Home » Miscellania » Copyright Questions

Copyright Questions

Some copyright threads have broken out in various areas of MLR so I will move them here. From now on please post any questions you may have regarding copyrights here.

200 thoughts on “Copyright Questions”

    • Oh wow 🙂 This is good information regarding Creative Commons. And it is from a respectable source. I think I will err on the side of caution when it comes to attaching a “CC” to any of my work.

      It just seems to me that the Creative Commons license limits the oroiginal creator of the work more than it would limit anybody that used the work. In my eyes, either the work is owned by one entity or it is a part of the public domain. I do not see how someone could have limited rights to their own work unless they transferred their rights to someone else.

  2. To EDDY-L; I wasn’t intending to bite your head off. My apologies. I guess it comes down to semantics. I did not aim the last comment towards you. I am not sure what “THE DICTATOR” meant by calling me Fidel, I must assume it was just a stab back at me???(although I did grow up in Miami & I did live in Cuba as a very young Irish born child before Castro took over). I certainly have not stated the most ridiculous comments here.
    I am a Published Composer, & a Publisher of Written Works. I am not an expert on “all” but who is? You are right, the small people are “small people” in the Court System. I have had my music used without my permission, so, I know how that issue feels to a Creative.
    IMO Lawyers are a necessary evil, at least in America. Living in the U.K I saw the difference between “Barristers”(U.K Term) & “Attorneys”(U.S. Term).

  4. I am new to this business, and have a question about PRO organisations,
    Knowing that there are a lot of PRO organisations out there, I was wondering which one to choose.
    Let’s say I would like to submit my music to multiple non-exclusive stock libraries. Most of them are focused on the United States.
    I live in the Netherlands, and here we have the organisation called BUMA.

    What would be the smart thing to do? Going for a US based organisation like ASCAP or BMI, or stay close to home and go with BUMA?

    Thank you in advance,

    Nick

  5. I’m in Australia and according to the Government website here there is not need to register (or pay) for a work to be copyrighted,but does that copyright cover just here(and probably NZ we’re much the same just better at sport).
    -from their website-
    No registration of copyright
    Although it seems surprising, there is no registration of copyright in Australia or in most other countries. You
    do not register copyright, or go through any formal process, before your material is protected by copyright under
    Australian law.
    http://www.copyright.org.au/

    Would I need to copyright the same track in the US as well or UK for that matter,if I places a track.This site says no but some of you guys seem to think its a good idea.

  6. Hi Franceaux,

    I’m going to give you the standard disclaimer. I do not represent you in this or any other matter, and my opinion should not be construed as legal advice.

    You may be able to get out of the contract, under certain circumstance. There are two sides to every contract, and each side has to perform their end of the bargain. I do not have your contract in front of me. But there should be a component of the contract identified as “consideration.” For example: “in consideration of $1,000 advance … publisher X has exclusive rights to Franceaux’s song for an indefinite period of time. Or perhaps publisher X agrees to use its best efforts to have Franceaux’s song cut in exchange for X% of the publishing revenue. In other words, the publisher had to give you something in exchange for your exclusive contract.

    What did you get from the publishing company in exchange for them holding on to your song for so many years? If you did not receive an advance and the publisher has not used its best efforts to have your song “cut,” then in theory it has not lived up to its end of the bargain, and has breached the contract.

    You need a lawyer to read your contract, to determine whether the publisher has lived up to its end of the bargain.

    Good luck.

    Best,

    Michael

    • MICHAELl,

      The publisher claims he has pitched the song over the years, but it’s his word against mine, I suppose. There was no advance upon signing the agreement, other than the standard $1.00 in many contracts which is never paid.

      This publisher has had several national cuts by well-known artists (3 by George Strait)
      So, maybe I haven’t waited long enough, As of this moment it has been 17 years. I guess he still thinks it has a chance.

      Thanks for your insight.

