|
Releasing a track (signing) that was made by 2 people
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Evolve140 |
| So the label sent my partner the contract but it only has his name on it, but they will want me to sign it too before distributing it (beatport). Haven't released anything, solo or otherwise, so seems kinda strange to just have his name. Asking my friend who runs a label but also wanting to know what you guys think while I wait for his email back. Anyway, it's a colab between us. |
|
|
| ReclusNdangrmnt |
| If it's a collaboration then you have a right to have your name on there. Get it on there or they don't have to pay you jack! |
|
|
| Evolve140 |
| Why on earth wouldn't it have my name? Just because he's setting it up all through the label? It's just a little stupid to see only his name being described as the sole "song writer", I basically produced the whole thing. I don't really care too much about this particular track but it's a good foot in the door for releasing stuff on BeatPort, so money isn't an issue, it's just the fact of the matter. And legally, my signature literally does nothing, am I wrong? |
|
|
| Prototrance |
| You should be both named. I've released a collab under two artist names and a collab under one artist name. In both cases both myself and the other producer were named on the contract. |
|
|
| derail |
Yes, you should both have your names in the artist line, if it's a legitimate co-production. There's no reason to have a single artist name - how many millions of co-productions come out each year?
I was listening to some old Trancemaster CDs over the weekend. It was interesting to see how some songs were listed as co-productions, while others from the same "main" artist were listed as solo productions, but the information in the sleeve listed the other names as having worked on those songs as well.
It comes down to communication with your co-producer. If they want to list it under just their name, you could get them to pay you an upfront advance to recognize your efforts (if you're okay with that). |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Evolve140
And legally, my signature literally does nothing, am I wrong? |
Your signature says you agree with the contract... so if it only has your partner's name on there, then signing it actually says you're happy for them to receive everything!
They might want to keep the number of named copyright holders to a minimum because it means they only have to pay royalties out once - makes it easier to manage for them - but that's just laziness and you have full right to get your name on there. |
|
|
| Evolve140 |
Yeah, if I do end up going along with it it's just because he's one of my best friends, too, and we're going to work on more tracks and I'm basically the production half of our duo and I'm not concerned about royalties - and it's my first release, a track that is just OK by my standards and I feel I could do lot better, regardless, it's a good foot in the door. If that made sense, I'm a bit tired now.
I will bring this up with the label and mention it to him, but he's so excited about the release at this point I bet he will sign anything, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to sign something that only has his name on it. I don't want the label to think this will be OK in the future, as well. From what I can tell so far, there's no reason why including my name on there would be an issue. But apparently I have to sign it since my name will appear on BeatPort, even though it's not on the contract. *rolls eyes* Whatever, will get to the bottom of this. Thanks guys. |
|
|
| Raphie |
with any distribution tool you can type in ANYTHING in the available text fields, this has nothing to do with stores or what have you.
you being ed, your "friend" is playing u. |
|
|
| Evolve140 |
Well, he (friend A/producer partner) couldn't produce a track of this quality without me and like I said, we're friends, so it's not like that. Plus, this track probably isn't even going to sell very much - I don't care about the probably-non-existent royalties, just the principle of the matter. But something as simple as having a proper contract would make me have more faith in his endeavors trying to get this signed, and faith in the label. So as of now, I'm having him request a new contract. If we get any slack about this, I'm not going to work with this label at all in the future. All your feedback is appreciated, too. I am sure once my friend (friend B) emails me back he will echo your sentiments. He owns half a major house label and is a close friend that I have known longer than my producer partner, so I trust what he says within reason. He is also very technical and legal savvy, so just waiting to hear back. :)
Edit: So this gets more fun by the minute. I sent an actual copy of the contract to a friend (someone you probably all know of but who I won't mention specifically) who has agreed to help liaison, and he helped me go over some of the verbiage in the contract which he has described as "lethal".
"Label shall have the sole right to exploit the Master within territory in perpetuity." Also looks like they're trying to insert themselves as the sub publishing according to my friend (friend C). Starting to look like a steaming pile of , and all my partner cares about is getting on BeatPort. Conflict of interest. If I reach a decision, well regardless really -- I will post a copy of the contract on here (with personal info whited out) so people can LEARN from this.
Never get involved in ty contracts, no matter how much you want to get on BeatPort, or how cool it is to have a "label". My friend's heart might be broken when I refuse to sign this but obviously we both need to be better educated in these matters. |
|
|
|
|
