Copywriting A Song

[janeymatthewson]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post. I've been writing songs for 3 years, and now I'm starting to get some interest - so I thought it's time to copyright my songs. Here's my question:

Should I be the one to copyright my songs? Should I get a lawyer to do it? Or should I wait until I'm signed and then have the music publisher or record company copyright them?

Thanks so much for your help!

Janey

[Lazz]

Look out Janey !!

You already own the copyright - if you wrote it, you own it, automatically.

I think what you may be concerned about is some kind of official registration so ownership can be proven in the unlikely eventuality of a dispute.

However, if you are serious, and this 'interest', is serious - then you need to seriously acquaint yourself with copyright and how it works in your territory.

There is absolutely no substitute for knowing what's really going on yourself rather than believing in any of the commomly held myths and mythundrstandings and especially the mythrepresentations that others will greedily shovel in your direction until you sign everything over to them.

Music companies are not to be trusted. Period.

You have to keep your eyes wide open.

Every step.

Sadly - not all lawyers will do their greatest work on your behalf, either.

The only one who really cares enough about Janey's business is Janey.

So be very careful about abrogating those responsibilities.

Now - let's presume that you are serious, and they are serious, and you are going to build a serious bankable future as a composer/songwriter.

Here's what I recommend you do:

1. You will need to find a lawyer, most certainly.

Just spend some serious time finding the right one to trust.

Ask around, get recommendations, look for the right specialist, the right experience.

Then have a chat with each and take your pick.

Ideally you should also get explicit info about what their rates are (we never want nasty surprises) and you should be looking to get this first consultancy for free.

Tell them what you want and where you're aiming, seek advice, take notes.

2. Set up your own publishing company.

If there are any deals to be signed with any other music company, let it be one negotiated between your company and theirs.

Agreements tend to become more flexible and more reasonable when they are dealing with a legally constituted company rather than a mere individual whom they are hoping to enslave.

3. Join the appropriate rights organisation - ASCAP or SOCAN or PRS/MCPS - depending on where you live.

Join as composer AND publisher.

Register your catalogue with them.

(That last might be all you really need to do as far as registration goes - it depends where you live and where your market is - if the US is an arena, and there is ownership dispute, courts are shown to give significantly higher awards if the work was logged with their copyright office - so you have to evaluate its relevance)

Line up those three things first and then you will be ready to consider signing something else.

But not before - do you hear me ?

NOT BEFORE

The fact that you honestly pose this question:

"should I wait until I'm signed and then have the music publisher or record company copyright them?"

... makes me worry for you like a lamb being prepared for slaughter.

Listen - one of my own favourite song-writers and recording artists was a guy called Curtis Mayfield. He adopted the route I have sketched out for you, above, and took care of his own business. Now, some people say he could have been bigger and better known and more successful if he had made bigger deals with the bigger industry players. Then, one day at a gig, a lighting rig collapsed onto him and he was paralysed from the neck down. Could play no more. Had a machine to raise and lower his chest so he could breathe. (And managed to record a new album that way, too !!) Had a home. Had full time carers. Now he's dead - but you know the only way that fine soul was able to sustain such a life until the end was that he never sold or signed over ownership to any of his work. He kept control of his catalogue. That's how come he was able to own a house, own the machine that let him breathe, pay for care, medicine, groceries, support his family....

On the other hand, I know another person who shall remain nameless, with a very successful playing and writing career, who signed a deal with a big heavyweight music company many years back abetted by a registered attorney who clearly failed to represent his client's best interests and ended up locking him in to a totally one-sided agreement riddled with the most egregious Catch 22 clauses such that he is now - to use a heavy technical term - completely f*cked. Forever. And slim chance of escape.

He didn't read or fully understand the terms at the time and just trusted his lawyer - who was obviously a total w*nker and didn't really care.

We don't want that happening to you.

Be like Curtis and take care of business.

Good luck.

[TaoMannaDon]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post. I've been writing songs for 3 years, and now I'm starting to get some interest - so I thought it's time to copyright my songs. Here's my question:

Should I be the one to copyright my songs? Should I get a lawyer to do it? Or should I wait until I'm signed and then have the music publisher or record company copyright them?

