When a concert organizer pays an artiste to do a show, what he pays for is a LIVE APPEARANCE of that artiste and not A LICENCE FOR PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF COMPOSITIONS. The organizer pays the artiste for appearing live to the public at their event and for rendering songs to the public. This fee does not cover interests of other people who may have copyright interests in the musical works that the artiste may perform; such other people may include the music publisher, music arranger/producer, songwriters and composers.
If the artiste would not be using a live band, that is, using a DJ, thereby necessitating the public performance of a CD (sound recording), then the copyright interests of whoever owns copyright in the recordings would not have been taken care of too. This would most likely be the record company.
As regards the copyright interests the artiste may have in the songs (whether or not he has a valid claim to all the copyright interests in the works), the artiste, being a member Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON), has granted COSON the exclusive right to receive such monies/royalties on his behalf; therefore, any payments under this head would be payable to COSON and not the artiste.
There are about four possible scenarios:
a. The artiste is engaged for a non-musical live appearance: COSON has no interest in this.
b. The artiste is engaged for a musical live appearance: COSON has an interest.
c. The artiste is not engaged at all, but music associated with him will be performed live by some other person or groups: COSON has an interest.
d. The artiste is not engaged at all but a DJ would play music associated with the artiste: COSON has an interest.
It would be unrealistic to expect concert organizers to grapple with all the technicalities and all the rights and all the sharing formulas that may be applicable to every song that would be played at their event. This is the responsibility of COSON; therefore the worldwide practice that concert organizers pay artistes and performers for their live appearance while the copyright issues associated with such performances are left to a government approved body to tackle. The monies due to all copyright stakeholders are paid in bulk to COSON and COSON does the sharing and payment to all stakeholders.
When a concert takes place and fees for the live appearances are taken care of but all copyright interests in the performance are not taken care of (an appropriate license has not been applied for and received), copyright infringements (contrary to the copyright Act, 2004) has taken place and the organizers would be liable for the illegality.
Justin Ige is a Legal Practitioner. (mailjustinige@gmail.com, 08023897112 Creativelegal.blogspot.com)This article contains general information only and is not intended to replace legal counsel.
Showing posts with label music production. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music production. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
GETTING THE BEST OUT OF YOUR SOUNDTRACKS (2)
To get the best out of soundtracks, the first thing a soundtrack maker would have to do is to join the Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON). This is because they are the only organization in Nigeria empowered by law and recognized by the government to collect and distribute royalties for the use of soundtracks to the makers of soundtracks and other persons as may be required. They have the responsibility of collecting these royalties from advertising agencies who may have used these soundtracks in radio and television commercials, movie makers, television and radio producers etc. These mediums are potentially huge sources of income for the makers of soundtracks. Through them, a continuous flow of income could be gotten by a soundtrack maker. The catch however is that any maker who does not join COSON would not be able to receive these royalties. However, where COSON receives money on behalf such persons, or receives money that should accrue to such person, COSON would be obligated to keep such monies in a holding account for a duration of seven years during which such person, if he joins COSON, would be able to receive his money. This is the provision of the law. COSON would not be obligated to keep the money and wait for such soundtrack maker for a period longer than the seven years provided for under the law.
Could it then be that once a soundtrack maker joins COSON he has done all that is necessary under the law to be able to fully get the best out of his soundtracks? The answer is no! The maker, as a member of COSON, has the responsibility of updating and informing COSON of his works. He also has the responsibility of informing the organization of all uses of his works, authorized and unauthorized, as far as possible. It is then the responsibility of COSON to proceed in collecting the royalties due from the authorized users and to defend the rights of the soundtrack makers in respect of the unauthorized users. The organization is even empowered to go as far suing the unauthorized user on behalf of the soundtrack maker at absolutely no cost to soundtrack maker.
There are still other things which a soundtrack maker would be expected to do legally to ensure that he gets the very best out of his soundtracks in today’s Nigeria. COSON is bound to honor agreements. Thus the distribution of royalties from the exploitation of soundtracks would be subject to the agreements that the soundtrack makers themselves have entered into with others. There is no gainsaying that these agreements can be of a highly technical nature but it very worthy to note that in the history of the Nigerian entertainment industry, there has been no such time that these agreements have been so important. There has been no such time when careless attitudes in respect of these agreements could have had such terribly damaging results. It is therefore important, more than ever for every soundtrack maker to ensure that he properly consults a lawyer before entering OR NOT entering into an agreement or contract in respect of his soundtracks. This is because whether or not a written contract was entered into, the law will take effect based on the contract that was signed or on the fact that no contract was signed. That no contract was signed in itself has legal implications which COSON would be bound to respect, and to collect and distribute royalties in accordance with. This point is not important only to the maker of the soundtrack but also to all users of soundtracks. If makers of soundtracks, movie producers, advertising agencies, and radio and television producers do not treat this point with care, they may find themselves where they would rather not be as far as the use and exploitation of soundtracks is concerned under the Nigerian entertainment law.
