How long are labels taking to pay invoices lately?

[paultools]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

Isn't "Cease And Desist" posh words for Stop? Stop what exactly?

I would suggest contributing to the work and owning the materials the work is recorded on would be grounds.

Try not paying Electric Ladyland and see how far your claim for the recordings they made goes.

Edit: I know it's NOT Ladyland really...

Cease and desist means, stop:
Distribution
and the judge can order the money flow to stop until things are all sorted out.
The record company WILL settle this if they plan to distribute the recording.
I know from experience.

Your suggestion about the material that the SR is recorded on is contrary to the law. The studio is not entitled to the copyright of the SR, paid for or not.

[DJamesGoody]

Originally Posted by paultools

Your suggestion about the material that the SR is recorded on is contrary to the law. The studio is not entitled to the copyright of the SR, paid for or not.

True. There are numerous precedents in this area. If this was actually the case, we wouldn't even have this problem, now would we?

[juniorhifikit]

Originally Posted by DJamesGoody

Well you're lucky. I'm out over a year on TWO MAJOR PROJECTS. One for Ryko, one for Warner. OVER A YEAR on EACH!

Wow bummer. Both of them have paid me inside of 30 days. Did you sign up for their WGM QuickPay direct-deposit thingy?

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by paultools

Whether you used your gear or it's on your hard drive or not does not matter (at least for a U.S. copyright claim)... if you wrote a song using a friend's guitar, your friend is not a co-owner of the work. If you book Electric Lady to mix a song, the owners of the studio are not entitled to a share of the copyright of the resulting Sound Recording.

What matters is that you had a meaningful contribution to the creation of the work, and that you were uncompensated for releasing your right to any exploitation of the recording. The argument to be made is the extent of your contribution, but the record company would not want to take a chance on this if they are releasing the recording. "Cease and desist" are 3 powerful words if you can afford to use them.

The two of you are talking about different copyrights. The studio will never own the publishing, but until the bill is paid in full can own the mechanical rights - because that is what the client is paying for. If an unpaid for record is released, it's therefore technically the same as an uncleared sample, from a mechanical copyright point of view. Publishing and who wrote the song is irrelevant.

[Steffmo]

anytime you are working with a corporate entity you should have a blanket purchase order in place stating what the label will be responsible for, and who is authorized to run up a bill.

So, if they authorize 10k in time and 500 in materials, the authorized person, lets say the producer, can use that much time and stuff.

Basically the PO states that they know what is going on, and that X is empowered to act on the labels behalf.

When the PO is maxed they should pay it and issue a new one if they still need services.

Its tempting to look the other way and let them run up a bill, but with out the PO they can claim the artist or the producer was not authorized, and they might not pay.

The better people at the better labels won't let a session start until the PO is issued.

[paultools]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

The two of you are talking about different copyrights. The studio will never own the publishing, but until the bill is paid in full can own the mechanical rights - because that is what the client is paying for. If an unpaid for record is released, it's therefore technically the same as an uncleared sample, from a mechanical copyright point of view. Publishing and who wrote the song is irrelevant.

???

Upon what law are you basing this statement?

I am talking about an engineer as a co-creator of a work deemed a Sound Recording. He/she is therefore entitled by law to a share of the copyright, unless his/her contribution was compensated work-for-hire.

A studio would not be in this position, whether the bill is paid or not. A studio would only be entitled to ownership of the Sound Recording if this was negotiated and agreed to as some sort of compensation in lieu of payment for the studio time, but that scenario is NOT inherent in the US Copyright law. A studio might not release the masters to the client for non-payment, but that does NOT give the studio the right to reproduce and exploit the recordings.

[PopularDemand]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

Copyright relates to a specific recording or work. As in "I give you the right to copy this..."

An unpaid engineer/studio couldn't claim to have written the song and ask for publishing royalties for it, but they could claim to own the copyright of the recording.
Hence all the crappy "sound-a likes" that plague spotify etc...

I wouldn't like to contest it in court though, because it is such a grey area.

There is no grey area. The engineer does not own anything he did not write.

You guys can want it to be law but it's a work for hire only. If you take them to court you get your money. Not a piece of the song.

[Trakworx]

Well, the label has responded to an email from the artist, saying they "will process this now. ... There is no date on the invoice so it wasn't clear when it needed to be paid".

They still have not replied to any of my polite emails, so I'll see if they follow through this coming week.

