Confidentiality of ProTools Files and Settings

[newburysound]

I've spent over 20 years developing my chops as an engineer, the last 6 using ProTools exclusively. I've come up with MANY personal plug-in settings, track assignment and nifty moves utilizing my long-cultivated expertise, that make my services unique. I'm not stating I'm the best engineer on the planet, but I am well-respected for my work with many long-term clients and work with ongoing projects with them from start to finish without the files ever leaving my studio. Sometimes I''ll get client files coming in to do additional work and often notice the abysmal level of engineering represented with them. When it comes time for these short-term clients to leave the studio with a completed project mix file, I explain to them that I'll provide them with the raw audio files, processed with plug-in efects, bounced out and zeroed-out for easy cueing to a new PT file elsewhere. I won't provide them with the actual PT project file which contains proprietary engineering data on how I achieved those sonic characteristics. I do, however, save their files in my library if they want to return. Some clients understand, some don't, but I stick to my guns about it. My justification is that within that PT file, I've embedded all my personal settings and moves that a competing engineer can cop - be they competitive pros or neophytes. I don't think I'm being paranoid here, as I know that when I first stared out on PT many years ago, I used to do that very same thing when presented with an accomplished engineer's project file to work on. I would go over it with a fine-toothed comb to cop any ideas that created a great-sounding audio track. This is something unique in the digital age, given that back in the analog days, it would have been ludicrous to provide a client with a complete roadmap of all the engineering manevers used on an analog project which a competitor could appropriate. I'm curious to hear back from other experienced users facing the same dilemma.

[Shawn Simpson]

I have the same opinion of giving out the files after a mix is complete. I generally supply the bounced files and a number of versions, plus stems of whatever elements they want. On the other hand, it's not unreasonable for a client to expect to own the work they hired you to do. Back in the analog days, we always saved recall documents of everything in the studio. That included the desk, the patchbay, and every single piece of equipment we were using. The goal was to be able to put the same tape on, calibrate it, and recall the entire mix. It only worked to about 75-80% most of the time, but it was a start. All of this documentation had to be turned in with the project to the label. Of course, if a project wasn't funded by a label, then we would just keep the notes on hand in case they came back.

Since a Pro Tools session is completely recallable as long as the plug-ins are present, we're dealing with much more opportunity to get your techniques stolen. Plug-in settings don't bother me too bad since EQ and compression are completely dependant on the source sound to really work. But signal routing and other engineering things are a bit more touchy.

This is an interesting discussion to have. I sort of sit the fence on it, but I also have very low self-esteem and can't imagine why anybody would want to steal my techniques. The thing that bothers me the most is that some low-rent dude could take my session (my mix) and make a couple of tiny changes, then claim it as his. On the flip side, I'd hate to have somebody make tweaks to my mix without my knowledge and STILL put my name on it! I guess that's why I just don't give out the mix documents. I archive them myself, but I give the client back exactly what they gave me in terms of session files and I give them bounces and stems of their project. I've not had a major problem with a client yet, knock on wood.

[soundguydave]

I think your being paranoid. The money you'll lose by alienating those clients by not giving them what they request will far outweigh the money you lose by some engineer stealing your plugin settings. The way I look at it, is those setting and methods are your style. If I received your protools file, unless I saw some ground breaking new technique that revolutionized the way I worked, I would stick to my style.

[PTUser NYC]

I agree. When you are hired to provide a recording service, common practice says to deliver all the components.

If you want to work your own way, that's up to you of course. However, you said:

When it comes time for these short-term clients to leave the studio with a completed project mix file, I explain to them that I'll provide them with the raw audio files, processed with plug-in efects, bounced out and zeroed-out for easy cueing to a new PT file elsewhere. I won't provide them with the actual PT project file which contains proprietary engineering data on how I achieved those sonic characteristics. I do, however, save their files in my library if they want to return.

I think the time to explain your non standard operating procedure is at the BEGINNING, before they pay and you work. Afterwards is completely inappropriate in my view. I for one would be very angry, and depending on the value of the project, I could easily see taking legal action.

If you simply point out your intentions before the deal is made, then that's entirely valid. I don't think I'd choose to work with you, but that's my loss.

Note to self: Newbury Sound...

[newburysound]

I think your being paranoid. The money you'll lose by alienating those clients by not giving them what they request will far outweigh the money you lose by some engineer stealing your plugin settings. The way I look at it, is those setting and methods are your style. If I received your protools file, unless I saw some ground breaking new technique that revolutionized the way I worked, I would stick to my style.

