I’ve been working on an EP the past year and have 5 songs I feel are solid and ready to be recorded, and then released under my own artist name (will be my first release).

I’ve only composed it with voice and guitar, production is my weak point, so my plan is to record them as solid demos with just guitar and vocals and show them to a few producers near me.

I’d probably show it to about 4-5 producers, I don’t really know them, just people near me, or ones that have been recommended through acquaintances, etc.

Just wondering how many on here register their songs before showing them to producers or shopping them around to artists / etc.

(I've read it's also much better to copyright songs individually, vs as a group, as it's much more beneficial in case it does every become a legal issue.

I also think I have to copyright them again, once I'll do the official release? Or is that not the case, if the lyrics/melody haven't really changed?)

Howdy question asker. I am by no means an expert. The safest way to go is to copywrite them first. That being said it isn't always a necessity. I know a guy in Nashville who has his own publishing company that I occasionally run a song by. I don't bother copywriting them first, but he's been a friend of the family for years. There are a lot of crooks out there. It's not a good way to do business, but some do. It's a gamble if you don't copywrite it first. It's not always just the publisher you have to worry about. If they should ever play it to someone else for an opinion it runs a risk of being ripped off by that person as well. My dad had one stolen that way once. If you don't know them well, or have any reservations it's best to copywrite first I think. I wrote a theme song for a TV show years ago that never took off. The show had an in-house band, and I knew the guys. The song was copywritten along with the show, so I never had to worry about it - plus it never made any money. Anyway that's the limit of my experience, so as I said, I'm not an expert - just my two cents. Good luck with your songs,

Brad

Personally, I don't. No one out there is trying to steal your songs.... heck it's nearly impossible to get folks to listen to them.

If you are going to release them on a commercial project, yes. You should copyright them. Plugging them to publishers, nope. The publisher is not going to steal your song if you're dealing with legit publishers and you should know who you're dealing with in that regard. They will copyright the song in their name if they are interested in representing your song to artists and other commercial projects. You simply have a writers contract with the publisher.

Hope that helps.

A very odd position and question for a BIAB forum.
Clearly using BIAB would, in all likelihood, take your voice & guitar demos up a level that wouldn't require "production" nous per se.
Establishing copyright at the earliest instance is common sense.

See:

Music Lawyerin

This hole gets deep real fast.

You may want to see if there is a music lawyer in your town.

They'll explain it all to you for $200 and your eyes will glaze over.

LegalEagle's video about music law and Taylor Swift's story are interesting.
Lawyers also cost, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-A_RrOeoWw

I am and run a small consulting concern on Copyright and Music Licensing. I'll spare you my resumé other than I worked on the 1976 revision to Title 17 (effective 1/1/1978) and recently retired from ASCAP where I was attached to the Legal Dept.

Standard disclaimer: I am not an attorney nor do I practice law. Everything I write can (and should) be looked up. If you need an attorney, get one (I can hook you up, BTW. My opinions are my own and I am not responsible for anything you do or don't.



The word is COPYRIGHTED. You are protecting your rights concerning copies of your work. "Copywritten" is what happens with advertising and news text (copy).

Although much of the following is also true in the 140+ countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention, some are unique to the USA and I will not point out the differences—you are on your own if not a US resident.

Terms: LOC is the Library of Congress, United States Copyright Office. SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States. Title 17 is the US Copyright Law. Section 8 is Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution requiring Congress to protect Copyrights and Patents. In this context, Work is any intellectual property subject to Copyright protection. Mechanical royalties are paid for copies sold. Performance royalties are for broadcast, streaming etc.

Helicopter view: All Works fall into one of two categories: Published and Unpublished. With one exception, Published and Unpublished Works are afforded different rights—this is important to know and almost no one gets this right online.

Unpublished Works have two sets of rights: You can take action against plagiarism and you have the Right to the First Recording. Although you are protected from the date of creation and you are not required to register them, the problem is proving Authorship and Date of Creation. You can register up to 10 Works (not 20!) with the LOC on a Form PA or SR as Unpublished. There are 3rd party entities that let you do the same for a lower fee. You cannot protect your rights by mailing anything to yourself, aka the Poor Man's Copyright. It must be a 3rd party with no interest in the work and there are many out there—Google is your friend.

The Right to the First Recording is often overlooked. The second you make a work available to the Public, a song is Published (Public is the root of Published) and you lose this right—this includes posting to Facebook, Youtube. Soundcloud etc. unless your chanel is Private. Established songwriters can and do charge for that first recording if they can and, if that first artist never releases, they can charge someone else and so on. Songwriter Demos are not considered First Recording unless a rights holder posts it or includes it on a CD sold at a gig etc. Anyway, once a First Recording is released or otherwise Published, that right is gone.

Published Works must be registered as Published with the LOC or all protections are lost—meaning that you have no right to be paid until that happens. If someone covers your song and doesn't pay your Mechanicals, if not registered as Published, you have no right to take action (sue in Federal Court). Filing a song as Published after release is often done but no mechanicals or damages are due before the Processing Date. A few years ago, SCOTUS finally settled the matter on which date applies, time stamp when received or date processed. I know of one horror story where a songwriter lost an estimated $18M because her publisher did not file the correct Form PA Published till 20 years after it was first recorded (a story for later). Normally, Published Works are registered one at a time but as of March, 2021, it is now possible to register up to 20 Published works released at the same time on one album on a single form. Google Register Certain Groups of Published Works for details and restrictions on the two ways this is allowed.

Bottom line and answering the OP:

Many in the industry will not accept an unpublished Work (Songwriter demo, script, screenplay etc.) with any kind of Copyright notice on it. It is considered amateurish at best and a possible setup for a lawsuit at worst. Since copyright notices are not required, even if registered, don't make that mistake.

If concerned about being ripped off i. e. someone claiming your Work as his/her own, then register it with someone. The LOC accepts up to 10 on a Form PA or SR with PA box checked (do not check the box for Published). Again, there are 3rd party companies that do this and, if you're a prolific songwriter, you'll save a lot of money.

The Writers Guild has been registering scripts for over 95 years. They don't so songs but, if you want to see how 3rd party protection works, their web site is most informative.

WGA West Registry

Is "QuestionAsker" a real person asking a real question or is "QuestionAsker" a one time forum visiter, never to post again? Will "QuestionAsker" even visit the forum to read the responses to the question?

Only time can answer these questions.

Not mocking the answers but more wondering about "QuestionAsker". I'm kinda' in RayC's corner on this one and think it's one and done.

All good answers but sort of a weird first question to ask in this forum.

If I'm wrong I will be pleasantly surprised.

There are a few who change user names now and then so, who knows?

In any case, I answered all the questions raised in the OP but, unless there is follow up, I’m done here.

Copyright is all about one thing.
It provides an official date of creation and who created it.

That said, the library of Congress is the registration that a court requires to bring a lawsuit.

With the internet and computers, everything posted online has data tagged to it that shows date of creation of that file. In addition to this, there are several companies that are providing a service that dates the files on secured servers. One such is the software company MasterWriter. It's a lyric writing package which includes a registration service.

One of the publishing companies I have dealt with that placed my music in films and TV, and yes, I got performance royalty checks for that from BMI, told me to not worry about copyright. They were handling that. And they did. For that reason, and others, I don't worry about the copyright for my music.

Yep.... I realize that this might ruffle the feathers of some in this business, but you are also free to do this any way that allows you to sleep restfully at night.

You are absolutely wrong. Article 1 Section 8:







Half wrong. Published works only.



So what? The Federal Court System has yet to accept this. Search BMI in Justia.com.



Barry DeVorzon's service is one of many out there. Unpublished works only.



With Unpublished works, it's ok not to be worried. There's no requirement to register and, if you get ripped off, that's your concern alone.

That the PROs might pay performance royalties without a Form PA Published is not a secret and how they handle this is their affair (the Consent Decree does not require this). However, they cannot initiate a suit on your behalf if your rights are violated without it—and only if the performance occurs after the registration date on the certificate. Again, not knowing this has cost some writers millions of dollars. While you might get paid—always a good thing—the fact is that you do not have the right to be paid without the correct registration.

Red flag here: Is an experienced songwriter really implying that your publishers don't file the correct Copyright forms on your music? It is the publisher's obligation to do so and your lack of knowledge on this subject (real or pretend) is appalling.



