Career Advice

Apple Music Streaming: What It Means for the Independent Artist

By NationWide Source Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Yesterday, Apple unveiled its new music streaming service. While Apple’s release of iTunes revolutionized how the world buys music, they have been slow to enter the world of streaming.

The announcement came with all the bells and whistles that normally accompany Apple’s tech releases… but, for independent musicians, the announcement likely raises more questions than it answers.

The Basics

For the new service, Apple will charge $9.99 per month for streaming and radio services. Alternatively, users can choose a family plan (for up to six people) for $14.99 a month. Apple Music streaming will offer curated playlists, radio stations, complete integration with iTunes, and a new artist-to-fan social feature called Connect.

What Will It Pay?

Noticeably absent from all information offered by Apple is the amount that Apple Music will pay artists.

Unlike other streaming platforms, there is no free tier on Apple music. This is good news for the makers of music, as it should increase the amount of money paid to rights owners. However, if the payment structure looks anything like those of Spotify or Pandora, independent musicians will still be getting the smallest piece of a very small pie. The music streaming industry as a whole is not friendly to independent musicians.

It appears that Apple Music will not be much different, despite their claims in the announcement videos to help independent musicians build sustainable careers.

Will “Connect” Actually Connect Artists and Fans?

It seems that Apple Music is trying to compete with Jay Z’s Tidal by offering fans exclusive content at no extra cost. Actually, they are offering “exclusive” content at no cost at all. Anyone— even nonmembers of the streaming service—can access the videos, pictures, and music files that artists upload. This is not good news for independent musicians.

If you are working hard to create exclusive content for your diehard fans, you should be doing it in a way that creates income for you. (Ever heard of patronage?) By making Connect available to everyone, Apple completely negated the “exclusivity” of that content. In essence, it’s the same as putting a video up on YouTube. The key difference is that this content will link directly to your music and artist profile in Apple Music. It’s an important distinction, but it’s not enough. There’s no real way for your content to work for you on Connect.

Apple also did not address royalty payments on Connect. If you upload a demo of your new single, are you being paid whenever fans listen to that demo? Or are you cutting your losses? You spend the time creating a song and recording the demo—not to mention the money you spent on the equipment to do those things—and Apple hasn’t given any indication on whether or not they are going to pay you when fans listen to your “exclusive” content.

Connect also offers nothing new in terms of fan engagement. Fans can comment on the material you upload, and you can comment back. This is exactly what is offered on Facebook and Twitter. Connect is a downgrade when you look at its social media competition (Twitter and Facebook); even Spotify allows private messaging. The only benefit in Connect is that fans don’t have to follow you to see your content and comment on it.

Independent Friendly?

Did I mention that there is a MAJOR problem for independent musicians in the very structure of Apple’s Connect? As an independent artist myself, with music currently on iTunes, I decided to claim my Artist profile on Connect. This is what I found:

Screen Shot 2015-06-09 at 9.49.00 AM

I am a fully independent artist with no management company or label. Normally, I would just submit my information the management information and leave the label portion blank, since I am not signed to any kind of label. However, there was no option to communicate that I was not affiliated at all with a record label. I was not able to push the submit button to claim my profile until I had entered information about my (nonexistent) record label.  If Apple is touting that their service is indie-friendly, requiring artists to enter their record label information in order to claim their profile is not the way to go about it.

So far, I have seen nothing about Apple Music that is truly attempting to help independent artists.

What Should Independent Artists Do?

Apple Music’s launch simply adds to the ongoing discussion about streaming and its sustainability. Streaming is great for fans of music, but is this form of music consumption beneficial to the music industry in the long run? How can artists create long-term careers when their sources of income are decreasing in number and scale?

Independent artists have to change the way they think about streaming as a whole. When you look at streaming as a revenue stream, it falls short. No one (not even Pharrell) can make a living purely from the income generated by streaming. It simply isn’t generating enough money.

However, when artists look at streaming as a marketing tool that pays them, the game changes.

If you want people to discover you using streaming services, great! Put your music on Spotify, and Pandora, and Apple Music. Just don’t add your full catalog. Let fans get a taste of your best stuff. Post on Apple’s Connect like you would any other social media tool. Just don’t let these third party websites be the primary way that you interact with and sell music to fans. There are other, better ways to connect with the people who love your music.

In the End

Is Apple streaming a game changer for the music industry? I don’t think so. At the moment, it appears to be nothing more than a company formerly on the leading edge of innovation playing catch-up. Apple Music is not going to revolutionize the music industry.

Instead, changes and revolution will come from independent artists and the choices that we make as content creators.

For more information on Apple Music, check the following websites:

 




4 Comments
...Keep Reading
How Much Does Pandora Pay Artists?

How Much Does Pandora Pay Artists?

By NationWide Source Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

It’s probably much less than you think. And if Pandora has its way, that paycheck is about to get even smaller.

Last week, Pandora was given approval to purchase KXMZ-FM, a terrestrial radio station in Rapid City, South Dakota. They are now under a 90-day trial period before the purchase becomes final. Currently, Pandora has millions of online subscribers who create customized stations based on their own music preferences, so their purchase of a small station in a city of 60,000 people may seem like a move backwards, but it’s a strategic move by Pandora to make more money.

Unfortunately, Pandora’s move to line their pockets means a significant pay cut for the artists and songwriters who make Pandora’s business possible.

How Artists Are Paid

The ways that radio and streaming services pay artists are a complicated mess of numbers and percentages, but it all boils down to this: terrestrial radio stations pay a lower rate than internet stations to play the same songs over the internet.

With Pandora’s current rate system, if you are the writer and performer of the song, you will make about $1.30 if your song is played 1000 times. Unless you are Katy Perry or Drake, you probably won’t even make enough money to buy yourself lunch. It would take years for the average independent musician to simply break even on the costs of producing and distributing their music with the payments that are currently made for streaming music.

With their purchase of KXMZ, Pandora will be eligible for the lower rate currently available for terrestrial radio stations. This means they will be paying about a half-million dollars less in royalties to songwriters every year. Pandora’s purchase of KXMZ is great news for Pandora’s stockholders, but no matter which way you look at it, it’s bad news for the artists, performers, and musicians who make business possible for Pandora.

What This Means For Musicians and the Music Industry

In the larger view of Pandora’s profits, the reduced royalty rate is a drop in the bucket. But even a drop makes a ripple in the bigger scheme of what is currently going on in the music industry. Pandora claims that they value the artists who make their company function, but according to the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Producers (ASCAP), their purchase of KXMZ is “a transparent ploy squarely aimed at paying songwriters even less for online music streams.”

It’s worth noting that Pandora is not the first company to take advantage of this lower rate. iHeartRadio works in the same way that Pandora does, but iHeartRadio is owned by Clear Channel, an industry giant in terrestrial radio. Because of this, iHeartRadio can take advantage of the lower streaming rates. Pandora’s purchase of an FM station levels the playing field between these two competitors, and it’s likely that other internet radio and streaming services will follow in Pandora’s footsteps.

Moreover, the government is looking at decisions like this as it revises copyright laws.

We are in a crossroads in the industry. The payment system for creators is broken, and no one is completely sure when it’s going to be fixed. Though you may think Pandora’s decisions won’t affect you, a company as large as Pandora actively working to compensate creators less is something that everyone in the music industry should be concerned about. And while this change may not have a huge effect on your individual paychecks, the implications of this decision are enormous.