      • Just write some more potential hits franceaux! Then spread ’em around like manure and hope something sprouts up. 😀

      • Once have a publisher who gave me a guild single song contract with a reversion clause. He said if he can’t get a song published in the first couple 3 years, it most likely won’t happen.

  7. The day I see a group of Lawyers agree on something, Hell will probably have frozen over. With all due respect to those in the Legal Practice. In my Exp. in the Courts, the Judge makes the final ruling on the interpretation of a “LAW”. the Legal Guys just argue the point.
    I just want a Good Agent to help me make some Good Money…….. any referral would be appreciated. Oh, that’s right, Hell has Frozen Over, the EAGLES have been touring for years now.

      • Absolutely on point.

        “we cant get you work, we can barely get work for our top guys, but we’d be happy to help you negotiate a deal if you land something yourself”

        Waste of time….

      • A man phones a lawyer and asks, “How much would you charge for just answering three simple questions?”
        The lawyer replies, “A thousand dollars.”
        “A thousand dollars!” exclaims the man. “That’s very expensive isn’t it?”
        “It certainly is,” says the lawyer. “Now, what’s your third question?”

  8. A couple of points…

    Titles are not copyrighted, works are. In case this wasn’t clear, re-titling for purposes of non-exclusive PRO royalty collection has nothing to do with the actual copyright. A non-exclusive re-title contract should not say you assign copyright, just that the library has permission to register re-titles and collect the publisher’s share of PRO.

    I disagree that you shouldn’t copyright works as a collection. It is absolutely worth the money saved. If you do sign an exclusive publishing contract on a song, most publishers don’t even bother with the actual copyright paperwork unless they actually make a placement. Remember, it cost THEM money. And even when they make a placement, they don’t always do it. They simply use the permission you gave them to do the proper registrations and administer any royalties. In the event the publisher wanted to truly transfer the copyright, they could have you file an ammendment removing that work from the collection and they would file a new copyright.

    So let’s say you have 12 tracks. As a collection, $35… One by one, $420 ($385 more). The odds that you’ll ever have to change anything are very small and if you really had to, a single ammendment cost about $100.

    Deciding not to file as collections early on in anticipation of what might never happen is not very cost effective.

  9. Thanks guys for your responses.

    I think I’m starting to understand. Just to confirm: Is it a good idea NOT to register copyrights on any tracks I am submitting to libraries?

    Also, when a library places one of my tracks, is it my responsibility to register that track with my PRO?

    • I never hear of it not being a good idea to copyright your songs. I think the point was being made that there are pitfalls to copyrighting music as a collection in order to save money as opposed to copyrighting each individual song in that you are essentially assigning rights to every song in that collection as it pertains to publishing rights from what I make of it. I copyright every song before I submit it.
      Any infringement won’t apply if your song isn’t copyrighted when the infringement occurs so why would it be a good idea not to copyright it before handing it over to a library?
      Just spend the money on a copyright and don’t even look back.

      • Hey Pat, I see what you’re saying, and it makes perfect sense. Doesn’t it get expensive though ($35/song if registered online)?

        When a library accepts your track, do you transfer the copyright to them?

        • 10 songs at $35 = $350
          100 songs at $35 = $3,500
          1,000 songs at $35 = $15,000

          Wonder who is making money in the Music Industry?

            • Hi Pat,

              I feel your pain. However, you’re swimming in a very diverse and crowded pool.

              A lot of people take this business very seriously. They’ve invested thousands of dollars in studios, websites, marketing, copyrights and lawyers, etc. Some are doing this part-time to make extra cash, and to keep making music. Some writers, do it by ear, others have degrees in composition.

              So yes, it’s a scary and competitive proposition. But, my mentor told me years, it’s a game of quantity. Write a lot of tracks.

          • Hi John (the other John). 1000 tracks at $35 = $35,000.

            However….if you have just 10 tracks out there, maybe $350 looks like a lot of money, because you’re not making much.

            But if you have 100 tracks, maybe $3,500 isn’t so big an investment.

