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. 

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 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!

Danny, you do have a way with words. Well said. I agree with every word. 

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 know it's already been said....but no need to worry about this thread Trace....you have done absolutely nothing wrong....actually you started a good read for everyone to think about.

And Danny....another good explanation...!

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

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. 

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

Sry...double post