I don't recall anyone claiming ownership of the song. What was claimed was not having to teach the person how to do it. I don't see how one can make the leap that anyone is claiming ownership. We are claiming ownership of our knowledge, though. 

What I believe is being said here is that a mixer has no obligation to instruct a client in how to mix. Nor are the methods used open to the client. That is not what the client in most cases is asking for anyway. This is not that difficult to understand. 

Also I'm not not sure why the hostility to those that have some regard for what they do. If those people are treating people that do their mixes this way I wonder if they are getting the very best job from them. I suggest one should try to value work when its done well and for your benefit. 

"I think it is rather interesting how many of the 'engineer' posters in this thread seem to have some bizarre belief that they have some special ownership of the artists intellectual property just because they have tweaked a knob or moved a slider."
 
g colbert
 
 
You're absolutely right that an engineer doesn't get rights to an artists intellectual property because of what he did with the mix. Conversely, the artist doesn't get rights to the automation performed by the engineer who created said mix!

This actually falls into the "trade secrets" category.  When you take your car into pepboys, you are paying for a service.  The technician wont take you in the back and show you how he fixed it.  In essence, he will lose business.  The same is true with mixing.  If your mix engineer gives you, say the SONAR FILE and everything he did to get your mix corrected, he would be giving you a possible blue print for your future mixes and thus losing money.

In the future, simply get in writing exactly what you want as an end result, files and all.  If your mix engi has a problem, find another. 

Danny Danzi

gcolbert


I think it is rather interesting how many of the 'engineer' posters in this thread seem to have some bizarre belief that they have some special ownership of the artists intellectual property just because they have tweaked a knob or moved a slider.  If a recording studio is hired by an artist to record, they are nothing more than a contractor.  A contractor who has absolutely no right to any of the work produced.  In fact, keeping copies of the recorded work after the contract is completed without the express permission of the artist is illegal and represents an interesting liability (what happens if copies escape?)
 
Any special ju-ju that the engineer uses to create the recording actually become the property of the artist unless there is a special agreement in advance otherwise.  If the engineer re-uses that same 'special' sound without the artist's permission it could be grounds for a pretty solid lawsuit against the studio.  While this does not give the artist ownership of the intermediary products of the recording, it clearly makes re-using them a liability for the engineer unless there is some clear intent of ownership drawn up in the agreement.
 
The advice here for artists to get a contract before working with a studio is pretty important, but it is probably more important for the studio to get their rights spelled out before opening arming the first track.

Hmm GC, I didn't read anywhere in the thread where anyone claimed to have had belief they owned an artists intellectual propery. If so, can you please point me to where that was mentioned? I think quite a few are making the discussion more technical than it needs to be really. You hire a studio to mix your stuff, they mix it, they send you a 2-track master, the job is done. End of story.
 
If you were recording on tape back in the day, you didn't take that tape with you...you paid for it. Once you paid for it, you were stuck with a 16 track or 24 track tape of raw files that you could not play unless you had the tape machine it was recorded on. No effects or mojo were attached to the tracks on the tape unless the engineer printed with effects. You didn't get instrument levels, you didn't get panning, you got raw tracks of what was recorded on a piece of media that 9 out of 10 people would not have the machine to even play it on.
 
In this situation, a client is sending an engineer raw tracks. The engineer does his thing, returns the 2-track mix-down to the client and the party is over. There is no need for anyone to discuss laws or bring a lawyer into the equasion....seriously, you're making it more technical than it needs to be.
 
We as engineers, do not own anything. We don't even own the techniques used to mix a project. These techniques most times, are common knowledge. Unless an engineed has somehow trademarked a technique, we own nothing.
 
However, the above said...there are no rules or laws that state we need to share our work files. We can use a technique anytime we want on any project. We are not in danger of being sued for using techniques. If this were the case, quite a few people owe Mutt Lange some major royalty money for using "whisper tracks" all over their productions.
 
If you guys aren't familiar with how the system works and are just "assuming" being arm chair quarterbacks, you're polluting the thread in all seriousness. There is no reason for laws or any in depth discussion about that sort of thing. Trust me....I sincerely know about this stuff and wouldn't be here blowing smoke up your butts because I like to type or try to pull the wool over peoples eyes. The only time laws come into play is when you are dealing with signed artists where points on an album are shared amongst the engineer, producer, label, band and mastering engineer. This stuff we're talking about here is basic hiring of a studio to a hobbyist to mix a track. It's nothing more, nothing less.
 
-Danny

I am on the other side of the coin, as a keyboard player who happens to own and use Sonar - but I COMPLETELY agree with everything you laid out here.  


In any case, just talk about it up front, IF this issue applies to you, whoever you are - speak to the studio about what your expectations are, and what they agree to do.  If discussion does not lead to accord, then either get over it about not getting copies of work files, OR find a different studio to mix your stuff - one that agrees to your request for work files and such.  At the end of the day, these are your two choices, and there is nothing much more that needs to be said about the whole thing.  Danny has covered an eloquent and honest response to an equally well stated post by the OP.  Communication and cooperation are the fix.


