The Offspring

nirvana

Wants to Invest in a Band

Dear Rich: Myself and a partner are considering investing in a band. The band is pretty far along, playing 2000 seat venues, recording their first cd, and seemingly taking success very seriously. They need funds to go to the next level and we are comfortable getting involved. However, the zillions of music industry contracts/guides out there do not touch on contracts protecting an investor buying a percentage of the band's entire business. Can you steer me toward something like this? I am looking for specific contract templates, along with what-to-watch-out-for insight. Investing in a band is the same as investing in any other business (which is why you're probably not finding paperwork specifically geared to bands). So lets take a look at the three things required to invest in a business: (1) a formal business entity -- that is the band must be a partnership, LLC, or corporation (preferably one of the latter two), and (2) an agreement between the owners of the entity formalizing your investment (for example, a stock agreement), and (3) some knowledge of the industry in which you are investing.
LLC or corporation. We recommend that the band form an LLC or corporation because investors in those entities have limited liability. That way investors will be shielded if the band throws a TV out of their hotel window and it lands on someone's Ferrari. These entities are also better suited for making investments than a partnership. There are plenty of self help books and forms, and online programs that explain how to form and invest in LLCs and corporations, though our hearts are with the Nolo products (insert FTC disclaimer, here).
Why it matters that you learn about the industry. Every industry has its quirks and the music industry has more than most. You should take a basic primer in music copyrights and trademarks because the assets of the band are concentrated in those intangibles. You'll probably want the songwriters in the band to contribute their songwriting copyrights to the band entity. However, that's not something they're obligated to do. So, before you drop your money into the band's piggy bank, you should probably be sure that the assets placed into the entity, reflect the money-making features of the band. And of course, it's probably in everyone's best interests for you and your partner to have your own attorney and the band to have different representation. That will go a long way to prevent a post-breakup challenge to the agreement.

Compulsory Notice Questions for Ballet CD

Dear Rich: My boyfriend and I have recorded about 30 tracks to make a ballet class CD (my boyfriend is a pianist at the city ballet). All songs on the CD are movie songs and have been previously released to the public on a sound recording such as a CD or record. He initially learned the basic melodies from sheet music, then over the years enhanced the songs with his own progressions, harmonies, may have added a little jazz improv in some of them. Since the CD is for a ballet class, he adapted the length (shortened or extended) and tempo to fit ballet class exercises. My first question is: Based on what I described above, can I take the Notice of Intention to Obtain a Compulsory License route? My second question is: In three of the tracks, my boyfriend did something unconventional -- for example, in one of the three tracks, he played 16 measures of the theme from Charade, then he played 16 measures of Chim Chim Cher-ee from Mary Poppins. then he ended the track by playing the same 16 measures of Charade. Would these types of formats not meet the requirements for a compulsory license? My last question is: some of these songs were from musicals, but films of these musicals were made. Should I be concerned about the songs not meeting the "non-dramatic musical work" requirement? Sorry, your reference to Charade made us search our iTunes database for our Henry Mancini tracks. What a great movie composer. We have a friend who gives us obscure Henry Mancini recordings and as much as we love Pink Panther and stuff like that, he's is so much more than that -- for example, the tracks from the Peter Gunn TV show equaled and excelled the more well known theme music.
Right, you had a question(s). Yes, you can use the compulsory notice for music that includes some improv and personal progressions. It's true that major revisions to a song require permission, but practically, publishers don't really care about what you do between the grooves provided you pay the toll (9.1 cents per track).
As for your second question. If you're using two tunes on one track, you have a few choices: you can pay both publishers 9.1 cents (again, they won't care what you're doing); you can pay only for the dominant/primary tune that you're using and hope that the other publisher doesn't hear (or care) about your "quoting" of the melody. (The other publisher is unlikely to learn of it unless the title is included in the CD notes -- for example, "Track 5: Charade/Chim-Chim-cher-ee.") And finally, you can try to negotiate with both publishers for a lower rate (probably a waste of time unless you're a major label.) We think you're probably fine with the second choice.
And your third question. The compulsory license is for nondramatic uses so your use on a CD would qualify. A dramatic use would be if you wanted a license to perform the music publicly as part of a show.

No Porn in Porn + Bad Lamps

Nice music video composed of non-pornographic introductory scenes from pornographic movies. Music: Bad Lamps - Never Know the Difference.

Paul Minor Photography

Paul Minor is a Los Angeles based film director. He has done music videos for Queens of the Stone Age, Glasvegas, Editors and Muse among others.

