# Is this common practice? Tracks recorded on premises are ours to keep.



## Rv5 (Dec 21, 2013)

A studio I know of takes on students for work experience year in year out from some of the top music universities in the country. In return for the student's (un-paid) work experience all music they compose in the studio is instantly owned by the studio out-right (recording and life-time exclusive publishing). Few of these students go on to get paid and if so, it's below minimum wage and most likey on an invoice (freelance) basis. All credits for the track will be the studio, ommiting the composers name at the studios discretion.

This means they own lots of tracks that they can sell on and retain 100% of any license fees and take 50% of the royalties, just in return for 'work experience'. No contracts are offered, it's just done in a casual conversation, which people do because of course it's a 'great opportunity'.

The studio offers syncs and is successful for its part working with big-name clients and steady work flow.

Is it common practice to take on work experience students and keep any tracks they write on-site outright, taking credit and only paying out the 50% composers share in royalties? They really think it is, so I'm interested in what people round here say.

Cheers.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 21, 2013)

Names, please.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 21, 2013)

not only is that uncommon, I think it is highly irregular. A contract is a a contract of course, and if the students are willing to sign it then the studio can probably enforce it.

My experience has been quite the opposite... when I was doing demo projects for newby singer/songwriters I would often be involved in arranging, producing, and even playing.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE doing these sorts of projects, even though they tend to have a fairly low margin<G>.

Anyway, in the past I never asked for permission to use these tracks on my demo reel, I would wait to see how the project turned out. And that was, 100% of the time, too late. I can't recall anyone granting me that permission... even though it would have been additional exposure for them.

These days I don't do many of these projects, but when I do I include a clause in the contract, which I explain to the client, that allows me to use at most two of their tracks on my demo reel.

Wish I'd been that smart several years ago!!


----------



## Rv5 (Dec 21, 2013)

No names for now, public forum and all... :shock:

I think it's best to keep to what info there is above.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 21, 2013)

You mention tracks composed in the studio. Some composing only needs pencil and paper. Not a studio. If you are talking about electronic based tracks, then the students are using equipment and plugins that they don't own, and if they are virtual instruments, they probably have no licence to use, as per the EULA. In the latter case they would not be able to have a share in the actual recording. I would need to know a lot more before being able to form an opinion.

D


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 21, 2013)

Somewhere, probably in a coffee shop, someone is reading this, thinking, "Hey - I've got to start hiring some students and registering a new publishing entity!" :(


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 21, 2013)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> Somewhere, probably in a coffee shop, someone is reading this, thinking, "Hey - I've got to start hiring some students and registering a new publishing entity!" :(



And then, I'll take all their tracks and make them available to youtube video producers for free so that I can make tons of money from content ID.


----------



## Rv5 (Dec 21, 2013)

Daryl @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> You mention tracks composed in the studio. Some composing only needs pencil and paper. Not a studio. If you are talking about electronic based tracks, then the students are using equipment and plugins that they don't own, and if they are virtual instruments, they probably have no licence to use, as per the EULA. In the latter case they would not be able to have a share in the actual recording. I would need to know a lot more before being able to form an opinion.
> 
> D



Hi Daryl, great point. Yes work is done on equipment owned by the studio including sample libraries, plug-ins on mac pro set-ups and a healthy amount of live instruments. The sample libraries are basic compared to what's available. Sometimes the music is developed and shared between composers usually in a collaborative effort to fulfil a brief. If it's a failed pitch then the music just falls into the studios pool of tracks.

It is usually in the lesser studios where students work which consists of a basic set-up, but as a pay off they will get access to the better studios which can sometimes be used for personal stuff outside of work hours.

In work hours any music made, produced, recorded for use in projects whether current or future are owned by the studio as soon as they are made. This is always work within a DAW, so recorded/programmed music regardless of style/context.

Essentially you are looking at:

Students get experience writing and creating for brief in 'real world' environment.
Potential access to the studios out of hours.
Access to equipment to work on.

Studio gets tracks they own outright from highly talented students.