Bob Bone

This has got me to thinking. When you go to the barbers, WHO OWNS YOUR HAIR CLIPPINGS?

sharke


This has got me to thinking. When you go to the barbers, WHO OWNS YOUR HAIR CLIPPINGS?

You do.
 
I always have to sweep up after getting a haircut. From now on, I'm stating in the contract that Sharke owns any clippings.
 
Dang Tootin!
 
 
 

John

bigboi


This actually falls into the "trade secrets" category.  When you take your car into pepboys, you are paying for a service.  The technician wont take you in the back and show you how he fixed it.  In essence, he will lose business.  The same is true with mixing.  If your mix engineer gives you, say the SONAR FILE and everything he did to get your mix corrected, he would be giving you a possible blue print for your future mixes and thus losing money.

In the future, simply get in writing exactly what you want as an end result, files and all.  If your mix engi has a problem, find another. 

I'm also in agreement with this as well and is in the line of my thinking about one's knowledge. Some mixers have a "sound" and are paid big bucks because of it. It is theirs and they own it. Also there is custom gear that is not on the open market. Plugins can also be custom. 

Yep, well said John and this too is very true. That said, it still (in a sense, though completely correct) makes things more technical than they need to be. We all have our own distinct sounds and ways of doing things. I'm no big sound engineer where what I do is super secretive or ground-breaking....but what I do is mine....even though the techniques were created by someone else and I improvised on them. :)
 
I've shared examples with people on this forum for years showing in depth ways of doing things. From audio examples to short video clips for the price of an internet connection. I've never walked away from someone in need that I could help (or someone deserving of help as I'm more selective these days) and have definitely gone above and beyond to get some of my points across. Heck, I've even shared videos and pics of some of my templates and techniques for people having problems. BUT....they have to do the work based off of what they see and hear.
 
Short story you may find humorous. I did a video mix for a client one time. He had the mix there in front of him while watching my video. He was trying to cop the guitar eq, effects and compression that I had in his mix but for some reason was unsuccessful. He asked me for the template because he just couldn't get it right. How can you watch a vid where you see what I've done...and not get it right? LOL! I told him I'd rather not do that. He begged some more and offered to pay me for it. I declined, but his offers got more intense and the money value got insane. This guy wanted those settings like you wouldn't believe.
 
I finally caved in and sent presets to the plugs I used instead of the template and of course, refused his money. LOL! So what did he learn from this? He saw what I did when he got the presets, but to this day, has no idea how or why I came up with the sound for THOSE particular guitars, didn't watch that part of the vid close enough, and uses that preset on all his guitars all the time no matter what they sound like. LOL! He sends me mixes and I tell him "bro, the guitars sound bad" and he replies "but I used your preset!" LMAO! <insert huge face palm here> (incidentally, I figured out why he wasn't copping the sound. The Pro Channel modules needed to be set to "post" and he missed that part in the vid. Doh!)
 
The moral of the story....if you take hand-outs that are done for you, there are some things you may learn....but it defeats the purpose of going through the motions to get from point "suck" to point "perfection". When we that are guitarists learn a lick, you learn the lick and then incorporate it in your own style without using is as you learned it verbatim. This is what makes you, "you". Anyone can copy something or use someone elses hard work...it doesn't improve your art, it improves your copy skills as well as the ability to drive someone else's car and claim it as your own. :)
 
Sort of like being in a cover band and saying to the crowd as I like to say...."we're going to do an original right now....*originally* done by someone else." :)
 
-Danny

sharke

kevo

sharke


This has got me to thinking. When you go to the barbers, WHO OWNS YOUR HAIR CLIPPINGS?

You do.

I always have to sweep up after getting a haircut. From now on, I'm stating in the contract that Sharke owns any clippings.

Dang Tootin!

Pretty sure you can sell them as sofa stuffing or something. Apparently you can get $1000 for your pinky toe as well, according to some stoner I met at a party 20 years ago.  

WHOA There Fella! Down Boy! Down!
 
We were talking hair clippings! Not body parts for money!
The wife is not seeing this one for sure!
 
Ever hear of a lady named Lurana?
 
OK.... back on topic whatever that was...
 
I think we were in agreement with everybody and everybody loves everyone and we all win just like in T-Ball and it is about time for a big group hug.
 
 

Danny your points are undebatable.  I think that means I agree again.  Darn it! There is way too much agreement going on around here. LOL People might think this a nice forum. We wouldn't want that now would we?

The point about learning by doing I think applies here just as much as it does to playing an instrument. The more you do the more you learn the more you can do. 

I tried to allude to that notion in an earlier post. Some people like me took years to learn this stuff. I hold this knowledge in high regard. I'm willing to let others know about it but they should not take it for granted. 

kevo

 
An interresting point Danny made was that he made a video for a guy and the guy still didn't get it.  That is not uncommon.  People seem to have a mindset that they can skip the time required, and buy skill.  No amount of money can give a person skill.
 
 

You can learn the foundation of music production and sound engineering in a year.   But it will still take 10 years of practice before you have anything really meaningful to say.

Its like plumbing, or flying, or being a chef.

