Copyright Fundamentals for

Musicians

Presenter: Tristan C. RobinsonGenerously sponsored by:

Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts (“TALA”)Texas Bar Foundation

Houston Endowment FundSpecial Thanks to: United Way

Who is Our Audience Tonight?

Musicians (Solo Artists, Accompanists, Bands, DJs, Groups, etc.) Independent “Indie” Labels or Start-Up Publishing Cos. Songwriters Managers, Agents, Attorneys (Suits) Studio Engineers Anyone who wants to know how to engage the music business the

smart (legal) way and “make money” from what they’ve created. Anyone who wants to know their rights.

What Will We Cover?

What’s a Copyright? Types of Copyrights in Music: the Song and the Recording What are the rights we get if we own a Copyright? Understanding how ownership of Copyright in a song is generally

handled in the entertainment biz. (We’ll talk Publishers vs. Record Labels and things to look out for if you’re signing up with either)

All the things we need to handle to make money, protect, or sue over our music. (We’ll talk what these things can cost you and what you can do to not spend a fortune while still being smart with your IP)

Q&A

Music Law 101: What’s a Copyright and How Do I Get One?

WHAT IT IS: A Copyright is a form of Intellectual Property protection provided by law. Copyright protection is available to “original works of authorship” that are “fixed in a tangible form”, whether published or unpublished. What’s covered: Paintings, songs, sound recordings, literary works, live performances

(theatre/dance), photographs, movies, and software

WHAT IT’S NOT: An idea or some useful invention. It must be “artistic” in nature.

HOW DO I GET ONE: You have one the moment it’s put in a “fixed, tangible form”. For us, that means if you write down the lyrics and chords or record it you have a Copyright that moment (assuming it’s “original”).** ** - Heard about the U.S. Copyright Office? We’ll talk more about Federal Copyright

registration and the importance of that shortly, as well as what you get as the owner.

Music Law 101: Musical Composition vs. Sound Recording IMPORTANT: Two types of Copyrights exist in Music.

1. The Musical Composition: the notes, chords, lyrics, etc. (the easy way to think about this is “the Song”).

This is the thing that can be written down on paper and recorded in a studio later.

2. The Sound Recording: this is the recording of a particular performance of the musical composition (the easy way to think about this is “the Recording” or “the Master”).

Think: “The song itself… vs. the recording of that song being performed”

WHY SHOULD I CARE?: Because which Copyright you own is going to determine HOW YOU GET PAID and HOW MUCH YOU GET PAID.

Music Law 101: Musical Composition (“Song”) vs. Sound Recording (“Recording”)

Confused? Let’s simplify: Someone can own a Copyright to a “Song” Someone can own a Copyright to a “Recording” (of a Song)

We’ll be referring to these two Copyrights as the “Song” and the “Recording” moving from hereon out and soon we’ll talk about “how” you may become a full or part owner of either of these Copyrights.

Music Law 101: What kind of rights do we have if we hold the Copyright? Section 106 of the Copyright Act lists six “exclusive”* rights

Copyright owners receive: 1. Right of Reproduction. 2. Right to Make Derivatives 3. Right to Distribute 4. Right of Public Performance 5. Right to Display in Public 6. Digital Transmission Performance

* NOTE: Exclusive just means if you have this and haven’t licensed it away (like, with a contract saying someone else can do these things)... No one else can do it.

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right of Reproduction

Reproduce = Copy. Right to copy it.

This is the most important, powerful right you have as the owner of a Copyright. It means you’re the only one who gets to “copy” this artistic masterpiece of yours (without being paid anyway).

Copyright. The “right” to make “copies” of the music. You get it.

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right of Reproduction

BUT REMEMBER: We have two types of Copyright(s) in the music biz that may conflict (owner of the song Copyright, and owner of the recording Copyright)

So how’s this work and who says who can copy what under this right to reproduce?

Things can get complicated because of “Song” and “Recording” Copyright ownership differences!