What You Should—and Can—Do

So if you’ve realized that you’re not going to make a million dollars on Pandora, or even enough money to pay your rent, what do you do? Should you just take your music off all streaming platforms and cut your losses?

I think there is a better way. By simply changing your perspective on streaming services, there are ways that independent musicians can make platforms like Pandora work for them.

Instead of thinking about Pandora and Spotify as distribution services, think of them as marketing tools. Listeners use streaming services to discover new music, and you don’t want to cut yourself off from those potential fans. Put a couple of your best songs up—not your entire catalogue—and use it as a way for people to discover your music. Once your music has piqued their interest, they will likely search the internet to see what else you have available.

What Else You Can Do

You’re game for using streaming and online internet to market to new audiences… but how can you turn a casual streamer into a devoted fan? You have to engage them (on your turf) with good content.

Your website is the only place online where you have complete control over what a potential fan sees. Use that control!

Design a website that reflects your music and your brand and makes it easy for your fans to be connected with you. Keep it updated with relevant news and content. Offer a free single in exchange for their email address. Show them how they can become a patron of your music. (Haven’t heard of patronage? Sign up here for more info!) Above all, do not rely on social media and third-party retailers to keep in touch with your fans.

The music industry is changing. Pandora’s purchase of a terrestrial radio station is just a small battle in the grand scheme of an entire industry that is in the process of completely renewing itself. Independent musicians are the future of that industry. Now, more than ever, you have the opportunity to take control over your career. And that is good news.




4 Comments
...Keep Reading

Recording Acoustic Guitar & Vocals

By Damon Mapp Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Hello again, fellow musicians!

In today’s article, I wanted to tackle recording acoustic guitar with vocals and choosing the right microphones.

Recording Guitar with Vocals—How Many Mics?

A lot of you are probably wondering, “How many mics should I use when recording my guitar with vocals?” Well… it all depends on what type of sound you want.

It’s not uncommon for a modern recording session to have a mic (or several) or direct input for each instrument or vocalist, with each mic/input feeding into a unique audio track in the recording software. This allows the audio engineer to isolate sounds and control them individually.

But, just because it’s common practice doesn’t mean it’s the only way (or even the best way). Before multitracking, using a single mic to record a guitar and vocals was very common. As unusual as it might be today, some of your favorite bands of the past used only 1 or 2 mics to record the whole band, from drums to vocalists. Mics were selected, all the instruments and vocalists were positioned strategically, the engineer pressed record on their 4 track tape machine, and a record was made.

As I said above, the right number of mics for your project depends on the sound you want. To get the right results, though, it’s important to use the right mic and to position it correctly. Keep reading for more details.

Choosing the Right Type of Microphone

Dynamic Mics

Dynamic mics are considered your typical stage mic. Most concert venues, churches, and so on use dynamic mics because they can handle high pressure sound levels, and they are used when the sound source is close and loud. The most popular dynamic mics are Shure SM58, SM57, and SM7B.

Shure-Mics
www.shure.com

PROs: These mics are fairly inexpensive, rugged, and road-worthy. The sound is pure and focused. They do not require phantom power (48v).

CONs: These mics can produce a nasal sound. They lack some high end (in comparison to condenser mics). They also have a pronounced proximity effect (the closer your source is to the mic, the more enhanced the bass sounds), so some EQ tweaking may be needed depending on the sound you are after.

Condenser Mics

Condenser microphones are the most common types of microphones you’ll find in recording studios. They have a much greater frequency response and transient response (which is the ability to reproduce the “speed” of an instrument or voice). They also generally have a louder output but are much more sensitive to loud sounds.

PROs: Much greater frequency and transient response. A louder output.

CONs: Often more expensive than dynamic mics. They can be very brittle with little low end. They require phantom power (48v). They are very sensitive to loud sounds and may require a pop filter for plosives ‘p’ sounds.

Different Types of Condenser Mics:

Large Diaphragm Microphones – Large diaphragm microphones (LDMs) are generally the choice for studio vocals and any instrument recording where a “deep” sound is desired. A large diaphragm microphone generally warms up the sound of what it’s recording. If using a condenser microphone for vocals, you’ll likely want to use a pop screen; these mics are so sensitive to transient noises that the “P” and “SH” sounds you make will cause distortion.

Small Diaphragm Microphones – Small diaphragm microphones (SDMs) are generally the best choice where you want a solid, wide frequency response and the best transient response, which, as we mentioned before, is the ability for your microphone to reproduce fast sounds (such as stringed instruments).

Good condenser microphones include the Audio Technica 2035, Oktava MC012 ($99), RODE NT1 ($199), and AKG C414B ($700)

www.audio-technica.com • www.oktava.com • www.rode.com • www.sweetwater.com

Once you have decided on the type of mic you are going to use, let’s go over mic positioning.

Mic Positioning

Recording Guitar and Vocals With One Microphone

Try to position the mic far enough away to capture the voice and guitar, but not so far that you capture the room sound. This is going to take some testing of various mic positions for the sound you want. Again, use your ears for best judgment.

As important as proper placement is, it’s even more important to use a mic with the right pattern. A cardiod mic in this scenario may work well because they reject sound from the rear. On the other hand, omni mics have a figure 8 pattern, which means they pick up sound from the front and rear of the capsule.

Recording Guitar and Vocals With Two Mics

If you’re using a large‑diaphragm condenser, you can achieve a useful improvement in the amount of separation by switching from cardioid pattern (where the null is behind the mic) to figure‑8 (where the null is perpendicular to the plane of the mic, and much deeper than in cardioid). How does this help? Using a figure 8 pattern or omni mic means that the null point will cancel the other mic out of its pickup. You may still have some spill, but you won’t have as much of a phasing nightmare.

Microphone Applications

Acoustic Guitar

A small diaphragm cardioid condenser is preferable here. As a starting point, aim it down so it’s looking at the 12th fret, and set it about 6-8 inches away.

Large diaphragm condensers can also work nicely on acoustic guitars, as well as ribbon mics. Have fun experimenting with different mics and placements to find what works best for you.

Vocals

When it comes time to overdub vocals, you’ll want a large diaphragm condenser mic. For a lead vocal, you should match the mic to the vocalist, who may have a personal mic preference.


As you can see, there are different techniques for different mics for different applications. There really is no standard setup. As I always tell musicians and engineers, use your ears to find out which mic and setup produces the sound you want.




Leave a comment
...Keep Reading
Three Sources of Music Funding: The Story of Platinum Plaits

Three Sources of Music Funding: The Story of Platinum Plaits

By NationWide Source Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

Pretty much everyone knows the story of Goldilocks and the three bears, but, in case you don’t, here’s a recap: A curious (trespassing) little girl ventures into an “empty” house, where the three bears live. There she discovers three servings of food, dished out and ready to be eaten. With no one around, she takes that task upon herself. The first bowl is too hot. The second is too cold. The third? Just right. After sampling the food, a tired Goldilocks searches for a place to rest. She tries the chairs, finally settling into one… until it breaks. This leads her to look for another place of rest, and she tries each of the beds in the house until she finds one that suits her tastes. She falls fast asleep in that bed and is found there when the bears return home.

I’m willing to bet, though, that you haven’t heard the story of Platinum Plaits. Or, if you have, you don’t know it. So, grab some popcorn, get all cozy, and listen to this tale.

