Hi
 
A nice visit to an entertainment lawyer might be a good idea ... bring any information and paperwork with you, though! These things tend to be done without paperwork, and the fine print is always invisible ... but at least you will know where you stand otherwise.
 
I can not discuss these situations at all ... other than some information on radio broadcasting, and such, and even then, my knowledge is the Mickey Mouse type! As for books and publishing, I'll let you know when I put it all into a book, or five! But I can tell you that I have one already knocking at my door wanting to know when I am finished.

This is likely a poor example since The Beatles more than likely had a few more attorneys than I do and we all know that regardless of who actually wrote the song, Lennon and McCartney shared writing credit for all of their Beatles songs, but just from a conceptual standpoint, you're stating that:
 
If Paul McCartney were to re-record "Let It Be" and play all of the instruments himself, he would not be allowed to perform and record the exact same drum part or guitar solo from the original recording without first getting permission from Ringo & George, even though Lennon/McCartney are the authors of the song?  Or, that the only way he could do so is if he were able to prove via score/notation that he'd composed the drum/lead guitar parts in their entirety and that Ringo/George were only performing the exact notes and phrasings that Paul had written down and presented to them?
 
Another example: Tom Hamilton showed the Aerosmith boys a cool riff he'd been working on, Steven Tyler came up with some vocals, and some time later, they gave us "Sweet Emotion".  Hamilton and Tyler are credited as authors of that song, but I doubt they actually wrote Joe Perry's rocking guitar solo.  And that killer guitar riff, did Brad Whitford or Joe Perry have any input on that, or was every single element of that song conceived entirely by Tyler and Hamilton? It seems more likely that because of Hamilton's bass riff and Tyler's lyrics/vocals, they're the two that drove the creative process and therefore were listed as the song's writers, but the other three came up with material on their own to support Tyler & Hamilton's original idea.
 
It's not my intent to be confrontational, but your vantage point seems to be that in order for a songwriter to be the true author of a song, he/she must have composed each and every element of the song, regardless of what the copyright says. And maybe what you're saying is right. If I knew the answer, I certainly wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. :)
 
So no, I most certainly did not write the drum, bass and lead guitar parts for the songs I'm looking to record.  But because I wrote the lyrics/melody and brought it to the band, and because I directed the progress of the song and gave a thumbs up or thumbs down to whatever parts the others were contributing, it was agreed that I was the songwriter/author. Just like how I made musical contributions to other songs on the album that I didn't write, and as such didn't include myself as the songwriter, even though I technically did come up with a guitar solo all on my own.  (But that solo never would've come to light if the other songwriters hadn't written the song to begin with.)

Your Beatles example is a good one, and lacking some agreement to the contrary, if Paul were to re-record his song using Ringo and John's original compositions, he would need a license to do so. A non-exclusive license could be as informal as George saying, "hey man if you ever want to record that guitar part feel free." If your guitarist said something like that, even if there is nothing in writing and no witness to the utterance, you have all the license you need. If he did say that, and you think he will lie about it or forget he said it, then it is best to get something in writing just because it might be difficult to prove. If something in your LLC papers or other agreements says that you have such an unrestricted license, that would survive the end of the band collaboration, then you are good to go.
 
The only way you can challenge his copyright to his composition which was clearly designed entirely to complement and presumably derived from your original song, would be to claim that it lacked sufficient originality to derserve its own copyright. If I was given a license by Tom Clancy to write a derviative work of Red October, and I just copied the original word for word and only changed a comma in chapter three to a semicolon, he or anyone else could claim that I did not have a vailid copyright in my own name. If your guitarist just did a simple strum of chords to follow your melody, then that might be an option. But if your guitarist's part that he invented and recorded was so unoriginal, then there would be no point in you copying it in your re-recording. You could just strum your own chords. The fact that it adds enough to the song for you to recognize it as uniquely valuable makes it hard to claim it is unoriginal.
 
The issue is not who is the true author of the song, but who is the inventor of the work derived from the song. This is not some radical legal weirdness. A whole profession is built around the fact that an arranger can take another author's song and enforce his own copyright of the arrangement he invents to accompany it in order to prevent other arrangers from copying his work, and musical arrangements are specifically named as examples of derivative works in the copyright law. The original author can enforce his copyright to prevent the arranger from ever copyrighting the arrangement, or he can license the arranger to do so, but that license to use the songwriter's work does not give the songwriter ownership of the arrangement. If I loan or rent my skillsaw to someone to build his house, that does not mean that I own his house any more than he owns my saw. The fact that you willingly recorded your song with the band, including his guitar part, is convincing evidence that you knew and tacitly agreed to his creating the part. You have in effect authorized the creation of a derivative work.
 
http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=9cbb473b-f87b-47eb-8d4b-0202ad56343a
 
If you believe that your contribution to the creation of the guitar part was so specific and material that you can be considered an author of that part as well as the guitarist, and if you and the guitarist were in agreement that it was intended by both of you that, considering just the guitar part, it was  "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole," then you can argue that the guitar part is copyrighted as a joint work. In that case as a joint owner of the copyright you have all of the rights to exploit it that you would have as sole author, and so does he. In that case you do not need his license. Note that if the guitarist and you were not in agreement, then the issue is not clear. You should hope that other band members do not believe that their contributions to your work as a whole makes them co-authors of your work as well. In any case a part owner of the joint work copyright has all of the rights as a single owner to license and perform the work, but is required to share the proceeds of any monetization with his co-author. Unless the formula for the division of the revenue from the joint work is otherwise specified, the law requires it to be shared equally among the authors. The proof against an unintended creation of a joint authorship/copyright is to have your collaborators execute a written assignment of their rights in a work that you claim. That way even if a court eventually decides that they do have a co-author relationship, and hence a joint copyright with you, it will be clear that they have vacated their claim and leave you alone able to exercise the rights in that work. 
 