As long as those reading know that you are giving some bad advice, how can feathers get ruffled?

Aren't you the little ray of sunshine today. Take a deep breath.... exhale....relax.... If you read my post again, this time more carefully...you will notice that I never claimed that my publishers failed to file the proper paperwork. In fact I believe I said the exact opposite. Something about the publisher handling it....and they did.

Peace brother

Thanks Brad for the feedback. Just curious, what was the story with your dads song being stolen? How did it happen, and did he see any reimbursement for it?

Thank you Mike, I really appreciate you sharing your expertise on the subject, very informative.

I have a few follow up questions, if that's OK:

1. I've heard a few music industry people (including a lawyer) state that you should copyright each song individually, for various reasons, including:

- Easier to manage the song, for licensing, etc. If it's within a catalog of 10 songs, if you want to license / sell that song, you have to sell / license the whole catalog. (I might be wrong on this, but this is what I understood from that conversation).

- If someone does plagiarize the song, the judge looks at the plagiarized snippet compared to the whole registered body of work. If it's a melody line, and only 1 song is registered, it's can be a large portion of the plagiarized work. However if that melody line is compared to the whole body of 10 songs, it could be considered a small part, and warrant a much smaller compensation for plagiarism, or be thrown out, etc. (Once again this is what I heard, I know I might be wrong).

Is this true, in your experience?

I'd much rather register in groups of 10, to save money, but this is what I have been told (ie register each song copyright individually).

2. I remember reading that with registering an unpublished copyright, one has 3 months from the date of registration to publish the work, otherwise they lose some sort of protection? Is that true?





3. Another thing I'm confused about is this - so if pitching a song to a producer or publisher (with the intent of having another artist using it), it should not be copyrighted in any way, not even as an unpublished work? How does the Right to First Recording tie into that situation?

QuestionAsker,

Welcome back to the forum. I'm glad to see you've returned. I apologize for thinking you did not have a legitimate interest in the forum.

I worked with another writer many years ago. I was just getting started at the time. He was the founder of a songwriters group in the town I was in at the time. He claimed that he had written the lyric and melody to a very big #1 song and had submitted it to a publisher/record company and heard nothing back. Then one day he heard it on the radio and watched it go to #1 and make a ton of money. This was well before the internet and computers. Rotary phones were still a thing. I'm not so sure that his story was true, but of course the back story fit the situation well. His wife would kind of roll her eyes when he told this story to someone new.

It's possible because at the time, there was only LOC copyright to prove ownership and date of creation. I still have all of the copyright forms for the songs I was writing back then. Many were collections. I should pull those out and see if there was anything actually worth spending the money on back then.

My story....a coincidence I'm sure...... I have a gospel song that I had written and recorded. One day I was listening to the local gospel radio station and heard a song that was eerily close to the song I had written. I wrote it off as a coincidence because at the time, I wasn't posting on line... internet was at best dial up to bulletin boards and I hadn't sent the song out to anyone. That was a strange one. There was no way anyone else could have heard my song and ripped it off.

Greetings Jim, no worries, thank you for having me

That would really suck if it did indeed get stolen, I hope it wasn't the case.



There's a phenomenon that seems to pass in many areas, I hear of inventions being invented often independently in various parts of the world, even before the internet or phones, or when being worked on in secret. Or an idea or philosophy that surfaces at the same time, in various areas. Maybe it could have been something like that. But with a song, to copy a melody like that, does sound odd to me though.

Just to be pedantic:

In the US, at least, copyright is automatic upon a work being created.

The issue is of proving that one indeed holds ownership. That is where registering your copyright comes in. It is rather difficult to argue with an official government document, the falsification of which potentially carries a charge of perjury.

There are other services that claim to do this but none have yet been tried in court to my knowledge. Neither has the purported "poor man's copyright" of mailing a copy to yourself.

True, copyright is automatic. The thing is, this doesn't seem to mean anything, besides offering one the opportunity to show ones friends and/or family (or public) that they indeed wrote the song first. Other than that, it doesn't provide any legal protection or right to damages or anything (from what I understand). Actually you can be prevented from using your own work if someone else copyrights it with the LOC before you do, even if it was already published (again, from what I understand. But I've heard of situations like this, so it seems to be the case).

Bottom line: registering one's works doesn't seem to hurt, and can provide much benefit.

The thing I'm trying to figure out now, is the correct way to go about it.

So far it seems like this is the correct(?) route:

1. Register a group of unregistered works (up to 10 songs). Melody + Lyrics (sheet music) + MP3 sound recording of each demo.

2. Work with producers on songs, shop them around to publishers, show them around to industry people, etc etc.

3. Once the song is ready, (if you as the artist end up recording it), individually register each Sound Recording (Master). In the Sound Recording (Form SR) copyright registration, you can also include the Composition (Performing Arts = Form PA = lyrics and melody) together, and just pay for the 1 registration.

The questions I still have are:

1. Should I register a group of unregistered works individually, to maximize benefits in case a song is infringed? Or would that only really matter once the Sound Recording (Master) is registered as a copyright.

2. Should the final master (Sound Recording) be registered separately from the Composition (form PA), to maximize benefits in case of infringement, and make it easier to administer your catalog?

(eg. if you wanted to sell the publishing rights to your Composition, but not give up rights to the master?)

3. Do any short-term timelines (or deadlines) play into this? I remember reading something along the lines of "you have 3 months to publish the songs you copyrighted as unregistered works, otherwise you lose the right to litigate on them, if someone infringes them". I've heard conflicting things on this subject.



Disclaimer: I know my songs probably suck and no one will ever want to even hear them (and certainly not use them). However I've already lost a ton of money (and years of time) from a separate IP issue, and just don't want to take the risk, in case there is a tiny percent chance my songs could go somewhere. And given that my dream is to one day have a song go somewhere, I just want to do this right from the start, in case that ever happens. I know it probably won't and I'm 99.99999% delusional! But I just want to set things up properly, just in case).

Didn't all your questions get answered in the previous posts?

Just write your songs and if it helps you sleep better, register them in collections. If and when you have interest in a song, your publisher will give you the information you need to proceed. Any legitimate publisher has dealt with that situation before and is more than willing to walk you through the process.

For now, just write and work on honing your writing skills.

Copyright law is complex. If it wasn't, lawyers would not be making money from it.

Copyright cases are even more complex because there might be three or more opinions in the same courtroom as to what infringement really is and whether or not it has happened.

Consult a licensed attorney who practices IP (Intellectual Property) law. Many attorneys offer free initial consultations, but even if the one you choose does not, a couple hundred dollars spent today could save or make you tens of thousands in the future.

Didn't I just say that?

@Mike Halloran, would it be possible to get your insight on this?

I think what I'm beginning to gather is (legally) it is best to register everything separately (Form PA and Form SR, once you have the master and final song finished).

This is to make managing one's catalog in the best way (ie. in case you want to sell rights to your master, but not your songwriting. If you registered them together, it will be difficult (or impossible?) to sell/license one without having to sell the other.

The more reasonable way for the everyday artist is to do group registrations of 10 songs at a time... and if they really have faith in a particular song, they can register the master individually, with the form PA (songwriting) attached within the same Form SR registration (while only paying for 1 SR registration).

Are those correct assumptions? Or is there a better approach to it would you say?

Thank you in advance for any insight.

Agreed, odd for a BIAB forum. More on Sound on Sound:

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=85515

You understand wrong. See my earlier post and try to understand it.

I get the impression that people sometimes subscribe and ask on this forum and the Recording, Mixing etc. forum, without realising they they apply to PGM/BiaB.
The forum names are generic.

silly question SOOO dont 'YAP' at me.

i always understood the poor mans copyright ie mailing to oneself PLUS remember all daw multitrack files in a original song are 'dated' by the OS was sufficient.

if this problem of protecting oneself carries on i feel it will inhibit song creation. cos of the hassles n' the cost of protecting oneself ?

cos even if one goes the LOC route big money can always come along and knock down the little guy who often cant afford a battle in the courts ?

all... have a great 2023.

om

This is not a strange question for a BIAB forum since this place is crawling with songwriters and producers, some of them famous, who occasionally pop up but otherwise stay in the background bemused I assume.

There are legitimate, award-winning, multi-hit songwriters using BIAB for their demos now and they have admitted it, even though they live in Nashville.

One key marketing target for the product is SONGWRITERS.