Who Is Platinum Plaits?

Not so long ago, in a land not so far away, there lived an indie artist named Platinum Plaits. At the wizened age of 28, she considered herself an experienced musician. After all, she’d been singing since the age of four, playing piano since seven, playing guitar since eleven, and officially gigging since she was sixteen. She was in three different bands before she decided to set out on her own five years ago. Since then, she’s played more shows than she can count, opened for some national acts, been invited to a few festivals, and even had a few TV appearances.

Yet, life was not all rose-colored glasses, custom tour buses, and quaint restored cottages. Far from it! Platinum Plaits had a serious dilemma: funding. It was always running, well, just a little short. So she did what any indie artist would do: pulled herself up by her bootstraps, put on her thinking cap, and started solving her problem.

Her brainstorming and research were fairly successful, as she came up with three possible solutions to her problem.

Solution 1: Crowdfunding The Old Way

Platinum Plaits had heard of this option from other indie artists. As she discovered, it wasn’t limited to musicians; there are crowdfunding platforms for dozens of fields!

Here’s how it works: an artist has a project in mind but not enough funds to complete it. They do a little research, set a budget, define participation levels and rewards, create a crowdfunding campaign, and send all of their existing fans to the campaign. Hopefully, those fans are invested in the artist enough to contribute; better yet, the fans contribute and tell their friends to contribute. The artist has a certain time frame to complete the campaign, which builds a sense of urgency with supporters. Depending on the platform, the artist gets what was raised (or not), minus a cut. They then have to use that money for their project, and they have to fulfill all of the rewards (which often costs more money).

To Platinum Plaits, crowdfunding seemed like a Thanksgiving feast: it’s more than enough for the occasion, and it sometimes results in leftovers for a few (much more sensibly-sized) meals… but it won’t feed you for a year. Or even a month. In other words, it could work for occasional surges of funding, but not ongoing, steady support.

Tabling crowdfunding for now but keeping it in mind as a possibility for an upcoming project, Platinum Plaits continued her search for a solution.

Solution 2: Sales and Shows

Like every active musician, Platinum Plaits could count sales of her music and cuts from shows as income. Unfortunately, it was getting harder and harder to make a living off of sales and shows alone.

Platinum Plaits’ fans often approached her merch table at shows, only to ask if her music was available to stream online or to tell her they’d bought one of her songs and really loved it. While she appreciated the sentiment and vocal support, the financial statements coming in from online retailers and streaming services paled in comparison to those lost sales of whole albums. She did offer her music for sale on her website—both physical albums and digital downloads of her albums; while those sales had higher profit margins than the sales from third party retailers, they still weren’t impressive.

And the profits from shows? Some performances paid well. Others… not so much, especially when she added up her travel expenses, marketing costs, fees for her backup musicians, insurance on her gear, and so on.

In short, the income from sales and shows was present, but much smaller than she needed for a sustainable career and not nearly steady enough to be reliable.

And so her search continued.

Solution 3: Patronage, or Crowdfunding the New Way

Somewhere on the fringes of the indie music realm, Platinum Plaits heard whispers of another solution: patronage. The idea wasn’t new, as the concept of “patron of the arts” dated back for centuries. But it was slowly rising from obscurity and becoming a possible source of funding for artists, including musicians.

The concept intrigued Platinum Plaits. Like other forms of crowdfunding, it spread the burden of funding out among the fans of the artist. Unlike crowdfunding, it wasn’t geared toward a specific one-time project. Instead, fans—or, rather, patrons—pledged a small amount—maybe $1, maybe $5—for every time the artist created something of substance. This meant that the more the artist created, the more income they had. Artists were being rewarded, monetarily, for doing what they wanted to do anyway: create something.

Of course, there were settings that fans could control, such as monthly spending caps or the ability to change their pledge (or withdraw it entirely) at any point. But patrons seemed to love the concept and the level of exclusivity and intimate involvement with the artist’s career that they felt it brought.

Unlike traditional crowdfunding, patronage didn’t leave artists sated then starving for funds. It also didn’t lure them along with a false hope of income or increasingly smaller payouts from sales and shows. It could, in theory, provide a steady stream of income to supplement sales and shows. Better yet, it did just that for many artists implementing this solution.

With her mind made up, Platinum Plaits adopted this solution for herself. Her truest fans were happy to support her and receive early access to her content, and she could focus on creating new material without wondering how on earth her bills would be paid. While she started out with only 40 supporters at $1 each, she quickly rose to a couple hundred supporters pledging anywhere from $1 to $10 per creation. This is only about 10% of her fanbase, but their support provides an extra $2000 a month… and the counts are still growing.

In the end, Platinum Plaits and her fans lived happily ever after.




5 Comments
...Keep Reading
Understanding Music Copyright: Originality and Ownership of Music

Understanding Music Copyright: Originality and Ownership of Music

By David Frazee Estimated reading time: 11 minutes

written by: David Frazee

You’ve just finished writing a new song, and you think your band should play it at your next gig. After you play the song for the other band members, your lead singer comes up with a great a bridge and your bassist suggests some great chords. You make those changes and run through it a few times. Your drummer’s friend, who was just hanging out, suggests that you pick up the tempo. After he leaves, you try it, and it takes the song to the next level.

Who is the author(s) of the final song?

This is one of the first question in any copyright lawsuit, and it is an important question because only an owner (or “author”) is endowed with the initial rights that come with a song, as discussed in my earlier articles.

There are two things that you should know:

  1. what can you copyright, and
  2. who are the authors of the final song

Since I am willing to bet that, when a great song idea comes to you, you do not stop and contact a copyright lawyer before writing it down or playing it for your band, let’s cover these basics before you begin writing your next song. Let’s get started.

To Be Copyrighted, It Needs To Be Original

Before we cover ownership, you need to be able to identify when you have a work that can be copyrighted. For a song or work to be copyrightable, it must be original. Originality has two ingredients:

  1. creativity, and
  2. independence

The “creativity” required is minimal, but it does mean you come up with something more than minor, inconsequential additions to common phrases. Whether it is the melody, harmony, or rhythm, you need something to distinguish your music.

Second, you need “independence.” Independence simply means you cannot copy someone else’s work. It must reflect your own contributions and thoughts.

creativity + independence = originality
originality is needed for copyright
copyright is a sign of ownership

Seems easy enough, right? It’s not always so clear cut; your subconscious can trick you into thinking you did not copy someone else’s work when you really did. This happened to singer and songwriter Michael Bolton. Bolton had grown up listening to artists like the Isley Brothers, who had created and copyrighted a song titled “Love is a Wonderful Thing”. Nearly thirty years later, Bolton unintentionally created a hit song of the same title and with a similar sound. Even though Bolton was convinced that he had not copied the Isley Brothers’ song, the court ruled in favor of the Isley Brothers, saying Bolton’s subconscious had tricked him into thinking he wrote an original song. The unintentional trick was not enough of an excuse, and the jury awarded the Isley Brothers all profits from the song and some of the album profits (for a grand total of over $5 million). Yikes!

To avoid originality problems, try playing the song for someone else to see if they think it sounds similar to anything they’ve heard before.

Why is Ownership/Authorship So Important?

The author is the person who actually created the work, who translated an idea into a fixed, tangible expression. This process of creating and fixing entitles the author to copyright protection.

