OK Dave (slartabartfast), you forced me to actually do some research and learn that I was quite wrong here  (And Jeff - I don't think Australian copyright law is the same as in the States). 
 
I think that anyone who is even remotely considering sending tracks to an engineer for mixing or mastering and especially recording) needs to review this issue quite thoroughly.  It seems that unless there is a specific writing in a contract with the studio that their work is not considered "Work for Hire" and that by having a studio or engineer mix or master your recording that performers are giving away potentially significant rights to their work.
 
It isn't just important to have a contract with the studio specifying what the deliverables are.  The contract also needs to CLEARLY spell out who the owner of the material is that is created by the studio AND that is delivered by the studio.  A wise artist would insist that the contract state that the studio's work is a "Work for Hire."  No wonder first-time hit artists get screwed by the industry.
 
Glen
 
USC 17 section 101
 

I think this is part of the upfront agreement.  As a producer, I would not give out master files or multitrack tapes unless that was the agreement in advance.  If it were a work for hire, I would give all materials to the artist or client; but, again, that should be decided in advance.

If I owned copyrighted material and hired an engineer to work on it, I would not leave it without prior agreement that I got everything.  By everything, I mean stems, tapes, files, etc.

If I owned copyrighted material and hired an engineer to work on it, I would not leave it without prior agreement that I got everything.  By everything, I mean stems, tapes, files, etc.

I think there is an important distinction between an agreement that transfers copyright of the product, and one that requires delivery of the actual intermediate product. The artist's interest in the intermediate product is protected by his original copyright. Anything the engineer does to improve that original material may give rise to his ownership of the changes he makes. Those changes will potentially give him copyright rights in both the intermediate and final phonrecord, but his right to those products will not be exclusive. 


In the worst case, the engineer might claim to be co-creator of the work product, and that might be interpreted as giving him the right to prevent the sale or publication of the phonorecord, and to collect a share of any revenues from the phonorecord divided among the various joint authors. Lacking a tenable claim of joint authorship, he would probably be barred from marketing the material himself  since it would be a derivative work of the artist's original. In fact he is technically barred from producing the intermediate mixes without the original artist's permission. But in that case, the engineer could still prevent the artist from publishing or selling the phonorecord because it was not entirely the artist's work. The engineer's work would still belong to the engineer, and would make up an inextricable part of the phonorecord. The engineer cannot market this work himself since it is derivative, but can act as a dog in the manger if a court will let him. 


Clear contractual language that the copyright in any work done by the engineer is transferred to the artist removes this unlikely hazard. But the artist does not have a need to require that the actual intermediate phonorecords be transferred to him to secure his work: he just needs the copyright assigned. The engineer can keep his intermediate mixes, which he cannot sell because the artist receives the copyright under their agreement. The artist has no need to possess anything but the final mix in order to have a marketable phonorecord. If he wants the intermediate files, as did the OP, for reasons of his own edification or historical documentation, he can be asked to pay extra or refused access altogether without compromising his rights in the final product. But copyright assignment (perpetual exclusive license) can not be accomplished by anything except a written contract.


The "work for hire" contract essentially prevents copyright from ever attaching to the contractor. Since an engineer working under such a contract never gets any copyright in the phonorecords, the artists rights are never compromised. But again, there is no requirement that intermediate mixes be surrendered by the engineer. Just because the work is a work for hire under copyright law, it does not mean that anything except the agreed upon deliverables be provided. Artist and engineer can agree that only the final mix will be delivered, but in this case it might be wise for the engineer to require clear language to that effect.


As a final note, we should realize that the legal definition of a phonorecord is much more encompassing than what we generally talk about as a recording. It need not be a tape or CD or an MP3 sitting in an iPod. A phonorecord is data recorded in any form such that it can be reproduced ultimately as sound. A Sonar project folder containing all the necessary data to reproduce a musical work on a computer running Sonar software, would fit the definition of a phonorecord.

guitardood


Seeing as how this thread is marked solved, let me open another can of worms......

Say you hire Master Engineer to come to your studio and mix your tracks on your gear?  Does he then get to hit the delete key after the bounce?

I've had the opportunity to have a very well known engineer from the Chicago area come to my studio and work on my tracks in an engineering capacity.  Before he left, you can be sure that all tracks and work files were stored on three different drives, with his blessing.

What he was paid for was his expertise in setting up the knobs to create the best sound and not a simple two-track master.

Though again, this was worked out up front between us prior to sitting down and working.

--------------
guitardood

I'd like to take a stab at this if I may? :) Please PLEASE keep in mind....I absolutely mean no disrespect to you or your engineer with what I'm about to say.
 