So why does it not make sense to ask questions about song copyright here?

There are entire forum threads dedicated to random youtubes that make about as much sense sometimes as "look at my cat video."

Intellectual property law and copyright should be among the most important things on any songwriter's mind.

No question is too stupid. Ask away.

As for responders, and so-called "experts": try to be polite. Please. And don't talk down to people if you have NO visible track record of ever having done anything or written anything yourself.

That is to say, some of the posturing and hostility and boasting on this thread (no names, but three wild guesses) is absurd.

If you have a doctorate from Julliard, fine, boast away, but if not, you may want to back off the condescending, bragging, swaggering, attacking, mocking and hostility trip.

You understand wrong. Yea, they do it sometimes in movies and TV—even Perry Mason—but it doesn't mean a thing and never has. You have a self-interest in the outcome and nothing stops you from opening and re-sealing an envelope.

Disinterested 3rd party registration services for Unpublished Works only are readily available and cheap. They don't look at your content. In the old days, they dealt with sealed envelopes only but this is the internet. Again, not required but it establishes date of creation and authorship.

In the US, the only compelling reason I know to use a Form SR/PA Unpublished is if you are in the habit of revising your works or creating derivative works. The Published forms give you places to refer to earlier LOC Registrations. Still, you don't have to if those registrations were Unpublished (you must if they were Published).

I don't care what anyone does in this regard and whether I do it or not and whom I might use is nobody's business but mine and my partners.

Agreed. Ask away. I've been involved with this since 1976 and have written extensively. The decade and a half that I was with ASCAP is an exception since any public pronouncement from me could be seen as an official statement—let's just say they have others for that.

I will only give answers that can be looked up which means that the inner workings of PROs are off limits to me and may be covered by any number of NDAs.

I can tell you that, if you want a glimpse into how the PROs handle Copyright suits, look up Broadcast Music, Inc. at Justia or ASCAP press releases. It's actually the publishers who sue, not the PROs but BMI includes themselves in the initial filings which makes them easy to search while you have to know the publisher names to find ASCAP's.

Basically, many, many moons ago my dad wrote an instrumental he called "Guitar Man." He played it for a guy who played it for another guy, who liked it, called it his own and sold it as his. This happened when I was either very young or before I was even born, so I don't remember the details of the story. It may or may not have been Duane Eddy that recorded it, but it was in that general time era (the person who recorded it was not the person that claimed to have written it). Dad never tried to get reimbursed. He wrote songs very occasionally, and as is typical of many instrumentalists, he was very dispassionate about it. He was more happy just playing his guitar. He once wrote a song and took it to Buck Owens who was publishing for a gal named Susan Rae (sp?). She'd just come off her hit "LA International Airport." Owens wanted the song for her, but wanted some changes to the melody. Dad never did it. He was more interested in learning the newest Chet Atkins/Jerry Reed song and building his first pedal steel guitar. I would have loved a chance like that, oh but such is life. My brother's much the same way. Sorry for the late reply, just saw your comment. I try to understand, but I'm much like David Snyder said, my eyes start to glaze over pretty quickly when it comes to this copywrite stuff. If possible, I'd find a reliable friend or some other trusted person who's been through this stuff and let them walk you through it. Until then, enjoy your music!

Brad

Form SR, check the box for PA, do not check Published. Sound recordings only. You are establishing date and authorship only. You are protecting from others claiming your work as their own plus protecting your right to the first recording. 3rd party registration services are faster, easier and less expensive.

None of this counts for anything unless you have been ripped off.



Don't post them publicly anywhere. Your private Soundcloud site is ok—in fact, that's where many want you to list them. The site must be accessible by those with the correct link only; it cannot be searchable.



That is your publisher's job. If self-publishing, see my earlier post about a way to register up to 20 items on a single certificate if released at the same time on, say, a CD.



It depends. Multiple registrations, each covering different aspects of a recording, are quite common but nothing to worry about now. Should you get to that stage, your attorney should be involved—and yes, you will need one. Should you be so lucky, it could easily be a complex negotiation involving multiple attorneys. If dealing with a major label and you are not an established artist, keeping your Masters will not be an option.

What you do not do is the old "cheat the LOC" trick of registering multiple works as one—reassigning 'one part only' without including everything can be a mess requiring an expensive legal bill to untangle. Now that it is possible to register multiple works, no one should ever do that again.


I hope I've cleared up your confusion on Unpublished Works.

The Feds (US Federal Court System) has long held that no Work is entitled to $$$ till Registered correctly as Published. Period. SCOTUS has ruled that date is the Registered date on the certificate, not the date of creation, postmark or time stamp when received by the LOC. Neither is it when the recording was first released nor when someone covered it. The UK and the EU are the same—we know this because of some well known cases where plaintiffs hoped that they were different.

There are instances where the Feds have held that someone waited way too long to file suit but that has nothing to do with the above. If you know of a violation and decide to wait till more money piles up, you'll be dismissed (I feel Like I'm Fixing to Die Rag/Muskrat Ramble). Likewise, the courts don't like to hear of anything over three years old but that's a rule of thumb and it depends on the circumstances (Feelings was released in 1974 but Albert Morris wasn't sued till 1986 over Pour Toi).

To my knowledge, that has never been tested in a courtroom so we have no way of knowing.



Not hardly. That official.gov document (with penalties attached for the falsification thereof) is the final word

Of course it's been tried. The best summary I can find is this one at Justia.com.

How will courts handle a poor man's Copyright?

In each of these instances, the courts sidestepped the issue, finding additional reasons to deny the claim but one did address the self-interest issue directly.

Also note that some of the information in the opinions is no longer correct regarding filing and the need to do so. No doubt they were correct when the opinions were written but there were many changes to this between 2020–2022.



Exactly.

Here are the current filing fees for most items involving songs:

Registration of a claim in an original work of authorship

Electronic filing:
Single author, same claimant, one work, not for hire $45

Standard Application $65

Paper Filing (Forms PA, SR, TX, VA, SE) $125

Registration of a claim in a group of unpublished works $85 (up to 10)

Registration of a claim in a group of published photographs or a claim in a group of unpublished photographs $55

Registration of a claim in a group of works published on an album of music $65 (up to 20 includes photographs on an an album)

Here's the rest:

U.S. Copyright Office Filing Fees

Thanks David, I appreciate your viewpoint.

I also don't understand the hostility.

As a little guy I'm just trying to figure out how to protect myself from the big players.

What's wrong with that?

It's a topic everyone can benefit from - small time artists/songwriters get screwed all the time on copyright.

I've already lost $150k (my life savings), and was left with $20k debt, in a separate IP issue outside of music (not even my IP, a friends IP whom I was helping to promote, and a bad actor wanted to steal - it's a long story). I'm not 18 anymore, and I don't think I can survive another disaster like that. So just want to make sure I'm covered from an IP standpoint.

Thanks Brad for your response, sorry to hear the song got stolen, sounds like your dad wasn't too bothered about it, which is good. Always sucks though to hear about people stealing ideas though.

I agree, I just wanna play, I had a real big IP issue in the past, so just wanna make sure I do this right from the get-go, spend a few days up front figuring it out vs possibly weeks or years in the future (my friend, who's IP got stolen, is 4 years into litigation, not to mention the money he spent. $10k I think. I had to shut down my business (which I started to have time and funds to do music) because of the same issue).

Check your state bar association (SBA) website. Most SBA websites have a search function where you can search for attorneys by area of expertise. Search for those with music or copyright experience. Typically the website will offer a half hour referral for little or no cost.

The OP might benefit from this book: https://amzn.to/3xL451s

There’s an earlier version from 2019 much of which is still relevant: https://amzn.to/3ZkrjY3

ALL.

SO this whole ip discussion has made me ponder some important aspects further which i'm wondering if other people are also pondering.
I would love to know people's opinions of the following which i hope are intelligent points for discussion.

1. the creative innocents out there.

by this i mean someone on this crazy planet creates a new song..maybe someone very poor in a poor country…how is that person EXPECTED to check the millions of songs created over the years to ensure he/she isnt infringeing somehow on someone else ??
bottom line how does this person do 'due diligence' given the above ??

