# Music Library; worth incorporating (California) or DBA



## gsilbers (Feb 26, 2015)

id like to start licensing my music as a "company". (so it looks cooler of course!)
is it worth to form an LLC or a simple DBA via LA county clerk. or nothing but file IRS section under a DBA?


----------



## JohnG (Feb 26, 2015)

If it's just your own music, that's one thing, but if you plan to hire and own others' compositions, you most likely would be better to form some kind of LLC or something like that.

I've been told that major companies (Disney and so on) will not work with a sole proprietor on anything significant. But I know it's not always true, so ???

PM me if you want to talk to an LA-based accountant or entertainment lawyer.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 26, 2015)

yes, only for my own music. that's why Im not sure if to maybe start with dba and then go llc. 
the stuff I do for clients like discovery, fox etc go through a friends music library. so good to know, although I though those clients required some sort of clearance to work for them. (insurance/accounting etc)
but if its only a establish company then good to know. I think those clients with red tape just want vendors who are solid just in case something goes wrong. 
it is like this in the audio post, which is what I am more familiar with In the biz side but not sure on the music. 
thanks for the CAP and lawyer. I might take you up on that but... well , once I get more closer to using them.


----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 27, 2015)

JohnG @ Thu Feb 26 said:


> I've been told that major companies (Disney and so on) will not work with a sole proprietor on anything significant. But I know it's not always true, so ???


I don't know Disney's policies, but if I were them, I would insist on the opposite. I'd much rather have a contract with a wealthy human composer, rather than a corporation which has been created specifically to protect the composer from paying any judgments.

For example, suppose Disney hired Danny Elfman to score Cinderella (perfect choice, right?), and then it turns out that the main theme is a direct lift from a Rollings Stones song. The Stones sue Disney, who in turn tell Elfman this is his problem (because of the indemnity clause in their contract.) Disney is safe, because Elfman has lots of money, so no matter how much the Stones sue for, they can force him to cover it.

On the other hand, suppose Disney insisted Elfman be incorporated. He'd simply create a fly by night corporation for each project he does. That corporation collects it's money from Disney, then pays it to Elfman, thus has no money in the bank. Disney gets sued, Elfman's corporation says, _"Hey we'd love to help, but we don't have any money. I guess we'll have to declare bankruptcy."_ Disney is now alone in paying whatever judgment the Stones win.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 27, 2015)

Excellent points all, Mike.

I never incorporated because someone allegedly knowledgeable said it would be mere child's play to "pierce the corporate veil," something that sounds vaguely like a bizarre marriage ritual that involves unspeakable acts. Anyway, he said the aggrieved party could, by engaging in a laughably simple legal ploy, get your money anyway.

So that's actually _another_ reason why the "we don't deal with individuals" thingy makes no sense.

My guess is that what's really going on is they hope someone who's gone to the trouble of incorporating isn't going to send them tracks labeled as "original" that in fact have been downloaded from whatever the latest incarnation is of Napster.

But that's just a guess.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 2, 2015)

Just another take on not incorporating... I never did it because I was in an HOA (Homeowner Association) that had crazy rules and I didn't want anything they could use against me such as I was running a business from my house. HOAs are the absolute worst, as I unfortunately discovered and spent the next 5 years trying to get out of one. We moved a year ago and I built a new studio which took 6 months or so, and similarly there was a lot of hassle with the city permits in the new city for various unrelated reasons but again, not being incorporated didn't give them any ammo about running a "business" from my house in a residential neighborhood.

You can stop reading here but long story: I had an absolutely crazy and unreasonable hermit neighbor in the last HOA who didn't want me to build a 500 square foot studio in back of my house for no apparent reason but spent a year fighting me until he ran out of every legality and had to give up. It was a tiny HOA consisting of only 15 homes so it was not very well-run or structured... and he happened to not only be vice-president of the HOA board but also head of the ACC (Architectural Control Committee). I had to work out of a closet for a year using headphones so I wouldn't wake my newborn, absolutely miserable. (We had gotten the plans and city permits before we moved so it was only suppose to be a month or so of construction while I was still in my old studio.) I spent the next 4 years taking joy in harmlessly pranking him (like getting a 40-foot santa for Christmas that sat right on the edge of my property staring at him, or applying to get permission to paint my house blue and purple creating a bunch of paperwork for him) and I also got the votes and became president of the HOA the next term and kicked him off the ACC. Small victory, I wish I could have gotten that year of my life back.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 2, 2015)

interesting stuff. I didn't realized those aspects of incorporating. 

chillbot, you do plenty of library music, you still don't find a reason to forma an LLC or how are you going about contracts or or you submit music to music librarieS? or any worries about being sued?


