rcklln


You are only asking questions and the result turned into an informative thread that I hope people take the time to read.

TraceyStudios

sharke


Also, what real use would the mix file be to you? You're unlikely to have all of the plugs that the engineer used on it. You're going to load the file and Sonar is going to say "the following plugs are missing...."

So if I don't have all the plugins, I don't deserve to have this file? Could I buy the plugins? would another mix engineer have said plugins?

Another point... If he gave you the mix files, would you still expect him to maintain them if you wanted changes?

Beepster

Another point... If he gave you the mix files, would you still expect him to maintain them if you wanted changes?

I lost two full albums I'd have liked to taken a crack at myself because of this. I foolishly figured the guy was hanging onto the original tracks because he was more than just an engineer to the band. Man I wish I had had the foresight to get those files originally. Ugh. Live and learn.

TraceyStudios


I think I am concerned that I have insulted the pros that offer their help. And that was really not my intention. I made the post and the got defensive or offensive when folks replied. I should have asked the question and accepted the answer. What was I thinking, Like somehow if I argued it, it would change the reality? obviously no. I feel I screwed up a good opportunity to learn from those who offer some unique help. After reading my post, one politely declined their services to me. Big reality check for me. That in itself is a important lesson I have learned.

TraceyStudios


I think I am concerned that I have insulted the pros that offer their help. And that was really not my intention. I made the post and the got defensive or offensive when folks replied. I should have asked the question and accepted the answer. What was I thinking, Like somehow if I argued it, it would change the reality? obviously no. I feel I screwed up a good opportunity to learn from those who offer some unique help. After reading my post, one politely declined their services to me. Big reality check for me. That in itself is a important lesson I have learned.

guitardood


Don't know how anyone else feels but I thought mixing was considered a "work-for-hire" type of job and all work product in the completion of said job usually belongs to the customer unless otherwise arranged ahead of time.  As an example from the programming world: Customer asks for a program that calculates PI to 200 decimal places, they not only get the finished executable but all "documented" source-code related to the creation of said program, along with any developer notes, flowcharts and documentation.

Not sure of how legal eagles would view this, just my opinion.

Call me crazy, but I save my clients files indefinitely. Disk space now is relatively cheap... I have clients come back after years for changes or reprint CD's. It pays for me to pack a few terabytes into a NAS.  I don't have a Mega PRO studio, I just try to act like I do. :-) Pop by for a look... www.pristinestudios.com

kevo


The problem with this thread is no one has discussed what really matters.

This is no offense to anyone here but personal opinion, and how "I" do things is irrelevent to "What does the law say?"

Copyright laws are in effect for a reason. To protect the work of a the one who created it.

Photography was mentioned so lets deal with that first.

BTW I am no lawyer, but do understand at least the basics of copyrights.

You hire a studio to do the photography for your wedding.  You entered into a contract which you are hiring the expertise of the studio.  When you entered your negotiations the amount of time involved for work was discussed, number of photographs to be taken, and usually the number of prints and sizes of prints that will be made.

The photographer does his thing, and delivers what was promised in the timeframe promised.
The studio owns the photographs and any prints that are made.  If you desire more prints, you will have to pay the studio for them.  The studio usually puts their copyright information on the back of the photo and usually a warning about copying.  Anyone who copies it can be sued.  Take one of these photos to Walmart and see how they react when you ask them to make copies.

Now, if you were expecting negatives, or a disc with all photos taken, and you want the rights to print as many copies as you want of the photos, be prepared to pay several thousand dollars.  But, the studio can also decline because they own the work. The only thing they are required to do is what was stated in the contract.

They can even destroy all of the negatives after they have delivered to you what was contracted.

So what rights do you have as the one who hired their services?
You have the right to what was contracted.
If they screw up the photos, you have the right to a refund, and in most cases you can sue them for screwing up your wedding photos.

The Studio cannot use the photos for anything (unless it was in the contract). Which means if they want to use the photos for advertising, or photo disc or such they cannot do this.  You hold the rights for this, and can give them permission and charge a fee and or royalties or you can tell them no.

