Audio Engineer's Rights - Law School Project Request

[AudioEngineerLaw]

Hey Future Producers,


I’m currently finishing my second year of law school in NC focusing on music industry contract and copyright law. I’m doing a project on the audio engineer’s role as a creative contributor in the advent of modern recording mediums. I’m coming to you to see if I could get some help in one element of my demonstration.


Here is a little background on the project:


I’m working on a project to educate about the role of audio engineers as creative contributors in the advent of modern recording mediums and advocate for the recognition of those contributions. Copyright and the Music Marketplace, a 245-page document published in 2015 by the U.S. Copyright Office, which purports to be the result of “an exhaustive analysis of industry practices,” mentions audio engineers only one time, and only in relation to the description of NARAS. I consider this an important issue and believe that audio engineers should not be treated as a non-entity by their regulating bodies.


NARAS stated in their letter to the Copyright Office, in preparation of Copyright and the Music Marketplace, that studio professionals were not adequately represented in policy discussions with the Copyright Office and Congress during the formation of the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (“DPRA”). Studio professionals are likely to continue being underrepresented in policy discussions if the Copyright Office can simply ignore their existence as contributors. The Copyright Office itself has recognized a fundamental need for the restructuring of copyright, and public/professional outcry for reform is reaching an impressive level. Recognition is needed so that when the issue does come to a head, and reform is actualized, engineers can have a seat at the table.


One factor in showing a recognizable contribution is that the commercial viability of a work is derived from the contributions of both the artist and the engineer. (Of course, there are engineers who work more in a documentarian way, or where a producer/artists makes all of the specific creative decisions. However, that is covered in a different area of my project and outside the scope of this request).


The request:


I’m hoping that an engineer will be willing to provide me with the virgin/raw tracks from one of their projects, along with the corresponding finished product (mixed or mix/mastered). This will be used for educational purposes during a presentation at a law school for several aspiring entertainment attorneys about the role of an audio engineer and the engineer’s potential protectible contributions. A production company has donated the use of a PA, mixing console, and an engineer for the presentation. We will make every effort to present your work in the best possible light.


Any help would be greatly appreciated. I’m happy to destroy an instance of the tracks by whatever protocol you deem fit at the completion of the presentation.


Best regards,
Philip McCabe
NCCU School of Law
Class of 2018

 

[rhythmgj]

Interesting project. One thing that muddies the waters legally and in conversational parlance is the distinction (or what used to be a distinction) between a "producer" and an "engineer." Which leads to a discussion of credit-bearing and/vs. royalty-bearing job descriptions.

I think you will want to interview Moses Avalon. I don't speak for him, but I'm guessing he would be interested. He was an industry producer/engineer before everyone called themselves that when they got a laptop and an Mbox. But he has spent several decades as an artist advocate and music business educator. He is a well-respected consultant, and although not an attorney, he is actually the only non-attorney approved to teach music business specialty course to aspiring lawyers seeking to pass the bar in California.

Check him out and try and get in-touch. (Dang, looks like his site has had some trouble and is down. I would try and contact via Twitter or Facebook if you do that social thing...).

 

[AudioEngineerLaw]

Interesting project. One thing that muddies the waters legally and in conversational parlance is the distinction (or what used to be a distinction) between a "producer" and an "engineer." Which leads to a discussion of credit-bearing and/vs. royalty-bearing job descriptions.

I think you will want to interview Moses Avalon. I don't speak for him, but I'm guessing he would be interested. He was an industry producer/engineer before everyone called themselves that when they got a laptop and an Mbox. But he has spent several decades as an artist advocate and music business educator. He is a well-respected consultant, and although not an attorney, he is actually the only non-attorney approved to teach music business specialty course to aspiring lawyers seeking to pass the bar in California.

Check him out and try and get in-touch. (Dang, looks like his site has had some trouble and is down. I would try and contact via Twitter or Facebook if you do that social thing...).

Thanks for your reply, GJ! I agree that the distinction between producer and engineer has blurred, which is one of the ways in which this topic becomes an issue for industry. I will try and get in contact with the person you recommended. It sounds like we’d have some good discussions.

Thanks again for the input!

-PM

 

[StudioKat]

Looking at this from an "old school" point of view, the engineer was traditionally preforming a "work for hire". He was usually an employee of the studio which was hired by the record label. The record label also hired the producer. If the producer was working independently, he would hire the studio and engineer. Again, a work for hire situation. Today things have changed to where the engineer is often the producer or a member of the production team. It is harder make the clear distinctions now. But the reality is that most creative types negotiate a deal that includes a share of royalties if they have the power to do so. Now collecting your share of those royalties, that is another story entirely.