So, let’s use a hypo.

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right of Reproduction (HYPO1-Q)

HYPO: Suppose Justin Timberlake writes down a chord progression and some lyrics on a piece of paper. He grins about it, decides to title it “SexyBack”, and relaxes after deciding this was a job well done.Without doing anything else, Justin sends that piece of paper to the U.S. Copyright office to file for a Federal registration.

Question 1: Does it matter he hasn’t recorded or even played “SexyBack”? Can someone else record or play “SexyBack” since Justin hasn’t?

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right of Reproduction (HYPO1-A)HYPO: Suppose Justin Timberlake writes down a chord progression and some lyrics on a piece of paper. He grins about it, decides to title it “SexyBack”, and relaxes after deciding this was a job well done.Without doing anything else, Justin sends that piece of paper to the U.S. Copyright office to file for a Federal registration.

Answer 1: No. Justin obtained a Copyright to the musical composition the moment he fixed it into a tangible medium of expression (when he put the lyrics and chords on paper). Without Justin’s permission, no one else can go record “SexyBack” even though he has yet to do so himself (because to copy the song in any way is a violation of JT’s Exclusive right of Reproduction – and thus is Copyright infringement).

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right of Reproduction (HYPO1-A) So what’s this trying to say?

Practically speaking, the ball always begins in the songwriter’s court to license as s/he pleases. There’s nothing to record (no “recording” Copyright) if someone hasn’t written a song. So, we always start there.

It doesn’t matter that he and Timbaland haven’t gone into the studio and began mastering some recording of SexyBack.

But let’s take a look at how it works if we do have some recording going on.

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right of Reproduction (HYPO2-Q)HYPO: Same facts as in Hypo 1, only Justin decides that he won’t be including “SexyBack” on his new album. Instead, he approaches the record company DefJam about whether or not they’d be interested in having one of their artists, Rihanna, record it. DefJam agrees and Justin gives permission for DefJam and Rihanna to record “SexyBack”. The song becomes a huge success for Rihanna, causing Justin to regret the decision not to include “SexyBack” on his latest album. Justin now seeks to include his own version of “SexyBack” on his next album.Question 2: Did Justin lose his right to reproduce “SexyBack” when he gave permission for DefJam and Rihanna to record it?

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right of Reproduction (HYPO2-A)HYPO: Same facts as in Hypo 1, only Justin decides that he won’t be including “SexyBack” on his new album. Instead, he approaches the record company DefJam about whether or not they’d be interested in having one of their artists, Rihanna, record it. DefJam agrees and Justin gives permission for DefJam and Rihanna to record “SexyBack”. The song becomes a huge success for Rihanna, causing Justin to regret the decision not to include “SexyBack” on his latest album. Justin now seeks to include his own version of “SexyBack” on his next album.Answer 2: Not without an agreement stating as much. Nothing in the fact scenario above contemplates licensing “SexyBack” to DefJam/Rihanna for anything other than sound recording rights. This means, DefJam and their artist, Rihanna, can master it, but Justin’s rights haven’t gone anywhere.

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right to Reproduction (HYPO2-A) So what happened?

In the last hypo, because Justin still has the right to reproduce the underlying song “SexyBack”, he’s owed royalties any time DefJam reproduces (note I’m not saying “sells”) a CD, cassette or digital copy of Rihanna’s “SexyBack”.

It’s still Justin’s song to reproduce, he just gave DefJam and Rihanna permission to record it. See how important the right of reproduction is?

Keep this in mind for when we get to making money from your music, which will be discussed in just a bit.

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right of Reproduction (HYPO2-Q)HYPO: Same facts as in Hypo 1, only Justin decides that he won’t be including “SexyBack” on his new album. Instead, he approaches the record company DefJam about whether or not they’d be interested in having one of their artists, Rihanna, record it. DefJam agrees and Justin gives permission for DefJam and Rihanna to record “SexyBack”. The song becomes a huge success for Rihanna, causing Justin to regret the decision not to include “SexyBack” on his latest album. Justin now seeks to include his own version of “SexyBack” on his next album.