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 2, 2015)

Mike Greene @ Fri Feb 27 said:


> JohnG @ Thu Feb 26 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been told that major companies (Disney and so on) will not work with a sole proprietor on anything significant. But I know it's not always true, so ???
> ...



I cant say too much, but think about contracting a composer (or any other studio vendor) and something awry happens. could be loosing the orchestral recording, watermarked QT being stolen and productions sues , etc. then that vendor is on the hook for a lot of money. studios don't want that risk. therefore there are some certain requirements for different vendors. for example, there is specific insurances and levels of it. there is also the studios question of "why not use this other vendor who is already in the system?" which is why I guess, working at remote control had its advantages for up and coming composers in addition to being close to the action.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 2, 2015)

chillbot @ 2nd March 2015 said:


> I spent the next 4 years taking joy in harmlessly pranking him (like getting a 40-foot santa for Christmas that sat right on the edge of my property staring at him, or applying to get permission to paint my house blue and purple creating a bunch of paperwork for him)....



Sorry for the pain, man, but you are one funny guy. Thanks for the anecdote; hadn't even thought of this.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 2, 2015)

gsilbers @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> interesting stuff. I didn't realized those aspects of incorporating.
> 
> chillbot, you do plenty of library music, you still don't find a reason to forma an LLC or how are you going about contracts or or you submit music to music librarieS? or any worries about being sued?



All good points. I'll have to think about it. At least now I'm finally in a situation where I would consider it, my CPA has advised it but doesn't mind me not doing it either. La Canada Flintridge seems like it was laid out by a cow pulling a tractor, it's weird with the lots and boundaries and streets. Our house is technically two addresses and two lots with my studio being one of the addresses and one of the structures but the city couldn't agree on this and it delayed construction for a long time on such a stupid point. Meanwhile I was so terrified by my last HOA experience I didn't ever want them to get the idea that I might be running a business. However in retrospect no one seems to care about any of that in this city, it's kind of a free-for-all.

If it matters for incorporating, I do probably 98% of my work for one company.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 2, 2015)

JohnG @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> chillbot @ 2nd March 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > I spent the next 4 years taking joy in harmlessly pranking him (like getting a 40-foot santa for Christmas that sat right on the edge of my property staring at him, or applying to get permission to paint my house blue and purple creating a bunch of paperwork for him)....
> ...



I would give him a really nice xmas present every year with a really nice note and he would always put it back on my doorstep saying he couldn't accept also with a nice note. It was funny to me.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 2, 2015)

chillbot @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> gsilbers @ Mon Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > interesting stuff. I didn't realized those aspects of incorporating.
> ...



I guess it wouldn't matter that much forming an corp , unless there are tax advantages. from what ive learned is that you can deduct your own retirement expenses and other type scenarios where you work for your own company. 
at the same there is taxing the company and then taxing yourself so its double taxing. 

anyways, I like la Canada flintrige, its a little far off from LA, not as much as Fontana or something, but nice mountains etc. I would live there if I dint work in century city.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 2, 2015)

gsilbers @ 2nd March 2015 said:


> I guess it wouldn't matter that much forming an corp , unless there are tax advantages. from what ive learned is that you can deduct your own retirement expenses and other type scenarios where you work for your own company.



You can take quite large deductions even without incorporating, for retirement plans and other stuff. For many people the dollars you can deduct unincorporated vs. incorporated might not differ much.



gsilbers @ 2nd March 2015 said:


> at the same there is taxing the company and then taxing yourself so its double taxing.



