question for mix engineers-who owns the tracks?

[canidoit]

The solution I think is this. You hire an engineer independently. You hire a studio independently. You use your own hard drive or ask the independent engineer who is no way connected to the studio to burn a copy of the whole session onto DVD or onto your own hard drive during the hours you are hiring them.

Everyone is seperated. You are hiring the engineer to perform something, which is to engineer and to dump the materials from the studio into HD or DVD. The studio will not complain because you are also paying the studio on an hourly basis to use the equipment.

The only time I know of that people have issues with who owns the materials is when you hire an Engineer who owns the studio or when you leave the studio without asking the session to be backed up onto DVD for you to take home but ask for it without considering paying the engineer or studio for the time taken to backup and copy the session materials for you.

An independent engineer from my experience usually is not worried about giving the whole session if he/she comes in and basically goes there to a studio, engineers and gets paid at the end of the day for ALL their time. 

 

[kambo]

Is it common practice for the client to walk with the session files if you've been paid in full?

its not a common practice but the simple answer is yes....
as long as you are paid in full for the service you have provided, your client can take their sessions to where ever they want to...
your client dont need anything in written...

unless,  you have a written agreement saying otherwise...

i personally like to record in one studio, mix in other....

 

[sahib]

Kambo,

Seems like we arrived in UK round about the same time. Anyhow, I made a clear distinction that the studio owner could not own the intellectual rights of the content for that particular recording. But asking them to erase files/tapes would require to be part of the contract. That is the point that I was making. It is all in the contract.

But briefly, answer to the main question;

  Is it common practice for the client to walk with the session files if you've been paid in full? 

is that yes, of course. Because that is what the client is paying you for.

By the way are you the guy who owns the studio which also has a caffee/restaurant in the front?

 

[kambo]

where is that studio ? london ?
i never had a commercial studio... its always been private studios for my own work...

 

[lofi]

glad i'm a small fish!!

They pay me to track the band, and get a full multi track from that - all the 'music' recorded. The multi track will be zero pointed so It can be loaded into the DAW of their choice easily. They paid me to get noise onto my Hard drive and to give them a copy of the hard drive files.

I tell them that in 2 weeks I will delete the files, enough time to arrange back ups in various places and verify the data/wav's i've given.

When Mixing, they give me a multi track, I give them the tracks back plus a sterio Mix of the finish. I dont give them individual processed tracks, just the sterio.

As far as I am concerned I am paid to mix, so they get the mix. End of.

Within two weeks of Payment I deleat all the files, they arnt mine anymore. The guy who sold me my car doesnt get to drive it any more.

Might not be the leagle beaver way, but it makes me happy, and right from the outset we all know where we stand

iain

 

[sahib]

where is that studio ? london ?
i never had a commercial studio... its always been private studios for my own work...

Yes it is in London. This is going off-topic but I'll pm you my e-mail and if you feel like we'll talk.

Regards.

 

[pucho812]

here is my opinion whatever it's worth.

1. clients pay the engineer and or studio for time. Whatever they do is up to them. At the end of it all one will usually not release any of the material without being paid if it's a local artist or someone to bill if it's a label. Even then that doesn't Guarantee getting paid but being able to keep the multitracks is leverage in that direction. I won't go into bands not paying but sometimes $$$ is not available and they should not be able to have the project without paying.  So if paid in full the engineer should give the material to the person paying which may not be the band. After all the one who pays is the one who hired the engineer. Now I know some local bands who love to pull the we can't pay you yet but let us put the album out and in time you will get paid. How quickly they forget you did any work for them and good luck getting any payment.

2. If I work on a project I will not release multi-track sessions and or final mixes until getting paid... If I am just a tracking engineer, I will not release tracks until I get some payment. Once that happens I will usually send a session without panning, eq,compression, or any fx. Reason is, that is what the mix engineer is going to do. If by chance they like the rough mix or whatever I can float that info off to them upon request. If I am the mix engineer I will make reference mixes with beeps or something to where they can get the reference and listen but  can't use it. In this age of digital and mastering guys who will master of an audio disc, I want it  so that they have to get the  2 mix data files from me. Main reason is to have better Quality control with a product but also to get paid.

3. I make and keep backups of everything. Reason is to cover my own ass. If something is lost due to someone or something else I still have a work copy that one can pull from if necessary. For example lets say the session master drive, or dvd backup is lost in the mail, I have a copy that one can go back to. I used to not send flies and session over the internet because often times they would get corrupted in some fashion but now days I am more open to that idea and can usually correct any issues. I have had artists ask for my backs ups of their stuff once a project is over, no problem. They can have them.



Now in all honesty I have only been burned by an artist once but that was due to his label, which was a small one, went out of business. Can't do much about that now can we.

 

[Biasrocks]

I only said that I would not choose to keep my work secret in that way.  If I was the client, I wouldn't choose someone who works this way.