Because of the rights that come with ownership, it’s a key topic during many copyright lawsuits. Reasons for this include:

  1. Unless you agree to other terms, co-authors are given equal ownership in the resulting work, regardless of how much originality and creativity they actually contributed.
  2. A co-author is permitted to continue recording and performing the song without fear of infringing the copyright. This generally applies even if you leave the band or the band splits up.
  3. One co-author can agree to give other performers (or companies) a non-exclusive license to play and record the song without obtaining the permission of the other authors. However, the only way to give away the exclusive rights of the song to another would be to get permission from all the co-authors.

As you can see, there are huge benefits to being named a co-author, as well as huge benefits to maintaining sole authorship. Unless details are set ahead of time, things can get pretty messy in court.

To avoid these issues, many bands enter into a contract with each other called a partnership agreement. The agreement can address how to split songwriting income and how to decide authorship when only one or few members help write the song. Additionally, they can prevent one co-author from providing a non-exclusive license to another without the other authors’ consent. You should consult with a copyright attorney before signing or entering into any partnership agreement with your band members to protect your rights.

Determining Who Owns the Copyright

Now that you understand what can be copyrighted and why copyright is so important, let’s discuss ownership, namely how to know if you own the song solely or share ownership with someone else. We’ll assume you didn’t have a partnership agreement, and we’ll use an actual case to illustrate this issue.

Sole Ownership

During a recording session for his hit song “Izzo (H.O.V.A.),” Jay-Z was joined by a guest, Demme Ulloa. While she was visiting, Ms. Ulloa spontaneously created and began singing a countermelody to the song. Jay-Z heard the countermelody. Ms. Ulloa left the studio with an agreement that she would get credit if Jay-Z decided to use the countermelody, which he did decide to do.

Jay-Z had created the song. Logically, he would be the sole owner. However, that countermelody throws a wrench in things. Had it not been used, Jay-Z would unquestionably be the author of the song. But it was used; furthermore, their agreement didn’t discuss ownership or authorship… just credit. After Ms. Ulloa discovered that Jay-Z had used her countermelody, she filed a lawsuit against Jay-Z and other defendants, claiming she was a co-author of the song.

So, does Jay-Z now have to share ownership of the song with Ms. Ulloa?

Let’s go back to our criteria for ownership: it must be copyrightable, so it must be original. Like a melody or rhythm in a composition, countermelodies generally can be copyrighted on their own, separate from the song’s other parts. Even though Ms. Ulloa’s countermelody was based on the original underlying melody, the court said it contained enough originality to be copyrightable.

However, having something that is copyrightable did not automatically mean that Ms. Ulloa and Jay-Z were “co-authors” of the song. For Ms. Ulloa to share in ownership, her situation must qualify as one of the exceptions to sole authorship:

  1. the joint work exception, and
  2. the work created for an employer exception

It was over these exceptions that Jay-Z, the other defendants, and Ms. Ulloa argued during the lawsuit. Let’s look a little closer at them.

Joint Ownership

The Copyright Act defines joint work as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.”

For joint ownership to be present, the individuals involved must intend to be co-authors of a song. This is more than simply working together; it’s the intent to be co-authors of a copyrightable work.

In the Jay-Z case, Ms. Ulloa claimed that she was a joint author in “Izzo (H.O.V.A.)” because she added a countermelody. After Ms. Ulloa sang the countermelody for Jay-Z, they discussed the possibility of incorporating it into the work. However, she did not sign a contract or discuss any terms beyond receiving credit as the vocalist (if her countermelody was eventually used). The court decided that Ms. Ulloa’s claim for authorship had no basis because there was no evidence that Jay-Z intended to share the authorship of the track with her. Briefly working together was not enough to show the needed intent.

Interestingly enough, you can be co-authors with someone you have not even met. While it may be easier to conclude a joint work has resulted if the authors have met in person or know each other, it is not a requirement. All that is required is the authors intend their work to be joined with the work of another.

How does joint authorship work with people who haven’t met? Imagine a musician, John, composes some new music; John takes that music to a publisher to find someone else to add lyrics. The publisher buys John’s music and asks Lauren, who John does not know, to compose lyrics to accompany John’s music. Although John and Lauren had never met before, when their work is merged into one song, they become joint authors in the final composition. This is because both understood and intended their work be joined with another person’s work.

Employee-Employer Relationships

US Copyright Law also molds an exception for employees hired to create songs for their employer, called “work made for hire.” Instead of staying with the author, the author’s employer owns the rights to the work. Generally, this occurs because the author signed a contract (containing a clause to that effect) before the song was created.

Here are two examples of “work for hire”:

  1. Let’s say John is hired as a writer and composer of advertisement jingles at ABC, Inc. The copyright for the jingles John creates will likely not be John’s but will belong to ABC, Inc. This meets the work for hire criteria, specifically “work prepared within the scope of employment.” It is John’s job to create these jingles; it is why he was hired.
  2. Now, say ABC, Inc. wants to place the same advertisement in Spanish. They hire Ben on a limited basis to translate the work. Even though Ben altered the lyrics, the copyright to the Spanish version remains with ABC, Inc. This is the second category of the work for hire exception, called “specially commissioned work.”

While different, both derive from the same concept: you can give away your rights to a song before you even write it. So, if you try to claim it as your own, it is stealing your employer’s property.

Now, there are exceptions to the “work for hire” concept. Let’s say that, while employed writing jingles for ABC, Inc., John wrote songs for an album. His employer would not own these songs unless the employee contract John signed gave ABC, Inc. rights to the songs in addition to the jingles.

Now, back to the Jay-Z case. Jay-Z argued that Ms. Ulloa was an employee because she signed a tax form with his company. To Jay-Z and the other defendants, this was enough to make the countermelody company property. However, the court did not agree. Even though Ms. Ulloa was somewhat inexperienced and filled out a tax form, the court found that she independently possessed the skills necessary to produce an original work and had only filled out the tax form to contact the defendants.

Wrapping Up

Now that you have some basic concepts, let’s go back to the scenario that started this article.

As we discussed, the most important question is whether you and your band intended to be co-authors at the time you wrote the song. Chances are the court will find that you intended to be co-authors with your band members, especially if you have co-authored songs in the past.

However, if you and your band have a written agreement that the authors are only the members that contributed copyrightable work to the song, then you, your lead singer, and your bassist at the very least will be co-authors. Remember, unless your agreement says otherwise, each member who contributed to the song will have equal ownership regardless of how much originality and creativity they actually contributed. However, if you and your band previously decided all songs created by band members were the bands collectively, each member will have an equal ownership in the song regardless if they contributed to the song at all.—

But what about your drummer’s friend who suggested you take the songs up tempo? More likely than not, your drummer’s friend is not going to be a co-author because his suggestion is not going to be considered “copyrightable.” Additionally, like Ms. Ulloa in the Jay-Z case, there is no evidence that you or your band intended to create the song with your drummer’s friend.

Disclaimer:The above article is not legal advice; is it not intended to, nor can it, replace professional legal advice in any way. It is only intended to provide a short guide to basic legal terms and practices in the music industry. In your own interest, consult with a copyright attorney before entering into any contractual agreement or taking any action against copyright infringement.




5 Comments
...Keep Reading
Taylor Swift, Spotify, and the Musical Food Chain Myth

Taylor Swift, Spotify, and the Musical Food Chain Myth

By Doria Roberts Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

by Doria Roberts
© 2014 Doria Roberts/Chatterbox Blues

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” –Alice Walker

I cannot tell you how happy I am that the conversation about Taylor Swift and Spotify is happening. Maybe people will start listening to what independent artists like me and my peers have been saying for years now.

