law to do so?

[peeder]

Originally Posted by zooloo

Indeed that's what the law thinks it is but you used an example where it arguably wasn't.

If we want to cover Bonham's drumming how would we phrase the law to do so?

You would say that it is the copyright in the sound recording of a performance. Bonham (his heirs) do participate in those royalties (one hopes).

But what the fuss is about goes back to the ASCAP strike 100 years ago where songwriters started getting big dollars...bigger than record royalties, these days. Those are songwriters and publishers that struck, won, and roll in the dough ever since (IF they can get a hit song). Not drummers.

Drummers and producers and everyone like that haven't formed an effective union (they tried to break ASCAP with BMI, but failed) where they could demand similar pay priveleges. Union scale (hourly session rates) is nowhere near as powerful as getting a slice of every performance of your song in every bar and TV show and everywhere for the life of the copyright (which was supposed to be limited, but Di$ney wrenched the gov't into making it unlimited).

Hmm...maybe things will get bad enough they will try...

[Chucho]

Originally Posted by zooloo

Indeed that's what the law thinks it is but you used an example where it arguably wasn't.

If we want to cover Bonham's drumming how would we phrase the law to do so?

It's not really anything to do with his drumming (that's on the record).
It's simply a case where his drum riff inspired Page to play that guitar part which inspired Plant to write that vocal. I'm talking about 'Rock and Roll' BTW.
It's an acknowledgement (by Plant I suppose) that the song ( the vocal ) wouldn't exist if it were not for the initial contributions of the other 2.
If it were recorded as an acapella, I would still consider it a Plant Page Bonham piece - as indeed it would be legally.

[Digitar]

Originally Posted by mappee

This is a blackhole in legal sense. Buddy Holly's producer Norman Petty used to plunk his name on all Buddy's songs.

My favorite case is "Whiter Shade Of Pale" which was credited to Gary Brooker but in a recent London court case, Mattew Fisher the composer of the memorable organ part was awarded co-authourship.
So according to this case Andy Summers riff would qualify for writer credit much to Stings protests.

Mappee,

I agree this IS a legal black hole but there is a difference between Andy's Rhythm and Mathews organ MELODY. Melodies are copyrightable, but rhythms are NOT. Good point, though.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Digitar

Mappee,

I agree this IS a legal black hole but there is a difference between Andy's Rhythm and Mathews organ MELODY.

The 'Whiter Shade of Pale' organ part -which really comes from J.S Bach - is very chordal in nature and so is Andy Summers' guitar part in 'Every breath you take'.

If you arpeggiate a chord then technically it becomes a melody. I think we should just accept the fact that sometimes it's hard to distinguish between co-writing and arranging so in the end it's a matter of how the involved parties agree about it or not. In mean with the Police and Procol Harum examples we're talking about people that played in bands together - so I couldn't see why Sting couldn't give Summers' a share of the credits (it could be a 70/30 split or soemthing) given the fact that his contribution was absolutely essential for the song to become a hit and no matter WHAT you actually call it - co-writing, arranging or whatever.

I really think this example is different from say a Nashville session player coming up with a great intro, it might be considered part of the song but more likely it's arranging and therefore should be credited as such. Andy Summers' part is there for the whole duration of the song and you could play the part on it own without any 'melody' on top of it and Joe Blow down the street still would clearly recognize it as 'Every breath you take'.

[drBill]

Interesting thought here.

Approaching it from 180 degrees.

If someone has to defend a copyright against another person who's claiming they ripped it off, the legal system will get musicologists involved. In a situation where someone is defending a copyright, they will take into account MUCH more than just melody and lyrics. They will rate probability on at least the following aspects to determine ownership.

Key
Tempo
Bassline
Chord Progression
Orchestration/Instrumentation
Groove
Rhythmic content
Other musical "hooks"
etc.

This is quite a grey area. I suggest (as have many others) that an agreement be decided upon before ever sitting down with someone to "create".

bp

[Digitar]

Originally Posted by zooloo

If we want to cover Bonham's drumming how would we phrase the law to do so?

It's already there. It's called a performance royalty, his estate already collects that. If there were no royalties for your PERFORMANCES, what would be the incentive for any musician to record. And there's also a mechanical royalty for the sound recording of anything that Bonham played on.

Like it was said in an earlier post it was more about someones ego getting stroked, than it was about actually getting a cut that they TRULY deserved.