            If you have 1000 tracks, perhaps the income would justify the expense. Moreover, I think that you would know, long before you get to 1000 tracks, whether or not you’re making any money.

        • No, you do not necessarily transfer your copyright, especially under the retitle model.

          However, when an exclusive library pays you to write a track for them, it may be considered a “work for hire,” in which case they own the copyright.

          HOWEVER — under the copyright law it MUST state in the contract that it is a work for hire. or it is not, unless you are an employee of the company.

    • Danny,

      Michael the lawyer here. I would never send my tracks to anyone without copyrighting them FIRST.

      The choice you have is 1) individual copyrights @ $35 per online, or 2) the folio route, which as discussed before has limits regarding publishing, because essentially all of t he tracks in a folio are considered to be part of one work.

      AND no, your are not necessarily giving your copyright to the library, unless that is the contract that you enter into. You may just be allowing the library to act as your publisher.

      • Thanks for the information,MichaelL. I was getting ready to copyright a number of pieces as a collection when I came across this discussion.

        At this point I’m just submitting to non-exclusive libraries, but I would hate to have disqualified some of my work from a potentially lucrative exclusive deal, should one present itself. I’m wondering if it would make sense to copyright the musical compositions but not the sound recordings, since it’s the recording that’s being licensed. If an exclusive deal were offered, the recording could then be copyrighted by itself.

        I realize that I could be wrong about this, but I thought that publishing had to do with the PRO, not the copyright. Isn’t that how non-exclusive libraries work – they give the piece a new title and register with the PRO as the publisher for the piece with that title? Can’t the same thing be done by someone who wants to license the piece exclusively, provided that the same piece is not available for licensing elsewhere? (If I’m correct about this, then I guess it wouldn’t matter if the recording is copyrighted with the composition.)

        • Hi Tim,

          You’re asking a question which will ultimately lead to the whole exclusive v. non-exclusive discussion which has been debated ad nauseum elsewhere in this forum.

          Yes, PROs are about publishing. The non-exclusives register the same composition with your PRO under different titles. The non-exclusives have no owership interest in your copyright — YOU DO.

          The exclusive libraries, however, pay you a fee upfront, and then generally you assign your copyright to that library, or it’s a work for hire and the copyright is never yours.

          I some instantances you cannot even use that composition for your own purposes. Here’s an old article about a composer who was sued for using his composition in HIS website, for promotional purposes. I don’t know how the case turned out. http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=270

          You’ll have to decide for yourself what “lucrative” is. Some people might think $500 is enough to sell their copyright, others a $1,000. However, those deals appear to be few and far between now. How much money might you make going the non-exclusive route, while you’re waiting for lightning to strike?

          • Thanks for posting that MichaelL. Excellent post and timely. Just so happens I just posted a question on the MusicSupervisor site asking if I remove a song from their site can I then submit it to an exclusive library free and clear with no potential for “issues” arising later.
            Specifically, I wanted to try and get accepted into Premiumbeats where I could make some money to sustain me while composing other music for non exclusive. Just happens that one of the songs I have at Music supervisor would be good to submit as my third sample.
            I do different styles of music but the rock pieces I can do the fastest so I was hoping I could include a rock piece I have at MusicSupervisor. It hasn’t been downloaded licensed yet or anything.

        • I don’t know if everyone is aware of this but you can copyright both a composition and the sound recording at one time for one fee on the SR form. That’s the best way to go in many cases.

          There is way too much concern on MLR threads (IMO) about how various ways of copyrighting your work can affect what types of deals you can do in the future. Copyright registration (e.g. US Copyright Office) and PRO registration (ASCAP, BMI, etc) are different entities tied together only by the fact that when you PRO register you attest that you are authorized to do so. Sometimes I think there may be folks confused about the difference between these things.

          Copyrights can be ammended, changed, etc. (wth a reasonably valid reason) so there is nothing you can do in a copyright registration that will permanently disallow any use. If you sign a song to a 3 year non-exclusive and then want to enter an exclusive, the problem is NOT the copyright registration, it’s the non-exclusive contact. You need to get out of the non-exclusive contract to sign the exclusive one. A copyright can be changed if needed.