2. the government/registration agencies.

point one has me asking how do the above bodies check that a new ip application isnt infringeing on someone elses ip when they are granting a successful application ?
once again, given the zillions of creative works previously created ??
see what i mean ?? Do they have oodles of supercomputers chedcking ? to assess the validity of the new application viz previous applications granted ?
reason i'm asking is even if one is granted protection via an application…couldnt someone else on the planet still pop up from somewhere and say…
'thats like my xyz song' ? particularly if the new creation made a small fortune ?
bottom line again how does the agency do 'due diligence' given the zillions of creative works out there ?? and to what degree does their granting of an application protect the applicant ?

3, the chords/notes issue.

viz songwriters specifically …there are only 12 notes in western music and only so many chords/inversions/extensions etc etc. THUS its pretty obvious that at some point there will be overlaps with previous works due to the world volume of previous creative works.
some big names often have said they were influenced by an earlier work…
eg a riff in an old piece of classical music. its obvious that there must be some degree of overlap tween artists song creations given that tech has allowed zillions of homes on the planet have project studios and computers right ??


Do people on these forums see what I mean re the above ?
AND is it worth it for a very poor person to spend lots of money they cant afford to protect their creative works IF STILL one can become embroiled in ip issues ?
poor people cant afford legal teams of course.

all opinions welcome.

happiness to all.

om

ps i just got delivery of biab/rb upak 2023...wowser.
this bloke is v happy.

I believe this is more common in IP (patents). You can hire people to search within patents to check if you're infringing on anyone. Perhaps something similar exists in music.

In general though, nobody cares until a song becomes big, and even if the original artist takes 100% of the royalties for that song, the publicity you get from the song will help the rest of your catalog, and you as an artist.

If a dispute comes up, from what I hear the official(s) that listen to both songs, and subjectively determine whether there is an infringement or not.

If Mike chimes in, I'm sure he can provide a better answer, mine might not be entirely correct.




I remember hearing about how some music industry guys wrote a program to create every imaginable melody, (ie. millions? billions?) and they copyrighted them and made them available for the public to use, like creative commons... something along those lines. Seems like it was kind of a gimmick, but I know someone did that. (found it: source)


I have heard concerns, that with all the AI and algorithms we have these days, and huge artists selling their huge catalogs, that big corporations that own these catalogs will have bots that just copyright strike any song that remotely resembles a riff / melody line / etc within their catalog.

This is only a theory, but sounds plausible and concerning.




I'm also just trying to determine how to navigate this dilemma. Put out music, while offering myself enough protection, while at the same time not needlessly spending money.

The least amount of protection is better than nothing, and shouldn't be too costly, I'm still trying to figure out what that is (I'm drafting a response to Mike's mention of 3rd party registration services regarding that).

One idea I had the past few days is registering the copyrights in Mexico, since it's $15 a song vs. $45-$65 in the US. However, both the US and Mexican copyright office told me that you can only litigate within each respective country where you made your copyright. Makes me wonder whether labels copyright each song in various countries, or how they do it. I imagine almost no individual artist is copyrighting their song in any other country besides their own.

The first example is someone who is quite obviously a fraudster and a forger while the second is an individual who is quite obviously mentally unstable and delusional.

Hell, in the first case, Mr. Smith couldn't produce the alleged documents or any witnesses.

Neither case really addressed the issue.

Of the third, no relevant details are given.

All in all, a rather shoddy analysis if you ask me. Still doesn't look like it has been tested.

I still have my doubts as to the efficacy of the alleged "poor man's copyright." The US Copyright Office's opinion does not support the idea and appears to negate the claims of these third-party services as well.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Thank you again @Mike Halloran for being so generous in sharing your knowledge, I really appreciate it.

I've reread your posts various times, some references and called the US Copyright office a few times. I think I finally grasp how this all works, but still had some questions:

1. The LOC told me that once I register Unpublished Work(s), I don't have to re-register them once they are published, that they are still protected.

Not sure why they told me that, as you mention in your first post that once the song is published, it needs to be re-registered as a Published Work (To have the right to litigate in a US court in case of infringement). Not sure why they made it seem like those legal rights roll over, if originally registered as Unpublished Works.

(Also, Circular 34 states the following re: Group Registration of Unpublished Works: "A registration for a group of unpublished works or a group of unpublished photographs will remain in effect even if the works included in the group are subsequently published, either separately or together. You can seek another registration for the first published edition of a work in the group. However, it is entirely optional and not necessary to secure the statutory benefits of registration.")

2. If Published Works need to be registered with the US Copyright office to seek legal damages for infringement, how come the same is not required for Unpublished Works, and you can use 3rd party services instead of the US Copyright office (eg. Songuard)?






3. This is probably my main goal - finding a sensible balance between protecting one's songs, and not spending thousands of dollars each year to copyright songs.

So from what I'm gathering, the most reasonable yet prudent method is to first register songs as Unpublished Works with a 3rd party service. (if showing them around)

Then once ready to release, re-register them as Published Works with the LOC. (Up to 20 if released at the same time on one album).

My plan, however, is to release a single every 4-6 weeks, and an EP once or twice a year, with some of the previously released singles packaged together with a few new songs.

Given that plan, I would have to:

1. Re-register each song (released as a single, previously registered as an Unpublished Work) as a Published Work, individually. ($45 for single author, same claimant, one work, not for hire. Form SR and PA together.)

2. Register the EP with new songs as a group of works published on an album of music - $65 (excluding the singles (Published Works) previously registered with the LOC).

If 3 of the 5 songs on the EP have been previously published as singles, I can publish that EP on Spotify (and physically on a CD) as one cohesive album of 5 songs, however on my group of works copyright application for the EP, only the 2 previously unpublished songs will be registered, along with the previously unused album artwork. So the copyright for the EP will only have 2 songs (unreleased), but on Spotify and other places the EP will appear with 5 songs in it.

3. EP Album artwork can be registered under the group of works published. However, the artwork of each single needs to be registered separately as a different work?
(Seems like it would be cost-prohibitive to copyright the album artwork if it needs to be done separately and individually for each single).

Are those correct assumptions?

I was under the impression I could register a group of 10 songs together as Published Works, once ready to publish, and set the "Published" date as whatever date I planned to release the song in the future. Or some variation letting me release songs separately, yet registering them together under one group publication as a group work. However there seems to be no such option, and wouldn't make sense given the definition of a Published and Unpublished work.

(Although I could perhaps copyright all 5 songs on the EP together, and sell it as a CD on a public (yet hard to find website), and just follow my aforementioned release schedule on Spotify, other platforms, etc(?)).

I would like to cast a ray of sunshine into this conversation.

There has been a lot of good information posted now, so that folks can start their research projects ahead of the game, so to speak. There is much to learn and study but some good tips have been given.

I would still recommend a talk with an IP lawyer in the music field. They are not that expensive. Some will read and comment on a publishing agreement for as little as $200. But they will all say: "Don't you dare come back to me crying after the fact if you already signed it and didn't ask me to read it, and just found out they own your house now."

On the happy side, one music industry lawyer told me once, in almost these exact words:

"My dream for you is that you do write a hit song and someone blatantly steals it and that it ends up on the radio and becomes a hit and makes someone 10 million dollars. And that you filed all the proper paperwork and also registered it with your PRO, and also have a time stamp on soundcloud and they have no legal paperwork or evidence whatsoever of having written the song before you did.

"I pray and I dream that that will happen to you.

"Because when I walk into court with you, it will be the best day of your life.

"And mine."

**

FROM ASCAP

Can I register my music for copyright protection or get a bar code for my CD through ASCAP?

ASCAP does not register music for the purpose of copyright protection; this is the responsibility of the writer(s) and publisher(s) of any given work. You can register your music for copyright protection through the Library of Congress which can be reached at 202-707-3000 or on the web at www.loc.gov. For information on bar codes, please visit www.discmakers.com.

https://www.ascap.com/help/music-business-101/money-copyright

https://www.ascap.com/music-creators

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/attention-songwriters-protect-your-valuable-assets-with-a-copyright

That's a really good point. The OP doesn't need to be asking us for legal advice. He needs to be asking a lawyer.

Always a big Yes on the latest from Donald Passman!



Do not buy earlier versions of his book. Too much has changed, especially regarding Copyright registration and recent court decisions. There is a reason he updates every few years.

I prefer the eBook versions since they can be searched.

I didn’t hear your question and the LOC is not part of the Federal Court.

If establishing Authorship and date of creation, that is correct.