Not necessarily. The two most likely types of entities I would guess you'd form do not create double taxation. You're alluding, I would think, to a "C Corporation," which I would think very unlikely for a composer.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 2, 2015)

JohnG @ Fri Feb 27 said:


> Excellent points all, Mike.
> 
> I never incorporated because someone allegedly knowledgeable said it would be mere child's play to "pierce the corporate veil," something that sounds vaguely like a bizarre marriage ritual that involves unspeakable acts. Anyway, he said the aggrieved party could, by engaging in a laughably simple legal ploy, get your money anyway.
> 
> ...



missed this before. 
but interesting. I did see a few lawyers videos stating piercing the corporate viel and why it happens. indeed does sound a little extra thing to thinkn about. the video mentions the idea that once you send a check to someone with your name on it instead of the corporation then you've open a hole to be sued if anything happens. 
and that was just one example. so indeed seems extra fuss to open a corp if the idea is for protection and then there is all this extra things that might not work. and knowing all this.. is just well.. too much. 

the idea of incorporating would be, similar to your napster analogy, is for a client to perceive it as more professional rather than john dough. which for a established film composer it makes more sense to be by name. for library music my opinion differs.
not sure if there could still be a way for not opening an llc and still be perceived like a company. like just going to
https://www.lavote.net/home/county-cler ... neral-info
and that's it.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 2, 2015)

JohnG @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> gsilbers @ 2nd March 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > at the same there is taxing the company and then taxing yourself so its double taxing.
> ...


Right. (At least I think that's right. I'm just repeating what my accountant told me. :mrgreen: ) A composer would typically be an S-Corp. I don't really know the difference, but the way mine works is that it has a profit os $0 every year, so other than the $800 annual fee, there's no tax on it.

The main tax advantage to incorporating (aside from being shielded from lawsuits) is that you can work it our so that you pay less Social Security and Medicare tax. It would work like this:

Lets suppose you incorporate and GSC (GSilbersCo Inc.) makes $100k profit in its first year. The corporation doesn't want any profit in the bank, so it pays $50k to you in wages, and it pays the other $50k to you as a dividend. Now its profit is $0, so it pays no tax.

Here's where the tax benefit comes in: You only have to pay self-employment tax (SS and Medicare) on the first $50k. (Your "wages.") The second $50k is capital gains, which carries no self employment tax. Plus, depending on your tax bracket, the capital gains rate could be lower than your regular tax rate. Whereas if you're not incorporated, you would pay the additional SS and Medicare tax on the entire $100k.

You have to do the math to see how it all really adds up, depending on your income. If your income is low, then incorporating could be worse, in terms of taxes. It's advantageous mostly when your income is high. (If a real accountant is reading this, please correct me if any of this is wrong. This info is all from a single conversation with my accountant that I might be mis-remembering.)

Oh, and Chillbot? Remind me not to piss you off! :mrgreen:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 2, 2015)

A corporation means you have to pay $800/year in tax (minimum). The time to set it up is AFTER you start making money, not to start with - at least for this kind of thing.

My opinion - I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 2, 2015)

Mike Greene @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> JohnG @ Mon Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > gsilbers @ 2nd March 2015 said:
> ...



I like that name and numbers!
yes, seems from what im reading that its better to open an LLC or s corp after.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 2, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> A corporation means you have to pay $800/year in tax (minimum). The time to set it up is AFTER you start making money, not to start with - at least for this kind of thing.
> 
> My opinion - I'm not a lawyer.



I think there is an accounting trick were you can deduct that fee on next year taxes. 
but I agree in your statement of doing after.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 2, 2015)

JohnG @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> gsilbers @ 2nd March 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it wouldn't matter that much forming an corp , unless there are tax advantages. from what ive learned is that you can deduct your own retirement expenses and other type scenarios where you work for your own company.
> ...



I thinking LLC. 
but yes, there is a lot of little tricks here and there and depends on the situation. for something simple this might be too much. 
the US and state tax laws sure made it ... tricky for some.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 2, 2015)

An LLC can’t take advantage of the tax scenario I described. You’d have to pay self-employment taxes on all income. (Only a corporation can take advantage of that trick.) That may not matter, of course, but it’s something to keep in mind. 

An LLC is basically the same (tax-wise) as a simple dba (“Doing Business As,” which is what the fictitious business name link you posted is about.) Either gets handled on Schedule C of your personal IRS 1040 tax form.

An LLC has the added benefit of some shielding from lawsuits, but you need to make sure you mind you p’s and q’s with how it does business. Otherwise as John described, the company protection is pierced.

To that end, in terms of lawsuit protection, I think you want to create your LLC or corporation *before* you start making money, so if you’re later sued, you can prove distance between the entity and you. An accountant or lawyer would know better than I do, though.