Thanks so much for your help!

Janey

Who is showing interest?

If it's a local band, artist, or producer, then follow Lazz's advice closely. To save money consider the ramifications of copyrighting a group of songs together; that might work for you. Learn the details first.

If the people showing interest offer to do a demo for you and you have to pay, don't do it. Their interest is in how much money they can get from you before you realize all they offer is demos.

If a big publishing company, successful producer, or famous artist is showing interest, pinch yourself. Pinch yourself hard! You are probably dreaming. That rarely happens and isn't likely to happen to you. I can make that statement with confidence without knowing anything about you or your songwriting talent. Too many incredibly lucky and difficult things must be in place first. If it does happen, then please tell us how you made it happen. I'd really like to know.

I love songwriting; but only as a hobby. Making money at it is a lot of hard work with no guarantee of success. The process of turning pro can suck all the joy of writing out of you. I quit writing for fifteen years after realizing I didn't have what it takes to be a pro. Thankfully, I finally remembered that I originally started writing because it was fun. And it still is.

Keep writing,

Don

[Nigel]

This is a subject that has had my interest for quite a while now. Some very good advice there Laz!

This is such a difficult business to get involved with, if anyone were ever to be lucky or talented enough to signed by one of the big publishers then it would a crying shame to lose it all through a some legal loophole that you didn´t know about.

I would be interested to know though Laz, what sort of protection a songwriter would need to get if he wanted to showcase his work on sites like Soundclick in the hope of getting some interest.

I´m not sure if the methods you mention above might be a bit overkill for someone who is still looking for some interest from the music business.

[Lazz]

I would be interested to know though Laz, what sort of protection a songwriter would need to get if he wanted to showcase his work on sites like Soundclick in the hope of getting some interest.

As Joe Roxhythe already said on the other thread - Soundclick uses date/time stamping.

What this means is that in a dispute you would be able to demonstrate that you posted it on a particular day at a particular time.

That could be useful.

Let me be a real dickhead first and say a few things up-front:

Soundclick lets enthusiasts like ourselves listen to a pretty narrow range of other folks' stuff.

Whether you consider this a 'showcase' for 'getting some interest' (presumably from someone who can help you on your way) is a profoundly moot point.

But personally - I would discount it completely.

Is there seriously anyone in the business who consults Soundclick and the like ?

I think not - I have never met anyone who pursues those avenues - they're all far too busy to waste time doing stuuf like that.

Your mates and your mum will dig it - but that's about all it's worth.

The other thing we need to face up to is the fact that protection is something which has to be enforced.

It costs money to get a dispute before the beak.

If you have a good case, and the offender is worth a load of dosh, then a lawyer will take you on for a contingency fee.

If it's another kid on the block like you without a pot to piss in, then you are on a hiding for nothing.

Is it an issue, then ?

To be harsh and true - whenever this question has been raised and I have taken the trouble to listen to the music people are worried about, my honest response has been (without one single exception, mind you) to think "You must be effin' joking, old son. Why on earth would anybody want to nick this old tosh ?"

That's just me, though - and I know piles of lovely musicians who make the most wondrous original music but no-one else knows or cares - while when I listen to whatever it is seems to be making money at any time my response is usually still of the "You must be effin' joking." variety - so what do I know, really ?

So one truly never knows I suppose

But I think a little realism helps.

All I can really recommend is that you focus on doing what you do to the best of your ability and keep working to be better.

And that you rest secure on the automatic copyright which exists in law for whatever you make of your own.

And hope that if any clown does make a move to steal from you they are wealthy enough to make it worthwhile chasing them.

Good luck.

Stick with it.

[TaoMannaDon]

I would be interested to know though Laz, what sort of protection a songwriter would need to get if he wanted to showcase his work on sites like Soundclick in the hope of getting some interest.

I'm not Laz but here are a few things to think about.

Point one:

If you plan to expose your music to SoundClick, Songstuff or anywhere else, you risk someone stealing your work and calling it their own. The copyright is yours from the moment of creation; but, if you ever have to prove ownership, an official government copyright is probably the only thing that will hold up in court. Look into copyrighting a group of songs at the same time. If that will work for you, it will save a lot of money.