Work experience can vary depending on the student, but usually only some composing.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 21, 2013)

OK, so leaving aside for a moment that these are students, the situation, as I understand it, is this:

A composer uses a studio, pays no hire fees for studio, the equipment, utilities, no contribution towards rent or business rates, uses sample libraries and virtual instruments, that they have no right to use, according to the usual terms in a EULA. This straight away means that it is very unlikely that they would own the recording.

Now comes the question of ownership of the music, aside from the recording. In theory both Writer's share and Publisher's share are owned by the creator, unless they have specifically agreed to appoint a Publisher. In this case I don't see it as unreasonable for the studio to insist on Publishing the music, as they have paid for all production expenses. In fact there are TV channels who won't even let you pitch for a TV job unless you grant them Publishing rights, even if your pitch is unsuccessful.....!

For me there are only two further issues:

1) Is this studio in a position to gain placements for unsuccessful tracks?
2) How easy is it to get back the Publishing if the studio is unable to exploit it successfully?

D


----------



## JohnG (Dec 21, 2013)

I think it is outrageous opportunism.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 21, 2013)

JohnG @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> I think it is outrageous opportunism.


That wasn't the question. It was whether or not this situation was uncommon. I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle yet, but from what I've been told so far, my answer is yes, it is common. In my mind it is no different to pitching for an ad or a TV show, knowing that you'll lose the Publishing, whether or not you are successful. In fact, in some ways it's better, because you don't have to have your own studio and all the expenses that entails.

As to the morality of it I agree with you, but then again there are many things in the commercial sector that I find immoral. However, there is a line that we're all prepared to cross, and that line will be in a different place for all of us.]

D


----------



## Rv5 (Dec 21, 2013)

> For me there are only two further issues:
> 
> 1) Is this studio in a position to gain placements for unsuccessful tracks?
> 2) How easy is it to get back the Publishing if the studio is unable to exploit it successfully?



1) Yes
2) With legal action it should be straightforward as there is no contract. I don't think they'd give it up otherwise though.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 21, 2013)

Rv5 @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> > For me there are only two further issues:
> >
> > 1) Is this studio in a position to gain placements for unsuccessful tracks?
> > 2) How easy is it to get back the Publishing if the studio is unable to exploit it successfully?
> ...


OK, so then yes, it is no different from the way that many music agencies act. The only difference is that the studio is providing the facilities, whereas most music agencies expect you to use your own studio.

FWIW I do know that some Universities that have recording facilities also insist on owning the recordings of anything recorded on their premises. In order to change that, the student has to do a commercial hire, which is not free by any means. However, I do not know of an instance where the Publishing of the recorded music is also forfeit.

D


----------



## Rv5 (Dec 21, 2013)

Daryl @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> JohnG @ Sat Dec 21 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is outrageous opportunism.
> ...



Nicely put. 

I didn't realise there are pitches where you are asked to give up the publishing for that track - is this just for music made 'on location' i.e using the facilities the people pitching provide?

This particular studio take on exceptional young talent and make money off their music. In return the talent get to use some cool equipment a little bit, make some tea and empty the dishwasher. They might see some of their stuff on TV, not under their name though. I know multiple ex-work experience folk from there who have taken issue at one point. There is the tipping point that never seems to be in the composers favour, so in come the next lot.

Maybe it is ok, maybe it is a great opportunity, maybe it is common and ultimately everyone's been there. Maybe it's completey exploitative and void of moral standards. Thanks for the feedback it's good to know what's going on out there.

Either way the two universities are going to address the situation, they obviously want to protect their students.


----------



## Rv5 (Dec 21, 2013)

> However, I do not know of an instance where the Publishing of the recorded music is also forfeit.



Oh ok that's interesting - yes everything is forfeit - the master recording and the publishing with the composer retaining the 50% composers share. This means the studio can go on to use the track time and time again. If only a sync fee or license fee is paid, the composer never get's any money.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 21, 2013)

Rv5 @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> I didn't realise there are pitches where you are asked to give up the publishing for that track - is this just for music made 'on location' i.e using the facilities the people pitching provide?