A little background…

For those who don’t know me, I’ve been a indie musician by choice for 22 years. In 1999, I was chosen to perform at Lilith Fair and quit my day job the following Monday. I attracted several major labels, but ultimately, I walked away because I felt the industry was not going to be supportive of me, the business model was almost laughable for a new artist with little leverage and an insidious law called the Work For Hire Copyright Law had been passed that year, which prevented copyright ownership from reverting back to artists and remained with record labels in perpetuity. Like, that means forever. Luckily, Sheryl Crow and Don Henley went to Capitol Hill and had it repealed, but, by then, I was determined not to be become a cog and had committed to my full time life as an artist.

And, you know, I had good run of it…

Fast forward to 2008 when everything was crashing. I don’t think people think of artists being affected in a failing economy, but we were. Gas prices were sky high as were flights so expenses went up and venues started paying less because fewer were able to come out to the shows because they were broke, too. And, for the first time in all my touring history my American dollars lost value going into Canada. It was sobering to say the least.

In the years preceding this, I saw a slow but very deliberate decline in my music sales, which was more than just supplemental income, it was nearly half of my income. So, I stopped touring full time to assess the situation and come up with solutions.

The only solution I found that allowed me to stay true to who I am an artist was to stay put—which brings me to today.

Life As An Artist Now

Like clockwork, once or twice a week since I stopped touring full time in 2008, I get asked when I’m coming back to XYZ. And, like a broken record once or twice a week, I’ve had to say I can’t afford it. I’ve had to explain that not only have physical CD sales been down, but also the digital money I used to get from legal downloads all but disappeared. Instead of getting weekly payments ranging between $200-$750 from my distributor, I started getting an average $11.36, once a month from all streaming services combined. Yes, $11.36/month is what I get from all of them. That is not a sustainable business model for a truly independent artist.

While carefully building and maintaining a social media connection with my fan base and doing mostly one-offs in some of my bigger markets, I decided to do a full regional tour in 2012. And, while I am grateful to the people who came, I had miserable turnouts at most of the shows. In Buffalo, where the temp dropped to 30 degrees that night, I cleared $14 once the door was split with the venue. In Philadelphia, where I started my career, I lost upwards of $1,500-2,000 on one show because only 12 people showed up. It was the night of the Presidential debates, something I couldn’t have known when I booked the show months before. But, I still had to pay the venue, their door person and sound person, pay my band, pay for their hotel room and mine for three nights so we wouldn’t have to stay in NYC, paid for their flights (along with baggage handling fees for my cellist’s cello), my rental car, gas and food for myself and the band (breakfast, lunch and dinner). Same with DC where the venue wouldn’t even allow me to officially charge a door fee and where some people (my fans included) opted not to pay one even as a requested donation.

This is my reality and the reality of the many artists you care about.

I’m sorry if you think so, but music is not free. It costs money to make and it costs money to support via touring. It’s a “life cycle”. This “life cycle” is how I used to get my CDs out and how I used to see my fans two to three times a year in some places. It worked like this: Fans would come to my shows, they and their friends would buy my CDs, and then I made another CD and went on a another tour, and so forth and so on.

Simple.

All the money I made went to bills, touring, promotion and creating new music and so I had to keep my overhead low. No new cars (I had and still have my ’78 Volvo that I bought for $600 in 1996), no new shoes or clothes and I lived in a small 425 sq ft apartment for 12 years. 12 years. That’s how I did it. It’s not a sob story. It’s not a mystery or a marketing ploy. I am a working class artist. There is no rich-uncle-wizard-behind-the-curtain type situation here. This is how it goes when you make tough decisions to be true to your life and your life’s work. I have no regrets.

But, I’m seeing a lot of chatter about Taylor Swift and her supposed “greed”. If you’re saying it, you’re probably saying it because Taylor is already wealthy. But, what about artists who aren’t? If you or your friends are indeed one of those people, I challenge you and them to go to work for a year, bust your butt, do a good job (maybe even a great job) and then accept half of a year’s pay (or less) from your boss. I further challenge you to pay your bills and keep your other financial commitments from that pay all while keeping your enthusiasm for your job—which is kind of essential for you to even do your job.

Go on. I’ll wait…

As indie artists, for all intents and purposes, our fans control our careers, the ebb and flow, trajectory and course. For example, if I hadn’t raised enough via Kickstarter to do my last project, a tribute CD to folk legend Odetta, there wouldn’t have been a new CD to this day. Period. No new CD in eight years even though I was able to release six projects on my own before that and have enough music for about four or five full length CDs right now.

Another example: I haven’t been back on the road since 2012 because I assume my fans don’t want to see me or can’t afford to see me in NYC, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Buffalo, NY and Charlotte, NC. Because of that, I can’t take a financial chance on Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin and the like. And, just forget Canada, France, Sweden, Japan or Australia altogether. I’ve remedied this by doing online shows on a platform called StageIt and this has allowed fans as far away as Vancouver, Taiwan, Germany and Boise, ID to see me play. It works, but it isn’t ideal.

The point is, we haven’t just “given up”. It’s not that we don’t “want to” do it anymore. It is, painfully and honestly, simple math that mostly prevents me and others like me from doing what we do.

Think About This For A Minute

Before the comments section gets flooded with snarky retorts, like “get a job”, I will say this:

First, I have a job, one that I’m fairly good at and one that I’ve had for 22 years (or over half my life).

And, second, what if Bob Marley or Bob Dylan, Kurt Cobain or Joni Mitchell or Mozart, Frank Zappa, Joan Jett, Diana Ross, Prince, or Aretha Franklin had actually listened when someone (undoubtedly and repeatedly) said to them, “get a job”?

What would your life look like?

What happens to the first dance at your wedding to that special song, the one that made you realize you loved her? Or, the song you hum to your baby because it’s the only one that makes him less fussy? What would you be distracted by in an elevator ride with your creepy co-worker who wears the same shirt every day? Or, what would you focus on when a dentist is drilling a hole the size of the Grand Canyon in your head? And, how, pray tell, would you know when Jaws or Jason or Darth Vader is coming so you can yell your futile warnings at the screen?

Okay, granted, those last few examples sound frivolous but they’re serious considerations to make when you consider how music plays an integral and inseparable role in your life, from the mundane to the momentous. How it can be both ubiquitous and precious. That’s something to protect. That’s something to respect.

How To Make The Future Better

I want to tell you something: as a consumer and a fan, you are at the top of this food chain, not the bottom. You are not subject to the whims of popular culture; you are the arbiter of it. If you want to see less “fluff” in the music industry, if you want to see your artists remain authentic, creative and prolific beings and, if you want them to come back to your hometowns:

  1. Start buying our music again. Digital, hard copy, doesn’t matter, just pay for it. If you can pay $4 for the coffee you’re only going to drink once or $15 for a blockbuster movie you’ll see once, you can pay $9.99 for something meaningful that you’ll have forever.
  2. Stop using streaming services that only pay us $.0006 per listen if you don’t already own our music either via a legal download or a hard copy. Educate yourself. If you think the profits that oil companies make are obscene, I urge you to do some digging about what some of these streaming companies are really about.
  3. And, this is important: Set your DVRs on your favorite show nights and go to our concerts. If I had a dime for every time a person told me they weren’t able to make my show because it was the finals of DWTS/American Idol/The Voice, I wouldn’t be writing this post. I’d be sitting in a bungalow in Costa Rica sipping something fruity and delicious.

