Copyright Law? Are chords entitled to a songwriter's %?

[mckelly]

There is a difference between "copyright" and registration. Copyright is automatic when any work is produced in a tangible form of expression - e.g. book, cd, painting, etc.

There are also two forms of copyright related to recorded music. The "circle C" is the person that wrote the song. Singing a vocal line into a tape recorder gives this person immediate ownership of the copyright. The "circle P" is owned by the person who recorded and produced a particular version/performance of said song - even if that person had nothing to do with writing the song. The "P" is usually owned by the record company or producer.

Correct, but these are merely forms of notice - which was once a legal requirement to gaining copyright protection but is longer required. It still is a good idea however. I pointed out the distinction because there is a great misconception out there that for one to gain copyright protection, they need to submit a copy to the library of congress. This is not so. Copyrights are automatic.

[James Steele]

Correct, but these are merely forms of notice - which was once a legal requirement to gaining copyright protection but is longer required. It still is a good idea however. I pointed out the distinction because there is a great misconception out there that for one to gain copyright protection, they need to submit a copy to the library of congress. This is not so. Copyrights are automatic.

Technically of course this is correct. But registering is "still a good idea." Such a good idea in fact that somone who doesn't do this is being monumentally stupid, as the registration is what helps you PROVE that you created a work and you will need that proof to effectively protect your rights in any sort of dispute.

[mckelly]

Correct, but these are merely forms of notice - which was once a legal requirement to gaining copyright protection but is longer required. It still is a good idea however. I pointed out the distinction because there is a great misconception out there that for one to gain copyright protection, they need to submit a copy to the library of congress. This is not so. Copyrights are automatic.

Technically of course this is correct. But registering is "still a good idea." Such a good idea in fact that somone who doesn't do this is being monumentally stupid, as the registration is what helps you PROVE that you created a work and you will need that proof to effectively protect your rights in any sort of dispute.

Absolutely - I always recommend registering ones works.

We should make the following a sticky:

1. Register your works.

2. Get it in writing.

[James Steele]

We should make the following a sticky:

1. Register your works.

2. Get it in writing.

Amen... especially in writing. I almost hesitated because I "felt bad" about getting the backup singers to sign a "work for hire" type agreement... but then I didn't want something like that to bite me on the butt years down the road.

[toodamnhip]

We should make the following a sticky:

1. Register your works.

2. Get it in writing.

Amen... especially in writing. I almost hesitated because I "felt bad" about getting the backup singers to sign a "work for hire" type agreement... but then I didn't want something like that to bite me on the butt years down the road.

I'll tell ou guys another disconcerting thought...

I am in the rocess of drawing up a whole batch of contracts with my lawyer, but basically, many of them are still not binding...They are better than nothing but you know the effin law...there are caveats for everything ..I will keep you posted as to what I learn is still not "binding" even though signed....

[mckelly]

We should make the following a sticky:

1. Register your works.

2. Get it in writing.

Amen... especially in writing. I almost hesitated because I "felt bad" about getting the backup singers to sign a "work for hire" type agreement... but then I didn't want something like that to bite me on the butt years down the road.

Yeah, I know the feeling - but one should never feel bad. Remember, a signed agreement is for the benefit of both parties; everyone understands their obligations/responsibilities etc.

[araut]

Can I weigh in on this?...Here's the deal...I've been teaching the business of music at an area college in Orlando for over 3 years as well as scoring music for 24. Chord progressions are not copyrightable. You can't copyright ii V I, IV V I, or 12 bar blues, etc. However, the lyrics and the melody are the "song" which by the way there is no definition in the copyright law for song...it's considered words and music or lyrics and music in the nature of this work box on the copyright form "PA". Oh btw, make sure when you copyright music you know the correct form to use. People seem to think that the SR form can do it all. Also, copyrights are not automatic at the Federal level only at the state common law level, which varies from state to state. Not much protection to speak of. If you want complete Federal protection you MUST register, in order to sue for infrindgment and in some cases the right to collect compulsory mechanicals. Also, the law states that lyrics are 50% and music is 50% of the copyright, not 33, 33, 33. Technically you as the "Chord" composer would be entitled to 25% if that's what is agreed upon. So, this person coming into the studio as per this scenario would own 75% and the other composer 25%.

If you put chords to the music that make considerable creative contributions to the song more than just simple diatonic chords, I IV V I, in my book, you would be considered a co-writer. The thing to remember is that there is no provision to notate percentages on the PA form, that must be done with a simple agreement documenting the share of ownership that each party keeps in their files. BMI/ASCAP do have provision on their clearance forms when registering the works. They must know exactly how to divy up the money.

The messy side of all this is that this should be established before any production begins and/or money changing hands as to the nature of the collaboration. For many people this is uncomfortable because they don't understand what's going on. They're fearfull that they are being taken advantage of. The pat response is "why do we have to deal with this right now...can't we just get to recording. Given that the "song" is the currency of our industry, it's important to have a clear understanding of the relationship. It doesn't have to be a contract 2 inches thick, a simple letter of agreement laying out the terms of ownership is sufficient.