          One can definitely argue that copyright and PRO registration should be much more closely tied together, eliminating the re-title method. But as of now, that’s not the case and it’s a different discussion.

          When writing for film/TV copyrighting the sound recording is a big component since that is part of what gets licensed, though the composition should also be copyrighted. (That is, if you are going to bother copyrighting at all).

          MANY composers don’t even do copyright registrations. I’m not saying one should or shouldn’t. Keep in mind that having your work stolen is rare. A copyright registration only has value if you ever intend to sue someone for infringement. That can be a long, expensive legal mess that many would never get into anyway.

          Legal discalimer: I am not a laywer (though I play one on MLR) 😉

          • Hey anonX,

            MichaelL — the lawyer here. You make many valid points. I wasn’t going to mention that I know several composers who never bother with copyrights.

            As you point out, “A copyright registration only has value if you ever intend to sue someone for infringement. That can be a long, expensive legal mess that many would never get into anyway.”

            I will add the following: copyright infringement suits are filed in federal court. The jurisdictional threshold is $75,000. In other words, you must claim 75K worth of damages to even get into court. It is the rare library track that generates that kind of $$$.

            So…before you even get to the “long, expensive legal mess,” you need a lot of damages.

            • If this is true MichaelL, then there is not point in most (maybe all) of us here registering a copyright.

              • Hi John (the other John),

                I would never recommend that you not register your copyrights.

                I would not send my own material anywhere, or even post it on my website, without protecting it.

                You never know what the ultimate value of your work will be.

                Michael

            • Thanks MichaelL. It’s helpful to have a real lawyer make sure the information presented here is correct. Appreciate you’re input!

              🙂

              • Hi anonX,

                My opinions should not substitute for consulting with one’s own attorney.

                I try to jump in when I see something glaring, that can harm my fellow composers — like the “poor man’s” copyright.

                This link is a good place to look for answers http://www.copyright.gov/

                Michael

                • MichaelL,
                  Since you are a lawyer perhaps you wouldn’t mind answering this for me.

                  If you have a song under contract to a publisher….for years and years….without a reversion clause, what is the best way of getting it released back to me. Is their any legal way?
                  I’ve gone the “please” route without success. I was told that they still had faith in the song eventually being cut, so it was still an important composition. But, after awhile it stands to reason that the song doesn’t fit the trend it was originally written for.

                  Anyone else have this problem?? Thanks.

            • That does not seem legitimate. Record companies sue people for sampling songs or downloading music even if there was no financial incentive.

              A copyright is a form of intellectual property. Microsoft can sue someone for using an illegal copy of Windows software, even if the person was given a second hand computer with the software pre-installed.

              Also, people can be sued for copying a quote from a news article without stating where the source originated from. There are many legal ramifications and issues resulting in what constitutes “fair use” and what constitutes theft of intellectual property.

              The real issue is that most small composers do not have enough money or time to put up a valid legal fight, even if their material was blatantly misused. Many companies will blatantly misuse intellectual property and just pay a fine for misuse. Companies often steal ideas on purpose because they can make a boatload of cash and only pay a small fraction of the profits generated.

              The end user of a piece of intellectual property is always responsible for the proper use of the material.

              • Eddy L said 28, Oct.; “A copyright is a form of intellectual property”. A COPYRIGHT is the registration of a piece of intellectual property in the U.S. Library Of Congress or, the originating Country. A Copyright “holds” a work of Intellectual Work.
                If a person/company/business hears a piece of music, etc. and has a use themselves where they can make money with it, they most likely will make an attempt to “steal it”. If they are not an Honest, Good Person.
                The Legal definition of COPYRIGHT is;{The Legal Right to exclude others, for a limited time, from copying,selling,performing,displaying, or making derivative versions of a work of authorship” }( From The Lawyers Cooperative Publishing- approved by the Library Of Congress.”)
                You do not have to state who the owner of a copyright is, if you quote something, but, it is “Morally Right” & polite to acknowledge the entity who originated the property.
                It is not a Legal issue unless you imply the object is “yours”.
                Sometimes this thread is very disappointing by such annoying comments by people who assume they are experts, IMO they should just keep quiet or be embarrassed by inept comments. I am sorry, but, this is America, freedom of speech. But, your speech should be accurate.

