Songwriter writes a song (music and lyrics). Artist performs and records song. Songwriter pays all studio and recording expenses. Who owns song? I assume the Songwriter holds the copywrite to the music and lyrics. How about the Artist’s recording? What if the rendition is eventually produced and marketed? Who is entitled to be compensated? What if Artist does not want the recording to be distributed? Any help appreciated! Thank you.
Cecil covered this in a column at one point, but I’m too lazy to search for it. In a nutshell:
Songwriter owns the rights to the song as well as the right to make the first recording. Every time a CD of the song is sold, or someone plays it on the radio, Songwriter gets a cut.
Artist owns the right to the recording. Every time a CD is bought, Artist gets a payment. Artist does not get a cut from radio play, which is for songwriters alone.
When you buy the CD, the Artist and the Songwriter get a cut.
Songwriter cannot prevent artist from recording the song, provided rights are paid to songwriter. One rare exception: if the songwriter didn’t record the song, he can deny first mechanical rights to anyone who tries to record it.
I’m not sure what you mean “if Artist doesn’t want the recording to be distributed.” If their record company releases the song, the Artist usually can’t stop them (it depends on their contract with the record company), but Artist will get paid by record company.
Cecil’s Column is:
RealityChuck hit the mail on the head. Quite accurate. One thing I’d like to add because I’m not sure if the OP was asking this or not.
When the OP asked: “Songwriter writes a song (music and lyrics). Artist performs and records song. Songwriter pays all studio and recording expenses.”
A songwirter may also hire musicians and singers to perform. If the songwriter, record producer or whoever, has the Artist sign a work for hire agreement and pays the Artist a fee for performing the song for the sake of the recording, then the Artist is entitled to no more than the fee. No royalties – nothing else! The Artist has no IP claims at all on the final product. That is the nature of a work for hire agreement. As long as they sign a little piece of paper that say it was a work for hire and they have been “paid in full for services rendered.”
In that case, the Artist aslo can’t prevent the recording from being released.
There is an excellent analogy that can be found at the glossary of this site. Just look up “work for hire” in the glossary.
What about satires of songs? For instance, Weird Al Yankovich makes a living doing nothing but. He did a polka version of Queens Bohemian Rhapsody. I know satire is allowable under law but does the satirist still have to pay royalties (or anything) to the original artist(s)/songwriter?
Whack-a-nole there was a recent thread on parodies (maybe a week ago?). Paradoies have some exemptions in American law. You can get the basics if you click on that glossary link I posted above and look up “parody.”
And FTR, Weird Al gets permission for the songs he uses and (I’m pretty sure) pays royalties for the use of compositions. Most artists are prudent and obtain licences for the music to avoid legal issues (it gets a little sticky when you use the music but just change the words to make a parody because you are still using the orginal musical composition – better safe than sorry and you lose only pennies per song).
Weird Al would pay around 7-8 cents per song for every CD sold. (I can’t remember the statutory rate in the U.S., right now – I think it’s 8 cents.)
Whack-a-Mole (sorry I typoed your name last time):