Justin Ige is a Legal Practitioner. (mailjustinige@gmail.com, 08023897112 Creativelegal.blogspot.com)This article contains general information only and is not intended to replace legal counsel.
Could it then be that once a soundtrack maker joins COSON he has done all that is necessary under the law to be able to fully get the best out of his soundtracks? The answer is no! The maker, as a member of COSON, has the responsibility of updating and informing COSON of his works. He also has the responsibility of informing the organization of all uses of his works, authorized and unauthorized, as far as possible. It is then the responsibility of COSON to proceed in collecting the royalties due from the authorized users and to defend the rights of the soundtrack makers in respect of the unauthorized users. The organization is even empowered to go as far suing the unauthorized user on behalf of the soundtrack maker at absolutely no cost to soundtrack maker.
There are still other things which a soundtrack maker would be expected to do legally to ensure that he gets the very best out of his soundtracks in today’s Nigeria. COSON is bound to honor agreements. Thus the distribution of royalties from the exploitation of soundtracks would be subject to the agreements that the soundtrack makers themselves have entered into with others. There is no gainsaying that these agreements can be of a highly technical nature but it very worthy to note that in the history of the Nigerian entertainment industry, there has been no such time that these agreements have been so important. There has been no such time when careless attitudes in respect of these agreements could have had such terribly damaging results. It is therefore important, more than ever for every soundtrack maker to ensure that he properly consults a lawyer before entering OR NOT entering into an agreement or contract in respect of his soundtracks. This is because whether or not a written contract was entered into, the law will take effect based on the contract that was signed or on the fact that no contract was signed. That no contract was signed in itself has legal implications which COSON would be bound to respect, and to collect and distribute royalties in accordance with. This point is not important only to the maker of the soundtrack but also to all users of soundtracks. If makers of soundtracks, movie producers, advertising agencies, and radio and television producers do not treat this point with care, they may find themselves where they would rather not be as far as the use and exploitation of soundtracks is concerned under the Nigerian entertainment law.
Justin Ige is a Legal Practitioner. (mailjustinige@gmail.com, 08023897112 Creativelegal.blogspot.com)This article contains general information only and is not intended to replace legal counsel.
GETTING THE BEST OUT OF YOUR SOUNDTRACKS (1)
Nigerian movie soundtrack makers have not been privileged to make the best out of their soundtracks. This has not been their fault; if blame is to be apportioned, the music industry would take the blame. More often than not, they get stipends from their work; even when they think they are being properly paid, they get far less than they should have got. This situation is not peculiar to the movie industry alone. This is the situation as far as television series and soaps, and general television and radio programs are concerned. As a matter of fact, many times, makers of music that get used as soundtracks don’t even get paid at all; sometimes, they are not even acknowledged – movie and television producers simply choose a song or soundtrack which they like and feel suitable for their production, then proceed to use same as they deem fit and without any recourse to the maker of such music. This situation is so bad that songs and instrumental musical compositions are indiscriminately used for radio jingles and adverts as well.
To compound this most unfortunate situation, the makers of soundtracks themselves fail to take adequate measures to protect their interests and investments legally; they are also very much ignorant of their rights. The truth however is that until May, 2010, even if they were aware of their rights and they took steps to protect those rights legally, their knowledge and effort may not have been able to amount to much. This is because the rights of makers of soundtracks are basically about the copyright in those works. Before May, 2010, the Nigerian government had not taken the bold step of laying the foundation and establishing the enabling environment for the collective administration of copyright. However with the approval of an organization for the copyright administration in Nigeria, that organization being Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON), the stage is now set for makers of soundtracks to make the best out of their soundtracks provided they make the effort to do all that is required under the law to protect their interests.
For this purpose, soundtracks would be looked at from two categories and perspectives. First, music may be made specifically as a soundtrack, that is, to specifically express the dramatic moods that a movie or television program may have. Second, music that may not have been made for this purpose, but may have been made rather as an independent song or instrumental composition which has been determined applicable for use as a soundtrack and thereupon used in such manner by movie, radio or television producers. In order to fully understand how a music or soundtrack maker may protect his rights and position himself legally to take full advantage of the new structure the government has put in place, it is important to clearly identify which of these two categories the maker may belong at every relevant time or transaction. This identification, amongst other things, would help to determine his rights under the law, his options and what legal steps he ought to take to serve his best interests.