Question 3: What reproduction rights does DefJam have with the Copyright to the sound recording?

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right to Reproduction (HYPO2-A)HYPO: Same facts as in Hypo 1, only Justin decides that he won’t be including “SexyBack” on his new album. Instead, he approaches the record company DefJam about whether or not they’d be interested in having one of their artists, Rihanna, record it. DefJam agrees and Justin gives permission for DefJam and Rihanna to record “SexyBack”. The song becomes a huge success for Rihanna, causing Justin to regret the decision not to include “SexyBack” on his latest album. Justin now seeks to include his own version of “SexyBack” on his next albumAnswer 3: DefJam has the right to reproduce the Rihanna version of “SexyBack” onto CDs, cassettes, vinyl, etc. without having to ask Justin every time they do so. DefJam still controls an exclusive right to reproduction that is protected by Copyright law, it just so happens that every time the particular recording is reproduced, so too is Justin’s musical composition (meaning Justin will still benefit from a reproduction of the sound recording absent agreeing otherwise).

Music Law 101: Exclusive Right to Make Derivatives NEXT RIGHT: DERIVATIVES Think about the exclusive right to make derivatives like this: if you

own the Copyright for a song, only you can give permission to make something “derived” from that song. Adaptations, transformations, translations and new works “based on” your song are (for the most part) entirely within your control as the Copyright owner.

Real World Examples: Let’s say someone wants to sing your song in another language. A translation is a “derivative”.

Now let’s talk about the biggest issue…

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Make Derivatives – “SAMPLING” “Sampling” is perhaps the biggest issue that falls into a discussion of

derivatives. Sampling is when you take a piece of an existing Copyrighted work and combine it with a new work (i.e., you take a portion of an existing song/track and want it to be part of your new, different song).

This is especially common in genres like Hip-Hop and R&B music.

Remember that we have Copyright protection for folks who own both the SONG and the RECORDING as we consider this next Hypo

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Make Derivatives (HYPO3-Q)Hypo: Justin owns the underlying musical composition (the “song”) for “SexyBack”. DefJam owns the sound recording of “SexyBack” as performed by Rihanna. Let’s say there’s not just Rihanna’s version out there now, but instead that “SexyBack” has been recorded by various artists at this point. Lil’ Wayne decides he would like to sample a portion of “SexyBack” for his new song, “Sexy Wayne”.

Question 4: If the version of “SexyBack” Weezy wishes to sample is solely from the DefJam/Rihanna master, does Weezy still need Justin’s permission to sample a portion of “SexyBack”?

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Make Derivatives (HYPO3-A)Hypo: Justin owns the underlying musical composition (the “song”) for “SexyBack”. DefJam owns the sound recording of “SexyBack” as performed by Rihanna. Let’s say there’s not just Rihanna’s version out there now, but instead that “SexyBack” has been recorded by various artists at this point. Lil’ Wayne decides he would like to sample a portion of “SexyBack” for his new song, “Sexy Wayne”.

Answer 4: Without more facts, yes. Rights to the underlying musical composition belong to Justin and those are powerful rights. Both Justin (song owner) and DefJam (owner of the Rihanna-master) have separate rights to create derivatives. Weezy will need permission from both.

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Make Derivatives (HYPO3-Q)Hypo: Justin owns the underlying musical composition (the “song”) for “SexyBack”. DefJam owns the sound recording of “SexyBack” as performed by Rihanna. Let’s say there’s not just Rihanna’s version out there now, but instead that “SexyBack” has been recorded by various artists at this point. Lil’ Wayne decides he would like to sample a portion of “SexyBack” for his new song, “Sexy Wayne”.

Question 5: Does the result change if Wayne decides to use only a very small portion of Rihanna’s recording of “SexyBack”?

