You didn't write anything

[jmattbassplaya]

It still depends though...............

If you were just coming up with bass lines to go with what was being played in the "jam", then your still technically out of luck.

Unless you came up with a part, or write a bassline that becomes an integral part of the song - no credit.

It kind of comes down to this:

Either you have to have had the idea for parts of the song that the others had to play, or you have to write a bass part that defines the overall sound of the song.

You realize that makes zero sense, right?

That's not an attack towards you but think this through. If you're playing along in a jam then you're obviously going to be listening to everyone in order to figure out how to better fit your line in. Likewise, everyone is going to be listening to you to figure out how to fit their own part in. That means everyone is creating at the same time and is writing together. Who has written the song at this point?

Let's say we're jamming in A minor and I decide to do a walk down to G and then to F (just to keep things simple, and let's pretend it's some major moment that defines the song). We play through the progression again and this time everyone else now plays the walk down for the progression, and after we jam we decide we're going to keep it in the song. I just defined the songs progression and have established a focal point for the melody to work off of. Who has written the song at this point?

Let's then go on to say that at next rehearsal our singer comes in with come lyrics and throws them on top of the song and then the rest of us throw some harmonies behind it. Who has written the song at this point?

This has been a repeating question that I've had. How do you define a songwriter? How do you define the songwriting process? How do you define who gets credit? Was it a song when it was a jam? Was it a song only after I defined the progression? Was it a song when the singer added words after the fact? This is important for me to know because, quite honestly, no one in my band really writes or comes in saying, "the beat is this, the riff is this, the bass is this, etc..." The most we might get is, "Hey, I wrote this riff, let's jam on it" and from there we all create the rest of the song together.

 

[Music Attorney]

Example: Joe (lyrics) and Bud (melody) write a song and each own 50% of the whole. Joe and Bud sign on with Hitsong Publishing. Hitsong takes 50% of the whole. Fred (drums) and Biff (bass) get nothing even though they created the drums and bass parts (arrangement), because they did NOT demand, beforehand, some songwriting credits.

ASCAP collects $100 from radio play. Joe earns $25, Bud earns $25 and Hitsong earns $50. Biff and Fred earn $0. Harry Fox collects $100 from the record company due to sales. Joe earns $25, Bud earns $25 and Hitsong earns $50. Biff and Fred earn $0.

To be clear, your example works if you mean 100% of the publishing when you say "50% of the whole." In the U.S., it's customary to refer to a "publisher's share" and a "songwriter's share." If a publisher takes 100% of the publishing (i.e., the entire "publisher's share"), then that basically means 50 cents of every dollar goes to the publisher and 50 cents goes to the songwriters, as indicated in your example.

However, if you had a so-called "co-pub" deal where the publisher took 50% of the publishing and the songwriters retained 50% of the publishing, then the math is different. In your example, the $50 to Hitsong would only be $25 with Joe and Bud splitting the other $25 (i.e., $12.50 each). Therefore, in the co-pub situation (which is extremely common today), Joe and Bud would each get $37.50 as a result of keeping 50% of %100 of the copyright.


MA

 

[Music Attorney]

Okay, so what happens when songs come out of jams in your band?

Literally, almost every song my band has created started from us jamming. Someone will play a lick or line, and then we'd jam on it until it's solid. We'll then arrange additional parts, and then words and a melody will come after everything else is already in place.

In this case, there is no writer. No one truly creates anything pre existing before a jam, so no one can claim anything is theirs more than anyone else. We'll each contribute progression ideas and help with parts outside of our own (including lyrical and melody content).

In these cases, who's the songwriter or is it simply everyone?

This is classic joint authorship territory.

MA

 

[jmattbassplaya]

This is classic joint authorship territory.

MA

Thanks, MA. That puts a clear term to it that I can use

 

[Music Attorney]

Long story short, go into publishing, songwriting is for chumps.

Huh? I have no clue what you're trying to say, but I strongly recommend other readers pay no attention to the man behind this curtain.

MA

PS - my comment assumes familiarity with the Wizard of Oz. If you are not familiar with it, then just simply ignore what bigboy posted.

 

[Music Attorney]

This is why Michael Jackson purchased the PUBLISHING portion of the Lennon/McCartney songs.

He knew that his income would be equal to BOTH Lennon and McCartney.

John - 25%
Paul - 25%
Michael - 50%

Are you sure John and Paul retained none of their publishing?? Because that's the only way your math makes sense.

MA

 

[Music Attorney]

You realize that makes zero sense, right?

