Hi all,

I've been doing some tracks for a local film company to use on their corporate videos; they will pay me on a "pay per usage" basis.

I put a basic contract together, along with a clause that says the copyright, publishing and writing credits on the tracks remains with me.

They've emailed back and requested that we have joint copyright on the songs. Is this normal practice? I tend to like to keep copyright to myself.

HI David

Generally I would say that the first thing to do is forget about "normal practice" - only agree to what you want to agree to regardless of what others might think is normal.

As to the actual question, the general rule is that copyright lies with the creator of the work (i.e. you), UNLESS you have been commissioned or employed to do the work, in which case it is generally owned by the commissioner/employer.

I guess you need to be clear on whether or not you intend to use these songs elsewhere, maybe by licencing them to others in the future - if that is the case try to insist on retaining the copyright for yourself otherwise the company might have a claim to any revenue generated by the tracks in the future. Flip side of that is that if you think the company might be able to licence them on in the future, then you would have a claim for revenue they generate - confusing?!

To sum up -

1 - ask yourself whether these tracks have been commissioned for the company in which case they could feasibly lay claim to the copyright in any case;
2 - if you really want to retain the copyright, stick to your guns.

Hope that helps

Luke

--------------------
please make it all simple.

Hi Luke, cheers for your reply.

Well, the deal was that I would compose and produce three tracks specifically for their use in their promo videos. I did that free of charge on the basis that they'd pay me per usage.

The contract specifies that after a year we'd have an option to carry on the agreement or I can take the songs and use them elsewhere. So it would be a bit weird for them to claim copyright.

They're a film company, not a publisher, and as such I can't see what benefit I would have by signing half my copyright over to them.

I don't even know what they want it for - it's not like local promo videos are going to rake tons of money in from PRS.

Maybe they mean exclusivity?

--------------------
Amazing take, spot on, just perfect....right....one more time.

Nah, we agreed that the tracks would be exclusive anyway. I'm feeling more and more like this is a bad deal. I might just be honest, email and say, why do you want half copyright of the music?

It might just be some in-house lawyer guy thinking he is being a bit clever, but not really thinking through the real-life implications. I think that your idea to email them is a good one. Then they can either tell you what they are thinking and you can decide or they can come clean and say they don't know why they requested it.

--------------------
please make it all simple.

Joint ownership of Masters with your client is just not a good idea in practice, as it can lead to all sorts of nasty confusion. After all, are you really going to contact them for their permission everytime you want to do something with the Masters, and vice versa? That would just be inconvenient. And if you agree you can both do anything you like with them, then one of you will soon get upset, not to mention liable if they are mis-used for example...

Licensing is the way to go. Keep it simple. Tell them that you are happy to negotiate whatever rights it is that would like to have. After all, you can effectively licence them the rights to do anything they like, for any period, for any territory, exc or non-exc, if you so wish - but you would still be the owner.

And if they are talking about Publishing rights, then they will need to become a registered Publisher....

--------------------
www.reallyfreemusic.co.uk

Quote Perfectspace:

---

Joint ownership of Masters...

---

Good to clarify whether they're talking about (c) in a sound recording or publishing rights to the song itself.

Exclusivity of any kind should (ideally) in along with some kind of obligation to exploit, otherwise they could just sit on your track and you can't use it.

Quote Perfectspace:

---

Licensing is the way to go. Keep it simple.

---

Fixed term licensing for the sound recording sounds appropriate. If the client isn't a music publisher then it sounds like they just want a cut of your money for doing nothing.

Unless they argue they are the author, having commissioned your songwriting talents. Ever wondered why lawyers are often rich?

More info needed really.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

Licensing ? You can't license this work as you've already stated it was a commission from them. The master is theirs. Now, you can argue to keep the writing as yours, no problem.... Work for hire would be all rights owned by them but keeping your compositional rights is pretty normal. Keeping ownership of e maters , however, is not WHEN a work has been produced as the resut of a commission. For it to be a license it should be a pre existing work.

Quote narcoman:

---

...as you've already stated it was a commission from them. The master is theirs.

---

If the client is suggesting 50/50 ownership and the OP is being paid 'per use' then it looks like this has not yet been decided. It could of course be argued based on precedent but if the client and the OP choose to devise a contract based on their own negotiation does that not stand?

Does the term 'commissioning' not imply some manner of payment which seems to be a matter of negotiation in this case.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

indeed. Bit of a mess that needs tearing down and starting again.