Is this an infringement of my copyright?
June 16, 2010 4:06 PM Subscribe
Former bandmate has posted clips from a rehearsal tape of my songs. Is he allowed to without my permission?
YANML, but I'd appreciate some advice from anyone that might know anything about music copyright law.
I play in a band. One of our bandmembers left the band (the way these things go. It didn't end well - we no longer speak).
I recently noticed that he'd put clips of an old band rehearsal tape on his website, as an example of his talents as a musician. He used the band's name, and the name of the track.
I wouldn't mind so much, except that 1) I am the sole writer and publisher of the songs and 2) they sounds really awful and were never intended for public consumption and 3) he's been kind of a dick ever since leaving the band.
The only complication might be that the rehearsals were recorded on his laptop, so in theory he owns the bootleg recording. But my understanding is bootlegs can't be used legally without the writer's permission. Also, he performs on the song, and there was no formal band agreement at the time about his role in the band, though I do own the copyright to the songs.
I clearly need a lawyer. But in the meantime, I wanted to canvas opinion from the brillant hivemind.
YANML, but I'd appreciate some advice from anyone that might know anything about music copyright law.
I play in a band. One of our bandmembers left the band (the way these things go. It didn't end well - we no longer speak).
I recently noticed that he'd put clips of an old band rehearsal tape on his website, as an example of his talents as a musician. He used the band's name, and the name of the track.
I wouldn't mind so much, except that 1) I am the sole writer and publisher of the songs and 2) they sounds really awful and were never intended for public consumption and 3) he's been kind of a dick ever since leaving the band.
The only complication might be that the rehearsals were recorded on his laptop, so in theory he owns the bootleg recording. But my understanding is bootlegs can't be used legally without the writer's permission. Also, he performs on the song, and there was no formal band agreement at the time about his role in the band, though I do own the copyright to the songs.
I clearly need a lawyer. But in the meantime, I wanted to canvas opinion from the brillant hivemind.
A) Seems like if you own the copyright, you can force him to pull this down.
B) But if you do, seems like a total dick move. Nobody is going to hear this if it sounds so crappy, and it's unlikely to be much of a representation of your music going forward.
I'd suggest letting bygones be bygones instead of involving lawyers and the DMCA here.
posted by jenkinsEar at 4:26 PM on June 16, 2010
B) But if you do, seems like a total dick move. Nobody is going to hear this if it sounds so crappy, and it's unlikely to be much of a representation of your music going forward.
I'd suggest letting bygones be bygones instead of involving lawyers and the DMCA here.
posted by jenkinsEar at 4:26 PM on June 16, 2010
Not a nice situation.
Might seem hard, but I'd ignore it. If it sounds awful, it won't propagate. People hurry to tell each other about music they love. They generally don't remember music they do not love, and they don't tell anyone else about it either. As such, if these recordings are as bad as you say, they'll be buried and forgotten pdq. Pride aside, you'd be wasting money trying to get it removed by legal means, and it's not guaranteed you'd win.
You don't say where you are from so I'm not sure of the legal specifics in your jurisdiction. IANAL, but I am a musician and as far as I am aware (I could be wrong), here in the UK, recordings are owned by whoever paid for the recording to take place. So if a studio gives you a free recording session, they own the recording. If you pay them, you do. In this case it looks like a bit of a grey area. If no-one's making money from the recordings - doesn't look like anyone is - it should be moot.
But. Looking up the section on 'partnerships' in the Musician's Union handbook (page 51 on in the 2010 edition) it's scary reading - in the absence of any written partnership agreement, bands are apparently deemed to fall under the aegis of the Partnership Act 1890, which can lead to some counter-intuitive legal consequences in terms of who owns what. This includes all music equipment owned by any individual band member becoming joint property and includes the ability of any member leaving to force an official winding up of the partnership and distribution of all joint assets.
If you're in the UK, or anywhere else with similiar laws, this is even more reason not to go to law. You have nothing to gain and possibly a lot to lose.
posted by motty at 4:30 PM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Might seem hard, but I'd ignore it. If it sounds awful, it won't propagate. People hurry to tell each other about music they love. They generally don't remember music they do not love, and they don't tell anyone else about it either. As such, if these recordings are as bad as you say, they'll be buried and forgotten pdq. Pride aside, you'd be wasting money trying to get it removed by legal means, and it's not guaranteed you'd win.
You don't say where you are from so I'm not sure of the legal specifics in your jurisdiction. IANAL, but I am a musician and as far as I am aware (I could be wrong), here in the UK, recordings are owned by whoever paid for the recording to take place. So if a studio gives you a free recording session, they own the recording. If you pay them, you do. In this case it looks like a bit of a grey area. If no-one's making money from the recordings - doesn't look like anyone is - it should be moot.
But. Looking up the section on 'partnerships' in the Musician's Union handbook (page 51 on in the 2010 edition) it's scary reading - in the absence of any written partnership agreement, bands are apparently deemed to fall under the aegis of the Partnership Act 1890, which can lead to some counter-intuitive legal consequences in terms of who owns what. This includes all music equipment owned by any individual band member becoming joint property and includes the ability of any member leaving to force an official winding up of the partnership and distribution of all joint assets.
