[DrFord]

Karl,
If you refer back to the article, owning the masters is not related to owning the copyright / performance / songwriting / publishing. They are seperate issues. If these recordings get you a record deal, fantastic. You don't HAVE to release them for sale. Fair use dictates you can release them for marketing purposes only, and as long as you don't make a single penny, you don't owe a single penny. If you don't want to fairly compensate the actual owner of the masters fairly before or after the recording... then don't. Re-Record everything with your new record deal.


This topic is very important for musician's / artists / composers. Because owning the masters comes down to paying for the studio time. If you finance the studio time, then the person who pays the bills is the executive producer and owns the master recording. As Bob Ohlsson mentioned, in today's record industry, labels typically don't purchase Master recordings, they will lease them for a set time from the owner of the masters.

This is why in the current state of the industry, it can be more beneficial for the artist to finance their own production costs, and let the label pay for marketing and distribution. They will make this money back (hopefully) on the sale of CDs / downloads / ringtones / merchandise..


Just know that as a composer myself, these are very important issues, because I understand all of the hard work we as artists put into each project. If a studio sponsors your recordings for free... no cost for studio time, understand that unless you get a waiver in writing that the studio "waives rights to any master recordings" the cost to operate the studio gives the ownership of the masters to the studio.

Where this can hurt, it can also help. I own a Pro Tools HD based studio. I have often invited artists and musicians to record at my studio just because I wanted to record them. The countless hours of hard work, the years of study we spend learning and perfecting our craft, must be legally compensated. An artist who records on your $50,000 rig, and gets lucky enough to be signed by a label needs to compensate you... the reason they got signed (because of your belief in their talent and your investment of time / equipment) is because we gave them product. If they go ahead and allow our recordings to be sold without compensating us, then we have legal protection because of our investment.

It is highly recommend that all projects above the "demo" line should have contracts / agreements to solidify everything. I have engineered orchestral recordings and the producer had every single player sign a "work for hire" agreement, including each engineer (I was 2nd.) This is just good business, and accepted trade practice.

Now, as you are in the U.K. everything I have quoted MAY NOT APPLY to you. I know NOTHING about international laws, and I know NOTHING about European laws.

I strongly recommend you take the time to research as I have done, compile as I have done, and learn the absolute laws, codes, and rights you have in your own country as both an artist and as a studio owner.

My point of this article is to educate, and to help everyone who reads it prepare their own success by acquiring "Work for hire agreements" or "waiver of rights." These two documents can really help us all protect ourselves.

Doc