Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
It looks like Whoever Pays for the Studio Time, Owns the Recordings
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=279223 So let's say I have a sax player who pays me to record the raw tracks from a live gig, but wants me to send him the WAV files so he can mix it himself. It looks like I can't legally go behind his back and try to sell my own mixes to the singer or bass player, because the sax player paid me, and so technically he owns the master recordings, right? It's not like in photography, where the person who took the picture owns the rights... |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
It looks like Whoever Pays for the Studio Time, Owns the Recordings
On 09/04/2014 15:56, Paul wrote:
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=279223 So let's say I have a sax player who pays me to record the raw tracks from a live gig, but wants me to send him the WAV files so he can mix it himself. It looks like I can't legally go behind his back and try to sell my own mixes to the singer or bass player, because the sax player paid me, and so technically he owns the master recordings, right? He owns the intellectual property, you own the hardware. So, in effect, you can't just go ahead and sell your own mix without his permission, as that would be a violation of his intellectual property rights. Doing a mix purely for your own enjoyment, with nobody else being allowed to hear it, is a grey area. It's not like in photography, where the person who took the picture owns the rights... Even photography copyright isn't that simple (Here in the UK, at least.) If I take a picture in and from a public place, without being commissioned, I own the copyright, and can use that picture in any way that doesn't defame any person visible in it. I can sell you permission for any use you wish to make on it, ranging from a single print to be kept in a private place, to assigning you all the rights I have over that image. If you ask me to take a picture, whether in a public place or not, whether you pay me or not, then you own the copyright in that image. I have no rights over it at all, even if I use my own equipment to take and edit that image. If you ask me to take an image of a person, then the person also has rights concerning use of that image. If I take a picture of an actor or other performer during their performance, then they own the copyright of that image, as they own the copyright of their performance, unless there is a contact with the theatre or other person. In the case of sound recordings, if I play and record a piece of music or narration, then I have copyright control of the performance, but the writer of the work has a right to a payment when that recording is published. Of course, I may also be the writer... If I record, say, a band or a vocal performance, copyright exists in that performance, whether or not I have been paid to make that recording, and I can't do what I wish with it, as the author and performer have rights over it. I might have the master recording in whatever format in my possession, but I can't remix it or publish it without the permission of the performer and author. All these conditions can be overridden by a contract, which is why you should always get clearance in writing when you either take a picture you intend to publish or record a performance you intend to release, even for free. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
It looks like Whoever Pays for the Studio Time, Owns the Recordings
Paul wrote:
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=279223 So let's say I have a sax player who pays me to record the raw tracks from a live gig, but wants me to send him the WAV files so he can mix it himself. It looks like I can't legally go behind his back and try to sell my own mixes to the singer or bass player, because the sax player paid me, and so technically he owns the master recordings, right? It's not like in photography, where the person who took the picture owns the rights... If you are hired to photograph something you may well be under a "work for hire" contract that hands copyright to your employer. In the case of the studio recording you have no rights to the material. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
It looks like Whoever Pays for the Studio Time, Owns the Recordings
In article , Paul wrote:
So let's say I have a sax player who pays me to record the raw tracks from a live gig, but wants me to send him the WAV files so he can mix it himself. It looks like I can't legally go behind his back and try to sell my own mixes to the singer or bass player, because the sax player paid me, and so technically he owns the master recordings, right? If there is no contract, the guy with the better lawyer has rights to everything. It's not like in photography, where the person who took the picture owns the rights... If the photographer didn't get a model release signed, he doesn't own all the rights and can't use the picture. (Mind you there are exceptions to this... and lawyers are paid a lot of money to find exceptions). Everybody needs to sign a contract, then everthing is out in black and white. Without a contract, everyone is screwed except the lawyers. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
7-1/2" Studio Recordings of Styx, Kansas, Journey, and Pat Benatar | Marketplace | |||
Review: The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings ,Frank Sinatra | Audio Opinions | |||
who pays for blown up spkrs (mics, etc) in yer studio | Pro Audio | |||
Who pays for the piano tuning at your studio? | Pro Audio |