Point two:

An official copyright does not protect your work from theft if you don't know your work has been stolen. Suppose you write fifty great songs over a number of years and post them on the INTERNET for others to hear. Someone could steal all your songs, call them his own, use them in local gigs, and make a fair living if the songs are good and he performs them well. And you might never know your work has been stolen. Owning the copyright can't protect you from something like that.

Point three:

You could write hundreds of great songs and never let anyone know about it. Your work will be safe from theft but you'll never feel the joy (or pain) of other people's reactions to your creativity.

If you become a professional, copyright can be important and useful. Between now and then any time spent thinking about copyright would probably be better spent writing songs.

Keep writing,

Don

Edited January 8, 2009 by TaoMannaDon

[john]

Hey

Don

It depends where you are. For example in the UK there is no official central song registry regarding copyright. It is either something you can reasonably prove or it isn't. that said, I would still advise any user to register their works via US copyright as it is the largest market and it does have a central registry.

Either way it is about burden of proof on an international level.

Even registration with US copyright office does not stop someone stealing your song. What it does mean is that you have some possibility for recourse and compensation if someone does steal your song, within the areas that do enforce copyright. It is something that faces every single artists, top to bottom and something that you run the risk of as soon as you let anyone else hear anything you do. Fact is you have to let other people hear it if you want to do something with it, even if that is just get opinions.

The words rock and hard place spring to mind.

Cheers

John

[TaoMannaDon]

It depends where you are. For example in the UK there is no official central song registry regarding copyright. It is either something you can reasonably prove or it isn't. that said, I would still advise any user to register their works via US copyright as it is the largest market and it does have a central registry.

I had to be intentionally vague in my reply to Nigel because I don't know his country's copyright laws. The US copyright is probably the best option as you say. On the other hand, strong US copyright laws can be abused; an extreme example might be someone gains access to your work before you copyright it, they see the value of the work and get their own copyright before you do. The law that was supposed to protect you protects the thief instead -- not likely, but possible.

Even registration with US copyright office does not stop someone stealing your song. What it does mean is that you have some possibility for recourse and compensation if someone does steal your song, within the areas that do enforce copyright. It is something that faces every single artists, top to bottom and something that you run the risk of as soon as you let anyone else hear anything you do. Fact is you have to let other people hear it if you want to do something with it, even if that is just get opinions.

We have total agreement on these points.

The words rock and hard place spring to mind.

I agree; but how tight the fit between that rock and hard place is affected most by how much time you spend thinking about it. The chance an amateur songwriter will create a work that has value and gets stolen and then becomes a known value through public revelation (a hit on the radio, etc.) is almost zero. If you've written a group of songs and want to spend a few dollars on a group copyright before posting them online, that might have some tiny amount of value, but mostly in your own peace of mind. The songs, themselves, are almost certainly void of monetary value.

If worry about copyright issues interferes with the joy of songwriting, your loss is real. So to all amateur songwriters I say stop worrying and ....

Keep writing,

Don

[Lazz]

if you ever have to prove ownership, an official government copyright is probably the only thing that will hold up in court

A court makes judgement based upon evidence.

US copyright registration does not automaticallty trump or exclude any other evidence to the contrary.

These things are judged on their own merits.

Of certain significance, however, is the fact that US courts can be shown to award considerably greater compensation in such cases where the work has been officially registered. Beats me just why they do that - the breach is exactly the same irrespective of a rubber stamp - but they do. So it's worth paying attention to.

All signatories to GATS have agreed to the same laws governing copyright.

(With the singular quirk being that the US is allowed to wriggle off-the-hook re: moral rights)

[TaoMannaDon]

A court makes judgement based upon evidence.

US copyright registration does not automaticallty trump or exclude any other evidence to the contrary.

These things are judged on their own merits.

Of certain significance, however, is the fact that US courts can be shown to award considerably greater compensation in such cases where the work has been officially registered. Beats me just why they do that - the breach is exactly the same irrespective of a rubber stamp - but they do. So it's worth paying attention to.