Otherwise, that advice couldn’t be more wrong. There must be a Published certificate before anyone can sue for damages. No exceptions. The US, UK and EU are the same in this regard.

Example: Somebody wrone a song and filed PA Unpublished. Famous folk singer friend records it in the 1960s—song is uncredited but her record company pays the mechanicals. Famous English band releases their version song. 1978 Law takes effect. Fourteen years later, the writer’s daughter hears song at party and says, “I didn’t know you knew any (band name here). Writer wants credit and back royalties—attorney find out there’s no Published certificate and won’t take case till it is filed. Writer files; attorney sues. Band countersues for Copyright violation. Court tells both sides to settle—which they do—but rules that no monies are due before the date of that certificate, even though Famous folk singer’s recording is now over 20 years old and that record company knew who the writer was. Writer takes this to the Court of Chancery and is told that UK is the same as the US: no royalties due before the Published date. Estimates are that writer was out about $18M.

Since this happened before the World Wide Web, almost no one is able to look this up but it was widely reported at the time. Anybody know the song, band, writer, folk singer? The band shouldn’t be too hard to guess.

Thank you Mike.

Just got off the phone with Barry De Vorzon, I think earlier in the thread you recommended his Songuard service.

I was interested in the 3rd party services, but from what Barry told me, they've never gone to court yet, and can't guarantee their registration would work (their FAQ says they can't guarantee it'll hold up in court). He assured me though his lawyers said it would work.

Was wondering what you thought about the matter, as I'm definitely interested in using a 3rd party service for registering Unpublished songs, to save money.




Thanks for sharing the anecdote. Looking forward to finding out who it's about, and reading more about it. I would guess, but nothing rings a bell for me.

You seem to be asking for legal advice. You really need to consult with an attorney who specializes in Copyright law.

Amen to that!

Again, I recommend reading Don Passman's books referenced earlier. Of all the many books on the subject, many of which are quite good, it's the only one I know that has been published in 2019 (10th Edition) and will be updated this year (11th Edition 10/23/2023). Everything else is earlier and way out of date by now. Order the 10th ed. now and pre-order the 11th at the earlier link. My copy will hit my Kindle account on October 24.
All You Need to Know About the Music Business: 10th Edition

Devin Stone offers a 23 lesson course on Copyright issues at Nebula. I think I pay $30/yr to view all of their classes.
Copyright for Fun and Profit

Although both are attorneys, neither takes the place of consulting one if you have specific questions about your situation. Having a basic background will save you a lot of money since it will help you know what questions to ask.


Barry's service, like all others, is based on the WGA who've been doing it for over 75 years now. My only opinion is that if you are quite prolific, a 3rd party service might be something to consider. If not, having multiple Unpublished registrations on one form is now inexpensive.


As for the anecdote, I will tell all but not yet—I want to confirm a few dates if I can. It's the cautionary Tale from Hell.

Thanks Mike for all the resources, I have learned a ton from this thread and really appreciate it. Trying to ask for experiences or insight into the topic before consulting a lawyer. I can't really afford one, but will put a session on the credit card as an investment.

You mentioned you were a consultant, may you please tell me or send me your rates? I would be glad to pay for a consultation regarding this issue

Thanks David, I will do so in the near future. Any good one's you might recommend?




Not asking for legal advice. Having a conversation about copyright law. I think there are some interesting things within this thread that are not easy to figure out oneself online, and can really help people to understand copyright law, which is often very confusing. IMO this thread is a very helpful resource to a newbie like myself, I don't understand the sentiment of trying to shut down a topic that can help any small artist to understand how to protect their IP.

Nobody is trying to shut anything down and you are asking for legal advice.

Correct. And making things more complicated and stressful than they need be

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Have you guys been in an IP suit? It's not fun. Months and years of headache and thousands of $.

Either way, I think it was a good conversation, and I'm continuing my research in private. Thanks to everyone who chimed in. Not sure how it was stressful for anyone.

Very helpful thank you.

Ray Parker Junior (Ghostbusters) said in a documentary "hell you know you got a hit when you get sued !! LOL" What he meant was that you can take almost any song and within the 7 notes probably come up with a similar song. As far as the question asked in this post I don't bother copyrighting my songs before showing it to producers. Hell, it's hard enough to get someone to listen to them. I definitely ain't worrying about someone stealing them. The songs I release are published through Tunecore Publishing and I am also a BMI member. If that's not enough protection then I'm out of luck. Plus if I wanted to go after someone for "stealing" my song I probably would need a load of cash in attorney's fees to even get close and if that person is connected to a major record company I'm pretty much out of luck. I would hope that if someone felt the need to "steal" my song they will come back to me for other songs and maybe I'd get some kind of deal. But as far as going the Government route and Copyrighting my songs I never bother.

5 stars for that Henry, you really nailed it.

So, you trust a Russian company to protect your songs? You shouldn’t because they don’t. In their own words.

TuneCore and Copyright


Let’s be very clear: Tunecore may be distributing your songs and collecting certain royalties on your behalf but they are clear that You are the Publisher, not they.

BMI does not protect you either and they don’t claim to.

Again, none of this matters if no one rips you off by a) claiming your work as theirs or b) covering your work without paying you.

Do what you want how you like — no one is stopping you. Offering this nonsense as advice to others is stupid.

I read it as opinion: "this is what I do", not as advice.

FWIW, I'm largely with Henry on this.
If someone rips off my IP, unless I have very deep pockets to take them to court ... and win, it's just "tough".

You misunderstood again.

Claiming to be published by Tunecore when he is not and thinking that he is somehow protected by BMI… That’s just stupid. Nothing can protect anyone from that.

Individuals cannot sue except over Unpublished works. Only Publishers sue over Published works in the US, UK and EU and for that, the correct certificates must be filed and no damages are due before the certificate date. Individuals often act as Publishers, of course, but not knowing that you are publishing? Sorry that you disagree but I called that one for what it is.

Do what you want or don’t but at least go in with your eyes open.

As for your ‘deep pockets’ nonsense, a good attorney knows what’s winnable. Almost no Copyright suits actually see a courtroom. I gave the link to Justia —do a BMI search and see what happens. BMI doesn’t actually sue—it’s the publishers—but they handle the evidence gathering and often the negotiations.

This thread keeps going round and round and round in circles.

GH...i tend to agree . but a last kick of the can from moi...lol. cos ive never received answers that resolve the following conundrums when ive posed em'.

ALL.

heres a couple of challenges//posers for people as there are lots of very knowledgeable here..viz TWO CASES.
(ive posed these q's before to very educated people in the past without resolution….
thus the challenge.)

SCENARIO 1.

a young very talented struggling musician, after many years of little money, produces a song that the world loves and then starts making serious money.
BUT then along comes someone or a corporation who says thats like my xyz song…
and a major case ensues.
HOW IS THAT POOR MUSICIAN EXPECTED TO CHECK ALL THE ZILLION SONGS BEFORE HIS ?? (there are only so many chords n' note combos.).

its an unsolveable conundrum imho..now

SCENARIO 2.

another young musician goes thru' all the process and expense of getting protection for a song creation….which raises 2 questions…viz
a.. i'm having trouble understanding how the legal entities go about granting rights to this second musician and check the submission is unique n' unassailable.
do they have a bank of supercomputers checking the zillions of songs submitted before this latest one from the young musician. ? ie HOW DO THEY CHECK ?
it would seem an impossibility to me.
b..am i correct in thinking that even if the young musician has all the protections in place that STILL someone could say thats like my song…and an 'argey bargey' ensues.

given the above and my understanding that even if a musician goes thru' the appropo channels/expense problems for that musician can still ensue…
thus i would tend to agree with henry and gordon.
(or should we all go home n' stop doing songs ?)

i'm curious if someone can respond to the challenges of the above cases/conundrums with solutions.


happiness to all.

om

This is what I understood:



FWIW, I should have sued my ex-employer over their treatment of me. I didn't because all the advice fitted into four groups:

1) The parent company can afford to fight you for as long as it takes to bankrupt you.
2) Even if/when you win it is unlikely that you will be awarded sufficient damages to cover your legal costs.
3) As a white, middle-aged, male, you have hardly any hope of winning because nobody will support you.
4) Because of effects of the stress they've already put you through, the stress of facing aggressive lawyers will probably kill you.

That despite solid documentary evidence that my ex-employer lied to me and about me in a nasty attempt to discredit me.