Trying to claim any kind of ownership of the recording... now that would REALLY make me look like a schmuck! Forget about the label, I'd never put the band through that.

If this problem persists, I think the only realistic thing I can do is sit on the masters until paid. 'Hoping that's not necessary.

Thanks for all the input!

J~

[paultools]

Originally Posted by PopularDemand

There is no grey area. The engineer does not own anything he did not write.

You guys can want it to be law but it's a work for hire only. If you take them to court you get your money. Not a piece of the song.

1) The engineer can argue for ownership of a share of the RECORDING of the song he/she did not write.

2) There is no work-for-hire without compensation.

3) Going back OT, if you are having trouble collecting money from a major label, try sending a letter to their legal affairs department. Even the suggestion that there a potential for copyright infringement on their part should at the least result in communication. It worked for me.

4) or, you can do nothing.

[gogar]

Just issue a mechanic's lien.


Oops, wait. Wrong bbs.

[Bob Olhsson]

Anybody who works on a recording has an interest in the copyright on the master recording but not that of the underlying song. This means you certainly can stop a release however you can't go ahead and do anything with it yourself.

On thing to beware of is that bands and producers have been known to tell studios a label is paying for sessions before the label has agreed to do so. This is why you need a purchase order. If the label or the artist doesn't care for what they did, you can end up getting stiffed.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by paultools

???

Upon what law are you basing this statement?

I am talking about an engineer as a co-creator of a work deemed a Sound Recording. He/she is therefore entitled by law to a share of the copyright, unless his/her contribution was compensated work-for-hire.

A studio would not be in this position, whether the bill is paid or not. A studio would only be entitled to ownership of the Sound Recording if this was negotiated and agreed to as some sort of compensation in lieu of payment for the studio time, but that scenario is NOT inherent in the US Copyright law. A studio might not release the masters to the client for non-payment, but that does NOT give the studio the right to reproduce and exploit the recordings.

I think maybe I misread you on iphone then, and we're saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by PopularDemand

There is no grey area. The engineer does not own anything he did not write.

You guys can want it to be law but it's a work for hire only. If you take them to court you get your money. Not a piece of the song.

This is what I'm talking about - no-one's talking about publishing royalties. We're talking about the mechanical rights - which in most contracts for sessions, remain the property of the studio (which may well include the owner-operator) until paid for in full.

But I think it's already been made clear...

[paultools]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

I think maybe I misread you on iphone then, and we're saying the same thing.



This is what I'm talking about - no-one's talking about publishing royalties. We're talking about the mechanical rights - which in most contracts for sessions, remain the property of the studio (which may well include the owner-operator) until paid for in full.

But I think it's already been made clear...

Not true.

I'm not trying to bicker; I simply don't want anyone to be misled.

There is nothing in US copyright law that entitles the studio to any rights at all, mechanical or otherwise. The studio is not a co-creator of the work, in this case, a Sound Recording. An engineer is.
Maybe someone else can maker this clearer.

If a major label is balking at paying you as an engineer or producer, this is an effective strategy to get a reply. It is legal, and certainly more ethical than getting stiffed by a corporate behemoth.

I'm out.

[paultools]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Anybody who works on a recording has an interest in the copyright on the master recording but not that of the underlying song. This means you certainly can stop a release however you can't go ahead and do anything with it yourself.

.

Right, and a letter threatening the stop of the release will usually get communication flowing again if the label has been stonewalling you.

[PopularDemand]

Originally Posted by paultools

Right, and a letter threatening the stop of the release will usually get communication flowing again if the label has been stonewalling you.

There are tons of producers out here who wrote the darn song, and are owed, who can't get the release stopped. You think an engineer will be able to to that. Not likely.

Again, what we think should happen and reality don't mix. I'm not sharing my copyright with anyone who didn't write the song. Does the 2nd own the song too?

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by PopularDemand

Does the 2nd own the song too?

Actually, if the second doesn't get paid he owns the studio! You didn't know that?

[paultools]

Originally Posted by PopularDemand

There are tons of producers out here who wrote the darn song, and are owed, who can't get the release stopped. You think an engineer will be able to to that. Not likely.

Again, what we think should happen and reality don't mix. I'm not sharing my copyright with anyone who didn't write the song. Does the 2nd own the song too?

