Old question in a different light

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by Roger W. Norman, Aug 27, 2003.

  1. We all know about works for hire and musician's rights to anything if they
    are working under that auspices and you've paid them for their work. But my
    question is a little more involved.

    Our local jazz festival has placed an onus on the headlined talent to get
    permission from all the "paid" musicians before a live concert can now be
    released, even if all references to the festival are edited out. Now my
    "paid" statement is that for certain co-stage rooms, musicians are provided
    to the local vocal talent, generally playing standards, etc., and I'm not
    talking about if they have their band scheduled as a headliner for the room
    and me releasing their work without their approval. So group A might be
    three disparate "for hire" musicians supplying a rhythm section for a
    vocalist. Or Group A could be a known group still doing "for hire" work
    behind a local talent. But nowhere am I concerned about Joe Blow's Quintet
    when it is indeed headlining as Joe Blow's Quintet. Just Madame X singing
    with the backing of musicians that normally otherwise would be making up the
    band called Joe Blow's Quintet.

    So my question is, other than a courtesy to the musician, who's playing a
    "work for hire" gig, is there any legal determination that one get approval
    to use that musician's performance? I mean, this isn't about credit for the
    work. That goes without saying, but I mean a legal requirement that a
    musician have approval over whether a product can be released. Seems like a
    lot of protection for a musician in a work for hire situation. I wouldn't
    think a third seat sax player on a Frank Sinatra record would have had final
    say over whether Frank could release the recording.

    An addendum to this is that, yes, I suppose it's possible that whatever
    these "for hire" musicians sign to be a part of the festival probably gives
    them something of this approval thing, but if that's so, and I don't know
    it's not, then wouldn't it just be simply a matter of me having each set of
    musicians sign a statement that admits they are "for hire" and have no final
    say over release of any performance they may play upon? Again, I'd
    gaurantee credit, but final say is just too much for a musician that might
    be playing 5 sets with 5 different headliners over a particular night.

    Don't get me wrong, I have my own opinions on the matter, but I want either
    backup or debunking because not only could it adversely effect my client,
    but it would then adversely effect my business and some of my reason for
    working so fricking hard on these festivals.

    --


    Roger W. Norman
    SirMusic Studio
    Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
    See how far $20 really goes.
  2. EggHd

    EggHd Guest

    << So my question is, other than a courtesy to the musician, who's playing a
    "work for hire" gig, is there any legal determination that one get approval
    to use that musician's performance? >>

    Sure. This is now being used for a purpose other than just the live concert
    the players were hired to perform. People will make money from the sale of the
    recording that include the players.

    I many cases I have been invloved with, players will want more money from an
    artist if there are also recording something for sale during the performace.

    Without a signed agreement, the players *could* sue for participation and get
    the union involved as well.

    << I wouldn't
    think a third seat sax player on a Frank Sinatra record would have had final
    say over whether Frank could release the recording. >>

    In those days, he would have been paid recording scale as well as whatever he
    was paid for the gig.




    ---------------------------------------
    "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Share This Page