Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[J.J. Blair]

Fibes gets a LMAO for that one.

[rankus]

Eric Vincent wrote on Tue, 26 April 2005 10:29

Fibes wrote on Tue, 26 April 2005 14:34 TV and movie placement has made recouping easier in some regards, make sure you get a hand in that... That's actually at the top of my list, because on the last spec production I did, that wasn't in the contract, and I had to go back after the fact and try to finagle a deal with the artist's lawyer.

Yes, Perhaps a line that reads something like: (a share of) "All fore mentioned, foreseeable, and unforeseen revenues generated by, any and all commercial, and non commercial exploitation" of the material... Yadda Yadda Yadda

The CYA (cover yer ass) clause.

Another note:  Watch for anything in a contract that uses the term "not withstanding"  as this wording can negate all the text in a contract up to that point.... Lawyers just love this one ......(it's a legal "back door")   try to avoid at all costs (unless it is in your favour )

I am NOT a legal proffesional and offer this as conversation rather than advise!!!! (LOL)

[ted nightshade]

JJ, you finally made a reference that made me feel OLD...

[Mark Gifford]

Eric Vincent wrote on Mon, 25 April 2005 21:56

I did NO AUTOTUNING on this girl.

Not to hijack the thread, but does anyone remember when this was a prerequisite for a "singer," instead of a surprising bonus?

That said, I've done a few spec deals, never really expected to be paid for them, but several have paid off later, in paid work from the same client, or through referrals.

They're fun, too.

MG

[H2000]

When you produce on spec., you own the masters, but do you generally own the SR copyright? Or, is that split with the performers.

What if you are producer & performer (and funded recording) with a featured singer. Does that entitle the producer/performer to the full SR copyright? Or is it split, generally?

[rankus]

H2000 wrote on Thu, 28 April 2005 19:32

When you produce on spec., you own the masters, but do you generally own the SR copyright? Or, is that split with the performers. What if you are producer & performer (and funded recording) with a featured singer. Does that entitle the producer/performer to the full SR copyright? Or is it split, generally?

Clarification please:  "SR" Copyright?

[H2000]

There is the PA copyright for the song (writing) itself, then there is the SR copyright which is for the "sound recording". This can cover both the song and the recording, or can just cover the recording itself. This would protect you if someone took the actual recording and tried to use it in their own production.

I believe the SR copyright generally includes all performers unless they are paid studio musicians. And, at a minimum it would include the lead vocalist. But I was wondering if there were ever situations where the SR copyright was held solely by a producer or record company or something like that.

[wwittman]

I'm not an attorney and don;'t even play one on televisions...
but I wonder, if you claim to own the sound recording copyright, that is the sole owner of the masters, whether you're responsible for all related costs, including payments to musicians and the union and such.

I'd personally rather a simpler cleaner agreement as to how *I* get paid.
The band can be the record company.

[Curve Dominant]

H2000 wrote on Tue, 03 May 2005 17:47

I was wondering if there were ever situations where the SR copyright was held solely by a producer or record company or something like that.

I thought that was pretty much the norm.

Just to be clear in this contract, I actually stated that I own the SR until all expenses are paid for, at which point the ownership may be transferred to the artist. Since I'm a producer and not a record label (yet), I thought it was fair the artist should own the SR if she pays for them.

Her and I are very close to a deal, BTW. Thanks to all for the feedback and ideas, particularly Mr. Wittman, Ross and Fibes. The artist seems really comfortable with the agreement we have, and it covers my ass too.

[Curve Dominant]

Done deal, we signed the papers today.

THANX EVERYONE!

[rankus]

Eric Vincent wrote on Thu, 05 May 2005 19:09

Done deal, we signed the papers today. THANX EVERYONE!

Cool!~   Is there any way that you could let us have a look at the wording of your contract with the names removed of course?

This would be extremely helpfull to some of us....

PS:  Thanks for the "SR" clarification.... It's a "mechanical licence" then if I understand correctly.... Different terms here in Canada I think...

Best of luck on your deal!

[Curve Dominant]

rankus wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 22:56

Is there any way that you could let us have a look at the wording of your contract with the names removed of course?

Rick,

Unfortunately I can't because I have a policy of keeping business dealings with my clients confidential.

But if there are any general issues regarding contracts you'd like to ask about or discuss, I'm certainly up for that.

[rankus]

Eric Vincent wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 18:32

rankus wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 22:56 Is there any way that you could let us have a look at the wording of your contract with the names removed of course? Rick, Unfortunately I can't because I have a policy of keeping business dealings with my clients confidential. But if there are any general issues regarding contracts you'd like to ask about or discuss, I'm certainly up for that.

Thanks anyway Eric.  Generalities are what I have already.... I am looking for specific wording etc.

If anybody on the forum has specific "stock" contracts regarding producer/spec recording deals I would be very happy to trade for several of my stock contracts pertaining to indie label deals / spec deals..... I can email them to you in MS Word format or PDF....  Simply PM me ....

Thanks again Eric... it was worth a try... no hard feelings  

[Curve Dominant]

rankus wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 19:31

Eric Vincent wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 18:32 rankus wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 22:56 Is there any way that you could let us have a look at the wording of your contract with the names removed of course? Rick, Unfortunately I can't because I have a policy of keeping business dealings with my clients confidential. But if there are any general issues regarding contracts you'd like to ask about or discuss, I'm certainly up for that. Thanks anyway Eric.  Generalities are what I have already.... I am looking for specific wording etc. If anybody on the forum has specific "stock" contracts regarding producer/spec recording deals I would be very happy to trade for several of my stock contracts pertaining to indie label deals / spec deals..... I can email them to you in MS Word format or PDF....  Simply PM me .... Thanks again Eric... it was worth a try... no hard feelings

Rick,

It WAS worth a try, so let's try again. I got your PM, and I think we should address your questions and concerns on the forum. You also indicated in your PM what your primary issue was, and that's a good subject to discuss as well. In fact that's a BIG issue, maybe THE PRIMARY issue, not to mention a very interesting issue, which goes beyond specific language in a contract, but can also include that language.

What I'm saying is: I can get specific about contract language, but can't discuss it on this thread because of the percieved inference to my clients. Is that a good enough hint?

So Rick, you should start a NEW thread titled something like, "How Not To Scare Potential Clients With Contracts" or something to that effect, and we can start fresh. Seriously, I would love to discuss this and share my experiences and views, but seperated from this thread and any inference to my clients. And we can get specific about contract language too.

Sound good? Yeah? OK, good, now start that new thread, my good brother.

[rankus]

Hi Eric,

Thank you for great advise.  Done!