Not "owning" music composed/recorded with other people.

[Erlend_G]

Well..

I have here, for example- one very nice track; that is composed, recorded and produced, by me and *colleague*. (who is a professional musician, great artist...)

But I can't share it, (only play it in discresion, lol, to close friends at home), because *colleguae* has told me clearly not to- play this recording to anyone. And absolutely not put it out on soundclick, or internet.

I don't blame anyone, and I completely respect and understand the "issue"...

But I think it's kinda sad though; because it is a great piece of music, that I'd love for the world to hear. And I wish my friend wouldn't be so stubborn.


Thinking about this, I realize I need to be aware of working 100% solo, and using purely original material- on the debut album I am dreaming of recording.

Rock on!

-Erl

[DavidRavenMoon]

If you are co-writer you are co-owner of the song.

Over the past four years I was writing songs with a singer/lyricist. She also came up with many of her own vocal parts. We recorded an album’s worth of songs together.

When we stopped working together recently I decided I didn’t want her playing the music I wrote… she had no input into the music. So I copyrighted all the music without her vocals and removed any trace of it online.

Because she had the legal right to perform those songs as co writer.

But I think that’s a slightly different situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alex1fly]

Sounds like BS to me. Heck, it's art, and should be shared and enjoyed. Your biggest risk is simply pissing off your colleague. I'd try to find out why - is he hoping to make money off the piece? Is he embarrassed of the music? Only in semi-professional recording settings have I ever been instructed not to share music... but those had a clearly defined goal of the artist trying to "make it big".

[Erlend_G]

Well, he's kinda wierd; took his previous music down from Facebook, because "all the comments I got , with people saying it was good- is just pure bull****!" and. "I'd never make music to impress other people",

I guess we did the recording just for fun, as a personal memory.

He has recorded two CD's though, but has no interest of showing it off to anyone. Except family, and me, who is a close friend.

[alex1fly]

I kind of get that. I showed some of my new looper tunes to some acquaintances last night. They're the first to hear them. They loved it! And I know they're great tunes too! But just getting the compliments makes me feel weird. Like I would rather people listen and say nothing than give any feedback. It's not logical.

[beaubrummels]

In the United States, 30 seconds or less is considered "fair use". Also using < 30 second portions in a derivative work is legal. Advisable to credit all authors.

[Erlend_G]

Seems like many bohemican artists are kinda... quirky in some day

[solspirit]

I do I do believe that unless he's copyrighted it you can feel free to use until he does, but you also run the risk of it getting stolen and being copyrighted by someone else.

[beaubrummels]

In the U.S., copyright is implicit even if you don't formally apply for copyright protection. Publishing it publicly under a name and a verifiable date is enough to make the case, or at least prevent someone else from being able to claim it. But the laws vary from country to country.

[alex1fly]

It sounds like OP is being forbidden to even play it on his phone for somebody. To me that's not really in the realm of copyrights, publishing, rights, all that. It's a little extreme and inappropriate IMO and the only real risk is of OP pissing off his buddy.

There's also some bit about copyrights applying more heavily to lyrics than to music, which is why there are a billion songs out there with a 1-4-5 progression. Another reason why, if this is an instrumental, I wouldn't worry one bit about sharing it online or playing it for friends/family. If his buddy is dead set on trying to copyright/license/publish/profit, he should be up front with OP since it's a collaboration, and OP would be entitled to a share of the profits. But that's really getting deep into it, and I'd bet money that OP simply wants to share some tunes he worked on and the collaborator is a bit nutty... end of story.

[TwilightOdyssey]

It's not about who wrote the song, it's about who owns the publishing. If you own a % of the publishing, you can re distribute it as you please, unless your publishing agreement says otherwise.

[NegativeEase]

In the U.S., copyright is implicit even if you don't formally apply for copyright protection. Publishing it publicly under a name and a verifiable date is enough to make the case, or at least prevent someone else from being able to claim it. But the laws vary from country to country.

while true, definitely don't rely on this method as your only protection.

[beaubrummels]

while true, definitely don't rely on this method as your only protection.

Agreed. Patents are worse. The 1-year clock starts ticking from the moment of publication to either apply for protection or forever give it up.

[NegativeEase]

Agreed. Patents are worse. The 1-year clock starts ticking from the moment of publication to either apply for protection or forever give it up.

Oh man, yeah patents are the hardest. most people don't realize that the submitter of the patent application has to do all of the immense work, research, and paperwork to ensure their product is original or derivative enough to reach patent status -NOT the patent office (most people assume the patent office does the getting the patent paperwork and research leg work done)