To a neophyte who's charging chump change for his services, anything that sounds good is revolutionary. It is not any one revolutionary event but a series of decisions that create a full-dimensional, full-resolution product - the result of having spent many, many hours of experimentation over many, many years. Besides, I'm not worried about my dedicated clients, only the occasional self-described engineer/client type low-budgeteers, who wouldn't think twice about booking a few hours to cop some ideas. I notice it is they who attempt to engage me in discussions detailing how-and-why techniques which I politely decline to participate in.

[newburysound]

"I think the time to explain your non standard operating procedure is at the BEGINNING, before they pay and you work. Afterwards is completely inappropriate in my view. I for one would be very angry, and depending on the value of the project, I could easily see taking legal action"

I do make that declaration in the beginning, but of course in never sinks in and to provide the client with a signed copy of same might only serve to alienate them before they even get in the door. The majority have no problem with it, since they're getting what they paid for - a professional mix with it's raw but processed constituent parts in the event they want to do additional work elsewhere.

"I for one would be very angry, and depending on the value of the project, I could easily see taking legal action"

Then you're exactly the type of engineer/client I'd be wary of!

[EGS]

I think this is a bit on the paranoid side. The knowledge of art and science should be shared, and the request of a client should be honored. I give my clients WHATEVER they ask for. You are, of course, free to treat your clients as you wish. If I was your client, I might have a bad taste in my mouth about this. Top pros have been spilling their "secrets" for years, and doing so did not put them out of business, either. What exactly is it that you are concerned will happen to you? I'm going to go watch a Charles Dye video now... My 2 cents.

[newburysound]

I'm going to go watch a Charles Dye video now... My 2 cents.

Yeah, the video that was represented as a training device and for which Charles Dye was handsomely compensated for, I presume - a meeting of the minds that resulted in a specific transaction. You didn't hire him as an engineer to work on your project, but a trainer by virtue of purchasing his video series which he willingly offerered up. I make no such representation when I'm hired as an engineer that I would tell you what I did to achieve the end result, only that you would be presented with the final enhanced product and would be able to take it from that point on at someone else's facility should you want to.

[PTUser NYC]

"I think the time to explain your non standard operating procedure is at the BEGINNING..."

I do make that declaration in the beginning, but of course in never sinks in and to provide the client with a signed copy of same might only serve to alienate them before they even get in the door. The majority have no problem with it, since they're getting what they paid for - a professional mix with it's raw but processed constituent parts in the event they want to do additional work elsewhere.

"I for one would be very angry, and depending on the value of the project, I could easily see taking legal action"

Then you're exactly the type of engineer/client I'd be wary of!

You're trying to have it both ways.

I said that anything you like is fine as long as you say it up front and everyone agrees. If you agree with that, then intimating that I'm the kind of client you'd "be wary of" is silly.

The fact is that you originally said that you bring it up at the end of the session, and that IS grounds for a lawsuit in my book. If you don't bring it up at the end, then we agree, so why am I trouble? Because I dared to criticize you?

I'll add that there is no way anyone should pay for a mix, and not be able to do a recall with tweaks later - without you if they choose. You have to understand that mixing is a work for hire, at best there can be some points, but in no case does the mixer own and license the mix.

I think that to intentionally disable this ability in order to hide your precious engineering tricks is just crap. Anyone reading this, any newbie looking for advice - don't hire someone who won't let you take the session home - its YOUR song for gosh sakes.

I don't mean to be gratuitously rude, but you've really rubbed me the wrong way with this post. Yuck.

This board is all about helping people learn about PT and engineering. I've spent many many hours helping people understand what they're doing. I'd guess you've learned things from other people too. I'd bet anything that you don't employ a single technique that isn't in use by some other engineers - you didn't invent it, why try to keep it away from the next gen?

You gotta help people dude, this is MUSIC, and life and all that good stuff.

[Kenny Gioia]

Honestly I see both sides of this argument.

We're in the age of real total recall and it is possible to get screwed.

For instance. Let's say a client hires me to mix their song.

We agree on a price and I also ask for a point on the back end.

Client agrees.

I mix it totally ITB and I give them the master.

They decide that they're not happy with my mix and decide to open up the file I gave them and they tweak around a bit.

They like their results and credit themselves as the mixer.

Did I lose my mix point?

But on the other hand, I don't hold onto my tricks so tightly.

In fact, they're available for free. (See my sig)

The way I look at it is, if the label wants someone else to mix my productions, it's because of one of two things:

1. They want a name mixer on there. And if that mixer wants to use my mix. Great. I liked it too. We all got what we wanted. I did lose a mix point though. But if it helps MY record get pushed. Yay team.

2. They didn't like my mix. In which case, my mix will be pretty useless to the other mixer. Although some of it may be helpful. Which is a good thing. We're on the same team.

It definitely strikes a nerve that you admittedly steal ideas from other mixers yet are unwilling to share those ideas with others.

Oh well.

May Karma smile on you.