                • No need to bite my head off. I never claimed to be an expert. I just go off of experience and knowledge that was passed down to me.

                  • @ Eddy

                    I’m not going to bite your head off, but I am a lawyer.

                    When you were a kid, did you ever play the game whispering down the lane? The problem is that by the time the information gets to you it is incorrect. So depending upon who passed what down to you from how ever many sources, it sounds like you’ve pieced together a half true understanding of copyrights.

                    Copyright law is very nuanced. What IS infringement in one case may not be in another depending upon the use.

                    I do not know the context of your original post, so I cannot address the issue. But, suffice it to say You may be swimming in deep waters with only half truths as a life preserver.

                • “Sometimes this thread is very disappointing by such annoying comments by people who assume they are experts, IMO they should just keep quiet” – Jason Bush

                  Well said Fidel Bush. 😀

                    • The World is full of imperfections and inaccuracies. Even the so called experts disagree on mostly everything (lawyers no exception).

                      I prefer not to have my information filtered by anyone – especially people with a hidden agenda (as in the case of the digital fingerprinting issue).

                      Let the info flow freely and let the individual determine for him/herself the accuracies & inaccuracies.

                      Potentially harmful? Better than intentionally harmful through censorship.

              • @Eddy

                Ok I found the post at issue and yes it is a mishmash of ideas.

                There is such a thing as “fair use,” which can be raised as a defense to infringement. Such uses might include things like criticism, commentary, news reporting, education, scholarship and/or research.

                Courts consider four factors including: 1) the purpose and character of the use, 2) the nature of the copyrighted work, 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used….and 4) the effect of the use on the potential market for and/or value of the copyrighted work.

                The purpose and character of the use, would among other things address whether or not the use is of a commercial nature etc.

                As far as the little guy not having the money to sue, if you have a strong enough case you could probably find a lawyer to handle it on a contingency basis. The real issue is whether or not you meet the 75K damages threshold. If not, you cannot get into federal court anyway.

                Stop worrying about hypothetical legal issues. Get back to writing music.

                Cheers.

                Michael

  10. I have been studying composition for visual media for the past few years, and as I’m coming to the end of my education, I’m thinking library work would be a good way to get my feet wet, especially as I plan on having a day job for the first few years out of college. This site is a fantastic resource for someone like me, so thanks to the webmaster Art for putting this together!

    I’ve got many questions, and I’ve been reading books, reading up on this site (including this page), talking to professors, talking to composer friends, etc. One of the things I’m still confused about is the issue of copyright.

    How do copyrights work when dealing with libraries? From what I understand, when I create a piece of music, I immediately own the copyright to that music and that recording of it. When I submit that track to a library and it is accepted, am I entering an agreement that gives them ownership of the copyrights to the music and recording?

    Thanks guys, your input is greatly appreciated!

    • As far as copyrights go Danny (actually registration), this is the best explanation I’ve found. It was posted on another site by a music attorney:

      “There is no such thing as a “poor man’s copyright.” It does not exist in law. Under the current copyright law, you own the copyright in the work from the moment it is fixed in a tangible medium (sung onto a tape or CD, written down on a piece of paper, etc.) Make sure you have it fixed in a tangible medium before posting. While you could use the posting date in a lawsuit as some evidence of a prior date that you had the work to which someone else is claiming ownership, registration is prima facie proof of ownership – which means if someone else has registered it before you, you have an uphill battle in court because the Court must consider the registered owner to be the owner in fact (until you can convince the Court otherwise by sufficient proof). In addition, as stated above, you must register the work before you can take legal action, which means that you forfeit any statutory damages to which you would be entitled if the infringement occurs before the registration. The bottom line is that you should, at the very least, send in for the registration before you post. “

      • I am an attorney, although I do not practice. So, I’m going to say something typically lawyerish — this is not legal advice, and I do not represent you in any matter.

