# Can you get in legal trouble for copying yourself?



## mikebarry (Apr 15, 2010)

I imagine you can, remembering that whole Spiderman 3 scenario. Imagine getting hired to write a track from company A. Company A hired you for your track they liked on company B but cannot purchase the rights to. So they get you to make the same type track for them.

The trick is, can company B come back and say - oh no you don't. I imagine they could if you don't own the track - but you still own the writers share?

Not easy to explain but I think you know what I mean.


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 15, 2010)

Yes you can get in trouble - depends who owns what.

I _think_ it comes down to who owns the publishing. A 'work for hire' is definitely owned by the the client/employer, and the composer is not considered the owner/author there. But as for non- 'works for hire', again, I am pretty sure it's the publishing that factors in here.

I remember James Hetfield saying that he had to get permission to do "The Unforgiven II" for Metallica's 'Reload'. Whether or not that's true or a publicity stunt, I am not sure, but if it were true it would not suprise me.
Cheers.


----------



## midphase (Apr 15, 2010)

Here's the thing...

Sure...on paper you might possibly be risking getting sued, and all the headaches that come with that. In practice, they would have to be able to prove without any reasonable doubt that you plagiarized yourself.

Your attorney would simply make an argument that this is what you sound like, and any work that you create will inherently share similarities between itself.

It would be extremely hard for a jury of non-composers to find you guilty.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 15, 2010)

RiffWraith @ Thu Apr 15 said:


> Yes you can get in trouble - depends who owns what.
> 
> I _think_ it comes down to who owns the publishing. A 'work for hire' is definitely owned by the the client/employer, and the composer is not considered the owner/author there. But as for non- 'works for hire', again, I am pretty sure it's the publishing that factors in here.
> 
> ...




i agree. the owner and whom ultimately says if you can use a melody (ripoff) is the company that owns it. like the big distributors. 

there was a story about scott smalley that he wanted to study and get a feel for some of john william stuff when he was going to orchestrate i dunno what.
he was thinking that john W wouldnt like the idea and so forth but he called up paramount and the guy in charge of the library of where all those materials are said.. "I dont care about JW. this is our Music not his!!! "

but i guess it can get in a big grey area. and i think the ultimate thing is to know for sure before doing something like it cause if not those layers love those grey areas where they can spend long hours in court and paperwork. sure u might win a case but the $$$ out to the lawyers and the time it takes its better to consult 1st with one of them for low fee. (one who knows about this of course. )


----------



## bdr (Apr 16, 2010)

Ask Thomas Newman?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Apr 16, 2010)

bdr @ Fri Apr 16 said:


> Ask James Horner?



Fixed


----------



## John DeBorde (Apr 16, 2010)

or John Fogerty


----------



## Narval (Apr 16, 2010)

Not for copying yourself, but for copying copyrighted material that belongs to a publisher other than yourself, yes. (if you fail to credit and to let them collect their share, that is.)

Although I suppose in such situations deals can be arranged between the interested parties.


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 18, 2010)

John DeBorde @ Fri Apr 16 said:


> or John Fogerty


I think John Fogerty won that case. Not only that, the judge ordered Fantasy Records (or whoever it was who sued him) to pay Fogerty's legal fees. Copyright law is unique in that a judge can allow loser pays winner's legal fees. That's just one reason that cases actually going to court are pretty rare.

I think that unless you wrote some melody that a client is going to really care about (McDonalds' "I'm lovin' it" for instance,) then nobody's going to get too upset if you "borrow" from yourself. Most of my clients really only care that *they* won't get sued, not that they can sue me later if I reuse a melody. Then again, maybe if I wrote a decent cue for a change, their attitude might change. :D


----------



## JohnG (Apr 18, 2010)

I agree with Mike Greene. Given how similar some composers' work sounds from score to score, it's surprising how infrequently there are lawsuits.

To touch briefly on the OP, a clause similar to the following is in many contracts:

_I hereby warrant and represent: ...that all works and compositions written, composed, created, recorded, produced, and/or delivered by me to Company hereunder shall be original works and compositions written, composed, and/or created by me and shall not infringe on any copyright or any other right (whether statutory, common law or contractual) held or owned by any other person or entity, or be subject to any claims by third parties, nor require Company to make any additional payment for the use or exploitation thereof other than as set forth in the Agreement_

I think that this language, or language like it, is very clear. You can't copy your previous work if such previous work was created as a work for hire (as far as I know, just about all studio, major independent film, and TV work is done this way).


----------

