What does your client own as far as recorded material ?

[Hoodee]

Hi everyone. I'd like some help to settle a dispute I have with a band I was currently working with.

The story goes as follow : The past few weeks I was tracking and mixing a local band, cool musicians, really good music. Everything was going pretty smoothly, until the mixing stage. The guitar player didn't like the tone we got so we spent 2 hours tweaking the guitar tracks with no good results. In the process, we discussed a bit his favorite guitar players and it turned out we should have used a specific amp for the job to be done correctly. I tried to reason with him and even said that we could try and rent such an amp so we could record his tracks once more for better results. He insisted on tweaking further. And so we did for a few hours, we got something awful sounding that we couldn't fit in the mix, I got frustrated, he got mad, and after a while he forced the band to agree to mix the material somewhere else. I couldn't care less about it since the tracking was already paid and I won't give them anything until they pay up what they still owe me. But the problem isn't there...

The problem is that they want me to give them not the raw tracks, but the edited versions I did as part of my mixing job (they didn't want to pay for a full editing job, time alligning the drums, bass, etc...) and I can't help but feel they'd either have to pay for that as well or it's just not common practice and I have the right to refuse.

What's the Forum view on this one ?

[somebodyelseuk]

Originally Posted by Hoodee

Hi everyone. I'd like some help to settle a dispute I have with a band I was currently working with.

The story goes as follow : The past few weeks I was tracking and mixing a local band, cool musicians, really good music. Everything was going pretty smoothly, until the mixing stage. The guitar player didn't like the tone we got...
The problem is that they want me to give them not the raw tracks, but the edited versions I did as part of my mixing job (they didn't want to pay for a full editing job, time alligning the drums, bass, etc...) and I can't help but feel they'd either have to pay for that as well or it's just not common practice and I have the right to refuse.

What's the Forum view on this one ?

The guitar tone thing... in future, save yourself some grief and run a DI at the same time. Then, if the recorded tone can't be 'optimised', you have the option to use an amp sim while no-one's watching.

Not a lawyer, and don't know whether it varies from country to country, but they own what they paid for. That's it. If they haven't paid for the editing, don't hand it over.

[bladerunner]

They should pay for the work done. It's as simple as that. Figure out a bill that covers exactly what you did, time spent etc. If they want to take away the work you did it logically means they're happy to pay for it.

One thing though.. If I was doing this job.. I wouldn't necessarily accept that's it's my job to sort out a guitarists tone. That's his job. Were you more producer role or just tracking/mixing?

[Hoodee]

Originally Posted by bladerunner

They should pay for the work done. It's as simple as that. Figure out a bill that covers exactly what you did, time spent etc. If they want to take away the work you did it logically means they're happy to pay for it.

One thing though.. If I was doing this job.. I wouldn't necessarily accept that's it's my job to sort out a guitarists tone. That's his job. Were you more producer role or just tracking/mixing?

Tracking/mixing. But the average age in the band is quite young (22-ish) so they don't have their shit sorted out, they lack the gear to do a good record, so I helped them out with some gear and my few years of experience to get a tone that would be "useable".

As far as billing : they will pay for the work done, I just don't want to give away a part of the job I did by myself to improve a bit those songs.

[Hoodee]

Originally Posted by somebodyelseuk

The guitar tone thing... in future, save yourself some grief and run a DI at the same time. Then, if the recorded tone can't be 'optimised', you have the option to use an amp sim while no-one's watching.

Not a lawyer, and don't know whether it varies from country to country, but they own what they paid for. That's it. If they haven't paid for the editing, don't hand it over.

Actually I was planning on using a DI signal, but since he recorded on my amp I thought I'd be able to get something that would suit his taste, or at least something that would fit in the mix. So I dropped the idea at the very last moment.

[The Byre]

Originally Posted by Hoodee

What's the Forum view on this one ?

Never mind what the forum thinks - it's what the law stipulates that counts!

Assuming that you are in the US or the UK, the law requires you to hand them their property, regardless of what they have paid for or not (yet) paid for. Their property is the mechanical recordings - i.e. the noises they made in the studio.

If they paid for the edits, they also own those edits. That means that if they were in the studio for five days and paid for five days and during those five days, you performed various tasks at their request, for which you have been paid, then they own the results of that work.

On the other hand, if you performed those tasks out of the goodness of your own heart (goodwill work in-hand) then they do not own the results of that additional work.