        Danny – you are correct in that you have an immediate copyright. However, it is of little value in litigation.

        John (the other John) is also correct. There is no such thing as a “poor man’s copyright.” Copyrights are governed by federal law. A lawsuit for copyright infringement is filed in federal court. You cannot file an infringement suit in federal court if you have not registered your copyright. A registered copyright is your ticket to federal court.

        Some people work around the expense by copyrighting multiple works as a suite or in folios. Doing so has its limits in that you cannot split portions of the suite or folio among different publishers. So… if exclusive library A wants track #1 of your folio and exclusive library B wants track # 2, in theory the whole folio belongs to whoever you give the first track to, because the sutie or folio is one work, no matter how many parts it has.. Given the retitling model that so many are participating in — it gets dicey.

        For more info, here’s a brief article from a law professor : http://ipwatchdog.com/copyright/

        • Thanks Michael. I never thought about the ramifications of registering multiple works as a collection. Interesting.

          • However, that said….. again NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

            If you are selling/licensing music thorough sites that only act as licensing agents and that do not take any publishing, AND you are acting as the sole publisher of your works, AND you do not anticipate EVER having those works published by another publisher, it may make sense to go the suite/folio route.

        • “Some people work around the expense by copyrighting multiple works as a suite or in folios. Doing so has its limits in that you cannot split portions of the suite or folio among different publishers” – MichaelL

          Totally wrong!!! I check this out with an entertainment lawyer and was told as long as the divisions (portions) of the “suite” were clearly designated (separate titles) each part in the “multiple copyright” can be used with different (exclusive) publishers.

          • I’m bumping this up because I think it’s important to let composers know there are no limitations in copyrighting multiple works in a collection (suite). Saves a lot of money and can be used in the same manner as a single song copyright registration.

            • You can copyright multiple works in one registration where there is split ownership, however the split ownership parties have to be the same for all works in the collection.

              So if I co-wrote song A with party X and song B with party Y, I could not copyright them in the same collection.

              • Yes, though that’s a different aspect of multiple song registration AnonX. That has more to do with filling out the application.

                • You lost me…. How do you copyright anything without filling out the application? I’m not following you here. It’s one form/one fee per registration whether it’s a single work or a collection but there is that restriction regarding what can be in a collection.

                  • This was the issue I was relating to:

                    “Some people work around the expense by copyrighting multiple works as a suite or in folios. Doing so has its limits in that you cannot split portions of the suite or folio among different publishers” – MichaelL

                    This was false info anonX. You can split portions of the suite/folio among different publishers.

                    Read back a little further and you’ll understand my reply to you.

                    • Once again…this IS NOT “false info”

                      Please refer to this link http://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-type.html

                      “Collection of Unpublished Works: Registration of Multiple Unpublished Works as a Single Claim
                      To register a number of unpublished works with a single application and fee, they must be grouped as a collection under a Collection Title and must meet the following requirements:

                      At least one author must have contributed to every work.

                      The ownership of every work in the collection must be the same. This means that the authors of each work must be the same or they must have transferred copyright to each other or to a common claimant. If there has been a transfer of ownership, the application must include a transfer statement on the claimant screen. If ownership of all the works to be registered is not the same, one or more separate applications are needed to register all the works. Each application requires a separate fee.”

                      The key requirment here is that the ownership of EVERY work in the collection must be the same. That is true if you are self publishing. However, if you want to split the unpublished folio among exclusive publishers, you may need to re-register the titles in question.

                      Potential problems will arise when different publishers start arguing over who owns which titles, when they both might claim ownership of the whole work / folio, because as the law requires, it have only one title.

