From the website - "To register both the sound recordings and the musical (or other) works contained on the sound recordings, select “Sound Recording” - it seems if you use SOUND RECORDING you are also copyrighting the song, not just the recording, whereas if you use WORK OF PERFORMING ARTS, you are only copyrighting the song. I have a song where the performance was really really good but my main goal is to copyright the song. I'm guessing use SOUND RECORDING to have both the song and the recording copyrighted? Is that right?
The way I understand it, yes, you are correct. In summary, this is the way I understood it: * Registering ONLY "Music and/or Lyrics" (Musical work) = Choose “Work of the Performing Arts” * Registering ONLY “Sound Recording” = Choose “Sound Recording” * Registering both “Sound Recording” and "Music and/or Lyrics" (Musical work) = Choose “Sound Recording” This is directly from the United States Copyright Office: If you select "Work of the Performing Arts" which includes the following: * A musical work, such as a song (with or without lyrics) * A dramatic work, such as a screenplay or script * A choreographic work * A pantomime A “musical work” (such as a song) and a particular recording of that song are two separate works. A musical work consists of the music and/or lyrics (either in printed or audio form). A recording of a particular performance of a song is a “sound recording.” Here are the options the website gives you if you choose "Work of the Performing Arts" in the "Type of Work" dropdown: If you are registering only the musical work (such as music and/or lyrics) select “Work of the Performing Arts”. If you are registering only the “sound recording” select “Sound Recording” If you are registering both the musical work and the recorded performance of that work, select “Sound Recording”. Note: A musical work (such as music and/or lyrics) and the recorded performance of that work may be registered together ONLY IF (i) the author(s) named in the application contributed to both works, or (ii) the copyright claimant owns all rights in both works through a written transfer of copyright. So yes, from my understanding, if you choose "Sound Recording" you are registering both the musical work (such as music and/or lyrics) the actual sound recording. When you select "Sound Recording" in the drop-down you get similar information: If you are ONLY registering a musical work (such as music and/or lyrics) and if you are NOT registering the recorded performance of that work, select “Work of the Performing Arts” (regardless of whether the work is fixed in printed or audio form). If you are registering BOTH a musical work and the recorded performance of that work, select “Sound Recording”. Likewise, select “Sound Recording” if you are registering BOTH a textual work and the recorded performance of that work. So in other words: * Registering ONLY "Music and/or Lyrics" (Musical work) = Choose “Work of the Performing Arts” * Registering ONLY “Sound Recording” = Choose “Sound Recording” * Registering both “Sound Recording” and "Music and/or Lyrics" (Musical work) = Choose “Sound Recording” It also says: Note: A musical work (such as music and/or lyrics) or a textual work (such as a lecture, sermon, or book) and the recorded performance of that work may be registered with one application ONLY (i) if the author(s) named in the application contributed to both works, or (ii) if the copyright claimant owns all rights in both works through a written transfer of copyright.
If a song is composed by one team and performed for the first time by someone else, are the composers still the only ones who get any money from AM/FM airplay? Or is this specifically when a song is recorded for the second (3rd, etc.) time? I mean, Sinatra and Elvis, for example, had enormous airplay, but didn't write most of their songs. Did they get no money for the airplay?
Maybe I missed it what I'm trying to figure out is the sound recording considered a complete work protection meaning is it completely protected with just the sound recorder
The sound recording would be copyrighted by and for the record label and sometimes the artist who recording the composition. When an artist gets to own there own master recording, they can make good money from that. Especially with know label involved. So yes. The SR is considered complete. And ready to sell and play.
Nope. The SR is exclusively for the specific recording. You need a PA for the actual lyrics/instrumental. The PA is what gives you control over covers and stuff
@@ChelseaAlandra Check the terms of your lease agreement. Chances are it will stipulate in there how much of the % of the sound recording is owned by the original beat maker. Because they contributed to "writing" the song by providing the beat, and in a sense they are also a performer with you on the sound recording.
If you lease a beat. You’re basically using the harmony and rhythm for the SONG (lyrics and melody) to sit on. In hip hop. It’s a little different because rappers are lyricist and the melody is played by an instrument in the track that you lease. So you own half of the song. If you keep remembering that a song is the written words and melody. And everything else written around or to that is called arranging or writing an arrangement for the song. Everything makes sense. Myself being a producer and engineer. I understand that if I create a track with just harmony and rhythm tracks, without a melody and lyrics. I don’t have a song for the background music yet. You can arrange a song to a lot of different background music. Like a song with a string section, horn section or rhythm section, or a whole orchestra. Think of a band. The lead singer sings the actual song. The melody and lyrics. But the band plays the harmony and rhythmic instruments. So now it’s a fully arranged song. And just because someone writes the music for the drums, bass, keyboards and guitar parts. Doesn’t mean they’re a music producer. They are a rhythm arranger or just simply the arranger of the accompanying music.
Thank you very much for this "series" of videos about copyright. I have a question though (it might be a dumb one, but ok). Is it possible/worth/smart to copyright a demo recording of a song you wrote with a professional copyright institution, just so you can protect it? The thing is, I wrote a bunch of songs in the past years but I cannot afford (yet) to go into a studio and record them with a good sound quality, so I end up not releasing any of the songs because I only have home made recordings and It doesn't feel moraly correct to try to sell home made demos (mind you that I also have no studio at home). Another thing is that some of those songs I wrote are intended to be pitched to other artists.. should I copyright them first before trying to pitch them? I'm a little bit confused about this. Thank you very much in advance!
So is it fair to say that one is the "Intellectual Property Copyright" (The initial idea) and the "Recording Copyright", the copyrights of use of the musical composition as a whole?
So if I wrote and played a song to post on RU-vid but wanted to protect myself completely would I need two registrations? One for Performing and one for Sound? thanks in Advance!
thank you for the information,E.Micheal.... so what i understand one has to need two seperate copyright one for song and one for sound recording..its not possible to get copyright for song and sound recording just getting copyright for sound recording....last but not least what about instrumental work do they need the same....thanks...
@@ctnicetune141 I think SOUND RECORDING actually covers both - "To register both the sound recordings and the musical (or other) works contained on the sound recordings, select “Sound Recording" - thats from the sound recording qualifiers.
Hello, I recorded 8 songs all original but in standard blues formats 12 bar stuff with my band at the time I paid all the costs but did not have the band sign release forms a year later the drummer told me i could no longer use his drum parts so we had them taken out and replayed now he says I've broken copyright laws for removing his parts??? help please
That seems messy. :/ Hopefully you have got this sorted out by now since I'm replying to your comment over a year later. And if not, I hope you've already gotten proper legal advice by speaking with an attorney who specializes in intellectual property law. You definitely need actual legal help in this kind of situation and not just the thoughts of random commentators here on RU-vid. But as a general rule of thumb for anyone else reading my reply, this is why bands need to have written contracts and release forms crafted by lawyers to prevent these kinds of copyright headaches from happening. I realize that bands are a lot more interested in making and performing music than proactively dealing with the legal side of the music business, but your comment proves why doing so is necessary.
You said you paid all the costs but did not have the band sign release forms. Are they on the split sheets? Is the drummer listed as a songwriter on the copyright registration, or when you filed the songs with your PRO? Anywhere at all, or was it just a "gentleman's agrement"? While you drummer still owns a piece of the song, and actually may have grounds to say how the song can and can't be used (particularly the recording), who's side the law falls on largely depends on if your paperwork is in order.