Unless otherwise agreed per contract, the various laws in the US and the UK do not require you to hand over project folders, but just the rendered WAV files, suitably time-coded, so that they may be used in future. Even if the editing work was paid for, all the law requires, is that you hand over the results of that work. Similar to getting your car fixed at the local garage, the workshop does not have to hand over any manuals, tools, or know-how as to how the repairs were made. They just have to give you the car back and any parts that were removed from the car.

So, to sum-up - they own the individual tracks and any mixes that they may have paid for.

My 30-cents worth - give them the lot, edited, unedited, the lot. It's no skin off your nose and you'll never see these idiots ever again! But just give them rendered WAV files. The commands, the macros, the placing of stretch-marks, the use of effects - that's all YOUR property!

[Hoodee]

Originally Posted by The Byre

My 30-cents worth - give them the lot, edited, unedited, the lot. It's no skin off your nose and you'll never see these idiots ever again! But just give them rendered WAV files. The commands, the macros, the placing of stretch-marks, the use of effects - that's all YOUR property!

That's the thing - I don't really want to give them whatever I have made to better the recorded material because we never agreed upon that.

There's also my "inner-asshole" that tells me not to : I know that the guitar player will try to handle the mixing himself, it would be his first time ever working with a multitrack session, and as much as I wish him luck I'd also love to teach him a lesson and have him do a few hours of editing, so he can feel what this job really is about, you know, get a taste of that ass-ache from sitting 8 hours in front of a computer

[serr]

They have to pay for the editing work or they only get the unedited tracks.

That the guitar player was inexperienced and didn't realize he needed to assess his sound being recorded is unfortunate. Perhaps he assumed you'd be able to notice what was going on and take care of it during recording? ("That's why I'm paying you!" kind of attitude?)

From what you wrote, it sounds like he's green and this was a new discovery. ("Oh, it has to sound right for the recording of it to sound right?! Who knew?!?") I don't know what conversations were had or what you told him initially and along the way.

If he was confused/green and you simply said "I've got this no matter what!"... well, apparently not!

vs.

"Yeah man this is perfect!" "This sounds great!" "Oh wait... this doesn't sound like this album I never gave you a reference for that's actually really important to me."


If it's the first thing, and you also kind of screwed up with no DI track for insurance, you might just have to suck this one up and call it education.

2nd thing? And further the client demanded to do some mixing/tweaking as producer with you as assistant? You would have needed to make this clear early on but the client gets a choice: Pay a project rate for you to produce an album. That means he likes and trusts your work. That further means absolutely no micromanaging, no exceptions. Input, ideas, and critique yes. But that's it. This means if you decide something needs to be done along the way and it takes you longer than you anticipated, that's your problem! You can't raise the price.

Or, pay you rent for the facility and you as assistant. This scenario puts it all on him. You charge by the hour and you could care less if anything ever gets finished or turns out well. I'm putting this more bluntly here than I would in actual talks with clients.

Moving forward, keep it black and white like that. Musicians normally want one of the other of those choices and no in-between. The guy coming in who wants to win a popularity contest is the client that will want to "take over" mixing because it sounds fun at some moment as well as wildly change their mind here and there because they were never really listening in the first place and aren't really connected to any music. This is the one you want to scare away. Not suggesting being malicious with the 2nd option. Someone coming in as or with a producer would want exactly that. (Obviously they have to actually be that or this turns into disaster for them.)

Sounds like you might have got that second one. (They THINK they're a producer but...) If you didn't lay down the rules up front though... might be another learning experience.

They pay for the editing work or they don't get it though. Further, if this is agreed upon work, then need to pay their bill (including the editing in this case) before they get handed anything.

[drtedtan]

Originally Posted by Hoodee

That's the thing - I don't really want to give them whatever I have made to better the recorded material because we never agreed upon that.

If they've paid for that work, it's theirs. Have they paid for it yet? Not necessarily a separate fee, but did you do the work on their time (the time they've already paid for) or yours?

[karbomusic]

I couldn't care less about it since the tracking was already paid and I won't give them anything until they pay up what they still owe me. But the problem isn't there...

It is until they pay what is currently owed.

it would be his first time ever working with a multitrack session

Give them the WAVs like the byre mentioned, *once they pay what is owed now* and wash your hands of the deal - and be nice about it - If this kid has never even touched a DAW and he can't come up with his own tone (instead of chasing someone else's), and appears oblivious that it's mix/song first and gtr tone ego last... this problem will fix itself outside of your involvement. Don't let your ego get in the way of it, his seems to be causing enough trouble all on it's own and it's best you get as far away from that as possible.

