Who owns the song rights ??

[chaotick]

I'm not sure if this was the forum to post this but mods feel free to move it.

Ok. My guitarist friend and I met up with a vocalist and recorded some tracks.

The music is all ours, the lyrics and vocals are all hers.

She paid for the recordings with no discussion of who owns the rights.

If we split ways, how does this work?

Can we use the music and lyrics/vox melody freely? Just the music? Neither?

I'm very confused but really want to kick the vocalist to the curb because she's being shady. Please advise and thanks in advance!

[T-Bird]

Hi.

This thread may have some useful links in it:

I need recording rights to some covers

Witten agreement may well be the only thing that will theoretically give You guys any leverage on the issue if she really paid for everything and your word is the only proof that the music was yours.

But what do I know, I'm no lawyer .

Regards
Sam

[chaotick]

Well, if it helps, we have rough drafts in the form of home recordings from months back that would help prove it's really our material.

[T-MOST]

she would get half the royalties for the lyrics. You and your partner co-wrote the music so you split the other half.

or you can just split it 3 ways. But, she IS entitled to royalties.

I don't think paying for studio time has anything to do with it. Thats not any part of a creative process. At best that can simply be reimbursed.

[chaotick]

Originally Posted by T-MOST

she would get half the royalties for the lyrics. You and your partner co-wrote the music so you split the other half.

or you can just split it 3 ways. But, she IS entitled to royalties.

Even if we used the music but not her lyrics and vocal melody ?

Just making sure. Thanks very much for responding.

[T-MOST]

Originally Posted by chaotick

Even if we used the music but not her lyrics and vocal melody ?

Just making sure. Thanks very much for responding.

If you did not use any of her lyrics or melody
that complicates thening because she can claim that the music you did write was inspired by the lyrics and melody she contributed during the writing process. Did you guys write collectively or did you just bring the 2 elements together already written?

[chaotick]

They were written separately. We wrote the music months before she fit lyrics to it and, when it was written, we didn't have a specific person [ie: her] in mind.

[39-Bassist]

Take the recordings of the music and get copyright papers filled out and send them in ASAP that way you guys have a true record and the rights are proven about who wrote what...I went through that a few years ago and it kept everyone on the up and up. Just a thought.

[T-MOST]

BTW I'm not a lawyer, lol but in that case she may not have a claim to any of the song rights.

[chaotick]

That's what I inferred as it sounds reasonable to me but I just wanted to bounce it off another person or two. So, thanks, T-MOST.

Very good suggestion, 39-Bassist, I'll see what I have to do.

[prd004]

Doesn't matter weather you guys wrote the music ten years ago or in the studio. This a co-write scenario whare the singer owns 50% for writing the lyrics and your partner owns 50% for writing the music. Either party can use the song as written. The only sticky part is the arrangement between you and your partner and how that 50% is split.

The party that paid for the studio (singer in this case) is the exectitive producer and here you are getting into a lot of legal-eese. Without a contract the producer may be able to take 100% of the profits from the recording only. With a solid contract it could be divided up a number of ways, a common one would be the producer is entitled all expenses paid first from the profits and then after that, all profit goes in certain percentages to producer and writer(s). Unless you're expecting this song to be on the next I-pod commercial, this may not be that big a deal, but something to consider.

[Dirk Diggler]

There are no rules, you need to discuss and arrange appropriate percentages. You could weigh the music to equal 70% and vocals worth 30% if you want.
Just put it on paper or even better put it into a real process like ASCAP or BMI if it's original. Both companies you have to state who owns what when you register a song.
You situation displays the need for doing this properly, especially if you are already thinking the split might happen.
Good luck,
Dirk

[colcifer]

Who wrote the melody? Harmony isn't copyrightable.

[Ubersheist]

Originally Posted by prd004

Doesn't matter weather you guys wrote the music ten years ago or in the studio. This a co-write scenario whare the singer owns 50% for writing the lyrics and your partner owns 50% for writing the music. Either party can use the song as written. The only sticky part is the arrangement between you and your partner and how that 50% is split.