Simple solutions sometimes require difficult choices.

Oh, and this goes for independent movies, books, indie/feminist bookstores, small venues, and small businesses, too.

Just know this: You have the power to change the cultural landscape around you. Use that power wisely.




8 Comments
...Keep Reading

Taking Note: Communicating with Fans

How To Find and Keep Fans: Taking Note of Shakey Graves

By NationWide Source Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

­Often, communicating with fans is like walking a tightrope. If your balance tips ever so slightly to one side or the other—too frequent, too seldom, too polished, too sloppy—you lose them. They get annoyed, or forget you, or feel like they’re being spammed with smarmy marketing, or just don’t take you seriously. Finding that happy middle ground is a struggle.

So, when I saw an artist put out an amazing letter to his fans, I sat up and paid attention. Then, I decided to share it with you.

About the Artist

We’ll take a minute to introduce you to Alejandro Rose-Garcia, aka Shakey Graves. Understanding who he is as an artist makes it easier to understand where he’s coming from in his fan communication.

Shakey’s music is a fusion of folk, blues, and rock, at once familiar and distinct. His lyrics—packed with emotion and evocative imagery, and weaving fantastical stories—capture basic elements of humanity: love, lust, hope, despair, bitterness, folly, rage, regret. His voice is haunting and soft one moment, then rich and impassioned, then gravelly and road-weary.

The same shifts in his voice are reflected in his songs, which slip from one tempo and dynamic to another. He changes pace and volume, dropping off just when listeners think the song is about to peak, then building it all up again. What a way to keep listeners’ attention!

Most musicians sing or play an instrument, or do a little of both. But this guy? He takes it to a whole new level. Often playing as a one-man band—handling the guitar and vocals and a (likely homemade) kick drum/tambourine combo, conveniently packaged in an old-fashioned hard case suitcase—Shakey brings his music to life. He embodies it, far more than any other musician I’ve ever watched. As he carries out these four parts of his songs, his body sways, his hands slide, his fingers press, his head nods, his legs dance, and his feet tap. There’s not a single part of him that isn’t contributing to the performance. It’s mesmerizing to watch.

To recap: he’s young and talented, he’s pretty damn unique, he knows when to drive it home hard and when to gently caress with his music, and he can handle four parts at once. Impressive.

In July of this year (late July, appropriately), Shakey sent an email to his fans. Calling it a newsletter or press release doesn’t do it justice. “Love letter” might paint a better picture. EDIT: The letter is no longer present on his site, be we discuss the importance of it below.

Know Your Audience

There are two ways that Shakey does this.

First, the letter is intended for an audience already familiar with Shakey. He wasn’t trying to reach people who hadn’t heard of him, he wasn’t trying to impress the general public, and he wasn’t trying to make a pitch to a team of venture capitalists about the profit margins and sustainability of his career. He was simply reaching out to people who had supported him previously.

These are people who had attended his shows, people who had bought his music, people who likely listened to his songs until they knew every dip, crescendo, tambourine crash, guitar lick, and hushed lyric. Some are intimately familiar with his work; some are likely just casual listeners. But none are strangers, and all are supporters.

He addresses that audience with an appropriate degree of familiarity. By no means is it a formal letter or a lifeless sales pitch. Like a letter you’d get from an old friend (if people still sent letters, that is), it exudes personality, a sense of shared history, and camaraderie. Not only is his tone casual and friendly, but he directly acknowledges the role that the reader has played in supporting him.

Second, he actually knows his audience. He knows their names and email addresses, knows that they’ve purchased his music before, knows that they are likely more interested in updates from him than some random person on the street. They aren’t random likes or followers on some social media network (although many probably do like or follow him); they are actual contacts. At some point (likely the point of sale) he gained each fan’s contact information. That is extremely valuable data, and requesting it was an incredibly wise move for him to make. Putting that data to use (by sending this letter) was an even wiser move.

Tell Your Story

Shakey’s songs tell stories. His lyrics paint pictures, and there’s a natural ebb and flow that his lyrics, dynamics, and tempo build. Those same characteristics are present in the first half of his letter.

The beginning of his letter focuses on expressing gratitude and fortifying the previous connection that the reader had with Shakey’s music. He thanks the reader, reminds them of their previous help, and then says exactly why he’s thankful for their support: “[it] has allowed me to survive,” “[it] has been essential in my understanding of what is most important as I navigate this terrible and glorious industry,” “[it is] enabling artists like me to help lead that charge.”

The next paragraph tells readers what Shakey has been up to. He launches into his story with words suggestive of bar stool retellings of epic legends: “Since the days of recording Roll the Bones in various living rooms on questionable equipment…” It’s a fanciful way of saying “I know my first album wasn’t necessarily recorded or produced as well as it could have been,” and it segues nicely into his next thought: “I turned my Austin home into a studio.” So, that’s what he’s done with the money from supporters! Good! Not that questionable living room recordings don’t have a charm of their own, but converting your home into a proper studio shows a good amount of dedication to your craft. That implied dedication is confirmed by the final thought of the paragraph: he has new material.

Take Care of Business—Without Being a Gold-digger

This letter isn’t just to thank supporters and wax poetic about their shared history. (Although, personally, I don’t have a problem receiving those letters from him.) Nope. Shakey has a purpose for writing, and he is sure to include it.

Shifting to the present tense (and out of storytelling mode), Shakey announces that he has a new album in the works. He discusses the album’s anticipated release date, its merits (full platform, bigger sound, more collaboration), where it can be ordered (with a link), and why it should be pre-ordered (there’s a digital download as an incentive). He also lists new tour dates (again, with a link), hoping that fans interested enough in his music would be willing to come see him perform.

It’s a lot of information to present to fans in two short paragraphs, but the way the words pour out and rush each other along suggests that the writer was brimming with excitement over finally being able to share this huge news with others. Like someone who’s ridden a new rollercoaster and gushes to his friends about how awesome it was and how much fun they’ll have when they ride it together, he’s thrilled about this and wants to share that feeling with readers. That excitement keeps this announcement from reading like a smarmy, greed-driven, lifeless, and boring sales pitch.

Be Yourself

If you’ve seen him perform, watched video of his concerts, or read his updates on his website or social media profiles, it’s hard to get the feeling that Shakey’s an elitist musician. He seems pretty casual, down to earth, and genuine, full of admiration for fellow musicians and with a healthy mix of humility and confidence in his craft. His letter reads the same way.

There’s a good dose of Texas slang: “Howdy, y’all”. To keep things casual, he uses informal, even improper, language: “I really really really couldn’t have done this without your support.” By sharing his personal feelings, the letter has a sense of intimacy and sincerity: “from the bottom of my heart”, “allowed me to survive”, “I am thrilled”, “I hope you are as excited as I am”, “You keep me flexible, motivated, and sane (ish)”, “for that I am forever happily in your debt.” There’s a bit of self-deprecating humor in his jabs at his previous recording process and, at the end of the letter, his sanity. However, the acknowledgement of changes in the industry and his efforts to “lead that charge” erase any doubt of him being another industry lemming; there’s fire and passion in his blood, and a good head on his shoulders.