Then in the future, you'll get work from the remaining members if/when they figure out where the real problem lives.

[mykrobinson]

Somebody may have already mentioned this... did this guitar player not say anything about not liking the tone BEFORE HE STARTED TRACKING??!!!!

[Hoodee]

@serr @mykrobinson- I wouldn't call that dude green, he knew what he was about when we decided which amp to use, which mic to put in front of the cab, we tried several mic placement before settling on anything and only started recording when he was happy with the "dry" tone we got. So he definetely got into the studio with something in mind AND achieved a satisfying result BEFORE laying any tracks. I helped chose the amp, but it was more like pushing him to try different things before settling on anything so I knew I had used all my possibilities before he made any decisions. So I'd be more of an assitant in that case.

As far as mixing goes, he was the only one who insisted on soloing his tracks so he could listen to them and get some input into what I was doing. So he kinda wanted to "produce" some of the sound neglecting everything else. Sounds a bit counter productive.

But that's not even the point, the fact he liked the dry tracks but didn't care for them in the mix was just a catalyst to my problem - do I owe them the editing I did to get a better mix? I feel like "no"...

@drtedtan - No, what I was paid for was tracking/mixing, never ever have I mentioned to them that the editing was included. (I actually do this on an hourly wage too, OUTSIDE of the tracking/mixing wage...I hate editing and if I have to do it, I always make sure I'll be paid for this)

@karbomusic - This is kind of my attitude towards that whole situation. I'd be really glad if he got a lesson out of it, and I'm far from taking this as any kind of personal failure for me. If he wants to work with somebody else/alone, then so be it. Good riddance too.



My only real mistake in this was that I didn't record any DI tracks. Then again, how can we be so sure an amp sim would suit his taste ? From what I gathered, the dude was more of a Mesa guy, the type that likes cranked Rectifiers...Nothing like a Marshall JCM 800, don't you guys think ? And once again, this was just the catalyst to later events, I regret mentioning this as I see a lot of people are trying to justify this guy's attitude and forget the problem at hand...

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Hoodee

@karbomusic - This is kind of my attitude towards that whole situation. I'd be really glad if he got a lesson out of it, and I'm far from taking this as any kind of personal failure for me. If he wants to work with somebody else/alone, then so be it. Good riddance too.

Yea, I get it. You can look at it this way... If you go about it right, you can actually make a mentoring impression on him. He will never admit it, not even to himself, it will take a long time for him to realize it, you'll never hear about it but it *will* matter.

Even if this forces him to learn how to mix and he actually does pull it off, *you* still helped him by allowing him to make his own mistakes and learn from them, and I think that's a good thing (after you get paid that is). IOW, when we make a difference in someone else's life, there is no rule that says they'll thank us for it or even like us over it.

[Bri1]

I don't really want to give them whatever I have made to better the recorded material because we never agreed upon that.

Is it in writing or a document of any kind? if not,nobody has anything.
Contracts are worded to suit law,or not.
Verbal agreements will not stand anywhere without suitable evidence- =be carefull as to what's agreed to,or not. .? Unless your going to a cival court..it's no crime.

[DVDdoug]

If this went to court (which hopefully it won't) the court would try to make an "equitable" decision. That is, the client should get what they paid for, and you should get paid for what you did.

Of course it all starts with the contract which specifies what's required of both parties. If the job isn't completed but nobody breached the contract and nobody is clearly at fault, you BOTH may loose but the goal of the law would be that you loose equally... You may have wasted some time trying unsuccessfully to satisfy them, and they may only have to partially for that wasted time.

My 30-cents worth - give them the lot, edited, unedited, the lot. It's no skin off your nose and you'll never see these idiots ever again! But just give them rendered WAV files. The commands, the macros, the placing of stretch-marks, the use of effects - that's all YOUR property!

I agree with that... Although they are not entitled to anything they haven't paid for, you are the pro, you are the business, and they are the amateurs. Be the bigger man and take the loss... You're probably going to take a loss anyway.

And, maybe you can re-configure your contract so this doesn't happen again?

But the average age in the band is quite young (22-ish) so they don't have their shit sorted out,

Is there something unusual about that?

[Bri1]

..The commands, the macros, the placing of stretch-marks, the use of effects - that's all YOUR property!