Nothing to do with copyright, of course.

It's no accident that many cases are fought in American courts where the payouts can be far larger.

First of all BOY this is my opinion and not advice. It's my personal view so don't call my opinion "STUPID". That [*****] ain't gonna work.

Opinion is opinion.
Where there is no sense the opinion is nonsensical.
That status can be a matter of opinion but should be based on a matter of fact.
Something deemed nonsensical may be clarified so that it makes sense.

No one used the term stupid in reference to you Henry - other than you, that is.
"BOY", on the other hand, is a derogatory term you chose to use. You stooped to some low points in that short post.

As to TuneCore:
"Copyright fraud allegations
TuneCore has had multiple instances where their services are used to commit copyright fraud through online services like iTunes, Spotify, and Youtube. In one case, independent artists represented by TuneCore uploaded unreleased tracks by artists Playboi Carti and Lil Uzi Vert to Spotify. Plays of these tracks resulted in revenue going to the independent artists who were not the original owners of the music. In a similar case, TuneCore was sued by Round Hill Music for uploading and collecting revenue from iTunes for compositions owned by Round Hill. In a third case, TuneCore submitted copyright claims over a streamed performance of public domain classical music by Brett Yang and Eddy Chen of Twoset Violin, collecting revenue from the stream that would otherwise have gone to the performers."
As to the parent company:
"Believe has been accused of copyright trolling, particularly on YouTube, where it has been alleged to engage in claiming copyright for works that are either copyright free or that they do not own the rights to. The company was the subject of a New York federal lawsuit alleging that they were behind large scale, willful copyright infringement."

I suspect "The songs I release are published through Tunecore Publishing and I am also a BMI member. ", should read 'The songs I release are distributed through TuneCore, I am also a member of BMI.' TuneCore does list publishing as a service but access to any information is blocked for non account holders - that doesn't bode well. BMI collects royalties for performance of registered works - oft times from the places TuneCore/Believe distributes to.

I suspect that the company may be something to be suspicious of.

Yes someone did, on the basis that the person perceived Henry's post as advice.
I read Henry's post as opinion, i.e.: here's how I feel about it and what I do. At no point did he advise anyone to do anything.

Henry makes, IMHO, extremely good and accessible tutorials on using BiaB and I quite often suggest to newcomers that they look to his videos rather than PG Music's videos, because I think thay are more pragmatic and digesible for a newcomer. YMMV.

Some months back Henry quit the fora and closed off all his tutorials in protest at the way he perceived people were behaving towards him. Several of us persuaded him to open his tutorials again and just have a rest from the fora ... have a break, unwind, whatever.

He appears to have been back only a few weeks at most and he's being lambasted for his opinion.

Calm down guys. Critique/caveat where appropriate, but keep it in perspective for goondess sakes.

"Offering this nonsense as advice to others is stupid." Does imply that Henry or his opinion is stupid. It states that offering something as advice is stupid. Now the difference is significant...rather like saying a certain behaviour is bad rather than the child exhibiting that behaviour being bad.
EVEN if my interpretation was completely wrong it doesn't excuse the term used in response.
Gordon, you wrote:
"...the way he perceived people were behaving towards him."
"...back only a few weeks at most and he's being lambasted for his opinion."
You seem to have missed the common factor - & I don't mean just me.
"I read it as opinion: "this is what I do", not as advice." Each experience is offered by a commenter is a form of advice. Q What do you do when...? A. Well, I... It's not explicitly saying do this not that but it implies that this works. There's also the fact that the O.P really does ask for advice so each offering related to the question and request is a form of advice.

Most folk can cope with having their opinion challenged. Most folk either back up their opinion with fact, reach for sophistry as a means of defense, agree to disagree, modify their opinion based on evident fact, or cry foul, (or fowl), before running.

I reread the appropriate sections of the thread. I can accept your interpretation of the use of stupid but I don't read it that way. We disagree. I'm not going to start name calling though.

Mike can be hot fingered o posts BUT he did do some research so must've had some time to reflect before pressing "submit". He's a very opinionated keyboard warrior - as are many of us. He'd likely describe it as not suffering fools gladly which is a bit of sophistry in & of itself I suppose. I've jousted with him a few times - we don't see eye to eye often.
Henry, on the other hand, won't suffer contradiction or constructive criticism.
He's good, but not really of the status that requires an apologist.

Henry is not being lambasted for his opinion. I called out his statement that he was published by Tunecore and protected by BMI … neither is true and no amount of “opinion” changes this. Failure to due diligence on one’s own works is naive at best but, with all the resources out there, I gave it a different name. My opinion is unchanged.

He doesn’t have to protect his works. I don’t care one way or the other. It costs some money and takes a bit of paperwork. Many chose not to do it but patting oneself on the back for not knowing how things work? If I didn’t point out why he was wrong, that would be irresponsible of me. If Henry wants to apologies to me, that’s cool but I’m good if he doesn’t.

Ray’s summation of Tunecore barely scratches the surface. Fighting their takedown notices often involves a cease and desist letter from your attorney. A lot more expensive and usually avoidable by submitting a copy of Registered Form PA. Tunecore, like most bullies, usually backs down when challenged but telling them that they are infringing on your copyrights takes more than just telling them—you do need to submit documentation or a letter from your attorney. The Brazilian bots are easier to fight, BTW.

I have no intention of trying to parse oldmuseo’s hypotheticals. That would involve speculation bordering on practicing law.

I’ll get to the big case that cost a naive writer an estimated $18M later this week when I get home. Am in NYC at the moment taking in a few shows and the Met.

I don't ask or expect for you opinion to change.
I do think it might have be better to give caveates about Tunecore and BMI, rather than use the term 'stupid', which was almost guaranteed to be taken personally.

justanoldmuso, you can't cheat the algorithm.


You are right about this. They have this proprietary technology to check the pitch pattern of your audio against their massive copyright database.

The technology is scary. Take YouTube Content ID as an example.

Years ago I was working on a TV show trailer video editing project. I found a copyrighted score music, really liked it. So I downloaded the music, dragged into a waveform editing software, changed the tempo, transposed the pitch, applied a multi band compression and a dynamic EQ, exported to a new wav file, inserted into my video project.

Guess what? When I uploaded my final video to YouTube, it took YouTube less than 20 seconds to detect my audio contains copyrighted content, and issued me a copyright claim, the video was instantly demonetized. I was shocked by the technology.

The detection was based on the relative pitch pattern, regardless of the key, tempo, or volume.

It was a mess. Later I had to drag that copyrighted music into a DAW, quantized it, added a background cello with low volume, re-insert to the video, re-upload to YouTube, to circumvent the Content ID detection.

Lesson learned, don't mess with the Content ID. Always remix a copyrighted music before use.

I want to say a few words about Henry Clarke.

This dude is the only YouTuber out there teaching BiaB. Gordon Scott is not lying, Henry's tutorials are ten times better than the official PG Music tutorials.


This is true. PG's videos are all about "WHAT & WHERE". Henry Clarke's videos are about "HOW & WHY".

PG's tutorials are basically telling you WHAT a new feature is, and WHERE to click to open it. Henry's tutorials are telling you HOW to use this feature in a real life scenario, and WHY he chose to use it.


Can someone explain what had happened? What did people do to Henry that made him want to quit YouTube? Is there a link to the original thread?

My only complaint about Henry Clarke is the quantity of his content. Things like Soloist, Melodist, RealStyle Picker, etc, are quite complicated stuff, require multiple episodes with multiple examples to demonstrate. Henry did only one episode for each one, but he can definitely do more episodes on the same topic and explain the details and nuances with different examples.

I disagree on the statement Henry's videos are helpful for newcomers. Lots of his tips and tricks stuff are helpful for both newcomers and seasoned BiaB users like me.

Henry Clarke is the Morgan Freeman of BiaB education.

I'm not a civil court judge, but I'd like to offer a settlement deal on the dispute between Henry Clarke and Mike Halloran.

To Henry Clarke
You never want to put all your eggs in one basket, let alone Putin's basket. If the US sanctions are getting worse in the future, maybe consider withdrawing from TuneCore and transfer the rights to a distributor on the American soil.

To Mike Halloran
You have already given insightful opinions on LOC and legal aspects. Could you also give some advice on the distributors?