If you're in the UK, or anywhere else with similiar laws, this is even more reason not to go to law. You have nothing to gain and possibly a lot to lose.
posted by motty at 4:30 PM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
We don't know where you live or other extremely pertinent facts.
My only opinion, and IANYL/TINLA, is don't do anything until you consult with a lawyer.
posted by sallybrown at 4:42 PM on June 16, 2010
My only opinion, and IANYL/TINLA, is don't do anything until you consult with a lawyer.
posted by sallybrown at 4:42 PM on June 16, 2010
If you are in the US, the composer(s) hold copyright. So, you.
However, this dude appears to hold title to the sound recording, so you can't stop him from using it. But what you can do is enforce the statutory royalty.
I think.
Start reading here, and let your head boggle at the complexity.
What's interesting is that despite all the complaining of the anti-RIAA people, the US copyright setup seems to give the public wide latitude in using music. Just not for free.
posted by gjc at 4:50 PM on June 16, 2010
However, this dude appears to hold title to the sound recording, so you can't stop him from using it. But what you can do is enforce the statutory royalty.
I think.
Start reading here, and let your head boggle at the complexity.
What's interesting is that despite all the complaining of the anti-RIAA people, the US copyright setup seems to give the public wide latitude in using music. Just not for free.
posted by gjc at 4:50 PM on June 16, 2010
Also, it looks like there is a big difference whether he is making it available as a downloadable file (mechanical) or streaming audio (performance).
posted by gjc at 4:51 PM on June 16, 2010
posted by gjc at 4:51 PM on June 16, 2010
Some of the differences between answers above (e.g. "he owns the copyright"/"you're the composer") come from the fact that there are several copyright works involved. The video is a copyright work. The song is a copyright work (music and lyrics: in some countries, these are separate works, in others, they are part of a single copyright work). In some countries the live performance is a copyright work, in addition to the music, the lyrics, the video and the sound recording forming part of the video. You get the picture.
All of these works may have different ownership. Distributing the video requires permission of the copyright owner of each work, in a nutshell. So it's messy, and not made any easier by the absence of any formal agreement as to each band member's role.
Since I'm not your lawyer and may have no expertise at all in whatever jurisdiction you're living in, that's about all that can be said. The likelihood is that he is infringing copyright in e.g. the song as a musical work (i.e. lyrics and music), but you need advice if you want to push this issue formally.
posted by pines at 5:01 PM on June 16, 2010
All of these works may have different ownership. Distributing the video requires permission of the copyright owner of each work, in a nutshell. So it's messy, and not made any easier by the absence of any formal agreement as to each band member's role.
Since I'm not your lawyer and may have no expertise at all in whatever jurisdiction you're living in, that's about all that can be said. The likelihood is that he is infringing copyright in e.g. the song as a musical work (i.e. lyrics and music), but you need advice if you want to push this issue formally.
posted by pines at 5:01 PM on June 16, 2010
1. I'd suggest letting bygones be bygones instead of involving lawyers and the DMCA here.
2. Might seem hard, but I'd ignore it.
Just wanted to reiterate these two points.
I clearly need a lawyer
Only if you have established brand recognition to protect. And by established, I mean you sell thousands of copies of your albums, and you tour extensively, and your music is your livelihood. Otherwise, getting lawyer over this way, way melodramatic.
Another way of thinking about this situation is this: you send him a nice note. A genuinely nice note. Be apologetic that shit got crazy at band practice. Be self-deprecating. Diffuse the tension entirely, even if that means eating a very small shit sandwhich for for a minute. Mention the tracks, and how you feel it might make the band look bad becuase they are crappy recordings and that makes you feel weird because you're working toward making the band sound good. Explain there is added weirdness because you two not talking, and you want to make things right. You can turn this potentially confrontational and ugly situation into a win-win if you go in with a positive attitude. He understands why you want the tracks down, and it also opens up a dialog that can save your friendship.
Just an idea.
posted by archivist at 6:35 PM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
2. Might seem hard, but I'd ignore it.
Just wanted to reiterate these two points.
I clearly need a lawyer
Only if you have established brand recognition to protect. And by established, I mean you sell thousands of copies of your albums, and you tour extensively, and your music is your livelihood. Otherwise, getting lawyer over this way, way melodramatic.
Another way of thinking about this situation is this: you send him a nice note. A genuinely nice note. Be apologetic that shit got crazy at band practice. Be self-deprecating. Diffuse the tension entirely, even if that means eating a very small shit sandwhich for for a minute. Mention the tracks, and how you feel it might make the band look bad becuase they are crappy recordings and that makes you feel weird because you're working toward making the band sound good. Explain there is added weirdness because you two not talking, and you want to make things right. You can turn this potentially confrontational and ugly situation into a win-win if you go in with a positive attitude. He understands why you want the tracks down, and it also opens up a dialog that can save your friendship.
Just an idea.
posted by archivist at 6:35 PM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
As a musician who has sought out other musicians on CL and posted my previous work with other bands, I wouldn't worry about it. We all know how rehearsals tend to sound like ass no matter how good a band or individual player is. I've heard hundreds of samples from players and don't care about the song or the band. I'm only focusing on the player. Let it go, would be my instinct.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:19 PM on June 17, 2010
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:19 PM on June 17, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by zippy at 4:26 PM on June 16, 2010