Re: jazz

On Wed, 17 May 2000, Dr. G.W. Sandy Schaefer <sschaefer[_at_]csc1.csc.edu> wrote:
>
> (1) Within the last year the RIAA claimed (part of a Bill signed by
> the President) that all performances, at least by sidemen (musicians
> who are hired to accompany the star) are considered "work made for
> hire." They claimed that this had always been the case because
> without considering performances as work made for hire releasing
> recordings would be a legal nightmare. Does this mean that
> improvised solos are not controlled by the improvising musician?

I work with a lot of writers and the question of work for hire comes up constantly. The copyright law has a very specific set of criteria that a project must meet before it can be a "work made for hire" under the copyright law. The easy one is work produced as part of your job with an employer. The employer holds copyright. The other one is a list of types of works that can be work for hire but which aren't unless there is a writing signed by both parties saying that the item is a work for hire.

Jazz music is not one of the categories. Therefore, it is NEVER a "work made for hire" under the copyright law (unless a jazz musician is jamming and composition as an employee which doesn't seem likely). The fact that RIAA says it is doesn't mean a darned thing under copyright law.

Which means that the musician owns the copyright in his/her work (assuming it is reduced to tangible form of some kind) until and unless s/he transfers the copyright in writing to someone else.

I find that writers, at least, don't get this. They think that if a contract says it's a "work for hire," it is. No, sorry, but it isn't -- necessarily. It might be but not just because the contract says so.

I leave the other issues to wiser folk herein than I.

-- 
Carol Busby Cricow
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 22438
Eugene, OR  97402
541.484.6860; fax 484.3099
carol[_at_]yujean.com