The party that paid for the studio (singer in this case) is the exectitive producer and here you are getting into a lot of legal-eese. Without a contract the producer may be able to take 100% of the profits from the recording only. With a solid contract it could be divided up a number of ways, a common one would be the producer is entitled all expenses paid first from the profits and then after that, all profit goes in certain percentages to producer and writer(s). Unless you're expecting this song to be on the next I-pod commercial, this may not be that big a deal, but something to consider.

Given what he stated, the song is legally split evenly between all persons. If you want to define that more, you should write it down somewhere and agree on something. Otherwise, the law doesn't distinguish lyrics from the music, as they are thought to affect each other.

As one of the co-writers of the song and nothing written down as a contract, you have the right to do whatever you want with the song. However, you must compensate the others, and there's amendments to the Copyright Act that cover this. You also can get into sticky water if you do something that they don't agree with and you don't consult them beforehand.

If you kick out the singer, she'll always have a right to that song, unless you agree to soemthing. I'd just drop the song. It's the right thing to do.

[chaotick]

Originally Posted by Ubersheist

I'd just drop the song.

Sounds like a plan. I love the two songs but I don't think it's worth the hassle in the least!

Thank you for all that replied.

[HolmeBass]

I hope she didn't pay you guys for your time in the studio, did she? Because that might let her take it all under the assertion that you were professional session musicians, who now no longer have any copyright to their recordings (they used to have to sign it away, not just getting paid causes you to relinquish your rights). I'd get your recording of the music only registered for copyright ASAP.

[chaotick]

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

I hope she didn't pay you guys for your time in the studio, did she? Because that might let her take it all under the assertion that you were professional session musicians, who now no longer have any copyright to their recordings (they used to have to sign it away, not just getting paid causes you to relinquish your rights). I'd get your recording of the music only registered for copyright ASAP.

She paid the studio for the time, but she didn't pay us, don't know if that makes a distinction.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

I hope she didn't pay you guys for your time in the studio, did she? Because that might let her take it all under the assertion that you were professional session musicians, who now no longer have any copyright to their recordings (they used to have to sign it away, not just getting paid causes you to relinquish your rights). I'd get your recording of the music only registered for copyright ASAP.

I think that you are confusing a situation where a session musician plays someone else's copyrighted materials and a situation where a musician plays his own copyrighted material. I'm not aware of any mechanism whereby a copyright holder can relinquish his rights to copyright merely by being paid to record it, in the absence of some agreement transferring the rights in the work. If you have a cite to any law to the contrary, I would like to see it.

[Ubersheist]

Originally Posted by Febs

I think that you are confusing a situation where a session musician plays someone else's copyrighted materials and a situation where a musician plays his own copyrighted material. I'm not aware of any mechanism whereby a copyright holder can relinquish his rights to copyright merely by being paid to record it, in the absence of some agreement transferring the rights in the work. If you have a cite to any law to the contrary, I would like to see it.

You have it right for the US of A. Unless you sign something (usually in exchange for a good-sized wad of cash) that says that a record company or a publishing company now owns the copyright to the song, you will own the copyright of that song for 75 years.

Your old singer has a good claim to owning the masters and could collect all of the performance royalties, but only 1/4 of the publishing royalties. This means that if the song was played on the radio, the radio would cut two checks - one to the performers (which she'd own) and one to be divided up among the publishers or copyright owners (which all of you have a right to an equal portion). So she'd get 62.5% of the radio or TV spot royalties. She could have a good claim on CD sales, claiming that she owns 100% of the masters.

This doesn't have to stop you from recording your own version of the song. If you paid for a brand new recording yourself with your money, and sold the song to a TV show for $1000, you would get all the performance royalties (50%), and the other $500 would be split up evenly between you and your former band members.

[80'sRocker]

simply copyright (form PA or SR) only the music in your name (not hers) and list as "music", not music and words. Problem solved