Sampling: Comparing Beasties and George Clinton

Dear Rich: I am a music publisher and have a sampling question. How would you describe the essential difference between the opinion in Newton v. Diamond as compared with Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films? If Bridgeport had been decided first, would the judge in Newton be obligated to render a different decision? No, the Dear Rich Staff doesn't think so. The two decisions referred to are both sampling decisions but they actually address two different issues. Sampling music usually involves two copyrights: one for the songwriters (the musical composition); and the other for the arrangement, production and recording of the musical sounds (the sound recording copyright). The record company usually owns the latter, a music publisher usually owns the former.
Newton: A Lawsuit Over the Musical Composition. In Newton (the case involving the Beastie Boys' use of a James Newton flute sample), the Beasties paid for a license to use the sound recording, but they did not obtain a license to use Newton's underlying composition. When Newton sued, the court ruled that the borrowing of the composition was de minimis (too small to matter).
Bridgeport: A Lawsuit Over a Sound Recording. In Bridgeport (in which a film company used a George Clinton/Funkadelic song sample in a movie soundtrack), the defendants were sued solely over the failure to obtain the sound recording license. The court asked the same question as you, and answered as follows:

"[This case] raises the question of why one should, without infringing, be able to take three notes from a musical composition, for example, but not three notes by way of sampling from a sound recording. Why is there no de minimis taking or why should substantial similarity not enter the equation. Our first answer to this question is what we have earlier indicated. We think this result is dictated by the applicable statute. Second, even when a small part of a sound recording is sampled, the part taken is something of value. No further proof of that is necessary than the fact that the producer of the record or the artist on the record intentionally sampled because it would (1) save costs, or (2) add something to the new recording, or (3) both. For the sound recording copyright holder, it is not the "song" but the sounds that are fixed in the medium of his choice. When those sounds are sampled they are taken directly from that fixed medium. It is a physical taking rather than an intellectual one."

Mental, eh? Unfortunately for musicians the takeaway is that based on Newton and Bridgeport, all sampling of sound recordings requires permission, whereas some sampling of compositions is excusable. We can't say we agree.

Lost and leitmotivs game

Oh well... it's a spanish page, but i had some fun playing the Lost leitmotivs game. As you probably know every character in Lost has his own personal music theme composed by the great Michael Giacchino. My score? 16/16!! ;)
[Previously on Lost... One year ago today, Lost ended - Jackimals - If Disney Did LOST.. - Hurley + DharmaVan - Geography of LOST: Retrospective - Dharma Initiative Alarm Clock - Dharma Buttons - My Life is Lost - Lost in 8 Bits - Some Lost Actors Before Lost - Lost On 'Lost' - Lost Reduced: five seasons of Lost in 10mins - Penney Design: Lost in 1984 - "Lost" Recapped by Extended Italian Family]

I can see boobies

quote [This video is a tribute to Russ Meyer, great director and true boobies king (1922 -- 2004)].

Can We Sample Tequila? The Song That Is ...

Dear Rich: I am representing a band that has written a song that uses 4 seconds of the song "Tequila" in a break. The song is not sampled, but rather the melody is played by the lead guitar and the word "tequila" is sung once. The band expects to release the song for widespread commercial use. I have already determined that "Tequila" is protected by copyright and the publisher is registered with BMI as I recall. Do we need to get a license or sample clearance? Is there a fair use or some other exception that might apply? The good news is that you haven't sampled the Tequila recording. That eliminates the pesky issues raised by the 6th Circuit in this harshy-harsh sampling case. (They proclaimed that all digital sampling required a license no matter how short or inaudible the sample!)
Analog Not Digital. Since you're not doing any digital sampling, we think you're in a better position to go without permission and claim two defenses:

• the de minimis defense. Four seconds of Tequila is not an infringement because the use is so minimal, or 
• the fair use defense. You are using the song for transformative purposes (perhaps commenting on Tequila's retro-classic cultural significance, or referencing Tequila to make a point about alcohol consumption.)

But like Tequila, you may want to take our advice with a few grains of salt. We're discussing defenses and if the owner of the song disputes your position, a judge will have to decide the matter -- always an expensive proposition. Some other questions to consider: Is the band under contract and must they declare the samples to their label? Is the copyright owner likely to learn of your use? Need some more on sampling? Check out this article.

Autoerotique Explode Cakes

Turn Up The Cake. The official video for Autoerotique "Turn Up The Volume".



Stars: Changes

From the album The Five Ghosts. Director: Jaron Albertin. Producer: Shannon Brand for Spy Films Inc.

Frankie Sandford Has Had Her Share Of 'Nip Slips' Too (NSFW)

Yesterday we posted a few photos of the girls from The Saturdays lounging around in bikinis. Mollie King ended up having a nipple slip while wearing a white bikini and we felt it necessary to point out that Frankie Sandford has also had a few different nipple slips and even a sexy upskirt incident (photos below).

See more »