On the other hand, you might want to consider how important legal shielding really is to you in the first place. Unless you have a lot of personal assets, it can be unnecessary. Lawsuits are very, very expensive, so nobody’s going to bother suing someone that they can’t collect from. (It doesn’t matter whether it’s a corporation or an individual.) They would actually lose money overall. So they’d more likely just make you stop whatever the infringement was, and that would be that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 2, 2015)

That's what I'm saying. How much actionable harm can you do with a piece of music?


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 2, 2015)

Copyright infringement is what I was thinking. (Although maybe I've misinterpreted the topic?)


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 2, 2015)

Mike Greene @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> On the other hand, you might want to consider how important legal shielding really is to you in the first place. Unless you have a lot of personal assets, it can be unnecessary. Lawsuits are very, very expensive, so nobody’s going to bother suing someone that they can’t collect from. (It doesn’t matter whether it’s a corporation or an individual.) They would actually lose money overall. So they’d more likely just make you stop whatever the infringement was, and that would be that.




It's really important to understand the concept of "shielding" and its limitations. It's actually fairly easy to "pierce the corporate veil" as we attorneys say, especially of a single member LLC, or a closely held corporation. 

There are a number of situations in which forming a corporation or an LLC will not shield you, for instance intentional acts. You may not be protected, if as in Mike's example you do a direct rip of a Rolling Stones tune. 

Also keep in mind the "formalities" that your state may require, like annual minutes, record keeping requirements, operating agreements, etc. All of these things are important, because without them it's easier for attorneys to argue that the corporation / LLC is just a shell, and thereby successfully "pierce the veil." 

I strongly recommend, as John suggested, that you speak with an accountant to see if it makes sense for your financial situation, and an attorney to have them explain the limits of protection offered by forming a single member LLC or S corp. in your state

Lastly, as Nick mentioned, there are often annual registration fees and taxes involved before you even turn a profit. In my state you even have to file an annual personal property return, listing all your gear!


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 2, 2015)

Mike Greene @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> Copyright infringement is what I was thinking. (Although maybe I've misinterpreted the topic?)




If the infringement was intentional, Mike, I don't believe an LLC or corporation can protect you.

If it was not intentional, maybe some form of error & omissions insurance would help.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 2, 2015)

MichaelL @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> Mike Greene @ Mon Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Copyright infringement is what I was thinking. (Although maybe I've misinterpreted the topic?)
> ...


Unintentional infringement is of course what I was thinking.

For example, I once wrote a song where years later, I realized the chorus was the same melody as an old hit. Different style of song, so it wasn't obvious (or intentional), but if my song had been used in a national Pepsi commercial, there's a good chance that one of the heirs of the first song would notice the melodic similarity, and I would have been looking at a huge lawsuit.

That would be the sort of thing I'd hope to gain protection from by having a corporation. Of course, if that corporation winds up being worth more than what a potential judgment might be, then it doesn't matter anyway. For instance, if the library is worth a million, but the Pepsi lawsuit is only $500k, then I'm not going to dissolve the library to avoid paying the lawsuit.

But if the library is only worth $100k and the lawsuit is $500k, then Pepsi can have my library and I get to keep the Corvettes. (Just joking. I only have one.)

I have never confirmed this, but I doubt an errors and omissions policy would cover a copyright infringement, at least not for a music library. You can buy insurance policies that cover songs, but they're ultra-expensive, and they require you to have each song checked by a musicologist before they'll cover the song. You then pay a rate based on how many songs are covered.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 2, 2015)

are there umbrella insurance options? that way you are covered for music infrigement or other issues.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 3, 2015)

Mike Greene @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> I have never confirmed this, but I doubt an errors and omissions policy would cover a copyright infringement, at least not for a music library. You can buy insurance policies that cover songs, but they're ultra-expensive, and they require you to have each song checked by a musicologist before they'll cover the song. You then pay a rate based on how many songs are covered.