All signatories to GATS have agreed to the same laws governing copyright.

(With the singular quirk being that the US is allowed to wriggle off-the-hook re: moral rights)

Lazz,

You obviously have a greater command of the details than I (partly due to my lack of interest in the subject). My response was based on the general knowledge of how US courts value the copyright registration, as you indicated in your second paragraph. Whether we like it or not, the copyright registration is the best evidence of ownership.

As you may have already gathered, my opinion is that copyright concerns for amateurs is, at best, a distraction and, at worst, a waste of valuable time. For amateur songwriters I fear copyright infringement less than I fear thousands of songs hidden from public view or never written because of an imagined threat of creative theft or financial loss.

Keep writing (songs, that is)

Don

PS

That is all I have to say on the subject. If you or someone else disagrees with what I've said, I will accept that without further comment. Not mad, not angry, not upset -- just all talked out on this subject.

Edited January 9, 2009 by TaoMannaDon

[john]

Hey

Maybe is just me, but I didn't think we were all disagreeing so much as pooling knowledge to explain to someone new to the subject and your perspective is as valid as anyone elses particularly where it comes down to "what to do with the information", especially considering the points Nick raised. Different perspectives are always good. Lets face it different songwriters have different aspirations, and different needs.

Just thought I'd say that

Anyways btt...

Cheers

John

[Lazz]

Keep writing (songs, that is)

Sorry mate - I keep overlooking your sensitiviies and dislike of dialogue.

Forgive me.

Let's just pretend I'm taking to myself for a bit:

you say "The copyright is yours from the moment of creation"

and I think "Hey - He's hip to the Berne Convention. Cool."

you say "it will save a lot of money"

and I think "Hmm. Practical, too. I like that."

you say "official copyright does not protect your work from theft"

and I think "Yeah! On the money. Straight to the nub of the issue. The simple truth and no messing"

you say "but you'll never feel the joy (or pain) of other people's reactions to your creativity"

and I think "You know - I really dig this guy's values"

you say “... due to my lack of interest in the subject”

and I think “I can’t believe that. If it were true, why would Don be bothering to offer opinion at all ?”

you say “My response was based on the general knowledge of how US courts value the copyright registration, as you indicated in your second paragraph.”

and I think “Well…., not exactly. Your post asserts that courts’ judgements about ownership will be determined by the bureaucratic facts of registration, whereas official US registration in truth influences their assessment of monetary value only. A finding for ownership is one thing: a punishment for its breach is another. They are different animals.”

For me, that’s a factual legal issue and not a matter of opinion.

I do have some small opinion difference, however, with your position that “copyright concerns for amateurs is, at best, a distraction and, at worst, a waste of valuable time”. I mean, I am definitely convinced by its clarity and persuaded by its good sense – and recognise that it’s definitely a conscious choice you have made for yourself – but my own feeling on the other hand is that at the very least whenever people reach the point of putting the question they deserve some straight and accurate answering. But, even having said that, I know what you mean.

[Lazz]

Whether we like it or not, the copyright registration is the best evidence of ownership.

I have a confession.

It's manageable most of the time, but I must admit a deep-seated prejudice and instinctive reaction to the merest sniff of a suggestion that US-borne prescriptions and practices are automatically by-definition inherently superior to any other. We Europeans have enjoyed the Berne Convention since 1886 you know and yet the US refused to sign up for over one hundred years so it sure seems a bit blatantly arrogant and Johnny-come-lately to be setting up US copyright registration as the gold-standard exemplar for the rest of the world.....

I'll stop now - I'm coming over all funny.

[TaoMannaDon]

Let's just pretend I'm taking to myself for a bit:

"Just when I think I'm out, they keep pulling me back in." Michael Corleone

Since I have already said I won't comment further on the subject (but could not resist looking at the thread, even though I unsubscribed to avoid getting an email alert) I will offer a personal note:

I was a member of the Nashville Songwriters Association International for several years in the 1980's. That is the time when I was interested in copyright law. My memory may be flawed or my understanding at the time might have been incorrect; but my comments were guided by what I learned as a member of NSAI. In the late 1980's I finally realized I didn't have what it takes to be a professional songwriter. I stopped writing completely and lost interest in songwriting and copyright law. Shortly after that, the US joined the Berne Convention (according to Wikipedia). Until today, I did not know that.