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Make Derivatives (HYPO3-Q)Hypo: Justin owns the underlying musical composition (the “song”) for “SexyBack”. DefJam owns the sound recording of “SexyBack” as performed by Rihanna. Let’s say there’s not just Rihanna’s version out there now, but instead that “SexyBack” has been recorded by various artists at this point. Lil’ Wayne decides he would like to sample a portion of “SexyBack” for his new song, “Sexy WAYNE”.

Answer 5: No. There’s no clear rule to determine how much sampling is “too much” and Weezy risks Copyright infringement if he does not seek the proper permission from both Justin and DefJam.

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Make Derivatives – “SAMPLING” WARNING: Don’t make the mistake of infringing someone’s Copyright

because your friends told you that if you just “sampled a little” it would be OK.

This is a MYTH: “I can sample up to six seconds of a song without running into any issues”

No, no you can’t. There’s no CLEAR answer on this one unless you want a judge in Federal court to answer it for you – and even then you don’t know what their ruling will be. Don’t run the risk.

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Make Derivatives (HYPO3-Q)Hypo: Justin owns the underlying musical composition (the “song”) for “SexyBack”. DefJam owns the sound recording of “SexyBack” as performed by Rihanna. Let’s say there’s not just Rihanna’s version out there now, but instead that “SexyBack” has been recorded by various artists at this point. Lil’ Wayne decides he would like to sample a portion of “SexyBack” for his new song, “Sexy WAYNE”.

Question 6: So what can Weezy do to reduce the number of licenses he’ll need to negotiate to sample “SexyBack”?

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Make Derivatives (HYPO3-A)Hypo: Justin owns the underlying musical composition (the “song”) for “SexyBack”. DefJam owns the sound recording of “SexyBack” as performed by Rihanna. Let’s say there’s not just Rihanna’s version out there now, but instead that “SexyBack” has been recorded by various artists at this point. Lil’ Wayne decides he would like to sample a portion of “SexyBack” for his new song, “Sexy WAYNE”.

Answer 6: If Wayne decides he doesn’t have to have the Rihanna version of “SexyBack” on “Sexy Wayne”, he can seek Justin’s permission (and need not seek DefJam’s) if he or one of his musicians wishes to perform the portion of the song he wanted to sample.

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Distribute Copyright owners have the exclusive right to distribute a song. This

protection means no one can distribute copies (sell, lease, etc., either in the physical or digital marketplace) of your song without negotiating a license with you.

Sounds simple, but there’s a number of rules that make it tricky based on if we’re talking about a physical (like a CD or cassette) or digital copy (like a .mp3 or .wav file on the computer).

FIRST SALE DOCTRINE: Allows someone who purchases a physical copy of a Copyrighted song (i.e., someone who buys a CD) to resell that particular copy. That’s why it’s perfectly fine for someone to sell an old CD or record on a website like eBay or Amazon. 

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Distribute What can’t you do then? What’s different with digital versions?

Copy that CD (burn it with third party software and redistribute new copies).

For the same reasons, if the copy of a particular album is entirely digital (files on a hard drive), the First Sale Doctrine doesn’t allow any kind of transfer without permission from the Copyright holder.

The right to distribute a song can also raise issues that apply to television and film which refer to a special kind of license called a “synchronization license” (or, “synch license”). We will discuss this later when we talk about making money from your song.

Music Law: Exclusive Right of Public Performance This right is a big protection for songwriters.

Without the Copyright holder’s permission, no one can perform the song in a club, or broadcast it over the radio or TV.

At this point you may be asking, “How can I possibly police this sort of right?” The good news is that there’s something called “Performance Rights Organizations” (“PRO’s”) out there. These organizations represent millions of songwriters and their job is to essentially monitor what’s being played. The big ones you should be aware of (and register your songs with as a songwriter) are: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. These are the people that work with songwriters to issue performance licenses to all the clubs, radio stations, etc. that wish to publicly perform the songwriter’s Copyrighted music.