Argue with the style or errors all you want. The letter comes across with life in it… specifically, the life of this Shakey Graves persona. That’s hard to do, yet so important.

Please don’t mistake my admiration of his style and music for idolization. I know Shakey isn’t perfect. For example, although I’ve been a fan since the beginning of the year, that July letter was the first contact he’s made since my initial purchase. That’s not ideal. (Although since that letter, I’ve received another, so he’s improving in that aspect!) Nor do I expect his music to be everyone’s cup of tea.

But this letter? Flaws and all, it’s a shining example of striking that balance between commercial and genuine, formal and fun, sincere and stylized. For those reasons, I thought it worth sharing.


P.S. – Shakey, if you happen to read this, our door is open. Fort Worth isn’t too far away from Austin. We’d love to have you stop by!




Leave a comment
...Keep Reading
Understanding Music Copyright Downloadable Guide

Understanding Music Copyright—FREE Downloadable Guide

By David Frazee Estimated reading time: 1 minute

written by: David Frazee

Over the past couple weeks, Source has shared three of my articles on music copyright. I know the articles were long, and I know there was a lot of detail in there. I also know how important it is to make sure your rights—and the rights of your fellow songwriters—are protected.

So, to help, I put together this downloadable cheat sheet for copyright and cover songs:

CLICK the above image to open, download, or print!
CLICK the above image to open, download, or print!

Note that, should copyright laws change, this chart may no longer be correct. Additionally, if you have questions regarding the legal intricacies of your specific situation, you should contact an entertainment attorney near you.

I hope that this chart and the previous articles give you a good starting point to know your rights and the rights of your fellow songwriters!




2 Comments
...Keep Reading
Understanding Music Copyright—Streaming, Music Videos, and Licensing

Understanding Music Copyright—
Streaming, Music Videos, and Licensing

By David Frazee Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

written by: David Frazee

I know how important copyright is, and I know that it can also be completely confusing and overwhelming… so I’m breaking it down and going through it, bit by bit.

This is the third article in the Copyright series. If you missed the first and/or second article, please take a moment to go back and read them before continuing this one.


Stream Digital Versions (Audio only)

You know some of your fans are all over the streaming services, such as Pandora, Spotify, and XM radio. While you don’t want to put all of your music on there (since they won’t buy it if they can stream it for free or almost free), you are interested in offering two songs off of your newest album—one is an original, and one is a cover.

But streaming is a bit more complicated than it seems, and you might have no idea what rights are involved with putting your music out there. The good news is I’ve done some digging for you.

Streaming companies gain a license from musicians to play the recordings; the particular license depends on whether the streaming service is interactive or not. An interactive service—such as Spotify—allows the user to select the exact songs they listen to. In that case, the company would have to obtain the right to “digital performances of sound recordings” from the copyright owner. On the other hand, non-interactive services—like Pandora or XM Radio—provide a pre-programmed or semi-random combination of tracks; with these services, users cannot control exactly what song plays or when. These services need a “statutory license.” SoundExchange is a service authorized by Congress to administer statutory licenses.

Additionally, streaming digital music is considered a public performance, so the services need to obtain performance rights to perform underlying musical composition.

So, to stream music online, you will likely need to transfer the underlying performance rights in the musical composition and the right to the digital performances of your sound recording to the service providing the streaming.

Unless you have given up some of your rights, you have the right to place your own music online or on the radio.

If you have not already created a digital version of a song someone else created, you will need a mechanical license to create that sound recording in digital form and to stream that song. Again, most copyright owners use the Harry Fox Agency to manage this interactive streaming license. Additionally, you will need a public performance license for the musical composition, and you will need to pay the performance fees to the correct PROs. After acquiring the proper rights from the original song owner or publisher and creating your version, you will need to give the service the right to the digital performance of your sound recording.

Creating a Music Video

In an effort to promote your new album, you’ve taken the best songs—the one with the killer hook, and the crowd pleaser—and come up with crazy-awesome concepts for a music video. You’re ready to start production, but you want to make sure you cover all the bases first.

When you create a music video of your original songs that is not being live streamed, your reproduction, distribution, and synchronization rights come into play. “Synchronization” is a special kind of right not precisely defined by law; that said, it is generally understood to be part of your reproduction rights and comes about anytime visual images are placed with your music.

To get your music video online or on TV generally requires you license the company or service a portion of your rights. To start, this will include both some sound recording (because you are not performing live) and musical composition rights (because your music and lyrics are still being played). Since companies will want to cover all their bases, the contract you enter with the company will likely be over-inclusive for what is actually required. Often this will include the right to reproduce the video, distribute the video, display your band name or CD cover, perform (or “play”) your work for public viewing, and derivative rights, to prepare derivative works. You may be thinking, “what are derivative rights, and why do they need them?” Derivative rights allow the company to adapt or change the music video—usually to fit their programming and produce the show for viewing—without infringing your copyright. It is more common with television programs than online services.

In terms of songs someone else created, you need two things to legally distribute your music video of a cover song: a mechanical license and a synchronization license. Why do you need two licenses? Your music video has an underlying audio track that exists as a separate file from the final video. That audio track technically requires a mechanical license (to create the recording and distribute it; the Harry Fox Agency handles mechanical licenses. But, in order to make a music video and align that recording of someone else’s song with any moving images, you need a special license called a “synchronization license.” This is obtained from the musical composition rights owner—likely the artist’s publisher. To find the publisher, you can look the song up on the PRO’s (BMI, ASCAP, or SESAC) website; find and contact the owner/publisher; and request to negotiate a synch license. One thing worth noting: since you can also obtain the mechanical right from the owner/publisher, you might be able to obtain a “sync license” that includes all the necessary reproduction and distribution rights you need for your video… meaning you wouldn’t need a separate mechanical license.

What does this mean, practically speaking? That hit song that everyone and their brother is covering online—those artists either obtained the proper licenses (which can cost a pretty penny, depending on the song) or they did it illegally. And doing things illegally has a range of repercussions ranging from your account being penalized to legal action. Even if everyone else seems to be doing it the wrong way, is it really worth risking your reputation, your online presence, your finances, and your career?

Song Placement: TV Shows, Movies and Commercials

Your music videos’ view counts are climbing by the minute, and your new album is trending on social media and climbing the charts (congrats!). You’ve had two emails come in—one from a company wanting to use your cover of a song in a television ad, and one wanting to use your original song in a movie.

Let’s start with your original song and the movie. The rights you might have to give up depend on whether the movie company is using a pre-recorded version of your song or is asking you to record a new version for the movie.

If they want to use a previously recorded version of your song, they will have to obtain a synchronization license and the sound recording license (called a “mast use license”). The mast use license is acquired from whomever owns the rights to the sound recording–likely you or your record label. Anytime your music is placed with moving images, a sync license is required from you and/or your publisher. The sync license should cover your performance royalties from the showing of the movie; this means the producer will submit a “cue sheet” to your PRO and the authorized broadcasts will be granted only to companies registered with your PRO. The license might also include a mechanical license, since they will likely want to release, reproduce, and distribute a soundtrack with copies of your song… and you want to get paid for those copies!

If you are recording a new version, you will likely have to give up sound recording rights, display rights, distribution rights to the work that results, the right to reproduce copies of that recording, as well as any derivative works resulting from that recording. Seems like a lot to give up, but it is pretty standard.