Fair enough if you want to work that way.

I think it comes down to the value you place on working with someone and your motivation.

Are you there to get the absolute best product or are you there to glean information for your own use to save a buck.

Here's how I see it. Most engineers have techniques that they have developed and perfected over a number of years. I'm sure the majority of them would not feel the need to hand these over to a client if they asked. That's not to say that technique is all of it, but there are more than a few people that have crossed my path in the last few years that have offered up the illusion creating a working relationship with me, picked my brain as much as they could and went off and did it themselves. The results of course speak for itself, but it's a pervasive attitude amongst the generation of musicians coming up who place little or no value on these things.

It's our lively hood that's at stake, if you can not see the value in that, well...   :

It's not the old days.  'Nuff said..

It's interesting that you throw 80 years or so of recording history under the bus with a 5 word sentence.

Food for thought; because you have the technology and tools available to do something; doesn't make it right.

I think the OP is trying to do the right thing. He's been working with the right people, with respect and care. That's all we can expect and hope for in this business. Try to take care of the people that help you along the path, it's simply good business and good karma.  8)

Mark

 

[Svart]

I do a bit of professional photography too. Now, you ask me to photograph an object for you. Unless we have it in writing the whole film belongs to me.  All  you get for the fee you pay is a scan or a print, and you can not force me to tear that film up. In the case of digital media, I shoot a digital and you get a copy of the file. I own the rights to the data. Make the analogy with the mixing.

In general, yes.  However, a better analogy would be if the person asks you to photograph something that is of their creation, like a work of art.  You may own the physical film but they own the content/property on that film if you know what I mean.

So with tracking/mixing, you own the media but they own the intellectual property on that media.  They are paying for you to do something WITH that property, not paying FOR the property.

I think it's legal to hold the "property" in lieu of payment for service, but you cannot do anything with that property otherwise.  Likewise, you can't hold it for anything over what the terms of the contract was either.  That would be extortion.

 

[sahib]

I do a bit of professional photography too. Now, you ask me to photograph an object for you. Unless we have it in writing the whole film belongs to me.  All  you get for the fee you pay is a scan or a print, and you can not force me to tear that film up. In the case of digital media, I shoot a digital and you get a copy of the file. I own the rights to the data. Make the analogy with the mixing.

In general, yes.  However, a better analogy would be if the person asks you to photograph something that is of their creation, like a work of art.  You may own the physical film but they own the content/property on that film if you know what I mean.

Svart,

I made that analogy to emphisise the importance of the contract. If the contract between you and me states that you pay me and I hand over the negatives to you then yes. Otherwise even if the object in the photograph belongs to you I own the intellectual rights to that image. Because in this case the intellectual right is not the object in the film but the image created. And since I created that image the intellectual right belongs to me.

I apologise that it is off topic but I wanted to clarify.

 

[kambo]

i think Svart meant something else....

when you go to a museum and take some pictures of leonardo vinci ' s oil paintings, or any other artist's art work...
1. can you claim intellectual rights  ?
2. can you print them and make them available to public sale ?

 

[bitman]

The tracks are mine until paid in full.
After payment they can have whatever they want from the recording medium within the scope of thier session. But I am not obligated to keep the files after the deal is closed.

 

[kambo]

true in away...
you can only hold on to them until the payment made in full...
you cant really do anything with them, if you dont get paid ;D

 

[Butterylicious]

As an artist, I've never left a session w/o all the originals and some sort of safety copy.  As an engineer, I've never left w/o some sort of safety copy.  Last gig I engineered, the only tool I brought in was an external hard drive.  Dropped a copy of the entire directory.  Damn good thing I did because the band and the studio lost their copies.  I've never put myself in an IOU situation with a band, engineer, or studio.  Record company is a different story.  :

 

[sahib]

i think Svart meant something else....

when you go to a museum and take some pictures of leonardo vinci ' s oil paintings, or any other artist's art work...
1. can you claim intellectual rights  ?
2. can you print them and make them available to public sale ?

That proves my point.

It is their premises and their own painting. They do not permit you to photograph. By purchasing the ticket you are accepting their terms which binds you to that contract. Hence, in the eyes of the law you broke the contract if you photographed. And they have every right to enforce you to hand over those images to them.

However, assume that they were moving that painting from building A to building B. They were crossing the road which is a public highway,  with the painting exposed. You can take a picture and the intellectual rights to that image belongs to you. You can use it anywhere you like. Because legally in public places you are allowed to photograph anything and anybody. Nobody can stop you. However, I think because of child abuse laws things are different if you were photographing children without their parents' consent. Also if you were photographing a say military site and if a bobby happened to be around he could stop you. But say there is a fashion shoot going on in public, and you happened to be there. You can absolutely sit down and take as many image as you can and all the copyright of those images will belong to you. Of course if the bouncers did not banjo your camera on your head.