Music Law: Exclusive Right to Display in Public

A Copyright holder has the exclusive right to display the Copyrighted work in public.

This is different than “performance”.

This right protects, for example, someone from putting your song lyrics on their website without your permission.

Music Law: Rights of Digital Transmission Performances

The Copyright Act gives the owner of a Copyright in the sound recording the following protection: “to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.”

Only applies to sound recordings that are DIGITAL.

Why does this only apply to sound recordings? Because the protection for “public performance” (i.e., a concert) is already given to song Copyright owner (who, in the earlier hypo would usually do something like license to Rihanna the right to perform).

Music Law: Rights of Digital Transmission Performances Why do we have this?

Performing artists (if different than the songwriter) and their record labels weren’t receiving any money on the digital transmission of the Copyrighted performance, even though songwriters were.

Congress decided this was unfair and enacted the “Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995” This and the DMCA (more law) made it so royalty payments would be owed when the sound recording was transmitted digitally.

A company called SoundExchange collects $ from online “non-interactive” streaming services. Free. Take advantage!

Music Law: Determining Who Owns Which Copyright?

Not as simple as you may think.

Short Answer: DEPENDS ON WHO IS INVOLVED!

Music Law: Determining Who Owns Which Copyright?

Longer Answer: You need to carefully evaluate the landscape of your situation and ask yourself a few questions to accurately nail this down. For example, did you write the song with someone else? Did anyone else contribute in any way to the song (this could be as simple as a guitar riff or lyric)? Where did you record your song (i.e., with your own equipment or did you use the resources of a studio)? Is a publishing company or record label involved? Have you signed any contracts with any of these potential parties? Did you write the song working in your capacity for someone else?

If you’ve answered “yes” to any of those questions, then you may not own all (or any) of the copyrighted work, regardless of whether it’s a musical composition or a sound recording.

Music Law: Who Owns It? Co-authorship & Collaborations This means “working with others”.

Be wary when you collaborate with others on your song, no matter how insignificant their contribution may seem.

The law assumes that if you don’t have an agreement in place, and two or more people are working on a song together, something called a “joint work” is created.

WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT ROYALTIES WILL BE SPLIT EVENLY!

Music Law: Who Owns It? Co-authorship & Collaborations So how do you fix that?

You pre empt it by getting a contract in place before the money starts coming in.

If you know you’re putting in more effort, you should be paid for it. Don’t wait until the money starts coming in!

Music Law: Who Owns It? Contracts, Publishing Companies, and Record Labels

OBVIOUSLY Contracts shouldn’t be signed without understanding what you’re agreeing to.

However, the hard reality of the music industry is that artists who are approached for the first time by major publishing companies or record labels generally can bet they won’t have a lot of negotiating power–a fact the publishers and labels are well aware of.

Before you let your excitement to be a part of the music industry walk you into an unfavorable AND BINDING scenario, know the following types of things can and do occur…

Music Law: Who Owns It? Contracts, Publishing Companies, and Record Labels

It’s common to see clauses in music agreements that assign the publishing company the rights to the musical composition (the “SONG”), or the record label the rights to a sound recording (the “RECORDING”). Some clauses are negotiable, and some generally aren’t, but you should consult a knowledgeable attorney before signing your first music contract.

The reason is simple: you need to be aware of who is about to potentially stake a claim in your songs.

Music Law: Who Owns It? Contracts, Publishing Companies, and Record Labels

Another issue that frequently pops up is the term (the “duration”).

IF YOU SIGN with a publisher or label, you’re locked into a particular deal with a publisher or label for a period of time.

In a typical contract for a new artist you’ll be given a one year “trial” term. After the trial term concludes, the publisher or label has the option to evaluate your success and thereafter invoke an option to continue the deal another year. These options generally can go on for the next three to five years after, assuming you’re a keeper.