Some of these possible scenarios would be examined later in some detail, and advisable steps would also be proffered but it is helpful to state at this point that the soundtrack maker, whether he belongs to the former or later category, would have to be a member of the Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON) to be able to fully benefit from the efforts of the government and his works. It is only upon taking that first action that other steps may be fully relevant or may have the most and desired impact so as to be able to get the very best out of ones soundtracks.
- To be continued
Justin Ige is a Legal Practitioner. (mailjustinige@gmail.com, 08023897112 Creativelegal.blogspot.com)This article contains general information only and is not intended to replace legal counsel.
To compound this most unfortunate situation, the makers of soundtracks themselves fail to take adequate measures to protect their interests and investments legally; they are also very much ignorant of their rights. The truth however is that until May, 2010, even if they were aware of their rights and they took steps to protect those rights legally, their knowledge and effort may not have been able to amount to much. This is because the rights of makers of soundtracks are basically about the copyright in those works. Before May, 2010, the Nigerian government had not taken the bold step of laying the foundation and establishing the enabling environment for the collective administration of copyright. However with the approval of an organization for the copyright administration in Nigeria, that organization being Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON), the stage is now set for makers of soundtracks to make the best out of their soundtracks provided they make the effort to do all that is required under the law to protect their interests.
For this purpose, soundtracks would be looked at from two categories and perspectives. First, music may be made specifically as a soundtrack, that is, to specifically express the dramatic moods that a movie or television program may have. Second, music that may not have been made for this purpose, but may have been made rather as an independent song or instrumental composition which has been determined applicable for use as a soundtrack and thereupon used in such manner by movie, radio or television producers. In order to fully understand how a music or soundtrack maker may protect his rights and position himself legally to take full advantage of the new structure the government has put in place, it is important to clearly identify which of these two categories the maker may belong at every relevant time or transaction. This identification, amongst other things, would help to determine his rights under the law, his options and what legal steps he ought to take to serve his best interests.
Some of these possible scenarios would be examined later in some detail, and advisable steps would also be proffered but it is helpful to state at this point that the soundtrack maker, whether he belongs to the former or later category, would have to be a member of the Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON) to be able to fully benefit from the efforts of the government and his works. It is only upon taking that first action that other steps may be fully relevant or may have the most and desired impact so as to be able to get the very best out of ones soundtracks.
- To be continued
Justin Ige is a Legal Practitioner. (mailjustinige@gmail.com, 08023897112 Creativelegal.blogspot.com)This article contains general information only and is not intended to replace legal counsel.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
ARE “BEAT COOKS” (MUSIC PRODUCERS) EXTORTED OR SHORT-CHANGED?
It is not completely accurate to refer to beat makers as music producers. Sometimes, their functions overlap and sometimes not. Beat making thus strictly speaking, is quite different from music production but for the purpose of this article, the two will be taken as one. This is because this article will be dealing with the aspect of music production that involves beat making and its possible legal implications. The questions are loud: what kinds of arrangements or transactions are common in the music industry that can put most music producers at a disadvantage? What is the nature of transactions that can enable the producers to take more advantage?
It must be that the audience or consumers of a piece of music in contemporary times eat beats, and the makers of the beats, cooks. That would explain why the process of beat making is often now referred to as “cooking”. I don’t have a problem with it, as a matter of fact, I kind of like it –why can’t studios be referred to as kitchens? In reality, a comparison of the processes involved in putting a meal together and that of putting a piece of music together would reveal an undeniable similarity - it’s all about ingredients and timing.
It took me a while to understand what is now meant by ‘beat’ in a piece of music. I had no problem in appreciating the word from the perspective of theory of music; after all, there must be a number of beats in a bar, that is, if the music is divided into bars. I certainly can count beats, it is rather easy and it hardly requires any creativity to ‘create’ these. However, what ‘beats’ mean in the ‘real’ world is very different. I wonder who started it. I thought maybe it meant the beating of the drum parts, in other words, the drum pattern. I was wrong. In this real world, if what you are hearing is not the vocal parts then it’s the ‘beat’. Simple! This is however not to be considered as absolute as where it concerns Timberland, some of the vocal parts still forms part of the beat! Nevertheless, one can safely substitute the word ‘accompaniment’ for beat, they mean the same thing in the real world and the moment I figured that out, my problems were solved. The academic understanding of the word “beat” is therefore different from the popular or industry understanding of it. The music academia exists inside but outside this world; I guess they are an example of what it means to be in this world but not of this world.
