I think the biggest one that I've heard is... "Whoever owns the studio" or "Whoever paid for the studio time" automatically owns the masters. That's why if a artist ever becomes successful and starts making money the first thing that they should do is build their own studio so now the record label can't say... "You used our studio to record the music so we own the masters". But then you still have to worry about what does the "contract" say about who owns the master recordings.
About the LLC what name would I register that under? My government name or my artist name? or should I register as a label under my government name then sign myself to my own label as an artist?
Your LLC is a limited liability company. It should be a name other than your own name. You register it with a specific state. The state you live in is a fine place to start. Once you register it with a state you apply to the federal government for an EIN (employer identification number). This is like the social security number for the LLC.
Copyright ownership is not the same as the master sound recording. One has nothing to do with the other. That's like saying a videographer doesn't own the recorded video footage because the underlying performance belongs to the artist. If there's a label contract, the label pays the studio for the master sound recording. They own it, unless there's a percentage specifically given to the artist. If the artist is not in a deal and they fail to pay for the studio time, they don't own the master recording, same as if you don't pay the wedding photographer, you don't own the pictures. The one who created the recording owns the recording until its paid for. They don't own copyright however.
@@bowenschmidtlaw You just said the same thing I said. But the fact remains that if the master isn't paid for, the ownership is with the studio because they created the master recording. So what was said previously is not a lie.
@@knockriobeats You said copyright ownership is not the same as the master sound recording. They are the same thing (1 of 2 copyrights created in music). It's not about who pays for anything, it who creates the thing. If you want the person who pays for it to own, then you need a contract. A studio wouldn't own a master unless someone working their actually created something on that master (a beat, lyrics, a vocal track, production). Again, its not about furnishing equipment or value (money), its about being the person who created the thing.
@@bowenschmidtlaw So when the label pays the studio, they sign a contract saying they are transferring copyright to the label? I've paid for a lotta studio sessions and never once has there been paperwork saying the studio is transferring rights. Its done on a work for hire basis where they get paid for the work contracted. No one is giving them a copyright in that situation for that reason. But if I'm managing an artist independent of a label, and I pay for the master recording, I own it. The studio doesn't own it because I paid them to create it.
@@knockriobeats Yes. If you want everything to be 100% on the legal up and up and no issues down the road of who owns what, there should really be money plus contract confirming or transferring ownership. People don't always do that and you might get lucky and not get burned, but the contract will always be the safest path.
Spotify is letting me upload all of my Suno songs. The work is in the writing and then you throw it at the power of a billion bands. And you don't have to deal with the ego of some dude who thinks he's creative because he knows how to play piano. Yet all of his stories suck because he spent his life playing the piano 😂😂.
I dont like the business manager part of things, as an artist I dont want nobody collecting my checks ill take the money thank you, he said personal manager, artist manager, business manager & tour manager then on top of that taxes, bro after all that thats over 50percent out of my $, nah ill figure out another way 1 manager mf that's it lol
In music there is no standard. Everyone's contract is different! The standard is most artist get robbed. So whats the point of an attorney if the artist has to know law too?👀👀🥱🤔
I think the biggest one that I've heard is... "Whoever owns the studio" or "Whoever paid for the studio time" automatically owns the masters. That's why if a artist ever becomes successful and starts making money the first thing that they should do is build their own studio so now the record label can't say... "You used our studio to record the music so we own the masters". But then you still have to worry about what does the "contract" say about who owns the master recordings.
meeting with a major next week, thanks for this. great timing for me
Lots of gems! definitely gonna stop playing and get this llc formed 😅
Excellent conversation
Golden info great content!
This was an informative discussion With Good Music Business Information ! ❗😃
Fresh in and it’s dope already
Educational ☔️☔️☔️☔️
Bar: -.. Or are they A&R’s with a Law Degree. 😳🎯
Perfect episode
Good stuff
About the LLC what name would I register that under? My government name or my artist name? or should I register as a label under my government name then sign myself to my own label as an artist?
That's what I've been wondering.
@@KYLETISZAI nah fr when or if you find out please come back and let me know. Cause they didn’t expound on that at all lol
Entertainment services looking into that. As a artist you want to be a wide brand instead of just a artist you will be limited if not set up right
@@NoAreaCodeTV right but that didn’t answer my question lol
Your LLC is a limited liability company. It should be a name other than your own name. You register it with a specific state. The state you live in is a fine place to start. Once you register it with a state you apply to the federal government for an EIN (employer identification number). This is like the social security number for the LLC.
Great stuff!!
Rappers Delight vs Good Times.
🎉🎉🎉
🙏🏼
better walk in with a hard drive bounce that whole session and then delete from origin 🤷🏽♂️
Copyright ownership is not the same as the master sound recording. One has nothing to do with the other. That's like saying a videographer doesn't own the recorded video footage because the underlying performance belongs to the artist. If there's a label contract, the label pays the studio for the master sound recording. They own it, unless there's a percentage specifically given to the artist. If the artist is not in a deal and they fail to pay for the studio time, they don't own the master recording, same as if you don't pay the wedding photographer, you don't own the pictures. The one who created the recording owns the recording until its paid for. They don't own copyright however.
With music you have copyrights in two components of a song: (1) the master sound recording (also known as phonorecord and depicted as ℗ on the back of albums and on your DSPs); and (2) the composition (aka publishing/music and lyrics and depicted as ©). The people who actually create the work (sing, write lyrics, perform instrumentation, produce) own the respective copyrights unless there is a contract saying otherwise.
@@bowenschmidtlaw You just said the same thing I said. But the fact remains that if the master isn't paid for, the ownership is with the studio because they created the master recording. So what was said previously is not a lie.
@@knockriobeats You said copyright ownership is not the same as the master sound recording. They are the same thing (1 of 2 copyrights created in music). It's not about who pays for anything, it who creates the thing. If you want the person who pays for it to own, then you need a contract. A studio wouldn't own a master unless someone working their actually created something on that master (a beat, lyrics, a vocal track, production). Again, its not about furnishing equipment or value (money), its about being the person who created the thing.
@@bowenschmidtlaw So when the label pays the studio, they sign a contract saying they are transferring copyright to the label? I've paid for a lotta studio sessions and never once has there been paperwork saying the studio is transferring rights. Its done on a work for hire basis where they get paid for the work contracted. No one is giving them a copyright in that situation for that reason. But if I'm managing an artist independent of a label, and I pay for the master recording, I own it. The studio doesn't own it because I paid them to create it.
@@knockriobeats Yes. If you want everything to be 100% on the legal up and up and no issues down the road of who owns what, there should really be money plus contract confirming or transferring ownership. People don't always do that and you might get lucky and not get burned, but the contract will always be the safest path.
Spotify is letting me upload all of my Suno songs. The work is in the writing and then you throw it at the power of a billion bands. And you don't have to deal with the ego of some dude who thinks he's creative because he knows how to play piano. Yet all of his stories suck because he spent his life playing the piano 😂😂.
#143👍
I dont like the business manager part of things, as an artist I dont want nobody collecting my checks ill take the money thank you, he said personal manager, artist manager, business manager & tour manager then on top of that taxes, bro after all that thats over 50percent out of my $, nah ill figure out another way 1 manager mf that's it lol
lmfao I said the same shit. Why would I need anything fr besides a tour manager... everything else I can handle.
In music there is no standard. Everyone's contract is different! The standard is most artist get robbed. So whats the point of an attorney if the artist has to know law too?👀👀🥱🤔
Good point