That's not an attack towards you but think this through. If you're playing along in a jam then you're obviously going to be listening to everyone in order to figure out how to better fit your line in. Likewise, everyone is going to be listening to you to figure out how to fit their own part in. That means everyone is creating at the same time and is writing together. Who has written the song at this point?

Let's say we're jamming in A minor and I decide to do a walk down to G and then to F (just to keep things simple, and let's pretend it's some major moment that defines the song). We play through the progression again and this time everyone else now plays the walk down for the progression, and after we jam we decide we're going to keep it in the song. I just defined the songs progression and have established a focal point for the melody to work off of. Who has written the song at this point?

Let's then go on to say that at next rehearsal our singer comes in with come lyrics and throws them on top of the song and then the rest of us throw some harmonies behind it. Who has written the song at this point?

This has been a repeating question that I've had. How do you define a songwriter? How do you define the songwriting process? How do you define who gets credit? Was it a song when it was a jam? Was it a song only after I defined the progression? Was it a song when the singer added words after the fact? This is important for me to know because, quite honestly, no one in my band really writes or comes in saying, "the beat is this, the riff is this, the bass is this, etc..." The most we might get is, "Hey, I wrote this riff, let's jam on it" and from there we all create the rest of the song together.

As I mentioned earlier, I've previously written about my thoughts on (a) baselines creating a songwriting credit and (b) what constitutes legal entitlement (under U.S. law) to songwriting credit.

However, I've also written about the PRACTICAL aspect of when songwriter credit is given. For example, I've had many clients that have had to share songwriting credit based on contributions from others that were something other than lyrics and/or the melody. And the reasons as to why they shared credit are all over the map.

In fact, I rarely find that legal analysis has much to do with the end result of most songwriting splits. For example, I have had some rapper clients that firmly believe if they rap 8 bars they get 10% of the song. It has everything to do with the custom and practice in that genre and nothing to do with legalities. However, to hear the client explain it, they would have you believe the 8-bar rule is codified in the U.S. Constitution.

Similarly, I have some Nashville clients that have an ethos where every songwriter in the room is considered an equal contributor regardless of what they wrote.

Determining songwriting splits is one of the most problematic areas I deal with on a day-to-day basis. It's a volatile mix of art, opinion, law, "fairness," custom and practice, and so on.

MA

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Thank you for your advice on the matter, MA. It's interesting to know that there is a practicality side to it that's not necessarily based on law but on what's customary.

This is quickly becoming an important topic for me as my original band is beginning to get to this stage where defining what constitutes songwriting in our band important. Seeing as we almost always create songs from jams, it seems a joint authorship approach (except when applicable) is what we should do. Better get it in writing, too.

 

[Music Attorney]

Thank you for your advice on the matter, MA. It's interesting to know that there is a practicality side to it that's not necessarily based on law but on what's customary.

This is quickly becoming an important topic for me as my original band is beginning to get to this stage where defining what constitutes songwriting in our band important. Seeing as we almost always create songs from jams, it seems a joint authorship approach (except when applicable) is what we should do. Better get it in writing, too.

Took a quick listen to "Scared To Love." Not sure how the song was created, but based on straight legal analysis, the melody and lyrics of the song are very clear to me and it would be my opinion that whoever came up with them would be the songwriter(s).

That said, if you and others created a musical bed that inspired those lyrics and melody, then you could certainly make an argument that you "deserve" part of the songwriter credit or that it would be "fair" for you to get credit or that you "should" get credit based on your contributions to the creative process. However, at the end of the day, if someone can say they wrote those lyrics and they wrote the melody that the lyrics are sung to, then I'd say you'd have your songwriters from a legal perspective.

Again, however, whether and when artists, songwriters, producers, etc. get songwriting credit is far from an exact science and, unfortunately, that uncertainty leads to a lot of less than pleasant situations because people can have a very different concept of what's "fair," "customary," or "reasonable."

MA

 

[elshunko]

If that changes I got dibs on I-IV-V ..

Hahahah. I call II - IV - VI.

 

[Stick_Player]

To be clear, your example works if you mean 100% of the publishing when you say "50% of the whole." In the U.S., it's customary to refer to a "publisher's share" and a "songwriter's share." If a publisher takes 100% of the publishing (i.e., the entire "publisher's share"), then that basically means 50 cents of every dollar goes to the publisher and 50 cents goes to the songwriters, as indicated in your example.