If the engineer is NOT a mastering engineer (I noticed you just said "engineer") and he just came to your house and did a polish job, I really don't think any of it matters. Now keep in mind, if this guy was a credible mastering engineer and not just a recording engineer, I would question his credibility. The reason being, unless you have a studio with the tools and set-up for mastering with all the right stuff, being a "mobile ME" is not something I would see as being consistent or practical. I would decline to do a mastering job even if all expenses were paid. I need to do it the best of my ability and that means, at my place.
 
If you were a super close friend....and I've done this for friends....I can't charge them for things yet don't have the time to take care of them. Sad but true....so I usually decline to work for them until they yell and scream "look, I only gotta pay someone else and I want YOU over someone else" which ends up with discounts and...well ya know. LOL!
 
Anyway...if a close friend asked me to come over and do a polish up job using stuff they had at their place, I'd do it and not care that they kept any and all files. I just have a problem with sharing an actual hard copy, work file that contains everything I do within that file. There is no law that says I need to share that with anyone, though...in reality, I own nothing but the gear and media the songs are on. I don't have to share how I do something with anyone if I don't want to and the law can't make me because...there is no law that states I must share the aesthetics of how I work.
 
It's like going to Lingenfelter to have your car modded. You can see the final mods done to your car....they will explain everything to you, show you the numbers, climb under the car and show you all the details....but you cannot sit there and watch them mod your car with superchargers or turbo's. You cannot demand a video of them showing you how everything was done. They won't show you and it's their secret. They'll tell you about it...you can look up on the net how to do some of these things....you can figure a lot out on your own....you can pick the brains of other mechanics that know the procedure...but you will NEVER get the mech's at Lingenfelter to GIVE you anything as in depth as a musical work file. Maybe because it's not quite possible....but rest assured, just because they modded your car doesn't mean they have to share the work plans on how they went about doing it, ya know?
 
At the end of the day, we as engineers own nothing other than the media and gear we work on. When it comes to client material, the material is theirs....the work we do to it...is no one's but it's just something you don't share unless you want to.
 
Just some more stuff to think about:
 
You do not and never will, own any rights to anything from anyone that walks through your door unless you literally help them write a part on their song and have it known that you are now a part of the writing team. Producers have this luxury due to being a part of the writing process at the pre-production stage. By the time the band gets to the studio (most times other than if you're one of those crazy bands that pays for studio time and just wings it) the songs are already copywritten and the producer is a part of them IF he took part in the writing...which quite a few do.
 
An engineer telling a client that the Bb they are playing is dissonant and needs to be changed to an Emin instead, is not a part of the writing team. The automation you do in a mix is not anything you own a right to. Automation is a tool inside a DAW....just because you used it doesn't make you the owner of the technique within someones song. I guess we all need to trademark our envelope curves now too? Think about that for a second. :)
 
Your plugin configuration is not yours. You're using licensed plugs that in reality, you do not own. The order you come up with that is off the hook is your little secret. There is no law that says you need to share what you do, but you still don't have rights to it other than "these are my secrets and I'd rather keep them to myself." No one can demand you to share them.
 
You SEMI own the recorded material that is on your machines from your clients. Semi because once the client pays for everything, he owns the rights to those raw files and that is all he owns. Upon ending a job, if you delete the files and the client comes back and would like the raw files, the client loses. No one is required to keep files for a special period of time if they choose not to. Once the client is paid in full, the files should be deleted. I keep mine for 2 weeks after a paid in full job just in case the client needs them. After that, they are gone.
 
Any full mix-downs you have done for a client belong to the client. Upon completion, they should be deleted unless you ask the client if you can use them as a representation of your studio. This of course promotes you as well as the client. But just because you mixed these, it doesn't entitle you to keep them. You were paid to do the mixdown. After it's done, so are you.
 
Now keep in mind all this changes when you work for a record company. They may specifically have in their contract that you must also give up your work files after a job is done. That will be up to you to take on the job or decline. I've done quite a few jobs for Indy labels and some real stars that have worked on loads of pre-production with me. Not once has anyone asked me for my work files or said they wouldn't work with me if I did not supply them. They want the raw tracks and the finished product back.
 
That said, when you work with a record company, you too can gain rights to things within the project like points on sales. These days, big studio's are so expensive, they get their final pay in points and are only fronted limited amounts of money. But the contract you draw up in this context, is what will determine what you give as well as what you get.
 