There are things that are just and things that are fair and then there are things that are legal. But ask yourself, if this thing that the guitarist created, at least in part, is something that you value enough to use in your new recording, is it not fair and just that he share in the value he helped to create? 
 

slartabartfast
... 
There are things that are just and things that are fair and then there are things that are legal. But ask yourself, if this thing that the guitarist created, at least in part, is something that you value enough to use in your new recording, is it not fair and just that he share in the value he helped to create? 
 ...

That applies to the old piece, not the new piece! Which will be a different experience, even though the "lead" will be similar/the same ... this is where the line in copyrights is very confused, and needs cleaning up.
 

Moshkito

slartabartfast
... 
There are things that are just and things that are fair and then there are things that are legal. But ask yourself, if this thing that the guitarist created, at least in part, is something that you value enough to use in your new recording, is it not fair and just that he share in the value he helped to create? 
 ...

That applies to the old piece, not the new piece! Which will be a different experience, even though the "lead" will be similar/the same ... this is where the line in copyrights is very confused, and needs cleaning up.
 

The moral argument, which you quote does not depend on the copyright law at all. It is an issue of fairness. It is an undisputed fact that the guitarist contributed valuable material to the original recording. The OP wants to know if he can use that same valuable material in his own re-recording without acknowledging that new contribution or compensating the author. Is that fair? The issue does not arise at all, if the OP is willing to develop his own guitar solo for the new recording. 

The black box in the whole hypothetical discussion so far lies in the LLC papers. I find it suspicious that the band is listed as the publisher, and that the band's agreement seems to distribute any author's royalties equally to all members of the band. Normally a publisher requires an assignment of copyright by the author, in return for collecting and distributing royalties and other considerations. If there is something in the wording of papers signed by the OP that assigned or conveyed his author's rights to the LLC, then he may no longer have any rights to exploit, and no license to use his own song regardless of whether he submitted a copyright registration in his own name as the single author. If the LLC still has legal existence it may be the owner of all the members rights, and if it has ceased to exist as an entity did it do so under an agreement that would re-convey the individual author's rights to the authors? If not then the question may be how does the exercise of state corporation law affect distribution or reassignment of those rights on dissolution. A legal opinion taking all of the facts into consideration may be a necessary expense, unless the OP feels confident that he can understand the issues. Ain't the law a ****?
 

Like others responding I am not a copyright lawyer. In any case, what knowledge I have is UK specific and we do some things very differently to the US where copyright and copyright registration is concerned. Like we don't need to register copyright because it automatically comes into being when someone creates something.

The opinion of a good lawyer with knowledge of copyright, publishing, company law and music industry practice would be the most reliable source of advice, or the advice of a relevant trades union such as the Musician's Union in the UK or its US equivalent if you're a member.

Much might depend on the provisions contained within the LLC for royalty and licence fee sharing and what happens if it is wound up and the nature of the LLC itself. If those things aren't covered in the agreements concerning the LLC then in the absence of any agreement between parties at the time, there is quite likely to be relevant law that states what happens to residual income etc. after an LLC or partnership ceases to exist in the absence of a prior agreement.

This is the kind of situation that can get very messy very quickly, especially if the original recording was commercially successful, or your (or another person's) later version became a commercial success. It can also get very messy if the LLC broke up acrimoniously or people have grudges. Where the residual rights of the LLC have ended up is also an issue.

The best advice is to ask a competent lawyer, though that is unlikely to be cheap.

Man, I have not read posts in here in a while and the subject line stuck out, so I started reading and now my head is spinning. The "note-for-note" thing stands out because there are a lot of recognized lawsuits for this ("Down Under," Vanilla Ice for "Under Pressure" (bass line), and even Sesame Street was sued for "Letter 'B'" ("Let It Be")). I definitely do not know the answers to any of the domains in question (they still baffle me actually), but is wise to get advice from a definitive source.
 
The flip side of my confusion is someone put together a video called "The Riff" (or some such) I saw a while ago that had footage of the identical riff in like 40 songs, and it made me wonder about "how far rights go" when someone can stake a claim on a handful of notes. I wish I could remember the name of that video since I haven't been able to find it since. I actually find myself shifting into a song when just screwing around because I happen to play 6 notes that take me there.

mettelus
Man, I have not read posts in here in a while and the subject line stuck out, so I started reading and now my head is spinning. The "note-for-note" thing stands out because there are a lot of recognized lawsuits for this ("Down Under," Vanilla Ice for "Under Pressure" (bass line), and even Sesame Street was sued 
 

Those examples were for plagiarising different songs though, not re-recording the same song note-for-note.

Don't forget that Fogerty got sued (and lost) in a case for plagiarizing his own work.