Now, can you find Joe Blow photographer who will do your wedding and give you everything for $50 bucks? Sure you can find someone like that.


OK. It should be pretty easy now to understand when we are discussing an Audio studio.

You discuss what you want and what you expect before any work is ever started and a contract drawn up otherwise you can already see how this will play out.

The studio owns the tracks, the project and all they are required to give you is a 2 track mix in most cases.  They can destroy all tracks after this if they wish.

If you want the raw tracks (which many studios will allow)  the studio owns those tracks, so they can say yes/no/ let's work something out. 

If the studio allows you to have the raw tracks, you will be required to provide the storage medium, and pay studio time for the process. 

You cannot just assume.  It is cheap to talk. It is expensinve to not talk and enter into a contract beforehand.

Anyway... like it... lump it.... this is what the copyright laws state from my understanding of them.  Take this info to an attorney and I'm pretty sure it will hold up.

simonknight

kevo


The problem with this thread is no one has discussed what really matters.

This is no offense to anyone here but personal opinion, and how "I" do things is irrelevent to "What does the law say?"

Copyright laws are in effect for a reason. To protect the work of a the one who created it.

Photography was mentioned so lets deal with that first.

BTW I am no lawyer, but do understand at least the basics of copyrights.

You hire a studio to do the photography for your wedding.  You entered into a contract which you are hiring the expertise of the studio.  When you entered your negotiations the amount of time involved for work was discussed, number of photographs to be taken, and usually the number of prints and sizes of prints that will be made.

The photographer does his thing, and delivers what was promised in the timeframe promised.
The studio owns the photographs and any prints that are made.  If you desire more prints, you will have to pay the studio for them.  The studio usually puts their copyright information on the back of the photo and usually a warning about copying.  Anyone who copies it can be sued.  Take one of these photos to Walmart and see how they react when you ask them to make copies.

Now, if you were expecting negatives, or a disc with all photos taken, and you want the rights to print as many copies as you want of the photos, be prepared to pay several thousand dollars.  But, the studio can also decline because they own the work. The only thing they are required to do is what was stated in the contract.

They can even destroy all of the negatives after they have delivered to you what was contracted.

So what rights do you have as the one who hired their services?
You have the right to what was contracted.
If they screw up the photos, you have the right to a refund, and in most cases you can sue them for screwing up your wedding photos.

The Studio cannot use the photos for anything (unless it was in the contract). Which means if they want to use the photos for advertising, or photo disc or such they cannot do this.  You hold the rights for this, and can give them permission and charge a fee and or royalties or you can tell them no.

Now, can you find Joe Blow photographer who will do your wedding and give you everything for $50 bucks? Sure you can find someone like that.


OK. It should be pretty easy now to understand when we are discussing an Audio studio.

You discuss what you want and what you expect before any work is ever started and a contract drawn up otherwise you can already see how this will play out.

The studio owns the tracks, the project and all they are required to give you is a 2 track mix in most cases.  They can destroy all tracks after this if they wish.

If you want the raw tracks (which many studios will allow)  the studio owns those tracks, so they can say yes/no/ let's work something out. 

If the studio allows you to have the raw tracks, you will be required to provide the storage medium, and pay studio time for the process. 

You cannot just assume.  It is cheap to talk. It is expensinve to not talk and enter into a contract beforehand.

Anyway... like it... lump it.... this is what the copyright laws state from my understanding of them.  Take this info to an attorney and I'm pretty sure it will hold up.

I think the photography analogy can be a bit misleading since the photographer is only the person making any kind of artistic input in the case of wedding snaps. They are the sole author and have the rights (unless negotiated otherwise).


In the case of music it is more complex, since there are writers, performers, recording engineers, mixing engineers, and producers potentially involved. It's unlikely that a recording engineer could claim authorship, but a mixing engineer and certainly a producer would be making a significant artistic contribution and therefore could claim part authorship.


So the issue is much wider than who owns or has access to the digital files; rather a contract between the artist and studio should clearly state who has full or part authorship and therefore rights to the final recording.

This lawyer's page has some more info.

http://www.alankorn.com/articles/band_recordings.html