90% of the young musicians are not yet famous. All they want is to focus their time on making music, find a reliable distributor to publish, collect some royalty income, publicize on YouTube and TikTok, get attentions, and eventually sign a deal with a record label. The lawyers of the record label will take care of their paperwork on copyright.

I have put up a list of 21 best known online distributors/publishers. Please indicate which ones are legit, which ones are to be avoided.

• Amuse
• AWAL
• CD Baby
• DistroKid
• Ditto
• Fresh Tunes
• Horus Music
• Landr
• Level
• ONErpm
• Record Union
• Repost Network
• Reverb Nation
• RouteNote
• Songtradr
• Soundrop
• Spinnup
• Stem
• Symphonic
• TuneCore
• UnitedMasters

This might be the thread that caused disquiet over Henry:

https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=729029&page=1

MV.

thanks for responding to my two scenarios upthread.
I appreciate your response..and the example of your experience you gave.

possibly i wasnt clear in the 2 scenarios i presented so let me explain further.
(yes having worked in tech for many years, i'm aware of patterns etc.)

i was trying to get at the following scenario…(sorry if i wasnt clear)...

lets consider a dirt poor musician in a very poor country who studies music in the only music school, and said muso creates a fab song.
now lets consider by 'fate' or 'karma' that someone with 'influence' visits the country and hears the fab song and sends it to a friend working at a small radio station in a wealthy country who plays the song…
and suddenly the word gets around and the song makes a ton of money.
(note at this point the song hasnt been on the net or input to pattern tech.)

in the above scenario how is the poor muso who created the fab song originally expected to check the previously created zillion of songs ?
maybe the poor muso isnt even aware of net sites that host songs for example.

in addition what about people who innocently post their creations in the pg user showcase ?
should these folks be submitting the appropo paperwork to the appropo authorities and get their blessing before posting on the showcase ?. this would be highly expensive for many musos who possibly cant afford the outlay of money…like the dirt poor muso example i gave.

frankly the whole topic baffles me…it sounds like a case of a no winner for the poor muso cited..
cos even if the poor muso has all the appropo sign offs
still a well funded entity making a claim has deep pockets for advisors etc…etc.

happiness.

om

Here’s evidence of a poor person not being in receipt of just rewards:

Seeking justice for Lion Sleeps Tonight composer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-55333535

<< I'm not a civil court judge, but I'd like to offer a settlement deal on the dispute between Henry Clarke and Mike Halloran. >>

There's no dispute. Mike Halloran misquoted Mr. Henry.

Looks like an old muso is caring about a poor muso.

Here're my answers.

Scenario 1
Maybe a poor muso should be more concerned about getting food than getting fame and money. If you can't sustain your life, what's the point of becoming famous?

I do this all the time. Going to TikTok Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and listen to their popular songs, and if the melody is good, I'll just take it and use it in my own songs. Of course, I will change a few notes here and there, fill with new lyrics, make a new BiaB backing, then it becomes a brand new song.

Scenario 2
Rule Number One: Never try to sue anybody. The time and money spent on litigation are not worth it.

Rule Number Two: By the time when you get sued, you already have the resource to reach a settlement. Nobody wants to sue you unless they know you have fame and money.

As to posting to the User Showcase forum, a simple publishing service provided by a distributor would suffice.

For 99.9% of the people in the muso community, the most important thing would be: "How can I get famous, so other people will be interested in suing me?"

. Like hell. Copy and paste does not misquote.



Tunecore does not publish and BMI does not “protect”. For that matter, neither does ASCAP and I worked there for years.

Okay. Copy/paste does not misquote. Here's a copy/paste from the Tunecore website....

Except for stating that TuneCore is a distributor and quoting that they are not a publisher, I have stuck to Copyright only.

Let’s save distribution for another thread.

. Like hell. Copy and paste does not misquote.[/quote]
I can if, as with your quote from me about 'some wizardry', you cut off half of what I said, leaving an incomplete and out of context extract that you then dispute.

Just saying.

There are many thousands of such examples, especially from the folk era. As well meaning as such articles are, this time to fix it was when “Paul Campbell” (the name that Pete Seeger, Lee Hays, Ronnie Gilbert and Fred Hellerman used for joint arrangements) registered the copyright for The Weavers—or renewed it 26 years later. Pete Seeger knew who Solomon Linda was. Some BMI registrations do properly credit him but most do not. Any music attorney could have fixed it with an inexpensive lawsuit back then which would have also applied to The Tokens’s recording—but no one ever did. It wasn’t till the late 1960s that anyone had a clue about the monies that could be recovered by such actions. Mr. Linda passed away in 1962. In many countries (incl. Australia), his copyrights expired in 2012; in the EU and USA, they expire 2032 making what would certainly be an expensive lawsuit fruitless.

Publishers are far more aware nowadays. It was Alan Klein who pretty much schooled the world while collecting back royalties for Bobby Vinton before setting his sights on the Stones, Beatles and both sides of “My Sweet Lord/He’s So Fine”.

The 1976 revision to the US Copyright law was designed to make it more difficult for such things to happen again. Not that it can’t happen but nearly every IP attorney since 1978 would recognize this as low hanging fruit were it to surface now.

I can if, as with your quote from me about 'some wizardry', you cut off half of what I said, leaving an incomplete and out of context extract that you then dispute.

Just saying.
[/quote]
Gordon,

You have a habit of making broad blanket statements that range between partially accurate and complete nonsense. I quoted one of those nonsense remarks about pitch correction and you are still howling about that?

Others would attempt to be more careful.

Putting ”Publishing” in the title doesn’t make it so—as I pointed out by quoting another page from Tunecore. I have also quoted extensively from the LOC.

Because some are apparently still confused on the issue, Tunecore has no ability to compel monies on behalf of any of their clients unless they, as publishers, have filed the proper forms with the LOC — that they clearly state they do not do.

BTW, I have also pointed out that the PROs are in the same boat. They cannot compel either. It is only the publishers who are able to sue. That both can collect money—and do—has nothing to do with this.

The OP was about Copyright and I have done my best to answer this.

What is your problem with that?

The bit you quoted was about polishing what one does, not about pitch correction per se, and this is the first time I've mentioned your out of context extract, so I'm hardly "still howling about it".


Edit: Hmm, actually I had mentioned it before. Once.
There's been a whole long discussion between-times about "straw man arguments".

LOL, I don't know if Tunecore publishes works or if they just pretend they do on the web. They're of no concern to me. I have no dealing with them in any fashion or form. I have music distributed world wide in a documentary and music played and mentioned by name in a scene in a movie that's also distributed world wide. I get my checks.

Look closely again at Mr. Henry's quote you've referenced and posted multiple times and see if you see where you replaced something he actually wrote with another word that doesn't have the same meaning and changes what he did say into what you're thinking he said.

Perhaps taking things out of context is why you think they're nonsense.

I would most certainly not suggest that few recordings over the last 60 years did not have pitch correction, which is what your response suggested I said.

Cyberic.

When I was v v young , my family and I lived in africa….
so thanks for the beeb article..v interesting.
thats an excellent song.

MV.

re…your comment re a poor muso.

well…maybe a poor muso sees music as a way to a better life for the family ?
some make it n' some dont sadly. i heard sooo much great music growing up in africa
that the wider world might not be aware of.

having had the benefit of discussions with music biz insiders , i have no interest in music
biz success. cos one loses one's private life from what ive been told.
i'm content with just having lots of fun creating songs for enjoyment and if other people like em' too that makes me v happy.

i DO WONDER whether people posting their song creations in the pg showcase should get advice before doing so ? I dunno.


happiness

om

LOL ... I appreciate you guys quoting or not quoting what I said but I've moved on from this and the forum. You guys have at it and have fun. I no longer have a dog in this fight ! :-)

Why bother with a few negative comments, when there are tons and tons of people on YouTube want to consume your content?

As I mentioned in my previous post, the only complaint people have on YouTube, is "why is Henry Clarke not making more amazing BiaB tutorials like this?"

To Henry, YouTube is a whole new world, where this forum is a hole new whirled.

... and most of those come from a small number of people who perhaps forget that communication by text can be a very blunt instrument indeed.

All the best Henry.

Words and phrases are also used differently in some locales and it can be a profound difference. A misread inflection or punctuation oversight can make a huge difference to interpretation.

I have a punctuation example I read recently that amuses me. YMMV,

I like cooking my wife and my children.
Commas save lives!