However, if you had a so-called "co-pub" deal where the publisher took 50% of the publishing and the songwriters retained 50% of the publishing, then the math is different. In your example, the $50 to Hitsong would only be $25 with Joe and Bud splitting the other $25 (i.e., $12.50 each). Therefore, in the co-pub situation (which is extremely common today), Joe and Bud would each get $37.50 as a result of keeping 50% of %100 of the copyright.


MA

Yes, you are correct. In my, very generalized illustration, I did mean that Hitsong was the sole publisher -- no co-publishing. Fifty cents of the dollar went to the songwriters (Joe and Bud), and Fifty cents of the dollar went to the publisher (Hitsong). I also did not include administration fees, collection fees, etc.

I, long ago, entered into a deal more similar to the one you described - myself and one other writer. I retained ALL my publishing share and the other writer already had a deal with BMG Music Publishing. In the end, I earned 50 cents, my co-writer 25 cents, and BMG 25 cents of the dollar.

Are you sure John and Paul retained none of their publishing?? Because that's the only way your math makes sense.

MA

When it comes to Beatles anything (who played bass - to - who wrote/published), I can only speculate.

I have heard that in the earliest of early days, Epstein suggested to Lennon and McCartney, that Harrison and Starr each get 5% of the songwriting income (not the songwriting credit). The publishing was given to Dick James (Northern Songs), that later sold it to ATV, that later sold it to M. Jackson who then later used it to borrow money from Sony. I don't know the level of involvement that the Jackson Estate has concerning Lennon/McCartney compositions - it may all be in the hands of Sony, by now. Furthermore, I do not know, or if anyone does for that matter, whether or not the Lennon Estate and McCartney derive income from this publishing. I do know that Lennon/McCartney never regained the administration or controlling rights to their songs. Harrison and Starr did however, by NOT resigning to Northern Songs in 1968.

My rough example was only intended to make a very general point - Get Things In Writing.

 

[James Mobius]

definitely get a contract everyone is happy with if you think some actual money may be made.

in my band, I write songs, my guitarist writes songs, generally we give each other leeway to come up with parts, but if I write the bassline and chord progression, I retain song authorship. songs written in jams, we split 3 ways, even tho for the most part, I tend to lead jams, with spontaneous chord progressions. not like we're rollin' in dough anyway.

one jam tune I credited myself as author of, because I thought, if i took out the guitar and drums, the bassline stands by itself, and another guitarist and drummer could overdub parts, having never heard the original G & D parts, and it'd still be my song, my guitarist objected though, and asked me to credit it as a group composition. I decided not to fight about it, even though I retain my opinion. the money isn't worth fighting over and creating a personal rift in the band, particularly with so little money, (like no profit, so far), being at stake d:

no one should make unilateral decisions though, talk with your bandmates about expectations and copyright agreements for arrangements and writing. in the Smiths, Morrissey and Johnny Marr wrote the tunes certainly, but trademarked the name as just themselves, making the bassist and drummer hired hands in the eyes of the law, and those guys got way less than 25% each, I think their parts, the bass parts particularly, but in some cases the drum parts, were pretty integral to the sound of the band, and they deserved better, but that's showbiz.

 

[MarkMgibson]

If you didn't claim song writing credits when the band was together, you can't do it now, and from what you described, you're not entitled to them anyway (in my opinion, of course). As for the CD, you should be credited for your performance. In Australia, we do have performance royalties - when and how those royalties apply is a legal quagmire that nobody understands. All I know is that if I play guitar on a record, I make sure it lists: "my name" "song name" - Guitar.

In the original (sic) band I play with, the vocalist/bass player and the keyboard player both write songs. We play through the song, make suggestions for changes, and the song takes shape. Unless I feel my input has made a significant difference to the song (as it was originally presented), I don't claim writing credits (one or 2 lines of lyrics, or a couple of chord changes do not a song make). If I write a song, the same thing applies, though it's a moot point as my songs suck.

 

[bunkaroo]

Somewhat related to this topic: I'm in a situation where the bass parts I recorded (in my own studio) are not being represented well on my band's upcoming release. In a nutshell the mix and master have pretty much masked them completely (I was not personally involved in the process - it was "hidden" from view in a sense). I have not been paid for any of this work as we are a "band". I am not a songwriter on any of the material.

I have a feeling the band is going to want to press on and get the record out the door as-is rather than spend more money to make it sound better. If this happens, I will be an ex-member of the band. In that scenario, rather than try to force the deletion of my tracks, I'm fine with getting proper performance credit in the liner notes and a dollar amount I have in mind for my parts (nothing extreme).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like at this point unless I sign something to the contrary, I do have a claim to something, however small, from the record's proceeds. I just want to make sure going into the discussion the rest of the band realizes it's to their benefit to deal with me cleanly instead of trying to use my tracks for free.