                      Your attorney’s advice may be correct If the mutliple publishers have no ownership interest in the copyright. However, exclusive deals often involve transfer of copyright ownership. You can’t transfer a portion of a title. That’s like saying Random House, you can publish chapters 1 through 5 of my book, and Knopf you can publish chapter 6 through 10.

                      Perhaps you should ask your lawyer what the disadvantages of registering multiple titles as one work are. Or… call the copyright office (202) 707-3000 or 1-877-476-0778 (toll free) This is complicated stuff. It’s easy to get burned.

                      Michael

          • Hi John ( the other John),

            I just got back from a film festival, so I didn’t have a chance to respond earlier. “Totally wrong,” I’m affraid, is a bold conclusion, going out on a bit of a limb. Nothing is black & white in the law. AND entertainment law and intellectual property law are not the same thing.

            I AM a lawyer, and I disagree with your lawyer’s interpretation of the copyright law.
            Here are the appropriate comments from the copyright office. Read them and decide for yourself they’re it’s a greenlight to split a copyright among publishers. I don’t think so.

            “You may register unpublished works as a collection on one application with one title for the entire collection if certain conditions are met. It is not necessary to list the individual titles in your collection. Published works may only be registered as a collection if they were actually first published as a collection and if other requirements have been met. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Registration Procedures.”

            “Unpublished Collections
            Under the following conditions, a work may be registered
            in unpublished form as a “collection,” with one application
            form and one fee:
            – The elements of the collection are assembled in an
            orderly form;
            – The combined elements bear a single title identifying the
            collection as a whole;
            – The copyright claimant in all the elements and in the collection
            as a whole is the same; and
            – All the elements are by the same author, or, if they are by
            different authors, at least one of the authors has contributed
            copyrightable authorship to each element….
            An unpublished collection is not indexed under the
            individual titles of the contents but under the title of the
            collection.”

            The issue is going from the unpublished state to the published state. Can you split the folio? Maybe, but you may have to re-register the individual tracks(s) under their published titles.

            I’ll put in a call to the Copyright Office to get clarification. I’ll let you know what they.

            Michael

            • Michael,:

              The publishing issue isn’t really a consideration for the composer filing a multiple song registration (to protect his work) prior to the publishing of the composers work. Besides, I don’t know of any music libraries that take ownership of a composer’s copyright. Music libraries only license music.

              What you’re saying seems to be after the fact, i.e, registering works after being published, rather than prior to being published. Logically, copyright registration should be done prior to submitting work to publishers.

              • “Besides, I don’t know of any music libraries that take ownership of a composer’s copyright. Music libraries only license music”

                Here are several libraries that work on a copyright buyout basis with composers..

                Megatrax
                APM
                KPM
                Killer Tracks
                Extreme
                615
                Manhattan Production Music
                Opus 1 (sometimes)
                Firstcom
                Master Source

                Things would get super complicated if one of these libraries wanted to buy a track that you copyrighted in a folio of works. The legal fees trying to unravel the situation would probably eclipse the phat $1000/track budget of these libraries..

                Most of the time the libraries pay upfront for composers to make custom music, but they also actively buy copyrights of already composed material from time to time.

                I say go for the folio registration!

              • Hi John (the other John)

                I don’t mean to be disrespectful. However, as I said, I am a lawyer and a composer — not in that order, for longer than I care to mention– all in exclusive libraries. I ‘ve been filing my own copyrights since I was 15.

                As you may have observed there are two levels of copyright: one for unpublished works and one for published works. It gets deeper if you’re copyrighting the sound recording, as well as the underlying musical work.

                The reason why you want to copyright your unpublished works is because you are presumably sending your work out to many libraries before its is published.

                To be clear, we are talking about two different situations: 1) where you transfer ownership the copyright to the library, and 2) where the library takes no ownership, but takes a percentage of the publishing.

                Under the exclusive model, where you receive upfront money (see oontz oontz below), you will most likely be transferring ownership of your copyright to the library (this must be in writing). You are NOT merely licensing the work to them. You should not get this confused with an exclusive licensing deal, whihc may be of limited duration.

