Question on song rights and collaborative efforts

Hi,
 
I'm potentially entering an ongoing song collaboration with a singer and wanted to see if anybody here on the forum might have some advice on protecting myself and keeping things fair.  As I understand, upon creation songs are copywritten basically in two regards - melody (music) and lyrics, each representing 50% of a work (song).   Now...in a collaboration between myself and a vocalist, if a singer writes lyrics and melody for his vocals, by default he then owns 100% of the lyrics and 50% of the melody (music) rights.  Which means he owns 75% of the overall work of art.  This isn't going to work for me.  I want things to remain 50% between us.  So it seems we either need to agree to share both melody and lyrics equally at 50% each, or I retain all melody rights and the singer retains all lyric rights, which essentially is again 50% each.
 
I realize there are probably other fine details, but in keeping this a general discussion, does anybody have any thoughts or advice to share on this situation?   Which of the above methods may be most preferable, are there any other simple alternatives that should be considered?
 
Thanks,
 
    Sonic

If you're not already a member of a PRO(Performing Rights Organization) sign up for one...usually artist accounts are free. I'm a member with BMI. Next register the piece and assign rights to yourself and the singer(have the singer sign up for the same PRO). I'm not sure about others but BMI allows for 200% of rights assignation. Just give both yourself and the singer 100%. Easy peasy!
 
Bill

It is true that there are two copyrights for a recording, but they are not for lyrics and melody, but rather for the phonorecord (master recording) and the composition. The copyright for the composition/song normally includes both the lyrics and the melody to which they are set, unless these are separately copyrighted.  The only generally understood relationship between authors of a work collaboration, known as the joint authorship doctrine, is that all co-authors are co-owners of the copyrighted work. Joint authorship applies when two or more authors collaborate with the intention of producing the same work--in your case the song. Co-owners have the right to individually authorize licensing of the collaborative work so long as all of the proceeds from that license are shared equally among the authors. In other words, lacking a specific agreement to the contrary, you would have no control over how the work is used if your co-author wants to use it, either of you would be able to register and enforce the copyright, and you would receive half of the proceeds of any use. 
 
You can register the copyright for the poem, and the melody separately, but that will require two registrations, and with the intent that melody and lyrics be separate independent works. The option might then exist for one of you to license his copyright to the other to create a derivative work: either by setting the poem to the melody or the melody to the poem. The person so licensed would then hold an irrevocable license to the other person's work, and would own the copyright to the song itself, and owe the other contributor only what is specified by the license terms.
 
If you want to specify any other split of the proceeds or the ownership or the control of the work, you had better have a written agreement with your co-author that specifies how these are to be handled. Ideally that agreement should pre-date the creation of the song, since as soon as the work is fixed in permanent form (written down or recorded) a copyright has been created, and either author could then refuse to modify the co-ownership that is understood. After the fact, you could still enter a contract defining how your joint copyright is to be administered if both of you agree. Even if you do intend that the work be a joint authorship product, it can avoid problems in the future to explicitly say so in a written agreement.
 
 

What someone can do, and what someone can do legally are two separate issues, And what someone can do if someone else does something illegal is usually the issue that matters in practice.
 
The simple way to keep control of the collaborative product is to enter into a contract that specifies how the work is to be controlled. If your contract says that neither of the joint authors can authorize use of the song without the consent of the other, then that will generally take control over the basic doctrine. If it says that only one author can license the song, then that could work as well.
 
If your work on the song is truly a joint authorship, then lacking some contractual issue to the contrary, the joint ownership of the full work is a matter of law. My understanding is that the ownership so established is an undivided right, meaning that each contributor owns his portion of any part of the song, not just the part he contributed. So if the poem author wants to use his poem in another song or publication he would have to share any revenue with the melody author, and vice versa. The problem is that you may need to prove that the song was created with the intent by all the authors that it should exist as a unitary whole. That might not be the case, for example, if the poet were to consult the composer and say he would like to have his existing written poem (already copyrighted even without registration) to music to create a song. In that case the poet might possibly retain his individual rights for the poem for any other use except the exploitation of the song--the situation could depend on whether  the poem was originally intended to be a lyric set to music or an independent work. A written agreement could help to clarify what other uses he could exploit, for example you could agree that he could use his lyrics on a T-shirt or publish them in a poetry collection but not set them to music to make another song.
 
The problem with proving what the intent of the authors was in the creation is that it is likely to be expensive and involve the courts. It may result in a lying contest, or the authors may only discover that they had a different intent from each other when a dispute arises. A well written contract can avoid a lot of problems, but it cannot cure a dispute if one of the parties is trying to cheat the other by violating contract terms, or has a basic misunderstanding of what the terms mean. In that case, it can only be a guide to a judgement, and a judgement may easily cost more than can be expected as income from the song or loss from the contract breach.  Unless you trust a collaborator to be fair, and you are convinced that you both have the same understanding of the deal, you are probably asking for trouble.