Music Law: Who Owns It? Contracts, Publishing Companies, and Record Labels

Consider what this may mean for you in the event you are approached by a different publisher or label who offers better terms:

(1) Do you still own the Copyright to your song or sound recordings, or have you sold (licensed) these to the publisher or label you’re currently signed with?;

(2) Did your document have a clause allowing you to renegotiate the terms with the original publisher or label if they invoke their option?; or even,

(3) Is this publisher or label a place you see as a “fit” for you?

THESE THINGS ARE DANGEROUS! The time to engage an entertainment attorney is BEFORE not AFTER you sign.

Music Law: A Brief Note on “Publishing Companies” vs. “Record Labels” Think of it this way: PUBLISHER = SONG / LABEL = RECORDING

A publisher deals with the aspects of songwriting and management of the composition. The role of the publisher is essentially to connect people with your song in order to generate revenue. Publishing companies assist songwriters with licensing, distribution, accounting, collecting royalties, and the like (this is called “administration”).

In exchange for the administration of the songwriter’s Copyrighted work, a publisher will generally receive a percentage or all of the Copyright ownership, thereby receiving a share of the royalties. I would recommend taking a look around on the The Harry Fox Agency website if you’re interested in learning more about publishers.

Music Law: A Brief Note on “Publishing Companies” vs. “Record Labels” A record label handles aspects of performance and sound recording.

In some cases, a record label will also serve as its own publishing company, such as with the “big three” (which identifies, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group).

Basically, these are companies that find performers for the song (assuming the songwriter is not also a performer, or perhaps if the label desires one of their performers to cover the song), record or master the songs, own Copyrights to the sound recordings, and market those recordings.

Music Law: Who Owns It? “Works for Hire” COMMON SITUATION: Let’s say someone hires you to write a song for them. If you’re a new songwriter in the industry with little bargaining power (as is

frequently the case), you may think that sounds like a pretty good gig. However, the consequence of writing a song for an employer in this type of situation could very well give rise to what’s called a “work made for hire”. The bottom line with works made for hire is that the employer (which can be a company or individual), rather than the employee (in this hypothetical, you), will be deemed the author and hold the Copyright protections.

Remember those contract dangers we were discussing above? Here’s another: a common clause that comes up in a songwriter’s contract with a publishing company is one that declares the things you author are “works made for hire” for the company.

Music Law: Aww yeah, making Money

There’s a few major ways you can leverage your song for revenue and they all involve a straightforward concept: issuing licenses to your Copyrighted work in exchange for fees (“royalties”).

Some of these royalties operate pursuant to law, others can be negotiated.

Music Law: Making Money – “Mechanical Royalties” Again, we use a license (a contract). One type of license is called a

“mechanical license” an this applies to the Copyright holder’s “right to reproduce”.

Remember that if you write a song no one else can reproduce that song without your permission (permission is given in the form of what’s called a “mechanical license”). 

When a record label wants to reproduce a song in “devices serving to reproduce the composition mechanically,” and pays money for that right, the resulting payment is what’s called a “mechanical royalty”.

Absent an agreement to the contrary, these royalties are paid every time a song is reproduced, not just when it is sold!

Music Law: Making Money – Mechanical Royalties The government sets a maximum amount for mechanical royalties,

which is currently $0.091 cents for songs under five minutes.

The rate goes up when the song is over 5 minutes. It also applies whenever your song is covered by other people.

Doesn’t sound like much, but…

Music Law: Making Money – Mechanical Royalties Let’s say your song which you have the composition rights to appears

on a CD that a label manufactures 100,000 copies of. Assuming you have assigned away nothing to a publisher, you

receive (100,000 x $0.091) $9100.00. Now consider if that CD was produced just as many times, only it had

two of your songs on it ($9100.00 x 2). That’s $18,200 for two songs, on a CD that wasn’t even manufactured an unreasonable amount.