                Under the non-exclusive model, you do not, or should not transfer any ownership.

                The problem, as I tried to explain, is that a collection receives one registration number, it is one work. You cannot split that one “work” among different exclusives who want to to own your copyright. You are asking for trouble. It doesn’t matter that youve given each section of the work a different title. It is one work. You transfer the whole enchilada. Further, your deal with the exclusive will require that the copyrighted material is yours to transfer. You cannot do that if you’ve already transferred the copyright to another owner.

                Further, the law is designed to prevent the kind of work-around that you describe. In other words, the copyright office doesn’t want for you to copyright 10 unrealated tracks and call it a collection. When I’ve filed copyrights as a collection, all of the “songs” were published by the same entity as a collection, e.g. the “sports collection,” the cinema colection,” etc.

                OK — before digress too far. The issue is transfer of copyright ownership, which arises under the exclusive model, not merely publishing shares as under the non-exclusive model.

                That is why I said that you MIGHT limit yourself by copyrighting things as a collection.

                Michael

                  • “It gets confusing when even lawyers disagree with each other.”

                    That’s how lawyer’s stay in business. 😉

                    However, I would guess that if you explained to your lawyer that we’re talking about transferring copyright ownership to an exclusive library, not just publishing, he’d agree.

                    Best,

                    Michael

                    • I think you may be right Michael.

                      After considering both lawyer’s info, I think you’re both basically on the same page. The multiple copyright can have disadvantages, but only when there’s a transfer of copyright ownership (which happens in more libraries than I was aware of).

                      John 🙂

                • “Further, the law is designed to prevent the kind of work-around that you describe. In other words, the copyright office doesn’t want for you to copyright 10 unrealated tracks and call it a collection.”

                  For what it’s worth, something that may contradict this:

                  My father was a retired minister who wrote hymn texts. He was constantly getting commisions, so he wrote quite a few and copyrighted them individually. One day he actually got a call from someone at the Copyright Office who noticed this and told him that he could save money by registering them in collections.

                  • Your father was copyrighting a collection of hymn texts. If he tried to copyright hymn texts and hip hop lyrics (assuming they weren’t hymns) on the same form he’d have a problem.

                    The collection needs to be a believable collection. If you tried to copyright your heavy metal / country / bagpipe / baroque / new age collection, there could be an issue.

                    Hymn texts is a believable collection.

                    • MichaelL:

                      Couldn’t there be an argument for allowing many types of music to be included in a collection? I write different types of tunes, but there is no way I could write an entire album worth of Flamenco music. I know a few composers that do about 3 songs per genre, and then move on to sort of spread their seed as far as the types of music they are offering.

                      Also, in the case of copyrighting a collection and placing songs within that collection in different exclusive libraries, I was wondering if you could clarify. Is this because the whole collection is copyrighted, therefore the entire collection would have to shift copyright ownership to the exclusive library, rather than each individual song?
                      That last sentence was a run-on mess, hope it makes sense.

                    • Hi Andy,

                      I understand what you’re question. Again, I am not your lawyer, so this is not to be construed as legal advice.

                      What I would do in that situation is copyright the 3 flamenco tracks as a collection OR, I would move on to some Asian tracks, then some Italian tracks etc. When I had enough tracks I would copyright the collection as a collection of “world music.”

                      What you’re trying to do is group like objects. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got apples, oranges and pears in the bag, they’re all fruit. When you mix apples, beans and broccoli, you’ve got fruit, legumes and vegetables.

                      So, 3 flamenco tracks, 3 heavy metal tracks and 3 jazz tracks is arguably not a collection.

                      With respect to an exclusive library, a collection is considered one work, like movements in a symphony, or chapters in a book. You cannot split the chapters among different exclusive libraries, without re-filing the copyright and splitting up the tracks under different registration numbers.

                      Best,

                      Michael

Comments are closed.

X

Forgot Password?

Join Us