2 Composers, 1 set of Libraries...?

[MikeGraybill]

Well, never thought I\'d find myself in this position, but a composer here at school working on music for a play wants to pay me for use of my \"facilities\" here at home, especially use of my samples, some of which would end up being actually used in the play itself.

As I understand things, so long as I recieve a particular credit of some sort this is legal? I don\'t know if it has to be a co-composer credit, or something else.

It also might be possible that it is not legal at all to put his name on it with mine unless we both own the libraries? Like I said, I\'m not sure how this works, but I figured this was the place to find out.

On a side note, I\'m not really sure I want to have anything to do with this, to be honest. While the extra money would be nice (he\'d be paying me to mockup the music he\'s written for the play) and I wouldn\'t take on that burden without the proper compensation, I also kinda resent the fact that this guy knows nothing of samplers, libraries, sequencers, etc... Working on a budget I\'ve scrimped and saved my tail off, gong some months in recent years eating ramen noodles and such in order to afford those things that I know will improve my capacity to make music. And this guy just wants skip all that and pay me for having that knowledge/technology/$$$investment?

I dunno. Maybe this is a great way to make a living, and I just didn\'t know there was a decent niche for this kinda stuff. At the same time, it does kinda bother me.

So, anyway, the question is, what if anything is illegal here? And if there is something shady about it, how do I ensure it\'s on the up and up if I agree?

Thanks
-mike

[Kobb]

Maybe I don\'t quite fully grasp the situation, but I don\'t really understand why you\'d be upset about this. As long as he\'s paying you for your time to make the actual recording of his music you\'re still benefiting from your investment in the libraries. Now if it was a freebie, then I could understand the resentment - but that would be your own fault for not charging anything. I VERY rarely do projects for free, even if friends are involved, because I\'ve run into too many situations where things drag out longer than anticipated and I end up feeling taken advantage of. But once again, it was my own fault for not clearly setting up the boundaries from the get-go.

Regarding the library use issue, I don\'t see any problem. It sounds like you\'re going to be operating like any other studio: somebody has some music they want to record and you\'re going to facilitate that. I use my giga libraries all the time when I record local bands. Now if you were doing some sort of \"sharing\" of the libraries with a fellow giga user, then that would of course be unethical. But it sound like this guy just wants to write the stuff and have you use your gear to realize it. Sounds like a wonderful opportunity to me.

Good Luck.

[KingIdiot]

Most lbraries require each composer to have a copy of the library

Some are fine with one license but only if the work is done at one studio

As well there are \"special cases\" like a keyboard player in a rock band

[Nick Batzdorf]

I\'ve seen questions like this come up before, and they really point out how bizarre the legal arrangement is with sample libraries. (Sorry to step in the poop again.)

Let\'s pretend that this composer wants to hire you as a keyboard player to play on his album. Does it make any sense that you couldn\'t use your sample libraries? Of course not! Why would a keyboard player invest in them if he/she couldn\'t then use them?

And what the hell difference does it make whether you\'re credited as co-composer, keyboard player, or gynecologist? Or who wrote the music? Where in the agreement does it say that only composers may use the library? Talk about a small market! That would rule out all covers, of course, and no way could you play classical music that isn\'t in the public domain without buying the sample library for each piece.

Getting back to your situation, people hire other people to do mock-ups all the time. There\'s nothing sleazy about it at all. It would be sleazy and probably illegal if he wanted to rent your libraries from you, but how can anyone complain if he\'s hiring you to work on his project. That would be ludicrous.

Guitarists get hired because of their guitar sounds, drummers can get gigs because of their cymbals...and so on. Your libraries come with you.

[Nick Batzdorf]

I just re-read your post. If he wants to \"rent your facilities\" - i.e. rent your samples - then that\'s foul. If he\'s hiring you, that\'s another matter.

[spectrum]

Originally posted by Nick Batzdorf:
I\'ve seen questions like this come up before, and they really point out how bizarre the legal arrangement is with sample libraries. (Sorry to step in the poop again.)

Let\'s pretend that this composer wants to hire you as a keyboard player to play on his album. Does it make any sense that you couldn\'t use your sample libraries? Of course not! Why would a keyboard player invest in them if he/she couldn\'t then use them?

And what the hell difference does it make whether you\'re credited as co-composer, keyboard player, or gynecologist? Or who wrote the music? Where in the agreement does it say that only composers may use the library? Talk about a small market! That would rule out all covers, of course, and no way could you play classical music that isn\'t in the public domain without buying the sample library for each piece.

Getting back to your situation, people hire other people to do mock-ups all the time. There\'s nothing sleazy about it at all. It would be sleazy and probably illegal if he wanted to rent your libraries from you, but how can anyone complain if he\'s hiring you to work on his project. That would be ludicrous.