The composer has to use their own facility, and there may not even be a demo fee on offer.



Rv5 @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> This particular studio take on exceptional young talent and make money off their music. In return the talent get to use some cool equipment a little bit, make some tea and empty the dishwasher. They might see some of their stuff on TV, not under their name though. I know multiple ex-work experience folk from there who have taken issue at one point. There is the tipping point that never seems to be in the composers favour, so in come the next lot.


If they have written a track it should be registered with their PRO. If it is not, it's illegal. The same as using ghost writers is illegal. Not that this seems to worry some so-called professionals, and even organisations like ASCAP don't care.



Rv5 @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> Maybe it is ok, maybe it is a great opportunity, maybe it is common and ultimately everyone's been there. Maybe it's completey exploitative and void of moral standards. Thanks for the feedback it's good to know what's going on out there.
> 
> Either way the two universities are going to address the situation, they obviously want to protect their students.


Chances are all that they will do is insist that they also get a share of the Publishing. :lol: 

D


----------



## Daryl (Dec 21, 2013)

Rv5 @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> > However, I do not know of an instance where the Publishing of the recorded music is also forfeit.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok that's interesting - yes everything is forfeit - the master recording and the publishing with the composer retaining the 50% composers share. This means the studio can go on to use the track time and time again. If only a sync fee or license fee is paid, the composer never get's any money.


The argument there would be that the studio is licencing the recording, which they own.

D


----------



## JohnG (Dec 21, 2013)

Daryl @ 21st December 2013 said:


> JohnG @ Sat Dec 21 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is outrageous opportunism.
> ...




Daryl, this is nonsense. 

It is not common practice to lose your rights to your music by submitting it as a pitch. I have never heard of such a thing. Most music written by professionals that would be submitted is already owned by a studio or network, so it is not possible to surrender the ownership by merely submitting it, even if that were typical, which it is not.


----------



## Rv5 (Dec 21, 2013)

> Daryl, this is nonsense.
> 
> It is not common practice to lose your rights to your music by submitting it as a pitch. I have never heard of such a thing. Most music written by professionals that would be submitted is already owned by a studio or network, so it is not possible to surrender the ownership by merely submitting it, even if that were typical, which it is not.



Ok I'd not heard of this either.



> Chances are all that they will do is insist that they also get a share of the Publishing.



If the universities continue to circulate their recruitment email, there will be more than just the publishing issue to resolve and that in itself is a major issue.



JohnG @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> I think it is outrageous opportunism.



Yes, and exploitation I think too.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 21, 2013)

JohnG @ Sat Dec 21 said:


> Daryl, this is nonsense.
> 
> It is not common practice to lose your rights to your music by submitting it as a pitch. I have never heard of such a thing.


So in order for something to be true, you have to have heard of it? How arrogant. :wink: 

As it happens this is exactly the situation when pitching for a Channel 4 program in the UK. I have no idea what the situation is in the US. Just as you obviously have no idea what it is in the UK.

D


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 22, 2013)

FWIW, I am as arrogant and shocked as John is. I have heard of pitches getting stolen, but it's pretty rare on this side of the Atlantic. If that's what Channel 4 does, it should be sued.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 22, 2013)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Dec 22 said:


> FWIW, I am as arrogant and shocked as John is. I have heard of pitches getting stolen, but it's pretty rare on this side of the Atlantic. If that's what Channel 4 does, it should be sued.


Ned, I never said that I agreed with it. In fact there are loads of practices that I abhor (one I mentioned earlier is ghost writing), but I was just trying to say that these things go on and are accepted by many people, so it is not completely a one off. As far as suing is concerned, I don't think that there are grounds (maybe MichelL can comment), as the situation is known upfront. Pitch for us, and we will have the Publishing of the track, no matter whether or not you are successful.

The trouble is that it is very easy to argue that nothing has been stolen, as the writer still gets their share. However, it is the forcing of giving away the Publishing which is a problem. In the case of what the studio (in the original question) is doing, it is rather more difficult to argue against, as the composer doesn't own the recording.

D


----------