Songwriting is Songwriting, but performing and recording are different elements entirely. Every musician that contributes something to the project deserve to be paid for THAT contribution. Producers, Arrangers,
Musicians, Engineers all deserve their cut. Nothing MORE, Nothing LESS.

[peeder]

Originally Posted by Digitar

Songwriting is Songwriting, but performing and recording are different elements entirely. Every musician that contributes something to the project deserve to be paid for THAT contribution. Producers, Arrangers,
Musicians, Engineers all deserve their cut. Nothing MORE, Nothing LESS.

But should that cut be based on how many copies are sold (as it is now) or EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of one of those recordings being played publicly (as songwriters and publishers enjoy)?

Can you tell the difference between those two pay schedules?

Seeing why "a piece of the publishing" is so often a bargaining chip in contract negotiations?

What songwriters need to do, btw, is extend performing rights to web streaming. AFAIK, that has not been achieved yet. But it's going to be everything shortly...

[vitreouswindows]

When I teach I have students do listening exercises. One of my methods is to listen closely to a work ("song") and make observations. For the sake of some order and clarity, after they've noted all of the aspects that struck them initially, I invite them to pull it apart as threads of a fabric. A song is broken down into melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamics, instrumentation, orchestration, tone colour(s), and lyrics. Obviously there is interplay - the lyrics have a rhythm, there is no melody possible without rhythm, etc.

Then I encourage them to notice what role each of these elements is playing in the work. They discover that certain apsects are ancillary - the melody and lyrics of "Tutti Frutti" could be altered without altering the emotional impact of the song. Well-known songs such as "Yesterday" or "Moon River" are evocative for their melodies - I suspect if the verses were re-written, they might still have the same impact (not taking into account sociological experiences one might have had with the song). A Bob Dylan song is heavily dependent upon the lyrics for its power, as well as the 'style' of Bob's singing/phrasing, etc. Indeed, many of the nuances and idiosyncrasies that inhabit a recording are often stylistically-specific to a certain performer.

How all of this intersects with the law is something I have little experience with. Heck, I'm still with the Indians - "How can you 'own' land?".

But, legalities notwithstanding, you can come to an agreement with your musical compatriots that leaves everyone feeling cared for, and which will enhance future collaborative experiencies. This will, I think, be the most life-giving perspective.

[roodle]

Originally Posted by uncle duncan

It sounds like you would have a valid cowrite claim on the song with the changed melody, or the added bridge, or whatever it was. If the artist doesn't see it that way, remind her/him that it's in the copyright statutes, and if they choose to ignore the copyright statutes, that would not be a very good way for them to start a career in the music business. In fact, it could torpedo their chances at a deal if the music business discovers they're ripping you off. You could reassure them that you don't plan any legal action, but that it would be in their best interests to educate themselves so that they don't get into trouble in the future.

Let them think about that for a few days, and then if they still won't budge, suggest to them that you would feel less legally-imperiled if they came up with their own parts so that you can remove yours from the project. (You don't really want to do that - I just wanted an opportunity to use the word 'legally-imperiled'.)

Been in this situation too many times to mention . Simple solution AGREE BEFORE YOU BEGIN A NEW SONG IF ALL WRITING ROYALTIES ARE TO BE SHARED AGREE WHO THE WRITERS ARE ALTHOUGH YOU MAY AGREE TO SOMEONE ELSE BEING THE WRITER BUT YOU RECIEVE YOUR EQUAL SHARE OF THE ROYALTIES FOR EXAMPLE CHRIS MARTIN WRITES COLD PLAY'S SONGS BUT ALL THE WRITERS ROYALTIES ARE DIVIDED EQUALLY. IF YOU GO IN TO REARRANGE AN ALREADY EXISTING SONG THEN AGAIN MAKE AN AGREEMENT IF YOU ARE TO BE PAID OR IF YOU GET A SONG WRITING CREDIT TRUST NO ONE BELIEVE ME EVEN YOUR BEST FRIEND OR MOTHER WILL SCREW YOU FOR MONEY
make sure you 100% get this in writing and signed by all parties
make sure you 100% get this in writing and signed by all parties
make sure you 100% get this in writing and signed by all parties
make sure you 100% get this in writing and signed by all parties
AND FINALLY
make sure you 100% get this in writing and signed by all parties

[Digitar]

Originally Posted by peeder

What songwriters need to do, btw, is extend performing rights to web streaming. AFAIK, that has not been achieved yet. But it's going to be everything shortly...

...And the sooner the better for everybody.