Guitarists get hired because of their guitar sounds, drummers can get gigs because of their cymbals...and so on. Your libraries come with you. <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Of course! Playing our libraries as a keyboardist on a session for another composer is certainly allowed, and it\'s done everyday. I\'d be very surprised if this is not allowed by other companies either.

Not sure where you got the idea that it wasn\'t allowed.

Doing arrangements, mockups or ghost-writing/co-writing is certainly allowed too.

Here\'s what\'s not allowed: Giving the samples to the other composer to use.....your work has to be a recorded performance. If you want to give the samples to the other composer, then the composer needs to have a license to use each library.

Another big thing that\'s problematic is writing partners, and music houses that collaborate on the same project AND do independant projects also on their own. Collaborating on the same project is not a big deal. (one of the collaborators is licensed). But multiple users of the same library is a big problem, since you can often have 10 or more composers in a music house working on 10 different projects at once (high-paying/high profile ones I might add), all using the one \"house copy\". This is where there\'s a major problem for developers. That\'s ten customers that can and should definitely be paying for their own license, and they are just abusing the one copy.

It\'s those the gross abuse of the many cases of these situations that is why there are terms like you are referring to in sample library licensing agreements.

So in answer to the orignal post, if you are delivering recordings...it\'s just another gig. Do it if you want, or not...there\'s nothing stopping you. But if the other composer is wanting the samples or access to them for himself...that\'s a whole other thing.

spectrum

[MikeGraybill]

I should clarify then, he is in fact trying to hire me. He would not be able to accomplish much here without a great deal of invested time on his part learning how to use all the gear/software, etc.

King, I\'m not sure where this leaves me at the moment. I\'m gunna start looking through the license agreements for libraries I know I\'d be using, but I guess I am to assume that unless it is strictly prohibited, I can go ahead and (as it was described earlier) \"realize\" the music he has written for him?

As far as my resentment goes, I was thinking about it, and I don\'t think it\'s really about the principle. He\'d made an off-hand comment about \"not having time for stuff like this\" and that \"this is why he makes friends with people like me...\" I dunno, bothered me a little. He was joking, but I guess the thought of someone with that mindset benefitting from the sounds and gear I\'ve worked to gather, not to mention the time I\'ve spent learning to use it, bothered me more than anything else. But I guess this is common practice from what I\'m seeing here. Hell, I guess that\'s the way all business works!

I\'ll charge him, and I\'ll be happy to make some of my invested money back. If I can legally, that is. Guess I\'ll go track down license info now. Thanks for the fast responses guys!

-mike

[MikeGraybill]

Spectrum, just read your post. That clears things up greatly for me, and makes good sense. All I\'d be giving him are the final performances after all.

Funny (and kinda sad), btw, how getting paid can sway my attitude so easily. In fact, I\'ll just forget about his attitude all together and be happy that he just bought me atmosphere and half of my new mic pre! images/icons/grin.gif

[Vertigo50]

Be glad that you\'re making money. There are those of us that would gladly take money to do mockups rather than clean the fry-vats.

Okay, extreme example, I don\'t actually work at McDonald\'s but you get my point. images/icons/smile.gif

Anyway, take the money and run!

[Jamesmcwilliams]

Originally posted by Vertigo50:
Be glad that you\'re making money. There are those of us that would gladly take money to do mockups rather than clean the fry-vats.

Okay, extreme example, I don\'t actually work at McDonald\'s but you get my point. images/icons/smile.gif

Anyway, take the money and run! <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">I was delivering peoples mail 2 months ago images/icons/wink.gif

[Nuno Fonseca]

I know that many people don\'t agree with me, but i think that licensing should be a lot simple - like the use of a CD or a book:

- you can sell your cd, book or keyboard to others..(i think sample producers would benefit, because most of the time, people would like to sell sample CDs to buy even better sample CDs)

- you can borrow your cd, book or keyboard to others. Of course only one person can work at the same time.

[shawn]

Originally posted by MichaelAngelo450:
As far as my resentment goes, I was thinking about it, and I don\'t think it\'s really about the principle. He\'d made an off-hand comment about \"not having time for stuff like this\" and that \"this is why he makes friends with people like me...\" I dunno, bothered me a little. He was joking, but I guess the thought of someone with that mindset benefitting from the sounds and gear I\'ve worked to gather, not to mention the time I\'ve spent learning to use it, bothered me more than anything else. But I guess this is common practice from what I\'m seeing here. Hell, I guess that\'s the way all business works!<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">I wouldn\'t worry too much about his \"attitude\". To be honest, he\'s probably a little intimidated by the technology -- that\'s a big and scary road that he doesn\'t want to set out on. But obviously he has some sort of respect for what your gear and talent can accomplish -- otherwise he wouldn\'t be willing to pay for it. My advice is to go ahead and do it and make sure you\'re compensated fairly. Thay way you\'re both benefitting and nobody is being exploited. Good luck.

-Shawn