This is important: if you have already recorded a version of your song with a record label, be sure you do not need their permission to use the previous recording or to record a new version of the song for this new use.

Now, for licensing the cover song. Whether it’s a movie, a music video, or on television, anytime you want to place someone’s music with moving images, you need a synch license. If you already have a music video and obtained a synchronization license from the artist’s publisher, you might think you’re covered. Think again. Since this is a different use, the sync license will most likely need to be negotiated again. Additionally, performance rights to the underlying musical composition need to be obtained from the proper PRO and fees paid accordingly. Hopefully, the ad producers will take care of this for you!

So far, we’ve covered the most common Copyright issues. Let me know if there are additional topics you’d like me to address by leaving a comment below… and be sure to check back and find out more!


Disclaimer: The above article is not legal advice; is it not intended to, nor can it, replace professional legal advice in any way. It is only intended to provide a short guide to basic legal terms and practices in the music industry. In your own interest, consult with a copyright attorney before entering into any contractual agreement or taking any action against copyright infringement.




2 Comments
...Keep Reading
Understanding Music Copyright—Live Performances, Recordings, and Sales

Understanding Music Copyright—
Live Performances, Recordings, and Sales

By David Frazee Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

written by: David Frazee

I know how important copyright is, and I know that it can also be completely confusing and overwhelming… so I’m breaking it down and going through it, bit by bit.

This is the second article in the Copyright series. If you missed the first article, please take a moment to go back and read it before continuing this one.


Performing Live

Let’s say you’ve got your first big gig coming up, and you need a set list to fill 90 minutes. You have a bunch of original content, but you also know that the cover song can really bring in a new crowd. There are a few songs you have in mind, but you’re worried about copyrights. How do you protect your songs, and how do you avoid trouble for doing cover songs?

If you have not given all of your public performance rights to someone else, you have the right to perform your own songs in public. However, because you are performing your songs in public, you should ensure that you have done everything you need to secure your rights to the song (such as filing with the copyright office).

If someone is asking to perform one of your songs, you may be wondering if there is a benefit to granting another artist performance rights. In short, yes. The benefits include the royalties you receive for the use of your musical composition and, of course, exposure of your music to more potential fans. If you have signed some of your musical composition rights to a publishing company, the publisher may have a right to some of your royalties.

If you want to perform a song someone else created, you will need a “public performance license.” There are two ways to obtain this license.

First, you could go to the copyright owner. Likely, the artist’s publishing company administers the licensing for the song, so you will need to find out who the publisher is and contact them to obtain performance rights. Contracts for performance rights negotiated directly with the publisher can vary in a number of ways, but it will be a non-exclusive right (meaning you do not own the song) and, unless agreed to otherwise, you will need to negotiate this right for every song and every performance.

The second, and easier, way is for the venue to go through a Performance Rights Organization (PRO). PROs work with restaurants, concert halls, nightclubs, hotels, and other venues to grant performance licenses. There are three main PROs that copyright owners use to track and issue licenses for performance rights: Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI); the American Society of Composers Authors (ASCAP); and Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC). Nearly 100% of recorded artists are registered with one of these organizations. Venues typically (but not always) receive a non-exclusive “blanket license,” which will allow performing artists to use any of the PRO’s songs. It is likely that the venue you are performing at has already obtained the proper license from the PRO and is responsible for making sure the royalties are paid. So, look online for which PRO administers the performance rights to the song you want to cover, and ask your venue if they have the rights from that PRO.

Lastly, and this is important: obtaining the rights to perform the music does not allow you to record your live performance of that song!

Creating Recordings

Speaking of recording… Let’s say you’ve been gigging a while and have developed a loyal fan base—so loyal that they keep asking if you have music they can buy and listen to when you aren’t playing gigs. (Awesome!)

Pumped, you start pulling together your best songs for a recording session. You’ve got eight or nine solid originals, but there are two cover songs you do that get the crowd up and dancing, every single time. You’d love to record those, too. Can you?

As far as songs you’ve created, you have the right to sing, record, and distribute your songs freely (unless, of course, you have given your rights away).

To record your song, you may have to give up some rights. Often, record label contracts will contain a clause that prevents you from recording other versions of your songs without the original label’s permission. The contract might also have you give up some or all of the sound recording rights to that final product. Read all contracts carefully, with a lawyer, before signing! While you may need to give up some or all of your sound recording rights, you should still own the rights to the underlying music.

If another artist wants to record your original songs, granting them recording rights can bring you exposure for your songs as well as royalties.

To legally record your version of songs someone else created, you need to obtain reproduction rights from the copyright owner. Specifically, you need a “mechanical license,” which gives you the rights to reproduce and distribute others’ songs on your own album.

You can obtain this license from the copyright owner through negotiations. Since it’s a complicated and time consuming process to track everyone who wants to use your songs, most copyright owners use the Harry Fox Agency to manage their mechanical licenses. This is a good place to start if you want to obtain a mechanical license.

All copyright owners are given the rights to “first use” of their songs, meaning they get the opportunity to release the first public version of the song. After the song has been published, anyone can obtain a “compulsory license” by providing notice to the copyright owner and following a specific process. This allows you to still legally record the song, even if you’re having trouble obtaining a mechanical license from the creator or original artist.

Please note that a mechanical license does not give you the right to post your version of the song on YouTube. We will get to this later.

Selling Copies

You’ve gotten your songs back from the recording studio—fully mastered and ready for release. You want to order physical albums to sell, since they have good profit margins and some of your fans like buying merch at shows (they’ve asked, repeatedly, if you have any CDs). You’re also interested in selling digital versions of the album and individual songs—including those cover songs.

Manufacturing and selling songs you’ve created incorporates your reproduction (copying) and distribution (selling) rights in both sound recording and the underlying music and lyrics. If you use a record label, you may have to give away some or all of your sound recording rights. In doing so, you likely give them the right to distribute and reproduce copies.

Also, by publishing your music to the public, others can now obtain a compulsory license to reproduce your music now. The benefit is of course the money you received in exchange for these rights.

Now, let’s talk about legally manufacturing and selling songs someone else created. As discussed above, you need a mechanical license to create and sell your new songs without infringing the copyright of the songs you covered. If you are working directly with the copyright owner, make sure you obtain the right to “distribute” the cover song; otherwise, you may have the right to use the musical composition in a new recording but cannot do anything with that recording.

As discussed previously, the easier method of selling your cover songs is to obtain a “compulsory license” by providing notice to the copyright owner and following the specific process laid out in statutes.

There is something else to consider: digital versus physical copies. These are two very different mediums, and the music industry rightfully makes a distinction. You can obtain the right to sell permanent copies in either medium by obtaining a mechanical license or a compulsory license, but having the right to one medium does not mean you have the right to the other. The Harry Fox Agency has two different forms; make sure you have obtained the right license!

There’s one more thing worth noting on mechanical licenses: they are for a set number of specific sales (for example: 1,000 CDs, or 10,000 downloads) and will need to be renewed for additional copies.

Next in the Copyright series: Streaming, Creating Music Videos, and Licensing Music. Be sure to check back and find out more!


Disclaimer: The above article is not legal advice; is it not intended to, nor can it, replace professional legal advice in any way. It is only intended to provide a short guide to basic legal terms and practices in the music industry. In your own interest, consult with a copyright attorney before entering into any contractual agreement or taking any action against copyright infringement.




1 Comment
...Keep Reading