Mechanical royalties are the primary source of income for publishers, and will often be a hotly negotiated part of your music contract. A good deal with a publisher will ensure songwriters receive a fair return on mechanicals in exchange for the Copyright to the work.

Music Law: Making Money – Public Performance Royalties Public performance royalties are the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT

SOURCE OF REVENUE for a Copyright owner.

Almost every time a song is performed publicly, minus a few exceptions, the holder of a Copyright is entitled to public performance royalties.

This is a broad source of revenue because public performance means, speaking practically: live in concert, on a record, or broadcast over radio or television.

Music Law: Making Money - Public Performance Royalties (PROs!) In order to monitor public performance royalties, you should engage a

Performance Rights Organization (“PROs”) such as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. PROs are in the business of issuing blanket licenses to those who wish to broadcast (or “publicly perform”) the songs of their affiliates (the songwriters or publishers).

PROs assist artists in generating revenue by keeping track of air play and subsequently collecting and distributing monies owed to the Copyright owner (minus a commission fee).

CHEAP: $50.00 to sign up (ASCAP). No annual dues. They do the work.

Music Law: Making Money - Synchronization A “synchronization license” is an agreement the Copyright owner of

the song negotiates with someone (usually a producer) who wants to use the song in film or television (including advertisements).

This is tied with the Copyright owner’s exclusive rights to reproduction and distribution.

Generally, a one-time fee is paid by the producer in exchange for the right to distribute and reproduce the Copyrighted song in their movie, show or advertisement.

A similar permission for the sound recording is given in what’s called a “master usage license”, which is negotiated with the sound recording’s Copyright holder.

Music Law: Making Money – Synch Licenses

Keep in mind that synchronization licenses are different from public performance licenses and operate as a separate, distinct source of revenue.

For example, every time a movie is rerun on television, a PRO still monitors the performance and royalties are incurred in that manner as well.

Music Law: Making Money – Print Revenue Not as important as it once was but…

Music contracts also anticipate royalties for the sale of any sheet music. Think: sales of guitar tabs and lyrics for your Copyrighted song.

Music Law: Making Money – Things Not Related to Copyright Music is basically pirated all the time, which hurts the artists, so

here’s some other things you can do to make money:

A big way to make money off your brand name (or Trademark, which is beyond the scope of this seminar) is to Merchandise

Live shows / Ticket Sales (Big way for money to come in because you don’t instantly make a whole lot per the PRO’s monitoring your songs) -- if you’re in charge of the group, you can also negotiate with the venue what sort of revenue you generate

Music Law: Federal Copyright Registration Easy to do and INEXPENSIVE (only $55.00 generally to file for

Copyright registration).

Not necessarily PER SONG, you can file for what’s called a “Compilation”

You don’t necessarily need an attorney for this, but if you have questions after visiting COPYRIGHT.GOV, call one.

So why do this?

Music Law: Federal Copyright Protection YOU MUST REGISTER TO SUE!

Assuming someone later infringes your Copyright to a song, and you haven’t registered, you can’t take advantage of the $150,000 “statutory damages” clause of the Copyright Act. You’ll have to prove “actual damages” – which can be hard and costly to show.

Establishes a record you own copyright and if made before or within 5 years of publication, establishes the validity of your claim in court.

Lasts Life + 70 years (meaning if you’re Marvin Gaye your family can sue Robin Thicke for ripping off his song post-mortem)

It all starts here, REGISTER YOUR COPYRIGHTS (www.copyright.gov)

Music Law: Q&A

Ask anything you feel is unanswered at this point.

Thanks to TALA for having me.

Law Offices of Tristan C. Robinson, P.L.L.C.1095 Evergreen Cir., Suite 200

The Woodlands, TX 77380(281) 601-4579 – Office(713) 893-6940 – Fax

Tristan@tcrobinsonlaw.comwww.tcrobinsonlaw.comblog.tcrobinsonlaw.com