You don't have to get the release stopped to get paid. The idea is to get the record company to respond, and they will if there is a possibility of infringement. In order to actually stop the release, you would need an injunction from a judge, and you would in effect post a bond equal to the amount of record company damages if you lost your case and impeded their commerce.

You don't have an option to "share" your copyright with the engineer if he/she significantly contributed to the creation of the Sound Recording. His/her share is inherent BY LAW, unless the engineer's work is considered "work for hire", in which case there must be an prior agreement and ding ding ding COMPENSATION! The LAW is very specific about this. Try reading it. It has NOTHING to do with who wrote the song!

My reality is that I used this approach SUCCESSFULLY to get paid $25,000 from EMI.

YMMV

[Steffmo]

As I said earlier, and Bob O reiterated, the real key is the purchase order up front. This establishes the labels obligation to pay. And it makes them aware of what is going on.

Especially today, many deals allow the money to flow throw the producer. So even though it might seem you are working for BigLabel, Inc., you are actually being retained by the producer, who has less to lose in stiffing you than the label. so watch for that.

HOWEVER, virtually every producer agreement has a clause stipulating that the producer agrees to pay all vendors. So if they try to stiff you, you can go back to legal and point out that the producer is essentially making the label look bad.

I had this happen with a SWV record in the early 90's. Fortunately I had some connects a RCA in the upper mgt, and could throw a few names around. It got the attention of the president, who assigned legal to sort it out.

It turns out that the producer had another project with the label, and they look MY money out of his next budget and paid me. They cited that clause as giving them the right.

The guy and his bottom feeder attorney were soooo pissed that they got beat. I had to smile. The money was great, but the satisfaction was better.

Yar later a platinum record showed up for our work on that....I was surprised but pleased. Once and a while...a very great while, people take the high road.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by paultools

Not true.

I'm not trying to bicker; I simply don't want anyone to be misled.

There is nothing in US copyright law that entitles the studio to any rights at all, mechanical or otherwise. The studio is not a co-creator of the work, in this case, a Sound Recording. An engineer is.
Maybe someone else can maker this clearer.

If a major label is balking at paying you as an engineer or producer, this is an effective strategy to get a reply. It is legal, and certainly more ethical than getting stiffed by a corporate behemoth.

I'm out.

Fair enough - over here, I'm pretty certain our standard studio booking agreement says something along the lines of "you don't own your recordings until you've paid us". Obviously majors, and anyone else trustworthy, can pay in arrears...but I'm pretty certain there'd be action if someone didn't pay up then tried to release tracks.

At any rate, anyone mentioning publishing and so on is confusing the matter more than I am!

[paultools]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Fair enough - over here, I'm pretty certain our standard studio booking agreement says something along the lines of "you don't own your recordings until you've paid us". Obviously majors, and anyone else trustworthy, can pay in arrears...but I'm pretty certain there'd be action if someone didn't pay up then tried to release tracks.

At any rate, anyone mentioning publishing and so on is confusing the matter more than I am!

There is a fine, but significant line between owning the recording, and owning the RIGHT to make copies of said recording, distribute it, license it, and otherwise exploit it.

Don't trust the majors or minors. Get an agreement up front with all the terms spelled out, including the engineer retaining all his/her rights until compensated in full.

[DannyMac]

The Law in the UK changed quite some time back...
Meaning that any invoice not paid after 30 days in due to have interest charged on it

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

7 weeks after invoicing a pretty big Metal label (not "major", but not what I'd call "indie" either) and no word. I emailed 5 days ago but no answer yet. Work is still ongoing on this album. It's going to add up to a lot of $ in the end. I do not have a written contract with the label, but I have a long history with the band and took it on good faith.

Should I be worried?

Thanks!

J~

P.S. Sorry about the typo in the title! How do I fix that??

.

yes

be very worried

if you dont have a contract with them why would they pay you?

tell your band to pay up or stop work before you lose more.

[bobsandifer]

Originally Posted by jkchuma

At the same time, suing a label won't get you future work.

This actually depends on how valuable your services are. I once started legal action against a label for 6 reel of 2inch tape that was not paid for. I got paid and after 10 years I still mix tracks for them on 60 day terms. Its just business and big business understands that. As a freelance engineer I keep an attorney on retainer and I have problem calling her if I feel a problem coming on.

Indie or local bands I dont even fool with. I give them a price, they pay me and I finish the work. Major labels I give 60 days they take 90 and all is good.