It might be different in the US, but in the UK hiring a Musicologist does nothing, because they don't take any responsibility for their errors, unlike lawyers, who have liability insurance. So there is no real way to protect against this sort of thing. However, when there have been infringements in the past (that I've heard of) all that has happens is a cease and desist notice. What happens to the client who has to bin their commercial, I don't know. :wink: 

D


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 3, 2015)

MichaelL @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> Mike Greene @ Mon Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, you might want to consider how important legal shielding really is to you in the first place. Unless you have a lot of personal assets, it can be unnecessary. Lawsuits are very, very expensive, so nobody’s going to bother suing someone that they can’t collect from. (It doesn’t matter whether it’s a corporation or an individual.) They would actually lose money overall. So they’d more likely just make you stop whatever the infringement was, and that would be that.
> ...



in CA its only the operating agreement. 
but yes, seems a bit much doing all that for a small enterprise like mine. 
DBA and Schedule C seems like enough. 
Unless im missing anything else?. maybe insurance? 
good thing about forums like this is the random things I wouldn't think of im missing until I read them. lawyers and acct will most likely just answer the specific questions I have and charge the beejesus out of me. so once I need it then yes.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 3, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Mar 02 said:


> That's what I'm saying. How much actionable harm can you do with a piece of music?



depends of course. but If distributed by a large studio which makes programming in other languages it sure is expensive. 
fix the several English tape masters: $1000
Fix deliverables (5.1, DME, etc) $500
Fix the several files - $2000+
then its the same for each language. 
German 3k, French 3k, Italian 3k, Russian 3k, Japan 3k, Spain 3k, Latam 3k, Brazil, 3k. 
so just to fix the distribution chain already ranges up from $30,000. 
if the file or masters already delivered to clients then those clients can charge back the fixes to their tape and files. and just the sheer amount of office workers time scheduling all this, is also pricey. 
and if the movie is in 3d, then that doubles the prices above. 
I know its meer pennies for a big studio but also it could hurt future sales.
oh, and that's not dealing with any lawsuits. 

if the issue is limited to reality tv show showed domestically, then im guessing just fixing the English master, master file and some tapes should be it. 
if there is a lawsuit the amount I think would based on showings on the amount of re broadcasters.

which is why I was asking for umbrella insurance for business for up to 100k. which for reality tv show I guess might cover it. not that reality tv show music is the most original of course, but a just in case scenario.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 3, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> Mike Greene @ Tue Mar 03 said:
> 
> 
> > I have never confirmed this, but I doubt an errors and omissions policy would cover a copyright infringement, at least not for a music library. You can buy insurance policies that cover songs, but they're ultra-expensive, and they require you to have each song checked by a musicologist before they'll cover the song. You then pay a rate based on how many songs are covered.
> ...


It's the same here. A musicologist is the equivalent of an "expert witness," but their stamp of approval doesn't carry any weight, in and of itself.

The reason that insurance companies make you get a musicologist's opinion isn't because of any indemnification, it's just a way to make sure you're not trying to sneak something obvious by them. Or to minimize the chances that you accidentally infringed on another song.

For instance, I could write a song somewhat similar to "Kashmir." I figure it's safe, but I know that Led Zeppelin are litigious mofos, so to protect myself, I send the insurance company $500 to cover the song. (I forget the exact per-song rate, but it's something crazy like that.)

Before I can get the song insured, they make me run the song by a musicologist, who is going to tell the insurance company, _"Yeah, the song is *probably* safe, but it's obvious that Mike's song is emulating Kashmir, so you're going to have at least a small risk here. You should deny this one."_

That's really all the musicologist is for. They're just to keep the insurance company from insuring risky songs.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 3, 2015)

Mike, I remember someone playing me a track that sounded almost exactly like a quite famous piece of music. When I said that they wouldn't be able to get away with it, they told me that the musicologist said it was fine. However, it turned out that the musicologist had never heard the piece it was similar to, so the opinion is only of any use if one tells them what to look for in the first place. In which case, we probably know better than any musicologist.

On a related subject, there was a piece posted on this very forum (no, really?) within the last couple of weeks that was, at times, note for note the same as a piece that is most definitely still in copyright. However, nobody said anything and only gave it praise. Becuase they don't know the standard orchestral repertoire. :wink: 

D


----------



## JohnG (Mar 3, 2015)

gsilbers @ 2nd March 2015 said:


> are there umbrella insurance options? that way you are covered for music infrigement or other issues.



A good friend who works constantly (TV, movies, many ad spots) investigated this recently and told me what he'd found:

1. He said that so-called "umbrella" insurance that you can get as a homeowner or private individual that helps if someone is injured by you accidentally, perhaps painting your house or beyond what your car insurance covers or something, will not help with copyright infringement.

2. The insurance that would help protect you against infringement, he said is "Errors and Omissions" or "E&O" for short that is specifically targeted at your music. The quotes he told me about seemed outrageously expensive. Also he had to furnish detailed lists of everything he's written for some long period of time -- five or ten years.