My comments on US copyright law were based on flawed or outdated information.

This new knowledge does not change the opinion on copyright I held in my previously ignorant state. Making group registrations of several songs or "just not worrying about it" still sounds to me like the best solution for amateur songwriters.

Edited January 9, 2009 by TaoMannaDon

[Retrosaurus Rex]

My comments on US copyright law were based on flawed or outdated information.

Thanks for owning up to that, it's a respectable and honorable thing to do. This does, however, illustrate the problem with these kinds of discussions in online forums, which is that a lot of flawed or outdated information gets passed around with the most noble intentions of being helpful, but becomes mixed with all manner of speculation, conjecture and ridiculous BS that somebody made up to sound smart (or worse, that somebody was fed to be made a fool of) which gets repeated as if it were as indisputable as magnetic north. I'm not accusing present company of perpetuating bad information, just pointing out the difficulty of weeding out the correct information (even on Wiki...) from the info of dubious value...

The question of whether it's worth it for an amateur to spend the time and money to register copyright is a valid one, but if you've decided it is worth it then it's worth it to spend the time and brain power to do the hard research to find the best way, and understand the ramifications of the way you choose. Seeking opinions on an online forum can be a good start, but definitely shouldn't be taken as the last word. Not even here.

Edited January 9, 2009 by retrosaurus

[Nigel]

Wow!!!! Well we really got into that subject didn't we!

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to post their comments on this subject. I feel somewhat relieved to think that anything I put onto Soundclick will be reasonably safe and may indeed be safeguarded.

And to Lazz, my sincere apologies to misspelling your name by missing off the second z. I cringe with embarrassment.

[Lazz]

And to Lazz, my sincere apologies to misspelling your name by missing off the second z. I cringe with embarrassment.

No problem.

After all, John called you Nick, so think of it as fair exchange.

I would like to add first that I am in agreement with John about sharing knowledge rather than making disagreements.

And second - I find no substantive disagreement with Don's understandings at all.

Quite apart from Berne - which is a bit of a red herring in this context - my only issue was with the common misrepresentation of how courts actually operate.

This may seem quite specious to many - but for me it is quite fundamental.

And my impression is that the point has been missed.

I understand well enough that I am in a minority, but my experience has shown me that jurists are actually pretty hip: they not only generally know quite well what goes on in their area of specialisation but they definitely assess all evidence on its own merits. It serves no good purpose to pretend or presaume otherwise.

That's all.

The other main point from both of us is the sobering one about the notion of 'protection' that everyone is always after.

Just as having house insurance won't prevent fire from gutting your home, so you can't prevent theft.

It will be up to you though (no-one else will be interested) to enforce penalties.

If you can afford it.

[john]

Hey Liz

Me? Get a name wrong? Shirley not.

Cheers

John

[Sadie]

This is a very interesting discussion. I have been writing for a couple of years and have only put up some short 30 second clips on myspace to see how my voice sounds and to see what feedback I get about the lyrics. I am afraid to put entire songs out because the risk of someone taking it is so high. I do plan to obtain a copyrighting license in the future to protect myself.

[john]

Hey Sadie

It's worth reading some more... you wouldn't obtain a copyright license, rather that you register your work in order to help you prove that the works are yours... but even registering doesn't prove that.... all it proves is that you submitted those songs for registration on a certain day, not that you wrote them.

What in essence it comes down to is that copyright is established as soon as you publish your work anywhere, including on these forums. By publication it shows that you posted that work on a certain day. That is all.

When it comes to court it comes down to weight of evidence. Source materials, drafts, registered works, publications... Obviously how reliable those sources are has some effect, but say for example you registered a version of Money by Pink Floyd... great you registered it.... if it came to court do you think that you would be seen as author just because you registered it? Nope... because of the weight of evidence that Pink Floyd wrote that song. Registering also only really has any influence on the US market.

Cheers

John