# Work For Hire



## Ned Bouhalassa (May 29, 2010)

Having just realized what I signed a couple of years ago, I want to help some of you from making the same mistake:

WORK FOR HIRE MEANS YOU'RE SCREWED!

The term work-for-hire in a contract means that you're agreeing that the production company is the creator of your music. The production can use your music forever. All you get are the royalties, while the production will sell all kinds of shows with you music on it without giving you a cent.

If you're aware of it, you can then negotiate a bigger fee upfront, knowing full well what you're getting into.

If you don't understand the implications, or if your lawyer/agent doesn't explain it well enough, you're going to be had.


----------



## bigdog (May 29, 2010)

umm....
the contracts that John Williams, HZ etcetc sign are "work for hire"...don't think they go screwed. It just states who the publisher is - the one who makes it oublic


----------



## nikolas (May 29, 2010)

hem... depends on the upfront fee. I've had a couple of total buyouts in my so far career, but the fee was rather appropriate for that, so I didn't mind. Plus the whole gigs were hardly the type where you get to resell the music and do tons of stuff with it...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (May 29, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire


----------



## JohnG (May 29, 2010)

A work for hire contract in the US is, and is intended to be, enveloping. 

As Ned wrote, that means the production company owns your music -- the recording and the music itself -- plus the right to make derivative works (arrangements), resell the music without your permission or paying you again, etc. etc. They own the copyright and the masters, and often sketches, manuscript -- all of it.

WFH is the Big Enchilada of concessions. However...

Typically such a contract will concede back to the composer the right to receive credit, the composer's share of performance royalties, and a few other things. If you are John Williams (and actually often even if you are just a v.i. control member) it also will often specify either a specific share of money earned from sales of CDs or downoads, sheet music rates of sharing, and tons of other stuff.

As long as the agreement concedes back to the composer those things that he or she should get, there is nothing innately pernicious about work for hire, but one has to read carefully.


----------



## JJP (May 29, 2010)

The concessions that John describes are fairly standard to make a work for hire an equitable agreement in the USA. It seems convoluted, but it allows the purchaser to have full control of the music to ease usage in a variety of situations while granting the composer her share of the revenue stream.


----------



## midphase (May 29, 2010)

I think for the most part, WFH is a legal safety status for the producers of the film to have 100% control over their ability to sell, license, and sub license the film without having to go back to the composer for permission each time, or getting into any potential grey areas.

It is rare, but it does indeed happen that the producers re-use the music in a manner which wasn't originally intended. It sounds like Ned might be experiencing this type of situation at the moment which certainly is not pleasant and doesn't do much to reinforce the trust that should be present between producer and creative.

The benefit is of course that if re-usage leads to more royalties, and additional benefits this can be a win win for everyone. If WB decides to use some of my music on the next Batman movie, they'll get no argument from me!

I have passed on a film with a certain production company partly because they wanted the ability to reuse my tracks in other films with no additional compensation. 

Other than that, WFH is unfortunately become the norm in contracts, and I have yet to sign a contract that doesn't have that clause in it. I suppose that on low budget indie films there is more wiggle room in the negotiations, but until there is a composer union who can assist in this sort of thing, I really don't see anything changing substantially.


----------



## Mike Greene (May 29, 2010)

Is this your first contract, Ned? :mrgreen: 

I don't think I've ever signed a Film/TV contract that *wasn't* Work for Hire. Because there are so many unknowns as far as future delivery mediums and advertising and whatnot, it would be crazy for a production company to even attempt to narrowly define what they can and can't do with the music we write. WFH is really the smart thing for them to do.

As John and Kays explained, there's generally also language to ensure you get screen credit and performance royalties, so I don't worry about it. If I'm actually doing songs or working on a project where there are possibilities of soundtrack albums or records, I'll make sure that language is included as well.

As long as those things are taken care of, I don't see the problem. Songs and cues I've written have indeed been used in other projects (the Nye theme gets used in films, Extra cues get used in Ellen, etc,) but I still get my ASCAP money from the new uses, so I'm happy. Do I get a piece of any additional license fees (assuming there even are any?) No, but that's just how the game works, and if that really was a big deal to me, I could try and negotiate to add that language in contracts as well. Mind you, that adds legal costs to what is usually a fairly low paying gig anyway, though, plus I may be unsuccessful or even lose the gig if a client calls my lawyer's bluff. But the option is there for me if I want it.

The bottom line is this is how the business is. And so far for me, I haven't felt taken advantage of by the WFH clause. Taken advantage of in other ways, yes, but not by the WFH clause.


----------



## rgames (May 29, 2010)

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with work for hire. You just need to make certain your fee is sufficient to make it worth your time because you won't own the copyright.

If it's not WFH, then you're generally willing to take a lower fee because you retain ownership of the music and can use it elsewhere.

It's all part of the negotiating process - work for hire is not bad in and of itself.

rgames


----------



## C M Dess (May 29, 2010)

Ned is right because that sector is getting much worse. Right now work for hire means very bad things. This explains a glimpse of what is possible. It's completely disgusting.

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=1760

People who ain't musicians, getting the majority of the money from music....what else is new. There are way too many ways to lose.

It's been this way in the US for YEEEAARRRRSSSS...

Not the intended purpose of copyright at all.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (May 29, 2010)

I guess I should have been more clear, and that ultimately, I didn't spend enough time going over the contract (as for my agent's responsibility in this, that's another story... 'nuff said!): There was a sentence that in the work-for-hire paragraph that stated that the music could be used in a sequel or spin-off. I failed to catch it. So yeah, I get royalties for the future seasons, but given that this is Canada, and you can't legally be forced to sell your royalties, I would have gotten those no matter what. And I have no problems with buyouts, as long as the fee is adjusted accordingly.


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 25, 2010)

With respect to US copyright law, the answers are here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Chapter 2 section 201 (b) covers work for hire. 

There is nothing shady about a work for hire. What that artist, and/or your agent or lawyer, must do is make sure that you are adequately compensated. If you're not happy with that, you need better representation.

Some smaller producers automatically assume that it is a work for hire simply because they "hired" you. That, however, is not the case.The contract must specifically state that it is a work for hire. If it doesn't, then it is not. It is merely a license.

I'm only addressing US law. I cannot speak regarding Canada or Germany, with the exception that US law will govern a contract with a US company, absent a choice of law clause to the contrary.

(geez, once they pound this stuff into your brain it never goes away!)

Michael


----------