Incorrect-all that 'belongs' to the authors-in such case,cockos+any script/plugin writers.
A reaper user is only granted permission to "use" per license.
If anything is then uploaded to any type of website or streaming service,they will also have their own contracted agreement 1 would imagine.

[Neenja]

They are legally owed what they have paid for. Tell them they can have whatever that is and the rest for a particular amount of money and once that transaction is made, you will delete their files. BTW, in most places, anything in your house is yours without a judge saying otherwise. Same goes with them. If you give them something without being paid, it takes a judge or arbitrator to sort it out if they don't pay.

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by Bri1

Is it in writing or a document of any kind? if not,nobody has anything.
Contracts are worded to suit law,or not.
Verbal agreements will not stand anywhere without suitable evidence- =be carefull as to what's agreed to,or not. .? Unless your going to a cival court..it's no crime.

Even if is going to civil court, it's no crime. As the saying goes, "a verbal contract is worth the paper it's written on".

[Fergler]

Originally Posted by Hoodee

Tracking/mixing. But the average age in the band is quite young (22-ish) so they don't have their shit sorted out, they lack the gear to do a good record, so I helped them out with some gear and my few years of experience to get a tone that would be "useable".

As far as billing : they will pay for the work done, I just don't want to give away a part of the job I did by myself to improve a bit those songs.

How networked are these 20 somethings? Is it possible that the financial gain of asking them to pay more than they want to is outweighed by the negative word-of-mouth that might come from them talking with other local bands? If this demographic is important to you, it may be worth taking the loss (while drafting a better contract for future clients).

[cassembler]

I'd vote split the difference... They're not happy with the mix, sorry we couldn't help you out. Here's your tracks. If you also want the edits, I do have to charge you for the time, but we'll split the fees.

They might come back if they remember you did good business, even if unhappy. But, they'll tell all their friend if you piss them off...

The odds of this going to court are way, way, way remote (and thus the laws don't really matter), unless of course this is Celine Dion or something.

[cassembler]

Originally Posted by The Byre

My 30-cents worth - give them the lot, edited, unedited, the lot. It's no skin off your nose and you'll never see these idiots ever again! But just give them rendered WAV files. The commands, the macros, the placing of stretch-marks, the use of effects - that's all YOUR property!

Yeah, you could just hand over the edited dry stems and call it a day.

[The Byre]

Originally Posted by Bri1

Incorrect-all that 'belongs' to the authors-in such case,cockos+any script/plugin writers.
A reaper user is only granted permission to "use" per license.

You are confusing the software itself with the implementation of the software.

Originally Posted by DVDdoug

Although they are not entitled to anything they haven't paid for, you are the pro, you are the business, and they are the amateurs. Be the bigger man and take the loss...

Always try to part company with customers as friends. This gig is hard enough as it is, without trying to queer your own pitch and shit on your own parade!

[viscofisy]

You should consider drawing up a brief pamphlet on what can be reasonably expected in both the Recording and the Mixing processes - including their limitations, and explaining the further role of any Producer. It could be supplementary to, or included in, any contract.

It would have the benefit of providing clarity beforehand for both sides, and a good reference against any disputes.

And always try to include a DI recording whenever possible.
At least by providing both audio and Di files you can fulfil your responsibility in the Recording process (as per agreement) - and if they are unhappy with the Mixing process they have their raw files (as per agreement!) and the opportunity to take them elsewhere.

In the meantime, I'd recommend the following advice :

Originally Posted by DVDdoug

Although they are not entitled to anything they haven't paid for, you are the pro, you are the business, and they are the amateurs. Be the bigger man and take the loss... You're probably going to take a loss anyway.

Originally Posted by Fergler

How networked are these 20 somethings? Is it possible that the financial gain of asking them to pay more than they want to is outweighed by the negative word-of-mouth that might come from them talking with other local bands? If this demographic is important to you, it may be worth taking the loss (while drafting a better contract for future clients).

[mikeroephonics]

1.) Don't work for free.
2.) Don't release material unless it has been paid for.

Bottom line. Your time, energy and knowledge base have value. (Some) people will exploit and use you if they smell an opportunity to do so. Don't let it happen.

[Bri1]

You are confusing the software itself with the implementation of the software.

Um i don't think so-here if you have not read yet (figured you had)
"3.2 You may not sell, rent, lease, sublicense, transfer, resell for profit or otherwise distribute the Software, its documentation, or any part thereof. "

^Just that 1 condition there is case in hand-user is renting-- right?
I suggest you read again.