I'm not sure if this discussion is still relevant in the future ?
The problem with copyright is: how can something that is available in limited quantity be appropriated in any way?

In the meantime, 2 Americans, Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin, have published most of the melodies under a Creative Commons Zero license.
http://allthemusic.info/faqs/

All melody possibilities are calculated and published by an algorithm. The project is still ongoing, as far as I know.

Peter Burke did something similar only with chord progressions.
https://peterburk.github.io/chordProgressions/index.html

The download is a few gb of midis

Great idea, exactly my sense of humor. Thanks for the link.

Just curious Mike, could you share more to this story for us? I'm curious to know more and what song / artist this case pertained to. It does sound like quite the cautionary tale.




I've spoken to an attorney, but she didn't know the answer to this.

Could you explain a bit how the song gets registered separately as a PA and SR, and the uses for such separate registration? (Better licensing terms, protection, etc.)

I should be able to get to that later this week. Problem is that very few of us remember anymore and all I found on Justia is single paragraph—and it got the decade wrong.

That a music attorney doesn’t know the difference between PA and SR is troubling, indeed. It’s on the form SR. There is—or used to be—an excellent FAQ in the LOC on this. I’ll see if I can find the right link.

Not today, however.

Thanks Mike!

I believe the lawyer knew the difference between PA and SR, I should have elaborated more on the question - I was trying to figure out the benefits of registering each song separately, 1 PA registration and 1 SR registration for each song.

The reason being better licensing terms and such, in case a song does take off.

I'm still trying to understand that part of the music business - whether registering each song twice (once as PA, once as SR) can prevent headache, or provide much benefit, down the line.

I really don't understand the thought behind the OP's question.

Nobody is going to steal your songs.

Nobody is even going to listen to them.

They will be ignored as will the 3,000,000 other independant albums and EPs works published this year. You can put it on spotify and apple music, and pay someone to do that posting thing for you, and you might get between 100 and 1000 listens, who knows. You could spend some money on trying to get on playlists. You might be able to afford to buy 5000 listens. But your problems do not include any likelihood that Taylor Swift or someone big like her will steal your song and get a grammy with it.


W

That is a bleak outlook indeed. We are a couple of retirees who mostly hike/mountain bike and write/produce music strictly for fun.
However part of that fun has been getting 25+ songs (with BiaB tracks) licensed via Songtrader -- several by large worldwide companies. Another part of that fun has been being getting on Spotify user playlists and being placed on a SC editorial playlist. Income from it is marginal and inconsequential.

For us it simply nice to know that folks other than family and friends enjoy our productions.

No intent here to be braggadocio -- just pointing out that "Nobody is even going to listen to them" might be a bit of an overstatement.

FWIW, grains of salt, etc., etc.

Cheers

J&B

You can use an SR to register a PA Published for a single song—there's a box to check. The Rights Holder(s) must be the same. It does not work in reverse. If the Rights Holder(s) are different for the song and the sound recording, separate forms must be filed. Unless…

There are new rules for albums where the songs are released together that I've linked to already and they include artwork.

Multiple Unpublished Works can be registered on the same form. Again, I've covered this already.

I thought the same thing with creating a new product and patents. And here I am, 4 years in court later and down $150,000! Everyone said "no one will steal your idea, stop being paranoid, and just move forward".

Chances are: you're right. The songs will most likely cause ear pain and irritable bowel syndrome.

But I'm a believer in doing things right the first time. I'll be damned if I get jacked again for my hard work.

I don't care if chances are low. My intentions here are protecting my own work, in case it ever does go anywhere.

We need more artists to come out with their stories on how their songs were stolen. Because it happens a lot more than we hear about, it's just either those artists are silenced, or keep themselves silent out of embarrassment / pain / don't want to step on the wrong shoes and get blacklisted. I've heard a few anecdotes, but I'm confident @Mike Halloran has more stories.

I'm for the little guy protecting himself. Music Industry Corporate types want you to think it's a non-issue. If you're working hard at this, I saw it's worth paying a few bucks to protect yourself.

If doing it for fun... then sure, don't protect it. Depends on if you value your work or not.

At the end of the day it can be argued it's hard to prove infringement in the court of law and all that, but at least you give yourself a fighting chance. And prevent someone from blatantly ripping you off.

Thanks for your insight Janice and Bud.

And congrats on getting licensed and onto Spotify playlists! That is great to hear

Thanks Mike. I think my cost saving strategy will be as follows:

- GRUW (Group Registration of Unpublished Works) for 5-7 songs: $85
- Release each song as a single, one a month
- After 4 months, release an EP with 5-7 songs
- GRAM (Group Registration of an Album of Music) for those 5-7 songs, with album artwork: $65 x 2 (need to register Publishing (PA) and Master (SR) separately)

The disadvantage is that 2 or 3 of those songs will be "unprotected" (3 month from publication rule), until the GRAM is registered. Though this is most likely a non-issue.

The way I see it. If i spend several weeks grinding way at a song, even if it’s likely that it will never be an hit, after all that effort, for $45. I can fill out a copyright SR form online and upload the song. The entire process of filling out the form and uploading takes less than 20 minutes. From my perspective, it’s money well spent as long as I can afford it.

Always, always, always copyright them. I own copyrights for the added protection. The copyright office has retired lawyers to help you if you are infringed upon. I asked the same question in the forum some time ago, couldn't get straight answers, so I contacted one of the free attorneys and they told me to copyright everything before releasing it.

One time I met Kenny Loggins at a procedure that my mom was at. He said always hang on to your publishing and never give anybody a controlling share of your publishing because that's where the money's at. He said, that a publisher will work with you on a percentage basis if that's what you want to do. Then, they can have a share of your publishing but never give them the Lion's Share of it because they're the ones that are going to make the money off of it.

Everything is copyrighted once it is in tangible form. You are talking about registering with the LOC (in the US) and that is not the same thing as has been explained earlier in this thread.

Before releasing it, Registering on form PA Published, one song per form, is the only way to protect works that have been released — that's how it works.

The OP was asking about unpublished works and that question has been discussed a lot.


Excellent advice—if one is Kenny Loggins.

Neil Diamond kept his publishing, too, and there were many articles over the decades on how much more money he could have made had he given up control and let someone else exploit those works to their fullest potential.

My company just signed a new composer. I paid him a modest advance commensurate with the risk I am taking. There's no way we'll see a dime before Summer and, though we might see some money after Christmas. It's quite possible that the advance + the monies I paid when I commissioned the work 3 years ago is all he'll ever see. I am optimistic but it's still more than he will realize on his own. Monetizing his work is not a priority. I signed him to a non-exclusive deal—I publish the pieces I want but he is free to shop anything new. His performing schedule keeps him so busy that self-publishing is a non starter.

Regarding the "hold on to your publishing rights" thing....Theoretically absolutely yes you are leaving a lot of money on the table if you don't keep your publishing or at least a share of them. However, in the real world, only writers who have a string of successes (as in top 10 and number ones) are going to have the clout necessary to demand a share of the publishing. Those that are in this category have set up their own publishing companies which administer all or a portion of the publishing rights. Loggins is undoubtedly in that category. Writers such as myself, with a small amount of commercial material with publishers, are not. Our option is limited to "take the deal and sign it, or leave it".

Exactly right! Unless you are a pro in the music business actively building a career, paying to copyright your songs doesn't make much sense. But if you have the money and feel it is worth it then by all means go for it!

Since there are so many ways to make money in the music business without having hits, that nonsense is Exactly wrong!

Unfortunately, hits are how you might make the big $$$$$$, Copyright registrations are important in the fights against takedown notices, Brazilian and Russian copyright trolls and their bots, others monetizing your YouTube and other channels, licensing synchronization, dramatic and many other revenue streams. When a work is released, you have no rights to be paid without that Form PA Published. If you file that form after someone has stolen from you or placed an ad on your YouTube channel, they get to keep all monies paid before the registration date on that certificate — SCOTUS ruled on that nearly 5 years ago.

Professional grade sheet music is easily produced with NCH Crescendo.
Musical notation, Chord Progressions, and lyrics. Author and Copyright date at the bottom. The tune is easily rendered as WAV and/or Video with a touch of a button. MS Paint is handy for editing the sheet. Once the work has been printed with the C + Date, it is a legal copyright, courtesy of the digital age.
Now go ahead and tell me where I am all wet about this.
Honor We Thy Kingdom