He Wants to Avoid Paying Taxes for Band

Dear Rich: I just purchased your book online called "Music Law: How to Run Your Band's Business." I Paid For Rush Order As I Need Advice Before Friday And Not Sure My Book Will Arrive On Time So I Took The Chance Of Writing To You With Fingers Crossed You Read This And May Have An Answer For Me. My Husband Is A Professional Musician And Tours A Few Times A Year. When He Is Home He Just Plays Gigs Around Town In Different Bands And Plays At Church Every Week. He Does Not Have A Trademarked Or Serious Band Or Anything Like That Himself. He Usually Just Plays With Other Bands When He Gets Off Tour And They Pay Him By Check. They Give Him A 1099 At The End Of The Year If He Makes Over $600 With Them. My Husband Is Set Up As A "Section C" For His Taxes. My Husband Has Never Booked A Band And Does Not Really Know Anything About Signing Band Contracts For Club/Venues. A Club Just Approached Him To Play And Put A New Band Together For His Club. My Husband Is Supposed To Go To The Club On Friday And Sign A Contract. They Want Him To Play At The Club About 2 Times A Month. The Pay Is $800 Per Band And They Only Pay By Check To The Person Who Signs The Contract. I Am Very Nervous About My Husband Signing And What He Is Opening Himself Up To In Relation To Taxes At The End Of The Year. If He Signs The Contract He Will Be Responsible For The Entire Band Taxes For That Year-Correct? (If They Play 2 X Month For 1 Year That Will Be $19,200 Total Band Taxable Income.......$3,840 Per Individual Band Member). How Can He Book Gigs And Protect Himself And Not Get Stuck With Paying All The Taxes For The Entire Band And What Are His Options? Since you're in a hurry and we're in a hurry, we didn't bother to uncapitalize your question but we are curious about this grammatical aberration. Not to be rude, but what's up? If using all caps in email is like shouting, is this less than shouting but still intended to convey a sense of urgency? Curious as many are, but FYI, it makes it a bit tiring to read.
Right, you had a question (and you're in a hurry). Your husband should take the gig and take the payment. You won't have any problem with your taxes because your husband can deduct all of the payments he makes to the other band members (on his Schedule C). After that, he would only have to pay taxes on the remainder (which should be his payment). If he pays the other individual musicians more than $600 in a year, he must issue 1099s. That's not hard to do (we've done it ourselves and you can even automate the process online).  The Music Law book explains all this and you'll have plenty of time to read it before tax time.

He wants to use image from concert video

Dear Rich: I have some old Who videos from a concert about 35 years ago that I took one frame out of and made my own electronic art out of it. While what I created is quite different then the original frame, it is the foundation of my art picture that I am left with. If I were to hang that up or sell it, would I be violating copyright laws. It was from a very old concert and the frame that I used as a my foundation for what I created could have come from anywhere. And, if I am violating copyright, is it really enforceable and/or do you think it would be an issue with anyone if I were to sell this edited image? Short answer dept. No we don't think your use is likely to become a legal issue. As we explained in yesterday's entry, using a single still can constitute infringement though it's usually not likely to result in a lawsuit. The concert film is most likely protected under copyright law as the Who haven't been around long enough to trigger any of the traps that would drop the movie into the public domain -- for example, if it was published before 1964 and not renewed.
Fair Use Dept. It sounds as if you have the makings of a decent fair use argument (although we'd prefer if you didn't get embroiled in that type of dispute). Here's a link to compare your use to other visual arts fair use cases.
Staying out of trouble dept. Are you selling only a single print?  Problems are more likely to develop if you market the work in bulk. So if you're paranoid about being hassled, don't mass produce your prints.

Does a music producer own the copyright in a band's sound recording

Dear Rich: Help us out here. My band wants to register the copyright in our recording but we're not sure who to list as owner. Is it the producer, or the band, or do we split it? There's no definite answer for your band because determining the ownership of a sound recording copyright (as with a songwriting copyright) depends on the contributions made by each person. Usually, yes, a producer is co-author of the recording because the producer performs a wide range of tasks including performing, arranging, and mixing. (That's why they get paid the not-so-big bucks.) On the other hand, as happened in a case involving the White Stripes, a co-producer who set up mics and chose reverb settings did not have a claim to copyright because his contributions were not considered sufficiently creative. And of course, just because you produced or played on the recording, doesn't mean you own copyright -- for example, record companies routinely require producers and musicians to assign all their rights back to the company. This guarantees that the record company can claim sound recording copyright. P.S. Here's one producer we love.

How do I register sound recording and songwriting copyright?

Dear Rich, I recently recorded a CD with my fiance and am trying to figure out how many applications I should submit to the copyright office. Here's a breakdown of contributions for this CD/project... I wrote all 10 songs (music and lyrics), except one which was written with my fiance. I recorded/arranged/mixed most of the music. Vocals and another instrument (performed by my fiance), were recorded at her father's studio. Her father mixed the tracks (that I had put together) with these additional recordings (vocals, etc.), then he mastered the CD. So, should I submit one application for music and lyrics for songs 1 - 9 (for myself), another application for the 10th song (my fiance and I), then a third for the sound recording including all three of us? Wow, with all the turmoil and terror in the world, the Dear Rich Staff is so happy to answer a question from some kissing musicians on Valentine's Day.
Right, you had a question. You need only submit two applications, one for the songwriting (musical composition/performing arts) and the other for the recording (sound recording). We think that the Form CO is easiest and here's a video explaining how to fill it out for your songs. You're allowed to list songs by more than one writer on a single form provided that one writer is the same for all of the songs. Here's a circular about registering musical compositions. Next, you would use a Form CO and claim sound recording copyright (here's a circular). Although we didn't think it applies in your case, you can use just one Form CO for everything if the same person owns the copyright in the songs and the sound recording. This could happen, for example, if your fiance and her father assigned you their rights in the sound recording. We hope your wedding plans work out and speaking of V-Day, have you seen this patent application?