Originally Posted by mikeroephonics

1.) Don't work for free.
2.) Don't release material unless it has been paid for.

Bottom line. Your time, energy and knowledge base have value. (Some) people will exploit and use you if they smell an opportunity to do so. Don't let it happen.

Lol? don't work for free?? so what ever happened to community spirit/love of sharing and voluntary aids? pfft.
If you cannot see a massive % of population being exploited,please look harder.
Who is'nt exploited in some way or other?

[The Byre]

Originally Posted by Bri1

You may not sell, rent, lease, sublicense, transfer, resell for profit or otherwise distribute the Software, its documentation, or any part thereof.

The placement of edit points and similar user-generated information is non of the above and the files holding that information, (i.e. the project folders) are, unless otherwise agreed, the property of that user. If you send a project folder containing edit information to another user, you are not sending any part of the software.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - a good background in IP law is part of my job and one I have been doing for quite a few decades.

[Bri1]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - a good background in IP law is part of my job and one I have been doing for quite a few decades.

Ok-then at least you will understand it's all nonsense,contractual bollox.
In england we have currently a hybrid /semi_dictatorship/ type system- law of the land and law of the sea.
All i see are souls either swimming the sea of energy,drowning in it,cruising above and below it,being eaten or nibbled on by other creatures,or simply washing up on the shores of physical existance.
The rest is just an <<agreed to>> script with players,scenes,and moments of experiencing.
Take care.

[ashcat_lt]

I think this whole thing could have been avoided with just a little bit more communication before the session. Keep that in mind for future.

I say, don't be a dick. You've already done the edits, so either way that time is out the door. If you wanted to get paid for it, you should have told them before you did it. Otherwise it looks a lot like one of those guys who washes your car window while you're stopped at a red light without asking and then holds out his hand. I understand the situation is frustrating, but you went out on that limb all by yourself.

If those edits you did actually help, and they actually know or care, I think you might as well give it to them. It's not your job to teach anybody any lessons. Your job is customer service. It's like if your bartender brings you the wrong drink. They can take it back and dump it out and replace it, or they can let you have it if you want and make you the right thing on top. Which bar are you more likely to return to or recommend to your friends?

[serr]

I see what's going on here (after a few more clarifying comments).

The dude gave the impression he was involved and aware and you got enough of a green light from that to go ahead and put some mix time in. (Which included some helpful editing in this case.) It looked like he was going to appreciate the work so you took the chance with some extra effort.

Turns out at the end of the day that the bit where he was liking the sound was an act! He saw some movie or something where a musician was involved in the studio making decisions about sound and he wanted to playact that part too. He wasn't actually listening to his sound during that...

The way to deal with that is to agree or not on a producer up front. The client needs to agree on a project rate and respect your resume enough to make that a done deal. If they flake out and try changing their mind midstream, you need to matter of fact tell them that everything needs to screech to a halt and be renegotiated in such a case. Not in a negative way or anything. Just matter of fact, "OK, we can talk about a new plan. Understand that we're some ways into the original play you agreed to. I'll give you some options and what they cost and we can discuss this." I'll genuinely try to come up with options for the most bang for the buck and least amount of work already done lost.

If they decide to halt the project with you because you can't come to a new agreement, then you can charge for the work done from the original deal that they did in fact agree to. If they decide they're disgruntled and don't want to pay for that anymore, then they walk away empty handed (and go on your "I'm sorry I'm book up" list).


The other option doesn't change. That being them renting your equipment and space by the hour with you as assistant. If you put in some extra credit mix work in this situation, understand that you really are speculating on something no one agreed to like and pay for.

[northwoodmediaworks]

If you have other clients queued at the door, then hold out for your $$$ within the bounds of the law in your environs. If you don't have a crowd waiting, and need to keep the place from growing dark, then factor in the negative word of mouth possiblities, especially if these entitled types are on the live circuit much. Might be less stressful to let it slide.

Probably everyone here who's worked professionally has been in a similar position at some point. Best of luck.

cheers

[Hoodee]

Ok, so things resolved themselves over the weekend. I got paid, which is cool, but I also got called unprofessional, amateurish and most of all a jerk.

A few of you wrote about the DI tracks. In hindsight, I should've done that. Lesson learned.

@serr : you were mostly right on your assesment of what the situation looked from the other side, that's some impressive psychological work You brought some points I never would have thought of. Turns out most were true.

There's a lot of helpfull informations around this thread I think and I hope we all learned something from my experience

Thanks everyone