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

Heheh. Totally not crazy, man. That's how I'd do it. I've got every file I've ever tracked saved somewhere... and I've never even been paid to do this stuff (not that I deserve money for my hackery). I think that guy I was talking about was just kind of a dink. Had a few other problems with him besides that. Pretty much why I'm trying to do stuff myself now. 

That set up you got is pretty darned sweet from what I can tell. I'm just hacking it out with one system and minimal outboard gear... but I'm still learning. If I ever get something commercially viable together I'll likely send it out to get tweaked by a pro. I'm having a lot of fun just messing around for now. Keeps me busy.

TraceyStudios


i have watched many of those vids (multiple tiimes) and am still struggling with my mix.

I've also been watching the videos.  Being a relative newbie I've concentrated on the more general ones like EQ explained, Compression explained, reverb explained, etc.  Oh and I'm currently working my way through the Mix Class 101.
 
Each of these general videos has tidbits relating to specific instruments so if you wanted to learn more about recording acoustic guitar, for example, it would be good to look at all of them since they each have a chapter or more on guitars.
 
In the reverb video, there was this fairly complicated trick done by taking the tail end of a clip, reversing it, generating a long tailed reverb from it, reversing it back and sticking on the front of the clip as a sort of lead in.  I was pretty surprised at the kind of trouble you could go to to create an effect.  I imagine this is the sort of trick that a professional mixer might want to keep to him/herself.  A lot of these tricks I could never decode from the final song but they all add something to the sound that makes it better than if you didn't do them in the first place.
 
Apart from having done it myself a few times, I have never, ever, seen an apology on the internet, and I've been on it a long time.  That sort of behaviour raises my esteem of the person much higher than it would have been had things not been jumping for a bit.  I doubt few bridges have been burned.
 

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/a...s/band_recordings.html

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.

I don't think you did Tracey-Good discussion and great questions and some really great info from some of those that know.
 
I learned quite  bit myself.
 
Your dfine man :-)

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

In the context of this thread I believe what I posted stands.
 
I was not going to go into all of the many legal aspects and various situations because it depends on who the client is and what is being done.  However in any case, details are always negotiated up front before any work is done.
 
This thread was discussing Joe Performer hiring a studio to record his performance and provide a finished 2 track mix.
 
The studio owns the raw tracks and does not need to keep them, or give them to the performer unless negotiated up front.
 
As you have pointed out, this is *not* necessarily how it will work with bigger clients, or studios working in cooperation with other studios, producers etc. 
  
That was not the context of this thread. 
Joe performer own all rights to his song. The studio has no rights to Joe's song.
Joe performer has no rights to the work the studio has done except for the 2 track master that the studio was hired to produce.
 
If Joe performer wants something more than this (which is very common) it is negotiated up front.  Almost all studios will provied the raw tracks for a fee.
I wanted to keep this simple and in context with the thread.
 

Tracey,

it ain't that big of a deal.  You asked, you learned.  Intellectual property and musical intellectual property are really stressed adapting to the new economics.  If you do creative work for hire you'll sign contracts that cover all of eternity across the universe, which seems silly until you think about it.  And most people don't think about it that way, even musicians if they don't have to deal w/ that world.

As I understand it you wanted the mixer's print tracks, which is not such a big deal.  Not the same as their Protools session, certainly, tho still not SOP.  But from the mixer's pov nothing good is coming his way from giving them away.  So I would never ask for a mixer's print tracks or stems (stems from another thread!), because I don't give away content myself (well, unless I want to and then it is a favor for friends).  So you know a rule, now, and I bet a few others have, too.  In fact, the same common sense rule goes for all media: writing, film, painting, dance, etc.

Good thread, IMO.

@

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.

Good thread, Tracey!

Gcolbert,

My feelings exactly.

Jim

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.

It's a good job not one of them actually made such a claim.