Who owns what?

Recording - Who Owns What?

I'm from Pennsylvania.

In short:

Friends of mine are in a band. They recently recorded an album at a local studio using 4 members. One of the members has left the band (be it his own decision or he was kicked out), and is threatening to sue the band if they release the recording... claiming that he is part owner to the songs & copyrights & so forth.

Most of the songs were written individually, brought to the band by one individual, and then each member added their parts respectively. (The person that left is a guitarist/background vocalist.)

Who owns the songs?

Is this person entitled to anything more than payment for his works on the recording and/or a portion of the money from sales of the disc?

They're wondering if they should halt production.

Thank you for your time & assistance, I hope I made this as concise as possible.

"Who owns the songs?"

It's hard to say for sure, but in the absence of any contractual agreements amongst the band members, the presumption would be that everyone who contributed to a song is a co-owner of the copyright in the song.

"Is this person entitled to anything more than payment for his works on the recording and/or a portion of the money from sales of the disc?"

No. When you have a copyright with more than one owner, any one of the owners can license, reproduce, etc., without permission of the other owner(s). Therefore, in this case, the rest of the band can continue to do whatever they want with any of the songs that they co-own with the ex-bandmember; however, if they make money off of licensing or whatever, then they have to give the other guy his cut.

The flip side is that the ex-bandmember could form a new band and use those songs as well. However, he would likewise have to share with the rest of the band any proceeds he earned.

Your best bet is to work something out with the ex-bandmember to buy him out or otherwise have him relinquish his rights to the songs. If he won't do that, then the band is free to use them anyway, but will need to pay him his share of any proceeds.

Note to musicians thinking about forming a band: it might be a good idea to consider up front ownership of copyrights to songs, so issues like this don't crop up later!

Thanks for the insight, divgradcurl!

It's a shame that a band has to set up a contract, but I guess like all relationships... it has the potential to go bad.

I'll let them know they can press the CD w/o fear.

Similarly...

If two people write a book together, can they "divide" the copyright? For instance, one party can only use the material for purposes of teaching about MARKETING such content, but can't actually use the content to write or speak as an authority on the content itself...

...trying to anticipate potential downsides...

"If two people write a book together, can they "divide" the copyright? For instance, one party can only use the material for purposes of teaching about MARKETING such content, but can't actually use the content to write or speak as an authority on the content itself... "

The two people can contractually agree to anything they want to between themselves. However, under copyright law, ANY of the owners have an undivided interest in the ENTIRE copyright. As noted above, any one owner can do whatever they want to with the work -- reproduce it, create a derivative work, publically perform it, license it, etc. -- as long as they don't "waste" the resource and as long as they share any profits with the other owners.

So, like I said, you can contractually agree to anything you want concerning the copyright. But if someone breaches the agreement, the remedies you seek fall under contract law, not copyright law.

Hmm. Seems square enough. If one partner in ownership of the copyright dies, does the contract for limited use of the work inure to their heirs, or does that die with them, such that the surviving owner of the copyright could then do whatever they wanted with the work?

Copyright is a property right, so if an owner of a copyright dies, their copyright goes to their heirs.

last one

Okay, last question... (you're great!

Radio guy's question made me wonder about this... suppose you're employed by someone in one capacity, and contract to mutually create a work. What is controlling in terms of the copyright? The contract? Can that be mooted later by virtue of the pre-existing employer/employee relationship? Would it matter if the employment was substantially different than the mutual work? Or if it was NOT substantially different?

If you are an employee, then the work-for-hire rules apply, and the employer owns the copyright. It has to be a bonafide employer-employee relationship, however -- merely paying someone else to do work for you is insufficient to transfer the copyright to the payer without an express contract.

In your example, it is not clear whether you are an employee, or a contractor. An employer owns the rights to anything an employee creates as part of the employment relationship. Someone who contracts with someone to create something does not own the copyright, even though they are paying for it, unless the creator has agreed to give up the copyright as part of the contract.

In an employer\employee context, there are no "mutual works" -- the employer owns the entire copyright, period -- the employee creator retains no rights to the work. It has nothing to do with what the employee was hired to do -- if you are employed as an engineer and write a poem while on the clock, in principle the employer owns the copyright to that poem.

Hey Hypocrite (ANABANANA), so my question -- from about 2 weeks ago -- made you think, huh?

But yet you tried to flame me, unsuccessfully...just like your career is going...by calling me a dumbass.

Way to go. GO back to your trailer, loser.

OHIOGUY44095 said:

Hey Hypocrite (ANABANANA), so my question -- from about 2 weeks ago -- made you think, huh?

But yet you tried to flame me, unsuccessfully...just like your career is going...by calling me a dumbass.

Way to go. GO back to your trailer, loser.

Click to expand...

That's enough Ohio. Following someone around on this forum like you just did is an easy way NEVER to come back again. Drop it.

OHIOGUY44095 said:

Hey Hypocrite (ANABANANA), so my question -- from about 2 weeks ago -- made you think, huh?

But yet you tried to flame me, unsuccessfully...just like your career is going...by calling me a dumbass.

Way to go. GO back to your trailer, loser.

Click to expand...

**A: Yes, OHIOGAY, you are a dumbass.

Dude, take a pill...

Dear Ohio Guy:

I thought you raised an interesting subject; I don't see where hypocrisy comes into play. But if you can't tell the difference between a flame and a jibe, you probably ought not troll these shark-infested waters. If you scrum around on here a bit, you will see that a fair amount of caustic, sometimes even cruel invective gets casually tossed around with an alarming regularity. It's wicked and vicious and demoralizing. And yet, while maudlin and maddened by the injustice of it all, I too have indulged in flagrant mouth karate on the uninitiated, even to the point of being censored! I confess. I was MEAN!!! Yes, I was mean, critical, bilious and bitter. I took advantage of the casually unethical and pounced on their cavalier amorality! I did it! I confess... it's all true.

Now this is not to say that ANY of the foregoing applies to you. You, I think, were merely smarmy. No sin there. On the other hand, I would say that sarcastically calling someone a dumbass hardly rates as fiery vitriol, but some skins are thinner than others. Sorry I bruised ya.

As to my career, it's going fine, thanks, not that MY career was ever a topic here. And so who is the loser? You're the one getting ripped off in Eastlake, pal. At least I'M getting ripped off in Florida!