Almost the same situation happened to me 6 years ago, but that record hasn't even been released yet. I was not paid for my tracks, and they were modified without my permission. I wound up being treated more like a hired gun, which is fine, but I was not paid which typically goes along with the "hired" part.

I guess I just need to stop getting involved with musicians who **** on my bass parts.

 

[Music Attorney]

If you didn't claim song writing credits when the band was together, you can't do it now, and from what you described, you're not entitled to them anyway (in my opinion, of course).

Under U.S. law, the first part of that quote is not true ASSUMING you have made a copyrightable contribution to the musical composition. Without rehashing the many discussions about what constitutes legal entitlement to songwriting credit, the law in the U.S. says copyright attaches at the moment the copyrightable contribution is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. That is, if you sing a copyrightable melody into the voice recorder on your phone or onto your cassette player or into your laptop, or if the band records the musical composition, then your copyright exists at that moment regardless of whether you claim any credit for it. It’s yours until you sign it away in writing. Same thing for lyrics (e.g., typing them into a Word document or emailing them to yourself, etc.).

MA

 

[Music Attorney]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like at this point unless I sign something to the contrary, I do have a claim to something

How's about I confirm you are correct. Unlike the copyright analysis for a musical composition, your performance of a musical composition (e.g., as a drummer, bassist, guitarist, vocalist, etc.) as embodied on a recording makes you a joint author in that recording. See my other posts on joint authorship, if necessary.

Actually, I keep referring to those posts so maybe it's time I revisit them and make sure they say what I think they should/need to say ;-)

MA

 

[Stick_Player]

How's about I confirm you are correct. Unlike the copyright analysis for a musical composition, your performance of a musical composition (e.g., as a drummer, bassist, guitarist, vocalist, etc.) as embodied on a recording makes you a joint author in that recording. See my other posts on joint authorship, if necessary.

Actually, I keep referring to those posts so maybe it's time I revisit them and make sure they say what I think they should/need to say ;-)

MA

What I think MA is saying is that your (bunkaroo's) contribution to the "Sound Recording" is copyrighted. YOU are a part of the sound. You do NOT have to be a composer to have a copyright to the embodied/fixed sound.

MA can probably state this clearer, but you are "The Artist" and would share (equally) in any proceeds paid to "The Artist" (i.e., artist royalty). One way you could lose this would be if you were a "work for hire". You would've agreed to release your claims in exchange for a fee.

 

[bluewine]

What I think MA is saying is that your (bunkaroo's) contribution to the "Sound Recording" is copyrighted. YOU are a part of the sound. You do NOT have to be a composer to have a copyright to the embodied/fixed sound.

MA can probably state this clearer, but you are "The Artist" and would share (equally) in any proceeds paid to "The Artist" (i.e., artist royalty). One way you could lose this would be if you were a "work for hire". You would've agreed to release your claims in exchange for a fee.

Wouldn't you have to be at least a "Director " within the corporation to have those rights?

Blue

 

[MarkMgibson]

Somewhat related to this topic: I'm in a situation where the bass parts I recorded (in my own studio) are not being represented well on my band's upcoming release. In a nutshell the mix and master have pretty much masked them completely (I was not personally involved in the process - it was "hidden" from view in a sense). I have not been paid for any of this work as we are a "band". I am not a songwriter on any of the material.

I have a feeling the band is going to want to press on and get the record out the door as-is rather than spend more money to make it sound better. If this happens, I will be an ex-member of the band. In that scenario, rather than try to force the deletion of my tracks, I'm fine with getting proper performance credit in the liner notes and a dollar amount I have in mind for my parts (nothing extreme).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like at this point unless I sign something to the contrary, I do have a claim to something, however small, from the record's proceeds. I just want to make sure going into the discussion the rest of the band realizes it's to their benefit to deal with me cleanly instead of trying to use my tracks for free.

Almost the same situation happened to me 6 years ago, but that record hasn't even been released yet. I was not paid for my tracks, and they were modified without my permission. I wound up being treated more like a hired gun, which is fine, but I was not paid which typically goes along with the "hired" part.

I guess I just need to stop getting involved with musicians who **** on my bass parts.

Yes, make sure you get performance credit. Forgetting about all the legal stuff, you should be credited for your performance, whether there's money involved or not.