Question about current issue 49 - Mix Copyright

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
Bay3Mike
audio school graduate
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:45 pm
Location: Olympia, WA

Question about current issue 49 - Mix Copyright

Post by Bay3Mike » Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:03 pm

I'm new to this board coming from Harmony Central (ugghh and I'm sorry). I just had a major discussion there over the topic of mix copyright. According to what I read and what I heard (Jackpot Weekend workshop was very cool), the mixing work that is performed by a studio is the 'intellectual' works of and therefore owned by the studio unless spelled out within a contract. What's owned by the musician(s) are the copyrights to the composition and lyrics but that doesn't necessarily mean that the engineer hands over all of the master materials including mix information and altered tracks. Did I read that wrong? I'm being told that this is a 'Work for Hire' business and to hand this over. ??

cgarges
zen recordist
Posts: 10890
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Charlotte, NC
Contact:

Post by cgarges » Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:01 am

It depends on the agreement. Before I had read that article, if I had gone into a studio and had some engineer tell me that his mixes were his property, I would have flipped and demanded my money back. After reading the article, I can see that it is a loophole that can be beneficial to certain engineers, albeit at the expense of the musician. Do you feel like being protective about it just because you read the article recently and didn't discuss this with them beforehand, or giving them the materials that they've paid for and expect? I imagine this could lead to a heavy court battle if you're springing it on them after the fact. How important is it to you with this particular project? If they bail, then you're left holding the masters, with which you can't do anything because you don't own the mechanicals.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

User avatar
soundguy
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 12:50 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by soundguy » Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:44 pm

the best way to get paid is to set up a contract where the studio or mix engineer owns the copyright to the mix, the payment to the studio is purchasing the rights, the rate of which is agreed upon in the contract, ie, the studios hourly rate. This is positively the best way for a studio to protect themselves and completely within their right and sanity of the law. Of course, if you spell it out like that in a contract there are plenty of people that arent gonna work with you, but if you understand the law, its completely within the rigth of the mix engineer to administer the copyright on the mix- he created it. Work for hire only works when there is payment involved...

When I mix a movie, its work for hire. I also belong to a union which basically guarantees I get paid. When you are the little guy, there is little to guarantee payment from someone, setting up a contract as spelled out above is the easiest way for both parties to be happy. If you word the contract fairly and clearly at the end of the day, the only person that is gonna give the studio owner a hard time is the guy trying to rip the studio off or the guy that doesnt understand what the contract says. Its sorta no different than that guy at the car wash not ggiving you your keys back until you pay for the $10 car wash. Same thing. Any time you use a credit card to rent a car or hotel room you are bacially entering into a much worse contract than what Ive proposed above.

I wonder how the guys who charge $10K per song set up their contracts. Granted, its a much different situation but woudl be interesting to bring into this discussion.

dave
http://www.glideonfade.com
one hundred percent discrete transistor recording with style and care.

User avatar
joelpatterson
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1732
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:20 pm
Location: Albany, New York

Post by joelpatterson » Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:05 pm

soundguy wrote:.

I wonder how the guys who charge $10K per song set up their contracts. Granted, its a much different situation but woudl be interesting to bring into this discussion.

dave
They just leave a loaded pistol lying around for everyone to see.
Mountaintop Studios
~The Peak of Perfection~
Petersburgh NY 12138

mountaintop@taconic.net

Bay3Mike
audio school graduate
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:45 pm
Location: Olympia, WA

Post by Bay3Mike » Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:30 pm

The first time I actually heard about this was at one of the tape op weekend clinics. Also, I have had other studios in my area say the same thing. Just because someone is paying you for a service which is to record and provide a final "master" copy of the songs, doesn't mean they own the mix information and all the tracks associated with creating the final product. The exception is if the client brings in their own recording medium like a hard drive or tape. I wouldn't normally raise an issue with a client who wants all the tracks, but I would be very careful in not giving the mix information away if I were the mix engineer. The article states this fairly implicitly.