Any other insight into this always potential canumdrum, let me know. It's always great to hear other peoples experience to share with my students.

[toodamnhip]

Can I weigh in on this?...Here's the deal...I've been teaching the business of music at an area college in Orlando for over 3 years as well as scoring music for 24. Chord progressions are not copyrightable. You can't copyright ii V I, IV V I, or 12 bar blues, etc. However, the lyrics and the melody are the "song" which by the way there is no definition in the copyright law for song...it's considered words and music or lyrics and music in the nature of this work box on the copyright form "PA". Oh btw, make sure when you copyright music you know the correct form to use. People seem to think that the SR form can do it all. Also, copyrights are not automatic at the Federal level only at the state common law level, which varies from state to state. Not much protection to speak of. If you want complete Federal protection you MUST register, in order to sue for infrindgment and in some cases the right to collect compulsory mechanicals. Also, the law states that lyrics are 50% and music is 50% of the copyright, not 33, 33, 33. Technically you as the "Chord" composer would be entitled to 25% if that's what is agreed upon. So, this person coming into the studio as per this scenario would own 75% and the other composer 25%.

If you put chords to the music that make considerable creative contributions to the song more than just simple diatonic chords, I IV V I, in my book, you would be considered a co-writer. The thing to remember is that there is no provision to notate percentages on the PA form, that must be done with a simple agreement documenting the share of ownership that each party keeps in their files. BMI/ASCAP do have provision on their clearance forms when registering the works. They must know exactly how to divy up the money.

The messy side of all this is that this should be established before any production begins and/or money changing hands as to the nature of the collaboration. For many people this is uncomfortable because they don't understand what's going on. They're fearfull that they are being taken advantage of. The pat response is "why do we have to deal with this right now...can't we just get to recording. Given that the "song" is the currency of our industry, it's important to have a clear understanding of the relationship. It doesn't have to be a contract 2 inches thick, a simple letter of agreement laying out the terms of ownership is sufficient.

Any other insight into this always potential canumdrum, let me know. It's always great to hear other peoples experience to share with my students.

You surely can indeed weigh in on this. Your post was very kind and very helpful. I will be IMing you about a few specifics if you don;t mind...thanks so much for your good effort...

David

[HCMarkus]

Oh btw, make sure when you copyright music you know the correct form to use. People seem to think that the SR form can do it all.

SR Covers both (P) and (C) if properly executed; right? Thanks!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Oh btw, make sure when you copyright music you know the correct form to use. People seem to think that the SR form can do it all.

SR Covers both (P) and (C) if properly executed; right? Thanks!

Correct.

[araut]

Only if the copyright claimants are the same for both the song and the sound recording. You can't have two songwriters and three producers claiming ownership using an SR form, meaning, if two people are claiming ownership of the song and a third person such as an engineer or studio owner claiming ownership of the sound recording. It's still best to copyright the song and sound recording separately. It just makes things easier when it comes to licensing your music. It's more important to copyright the song because that's the "intellectual property". Don't waste your money copyrighting a piano/vocal or guitar/vocal demo. If you are copyrighting the sound recording, make it the best edition which should be the "master commercial recording" version. After you've slaved over performance, production values, etc, you have a version someone most likely will try to use or sample without licensing it from you. Chances are, nobody is gonna want to infringe upon your demo. Also, (P) is used for the sound recording and (C) is used for the "underlying content" i.e. the song. These "formalities" are no longer required because of the 1989 copyright ammendment after the U.S. joined the Berne Convention, International Copyright Treaty. However, it's a public record that your work has been registered. You hope it will be a deterant for infringement but if someone wants to steal your work they will try.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

All good info. The only thing I might add is if the author is not able to write out the music and can only record it on a cassette, then they should file AT LEAST a form PA with the cassette. SR will cover it as well, but PA is more appropriate as described above.

[toodamnhip]

I don't think chords themselves are copyrightable, but the fact that you had to write it makes you co-writer. I don't know the law on that, but I'd simply make them sign an agreement. If they don't want to sign, they can go somewhere else and get someone who will write it for free.

Just make them give you some points to co-write. Ask for 10% of artist's cut, plus songwriter credit. It's going to be a subjective thing. If this is a country western song, chances are there is nothing to quibble about. I mean, any decent player could sit there and play the song first time with no written chords. There are only about 4 or 5 C&W songs, really, at least of the type I'm referring to. If it's more progressive, and the guy doesn't know how to play what he hears with his melody, then you're actually creating the sound for him. That's worth at least a few points. On the other hand, if you're saving this cat from amateur hour by making something interesting out of a boring melody, then you're definitely on the team and deserve 10% minimum, if not 50%.

Whatever you agree to is what the deal will be. If they think the law is otherwise, they can go have a lawyer write their chords for free.

Shooshie

Well Shoosh...
This stuff comes up all the time for me. Ever heard of the song "One note Samba"? The melody is an F...But the chords are D-7, Db dom 7, C-7/11 etc...The chords make the F mean what it means...annd great writers do that as standard operating procedure in my opinion.