In the scenario regarding this thread, just about none of the above really matters and from here we're pretty much beating a dead horse. Someone comes to you....they want you to mix their stuff, you own whatever you do for them until it is paid for...and you release and destroy after you're done. If you choose to share your work files, that is up to you. But this is not common for anyone that I know unless it's specified in a contract with a major label. And even there....if I can be honest with you? No engineer wants to clean up another engineers slop. I don't like when people send me Sonar bundle files or Pro Tools session files.
 
I only have to kill everything and recreate the whole freakin' mix anyway, ya know? I prefer WAV or AIFF so I can open my own template with my own weapons and just load the files in without taking 2 hours to figure something out in someone elses project. Think about that for a second. We all use Sonar, so you would think receiving a bundle file would make things easier on you, right? For me, it's actually a nightmare and I hate it. I do things my way and that means with my own template, track order, arrangement....the whole 9 yards. I'd actually be a bit upset to have to work out of someone else's template project unless there was just a few tracks that needed to be altered. Other than that....they are more problems than they are worth in my world. :)
 
-Danny
 

The best advice I can give is consult a copyright lawyer if anyone here has any question on this. We can talk for ever about what we think it true but it means nothing, really. Its just forum talk. 

I am not dismissing anyones post just please do not rely on this thread for legal advice. 

Good advice there, John. I'm not an attorney, but studied quite a bit of music and law in my time due to being forced into it. I'd go to court with the advice I've shared here without an attorney...as dumb as that may sound, I'm confident as well as having been through enough to where I'd take my chances based on real my experiences as well as people "in the know" that I've consulted over the years. :)

Just so ya know...I didn't make any of the stuff up that I've shared. I've either lived it, spoke to attorneys, learned in school and have talked to several million dollar studio owners over the years. :) There are no laws as there cannot be. You can't get a SR copywrite until the "sound" is created from the studio. Form PA covers from song theft...form SR covers "the sound" which in this state, isn't created yet. :) Trust Uncle Danny on this. LOL! But still....great advice as always my friend. :)

-Danny

Danny Danzi


Good advice there, John. I'm not an attorney, but studied quite a bit of music and law in my time due to being forced into it. I'd go to court with the advice I've shared here without an attorney...as dumb as that may sound, I'm confident as well as having been through enough to where I'd take my chances based on real my experiences as well as people "in the know" that I've consulted over the years. :)

Just so ya know...I didn't make any of the stuff up that I've shared. I've either lived it, spoke to attorneys, learned in school and have talked to several million dollar studio owners over the years. :) There are no laws as there cannot be. You can't get a SR copywrite until the "sound" is created from the studio. Form PA covers from song theft...form SR covers "the sound" which in this state, isn't created yet. :) Trust Uncle Danny on this. LOL! But still....great advice as always my friend. :)

-Danny

  Danny as a matter of fact I was worried you might think my post was aimed at you. NO! It wasn't. I just read a lot of other members posting too much on this that could confuse some. Your points are sound and as you already know I am in complete agreement with all your points.  

John

Danny Danzi


Good advice there, John. I'm not an attorney, but studied quite a bit of music and law in my time due to being forced into it. I'd go to court with the advice I've shared here without an attorney...as dumb as that may sound, I'm confident as well as having been through enough to where I'd take my chances based on real my experiences as well as people "in the know" that I've consulted over the years. :)

Just so ya know...I didn't make any of the stuff up that I've shared. I've either lived it, spoke to attorneys, learned in school and have talked to several million dollar studio owners over the years. :) There are no laws as there cannot be. You can't get a SR copywrite until the "sound" is created from the studio. Form PA covers from song theft...form SR covers "the sound" which in this state, isn't created yet. :) Trust Uncle Danny on this. LOL! But still....great advice as always my friend. :)

-Danny

  Danny as a matter of fact I was worried you might think my post was aimed at you. NO! It wasn't. I just read a lot of other members posting too much on this that could confuse some. Your points are sound and as you already know I am in complete agreement with all your points.  

Hahaha, no I never thought that at all John. You're right in what you advised. I was sort of funning with you while sharing the thing about the SR copyright....which is quite true. :) We always seem to agree with each other I notice. That's probably why everyone hates us. LOL! Ok, they hate me more than you but it's ok. I got a few good guys that like me a lil...but just a lil. Hahaha!
 
-Danny

Weird thread this, with some odd misconceptions. When a mix engineer doesn't give you their project files, they're not retaining rights to your music or anything like that. They have no rights over your music unless you've agreed to share them, and keeping the project files doesn't confer any rights.

For me, I don't like the idea of giving out project files. Not because of any "secrets" particularly, but because the other person is very unlikely to have exactly the same setup as me, so it's going to be problematic getting it playing back right, and... well, where does this job end? I can easily see someone making the argument that I should provide my project files AND provide some kind of tech support for them. No thanks.