You can easily learn to cook in like a year...   But you will be way older, and way more experienced by the time your restaurant has 5 stars.

What did you get for free?

John


What did you get for free?

I'm surprised you made it that far, John. He lost me in the first few words of that. LOL!

DigitalBoston

unlike us less than pro's who would share such knowledge since we got it for free,iv seen some skilled Audio eng in my days, and never once have anyone told me to leave the room im about to use my secret fadder crossover move, i learned at MIT back in the 70s. but im noone and have more skill as a musician that a eng, but eather way its the bands tune's they wrote it .they have all the rights to content, till they sell there songs to a lable and get that 4% and have to tour 3-4 years like a bus full of slaves
 where do i sign up??

Of course they have the right to their own content. That's why they get the finished WAV. The project file the mixer uses, with all the mixing parameters and what-not, belongs to the engineer. How hard is this to understand? 

I think it is rather interesting how many of the 'engineer' posters in this thread seem to have some bizarre belief that they have some special ownership of the artists intellectual property just because they have tweaked a knob or moved a slider.  If a recording studio is hired by an artist to record, they are nothing more than a contractor.  A contractor who has absolutely no right to any of the work produced.  In fact, keeping copies of the recorded work after the contract is completed without the express permission of the artist is illegal and represents an interesting liability (what happens if copies escape?)   Any special ju-ju that the engineer uses to create the recording actually become the property of the artist unless there is a special agreement in advance otherwise.  If the engineer re-uses that same 'special' sound without the artist's permission it could be grounds for a pretty solid lawsuit against the studio.  While this does not give the artist ownership of the intermediary products of the recording, it clearly makes re-using them a liability for the engineer unless there is some clear intent of ownership drawn up in the agreement.

OK you state all this as a fact, but I would be interested in how you determine that a contractor has no right to any work he produces.


Example: Crabgrass Symphony Society commissions a work to be played on the opening day of the season. Since they pay the composer, but do not want to be liable for his benefits social security tax, witholding etc. they execute a contract saying that he is an independent contractor, give him the money and issue a W-9. The contract only requires him to deliver the composition, and is mute on the ownership or transfer of copyright, and does not state that it is a work for hire. Under black letter copyright law he retains ownership of the composition regardless of the fact that he is a contractor. 


Being a contractor per se does not transfer or  invalidate ownership of the work product. If the contract he signs states that ownership is transferred unambiguously, or states that it is a "work for hire," (and it meets the statutory requirements) then there is a basis to believe that. Absent that clarification, then you would have to depend on what was "understood" between the contractor and his employer, and argue in court that an unwritten contract did include such a transfer of rights. You could use the standard industry practice to buttress your understanding of the situation. If no recording/mixing/mastering engineer has ever asserted ownership to his rights in the phonorecord that is his creation under law, then you could say that his belief that he has such ownership was so bizarre that it could not have been the understanding that makes up the unwritten contract. But that is far from a fact--at least until a court decides it.


The engineer clearly can not claim any rights in the original composition or the performance that he processes. But  a recording encompasses two distinct rights. One is for the composition, and the second is for the phonorecord, which is the actual captured sound. If the engineer just turns on the tape recorder, it is difficult to see how he has produced anything that he can own the rights to, although arguably he has. If he does major mixing, selecting and discarding tracks it may in effect rise to the level of an arrangement gaining its own composition rights. If he uses all of the tracks as given but adds effects levels etc. it pretty clearly has the effect of being an original creation recorded in tangible form, and absent some other consideration it is his property under copyright. 


If you are engaging the services of someone who is going to give you back a phonorecord, it would be wise to insist on a contract stating that at least the copyright to the final product (phonorecord) you receive is your property. The most reliable way to do that is to be sure that the contract meets "work for hire" requirements, in which case the engineer truly is, "a contractor who has absolutely no right to any of the work produced." Otherwise is not inconceivable (although it is probably pretty unlikely) that the engineer could assert rights arising from his own work on the project. The law is no different for an informal garage based operation than from a major recording company. Those offering their services as engineers, should consider an explicit clause in their contracts transferring copyright in the final phonorecord to the client. I believe that is what you all intend to do, but you can not guarantee the actions of people who may inherit or obtain your rights in bankruptcy etc. with your own unwritten words or intentions.

SteveGriffiths

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.

On the software side it is common that source code is not provided to a customer for a custom application. However, that source is held in escrow to be made available to the customer if the software company goes away.


Cheers


Grif

Hey Grif,
   No offense, but I've been doing computer consulting & custom programming for over 25 years and I can tell you, from my experience, that there is no "common" practice and varies with the type of work requested and contracts involved and quite frankly, the intelligence of the client.


   Under work-for-hire, though, the client does indeed have a legal right to all source code and documentation upon delivery and acceptance of a project, especially in the case of making changes to their current source code base for either improvements or bug fixes.


   Also, let us not forget that lawyers' bogus arguments and judges ignorant to the law will most of the time make decisions that would turn us out on our ears.   I actually had a judge order me to maintain a client's internet and email connectivity service, despite the fact that they had not paid a dime for said service for over three months.  Go figure?


best,
guitardood