But an interesting scenario is that in a great majority of the cases performing art (theatre, opera, ballet) photographers take production photographs in the client's premises, and of their production, and they hold the copyright in full. The client can not even copy the prints they are given for the fee they pay without the photographer's consent. In fact in good old days this was the norm. Things are changing now and obviously to be able to do that you have to be in a position to enforce that term. But all the pro photographers I know are still able to enforce that terms.  So the analogy is that, at the end of the day if you are a heavy weight mixing engineer you might be in a position to even claim rights over a mix that you have done. It all depends what is in the written contract.

I had actually taken a lot of commercially usable images in Disney in US long years ago. I still have all the slides but I can not use any of them because strictly speaking I was not allowed to photograph. It was their premises and their own exhibits.

 

[kambo]

so, you can take a picture of a red ferrari, and blow it to full poster size
and sell it publicly, as ferrari poster ?

( ferrari is the main object here btw, not part of the city view )

 

[sahib]

As long as the photograph is taken in a public place yes, and nobody can stop you selling that image. Or on a picture taken on a racetrack. That is why, say a magazine or a news paper can print it in their centrefold and still sell the paper.

When you take a photograph you create an image and that what the copyright is. It is no longer "Ferrari the car" it is the whole image. The angle, the reflections etc.

Same goes for mixing. You got a raw track, you compressed it, you EQed it etc. It is no longer the original track. If you have the weight you can enforce rights over it. Obviously the business is very rarely done that way but from a contract point of view you can at least try.

 

[kambo]

dont mix photography with mixing actual music...
in recording progress, engineer giving you a service, for your own stuff... he is not creating anything... he/she  is transferring your song in to a commercial format.
mixing is still part of the service...  and it doesnt require any written agreement at all.
shaping the songs comes from the producer... not form the engineer... producing involves creativity, thats way
you get percentage form sales. as well as cash up front...
i am not talking about some engineer whom involves with the production side of the things.... some ,play a single note of a keyboard, and whole song gets totally different dimension...  that involves credit/copyright/song writing share and all sort of things... even if you have no agreement...

by muting couple of tracks. EQing  etc while mixing doesnt involve any copyrighted move... its part of the service.,

on magazines, they are not selling actual picture of a car... those pictures are part of the product... thats a different story.
so, to be make sure....
i will ask my manager, who is an entertainment lawyer in NY, specialized in contracts.  i should get exact answer for the photography stuff, give me couple of days... so we all can sit on legal ground...
as well as i agree with some points of yours,  i have some doubts...
i am sure you are aware of there is a huge difference between entertainment lawyer and a legal adviser in a local law firm.  

but what i said above is more/less the law... if there is no written agreement...  

 

[sahib]

I am not mixing photography with actual mixing. I am giving you a perspective from a contractual point of view.

What engineer does or does not is not the point. Or EQing or compressing qualify for a copyright. All I am saying is that you dictate your terms and the client dictates his/her. Yes the engineer's job is to mix it but saying that it does not require a written agrement is completely wrong and if your lawyers are giving you that advice then change them.

You walked into a studio, verbally agreed a fee, at the end of the work you dedecided to screw the studio owner and did not honour your agreement. Or the studio owner decided to screw you and asked to double his fee. Or as you said the mixing was included in the fee and he said no only tracking. Or you said you would take all the session files and he would erase what he has on his hard drive. He said otherwise. You ended up in court. Your word against his. You'll get nowhere except the legal fee meter is going to tick. Bottom line is, a business done on a verbal agreement is a bad practice. Yes we do it most of the time but it still is a bad practice.

I'll go back to the car issue. You can take a picture of a car on a racing track, turn it into a poster and sell it. The car manufacturer can not claim any rights over those images. As I said the copyright is not the car, it is the image created. The composition, the perspective, the shine. Imagine a shot of speeding car. The car is not like that in real life is it? You created an image and it is your copyright. Think of postcards. You take a picture of a bus. Can the London Transport stop you selling that post card?

I am well aware of the difference between an entertainment lawyer and a legal advisor and I hope you do not think that the source of views I expressed here is a local advisor. I told you what my wife does for a living and believe me we get highly qualified advice. But in the case of photography what I said is how the industry operates.

 

[kambo]

what you talking about the studio is monkey business.... even if you have a written agreement,
what you gonna do if the engineer messes up your mix.... take him to the court  ;D

studio owner can ask for written agreement, only if he feels you are a doggy person... other than that,
artist doesnt need any written agreement... there is a nature of business....  and there is
nature of law... that protects both artist and studio owners...

when you hire a cab, it takes you where you wanted to go... when you arrive you pay the driver... you dont need to sign
any agreement.... if driver feels you are a doggy person, either he refuses you, or he asks for upfront payment....
rest is protected by the law....

i cant say you are right or wrong on photography until i hear from the expert in entertainment law...
never said, you are right or wrong...