User avatar
soundguy
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 12:50 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by soundguy » Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:49 pm

If its a work for hire, they are buying out your rights. They get a good deal for $50/hr dont they? My only point is that until you are paid as per the contract, the intellectual rights on that material still belong to you... A record label should not be allowed to do anything with a recording until they have secured the rights to do so, so far as Im concerned, until they've paid their for hire contracts, they dont have the right to do anything with the mixes. Im sure a lawyer might school me otherwise, but that seems pretty cut and dry to me.

dave
http://www.glideonfade.com
one hundred percent discrete transistor recording with style and care.

mcaff
studio intern
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:03 am

Post by mcaff » Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:54 pm

Anyone who is an Author of a work is an owner unless otherwise specified.

If a band performs and an engineer reocrds, they were Joint Authors of the multi-track sound recording.

The article was written based on examples where the only person present for the mix was the mix engineer, making the mix engineer the sole authot of the mix which is a separate sound recording. Had other people participated they might have a claim to joint authorship.

However, an engineer will always be a joint author at the minimum.

A work is not a "work for hire" unless specified in writing, so there must be a contrat in the case of the poster mixing movies as a work for hire. Or, they are an employee and the employer owns the work.

Also, someone posted the phrase "the studio owns...". I'm not sure if a business enitiely can be a joint author. Certinly an engineer can. So collecting money with this leverage may be best for an owner/engineer. Or the "studio" hiring a freelence engineer should have an agreement that even though the engineer is freelence, their agreement with the studio is that their authorship contrbutions are a work for hire and then the studio owner their contrbutions.

In a situation where a band brings their won engineer to a commercial facility, if the commercial facility had to chase them for payment, they might not have an IP angle and would have to sue for a standard non-payment breach of contract.


As far as people who get $10k/track, they are getting that becuase they have a track record that gives them leverage. They have enough leverage to get paid in full in advance or if it's half upfront, half upon completion, they've got the leverage to withold delivery until payment has been made.

Also, at that level/budget, people don't turn their reference CD-Rs into duplication masters.

The real point of the article is that if you agree on rates and don't specify anhting else, the engineer or the owner/engineer is a joint author or sole author depending on context/process.

Also, ownership of a Sound Recording Copyright alone is pretty useless. You'd ahve to have permsions from the writer/publisher to sell it. The only benefit for the engineer is that the band can't sell or use or create a derivative work of somehting they don't own or have permission from the owner to use. So the engineer can force a stalemate until they are paid.

I think it resonable to consider transfer of ownership as implied by payment in full, in otherwords, if the band pays as promised, they're going to own everything and they have nothing to worry about, but if they don't they can't use it regardless of whether or not the have possesion.

The permutations of all of this can go on as long as you want to keep making up scenarios. Suppose the band bring tracks they own to someone to mix. They don't pay, the engineer say pay me or don't use them, then they get the tracks mixed again by someone else. They don't use the mixes from the first engineer as instructed they use the new ones and the first guy's only recourse is a non-payment/breach of contract lawsuit since there is no longer a copyright violation as they're not using the mixes in question.

cgarges
zen recordist
Posts: 10890
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Charlotte, NC
Contact:

Post by cgarges » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:19 pm

Hey Mike,

Great to see you here! Nice job on the article.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

Bay3Mike
audio school graduate
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:45 pm
Location: Olympia, WA

Post by Bay3Mike » Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am

What's up Chris!

Thanks by the way.

Mike Heiser

mcaff
studio intern
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:03 am

Post by mcaff » Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:30 pm

Hmmm....




(Thanks Chris)

Bay3Mike
audio school graduate
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:45 pm
Location: Olympia, WA

Post by Bay3Mike » Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:59 pm

Just ignore me. I'm a bit brain dead today. Nice job on the article by the way Mike. To be honest though, I get conflicting feedback on this but your previous statement seems pretty clear !

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 35 guests