I am not going to buy the insurance. For me, the reasons are:

a. I am extremely cautious about infringement.

b. I don't hire other composers to work for me unsupervised, which is one potentially huge area of exposure -- if you're busy and hire someone to take care of an ad spot or something, and that guy rips some track off you've never heard, you could have a nasty surprise.

c. Even if I _accidentally_ infringed, most likely (I believe / hope) the remedy anyone would seek would be some combination of "cease and desist" and "pay me what a license for my music would have been." Given that I am not writing main titles for Major Budget Films, those costs likely would not be as much as the cost of the insurance I've heard about.

Mind you, I haven't investigated this myself -- I am passing along info from a guy who seems knowledgeable, but I can only speak for myself and your situation could be very different.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 3, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> Mike, I remember someone playing me a track that sounded almost exactly like a quite famous piece of music. When I said that they wouldn't be able to get away with it, they told me that the musicologist said it was fine. However, it turned out that the musicologist had never heard the piece it was similar to, so the opinion is only of any use if one tells them what to look for in the first place. In which case, we probably know better than any musicologist.



A musicologist may not be worth the investment. Unless the law has changed, US courts apply the "average listener" test.

A musicologist can point out 500 ways your cue differs from the alleged infringed work, but if the average listener hears the infringed work you're likely to lose.

In film scoring a possible defense could be to argue that both works are based upon earlier works that are in the public domain. For example, "My work based upon Wagner not John Williams.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 3, 2015)

JohnG @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> c. Even if I _accidentally_ infringed, most likely (I believe / hope) the remedy anyone would seek would be some combination of "cease and desist" and "pay me what a license for my music would have been." Given that I am not writing main titles for Major Budget Films, those costs likely would not be as much as the cost of the insurance I've heard about.


Yeah, that's the big factor for me in why I don't carry insurance. Underscore is highly unlikely to ever cause a problem unless you're being pretty blatant with a knockoff cue.

The scary field for me is commercials. For underscore, you might be looking at a cease and desist letter. But for commercials, the infringed party is gonna see dollar signs and there will be no mercy. That's where lawsuits can start in the hundreds of thousands and go into the millions. I used to do a ton of commercials. It was really lucrative, but I was always looking over my shoulder.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 3, 2015)

MichaelL @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> In film scoring a possible defense could be to argue that both works are based upon earlier works that are in the public domain. For example, "My work based upon Wagner not John Williams.


That argument hasn't worked for some in US courts. Apparently anything that uses Celesta is by Danny Elfman. :wink: 

D


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 3, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> MichaelL @ Tue Mar 03 said:
> 
> 
> > In film scoring a possible defense could be to argue that both works are based upon earlier works that are in the public domain. For example, "My work based upon Wagner not John Williams.
> ...


 :mrgreen:


----------



## JohnG (Mar 3, 2015)

Mike Greene @ 3rd March 2015 said:


> The scary field for me is commercials. For underscore, you might be looking at a cease and desist letter. But for commercials, the infringed party is gonna see dollar signs and there will be no mercy. That's where lawsuits can start in the hundreds of thousands and go into the millions. I used to do a ton of commercials. It was really lucrative, but I was always looking over my shoulder.



Very true, especially the "no mercy" bit.


----------



## stonzthro (Mar 3, 2015)

Interesting - do you guys know of any recent cases? I've heard rumors about what Daryl is referring to, but I haven't read any actual cases.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 4, 2015)

JohnG @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> gsilbers @ 2nd March 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > are there umbrella insurance options? that way you are covered for music infrigement or other issues.
> ...



interesting stuff. thx


----------



## JohnG (Mar 4, 2015)

yw

But note Mike Greene's caution: If you are doing major ad campaigns (IBM, McDonald's) you're a heck of a lot more tempting target than TV or even movie underscore.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 4, 2015)

yes, good to know.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2015)

> Copyright infringement is what I was thinking



Ah, good point. - Nikolai Ivonovich Lobachevsky is my name. HEY.

[^ obscure Tom Lehrer reference]


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 5, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> MichaelL @ Tue Mar 03 said:
> 
> 
> > In film scoring a possible defense could be to argue that both works are based upon earlier works that are in the public domain. For example, "My work based upon Wagner not John Williams.
> ...




For Elfman you have to use the "Kodaly" defense.


----------

