The other person would also compose and record the background music (don’t know the technical term for what’s not the melody and English is not my first language either).
In: 12
[deleted]
In the United States, whoever filed the copyright first owns it. If you write a song but don’t file the copyright and then someone else files it, you can take them to court and get the copyright that way, but that’s usually expensive and risky.
Also, I believe, but am not certain that if you file a copyright for a song, but do not record it that no one else may release a version of your song without permission until you actually release your version.
Again, I am speaking only about U.S. laws. Different countries have very different laws about this.
The songwriter is the initial owner of the copyright assuming that it is officially copy written.. The songwriter is then able to sell, license , gift said song to whomever.
Typically the copyright is shared between the writer and the producer/ record label of the song for distribution purposes in exchange for an artist percentage of sales. I’m assuming this isn’t a major song but if you want it to LEGALLY be yours you would have to submit a copyright form and turn it in to whoever the appropriate channel is in your part of the world. If you want to share the copy right with the composer / recorder you can do that too they would just need to sign the same form.
And then both of you would have copyright and could sell it or license it to a producer or label BUT both would have to have consent since it would be both of your property.
Tom Scott did [a great (and quite long) video on copyright law as applicable to YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU), which covers this question, and I’m sure many more you may have on the subject matter. If you have the time, I’d recommend giving it a watch!
The ELI5 is: both the concept of the song and the performance of the song are under two separate copyrights.
Both. There are two works being created, a musical work and a sound recording. You would own the rights to the musical work, the signer would own the sound recording.
If somebody else wanted to use the song in a movie then they’d need permission from both of you. If they wanted to do a cover of the song for the movie, they’d only need your permission.
The signer would owe you royalties for covering your song. Note that once your song is publicly released, you can’t stop people from covering it, as long as they pay your royalties. However, if they sneak into your studio and steal the song, they have no right to cover it.
https://www.copyright.gov/engage/musicians/
A musical composition is a separate thing from a sound recording and a separate copyright applies to each. For simplicity here, lets assume the two copyrights are held by the composer and performer respectively although, of course, they can sell or assign their copyrights to others.
A performer making a sound recording will need a licence from the composer and that licence generally defines how any profits from the recording will be distributed. Maybe the composer grants the licence on the basis that any profits are shared 50/50. Alternatively, the performer could pay a fixed sum of money for the licence and then keep all the profits for themselves. It’s for the composer to set the terms.
Depending on where you are located, you might need to register the copyright. The lyrics and melody are considered more representative of the song than the background, which is called the accompaniment.
You own the song, but you would share rights over that specific performance.
Things can vary because there are usually contracts outlining who owns what.
For example, Taylor Swift recently re-released a bunch of songs that she recorded again. That’s because she got screwed over by the studio she originally recorded with in the contract. Basically, the studio had way too much ownership of those recordings, so by recording them again, she was able to cut out that old studio.
Latest Answers