Well, when I do chords for a person, they can be minor, major, and they are never anything but, even if I must say so myself, pretty damn amazing..I grew up playing with Joe pass , Ted greene, heavy cats, heavy chord knowlege to where ANY chord can work if voice led properly... so its like, I can really, and DO really shape a person's song with chords when they have none to start with. And most are grateful But then comes the ego maniac A-holes...yikes! I end up in fights, and what am I fight? I think ignorance and ego.

It appears I am about to get into a lawsuit about this fact and it will be interesting to have my former client on the stand. If I can, I will have my lawyer put out a keyboard and ask him to play the song he says he worte.."Mr___ play your song for us all, we'd love to hear it". .And when the SOB cannot play his own effing song...move for a dismissal and attorney's fees. Oh, if only life worked like our fantasies..lol..wouldn't that be a pretty slam dunk?

The ignorance I have run into when it comes to chords and their impact has been unbelievable. Indeed, in country, maybe it could be argued the song is complete without chords. But really? I mean, any melody can usually be made minor or major...and once so made, changed again.

I am waiting for a call from my lawyer on all of this, and have thus far found the law a bit unclear, yet musically, I know how, at least when I do them .chords are no less important than any other part of a song.

I would find 10% too little. Perhaps 25%. I have offered 25 and am being told I had nothing to do with the writing..and that's UNACCEPTABLE unless I find out the law is "agin me"....thus...it appears court will be the outcome. More for principal.

I thank you for always chiming and and welcome others to continue to discuss this, especially from a technical law point of view as that's what will matter in the end. From a reality, right and wrong point of view, I am certain chords are part of the writing of a song. It may have something to do with the legal defition of "MUSIC", as a compostion is usually defined as "Words and MUSIC.

Anyone with a similar problem or legal insight welcome!

[toodamnhip]

Here is a question that I think many producers could benefit from.

I want to discuss this:
If a songwriter comes into my studio with words and a melody he sings, but does not know his chords, (usually hasn't even a clue as to the chords), and I have to write the chords, am I entitled to songwriter's for this?

In my opinion, the answer is yes and the share should be 33%, dividing the song into lyric, melody and chords.

Please chime in and voice your knowlege on this.Exact copyright law quotes to back up your point and a reference to where they may be found would be very helpful

Contracts, Contracts, Contracts!!!! Can't say it enough!
This EXACT reason is why I don't collaborate anymore...
I write the melody, chords and all... no problems. But, if you put ANY music to words then you are a co-writer IMO and are entitled to compensation... (unless it is in the musician for hire contract that you give up that right.)
But a chord doesn't count... a MELODY ( a predetermined number of notes or chords) does... but, in a court they have to show intent and if you intentionally took someone's riff or ideas then yes, it's a violation, but if it is clear in court it was a collaborative work then this guy is going to have a hard time suing you! It's all up to the Judge!

Well, the thing is, when these singers sing their "melodies", they are very un clear and only become clear and even modfied when I add chords so I feel I am also part of the melody.

[nvrsay]

Somethings not right about your story. Why would this person be suing you? Did you try to copyright the song without his permission? Refuse to give him his master after he paid?
The bottom line is not whether this person can play the song on a keyboard. Means absolutely nothing if he can or can't. You're dreaming if you think that will result in a slam dunk for you. You'd better get a smarter lawyer if that's his strategy. What counts is what the two of you agreed on when you started working together. If he came to your studio and HIRED you to record and also play on his song, it doesn't matter what chords you played. You were hired for a service. If he did not agree to collaborate with you as a co-songwriter, and you didn't get anything in writing to say that your putting chords to his song made you a co-writer, than you are just out of luck.
You're not very clear as to what brought the two of you together. You mention that you have had this argument with other songwriters/clients. That's a red flag that something is wrong with your approach. More info is needed here to understand what's going on.
The act of putting great chords to a melody is not in itself a claim to having co-written a song. It's all about what the parties involved agreed upon.
There is a thing called "work for hire", where you are hired and paid to create something for someone else that they will then own the copyright to. This is a common way of working in certain parts of the industry.
There is also a "licensing" situation where you are paid for the use of your music for a limited or sometimes unlimited use of your music and then you still maintain the ownership of the song and can re-license the music to others.
The big trick with either of these ways of working is what you can negotiate in the way of financial compensation, what are you going to be paid?
There is no "law" as to how a song credit is split. It's whatever the parties agree to.
Often in bands, all members will share in some way in the songwriting credit, regardless of who wrote what, because the success of the songs depends on everybody in the band working hard to make the band successful.
If you are offering a service to record someone in your studio and they also want you to play on the recording, than you need to decide what extra compensation you are willing to provide that service for. If you won't do it unless you get a songwriting credit than that's your prerogative and its up to them to decide how they want to proceed. That's why people pay studio musicians to come in and play on their songs and the great ones get paid very well for their time but don't get songwriting credit.
You'd better try to settle this one out of court, from the info you've provided it doesn't sound like you have a chance.
Frank Z