For the purpose of this article, however, we are concerned with beats as it is popularly understood and used in the music industry, the possible processes through which a beat may be made and the possible legal implications for the artiste and the beat maker/ music producer depending on the process or method employed.
Does the beat come before the song, or is it the other way round? Which should come before the other? Simple. Of course, the accompaniment should come only after what it is supposed to accompany! That makes sense but that’s wrong, wrong, and nothing but wrong! Easy assumption, wrong conclusion! I know it only makes sense that it should be that way but there are many things about the music of today, and the way it is made, that “doesn’t make sense". If fact, the more lyrical and musical sense one can manage to kick out of the music the more money one is likely to kick into one’s bank account. So eventually, the less sense the more sense. It is fast becoming the norm, especially in hip pop and R n’ b genres for the beat to have been fully cooked before the artistes write even a word or a melodic phrase, making the music – and song, dependent on the intellectual effort of the cook. I don’t have a problem with this either; it only shows that the earth is definitely spinning, not stationary. Change is the word, but whichever of the processes or methods employed will have it own necessary legal implications. These legal implications will be considered.
Is there a difference between the beat that comes before the song and the one that comes after the song in terms of legal status? Probably not much and probably with little significance in countries that are not our beloved Nigeria. The legal principles are however generally the same but the difference is one of such that the Nigerian beat cooks/music producers can take advantage of to improve their lot in the industry. It is not the norm for Nigerian music producers to receive any royalties from works produced by them; not that the artistes are much better-off themselves in respect of same. It is ridiculous, we all know, but there is simply no reliable and efficient method of collecting musical royalties in Nigeria! Then, the good old pirates (this is definitely one place where we should all sigh), often referred to as the Alaba boys- they go further by making it easier for legitimate music entrepreneurs to lie about record sales, they also make them sell at ridiculously low prices; the radio stations/DJs and presenters also, are rather more accustomed to ‘receiving royalties’ from artistes to play their music instead of … bla … bla… bla (I simply cant bother). This is Nigeria and all these factors conspire to keep the Nigerian music artiste and music producer in poverty. This is Nigeria but Nigeria won’t always be this; Nigeria hasn’t always been this – not that it has been that much better. Among others, steps are being taken to ensure that the telecom companies for one, pay royalties to artistes for use of their works, in many cases of which the works used could very well be the beats only or the beat signatures, this being the popular melodic theme or rhythm of the beat.
Generally, at law, the owner of a copyrighted work is the maker and for all purposes, there is nothing under the law to prevent a beat cook from asserting his rights over his beats as copyrighted works, provided all legal requirements are met, and thus open up new ways of benefiting from his beats. The example of the telecom companies above is just one way! But then, can beats which come after the song, and thus properly, accompaniments, claim such rights? It definitely won’t be as easy but arguments from the perspective of the impact on public, of composed themes as indivisible parts of the beats may be adequate, depending on the facts of each case as there is a difference between the development of accompaniment for a song and the composition of themes that embellish a song. It is worthy of note that however, both are activities in music production. This is an example of where the difference lies between beats that come before the song and the one that comes after.
Artistes in Nigeria have been reaping millions from and as a result of well cooked beats from shows, among others; but the producers who create this beats benefit much less, in fact, incomparably less from the same very beats! Are the artistes cheating the producers? Maybe it’s the system but the producers can as well take advantage of the law to protect their interests.
The questions are loud: what kinds of arrangements or transactions are common in the industry to put most producers at such disadvantage? What is the nature of transactions that can enable the producers to take the advantage? The best transaction type depends on the circumstances of each case, the peculiar wants and preferences of the producer and the eventual resting nest of negotiation flights. Each transaction type also has its shades, which can be best suited to each case.
It can be thus concluded that if beat cooks are being extorted it is not the law that is to blame; and the extortion can stop. In fact, that is what the law wants! (If I may speak for the Law)
Justin Ige is a Legal Practitioner. (mailjustinige@gmail.com, 08067341743)
This article contains general information only and is not intended to replace legal counsel.
It must be that the audience or consumers of a piece of music in contemporary times eat beats, and the makers of the beats, cooks. That would explain why the process of beat making is often now referred to as “cooking”. I don’t have a problem with it, as a matter of fact, I kind of like it –why can’t studios be referred to as kitchens? In reality, a comparison of the processes involved in putting a meal together and that of putting a piece of music together would reveal an undeniable similarity - it’s all about ingredients and timing.
It took me a while to understand what is now meant by ‘beat’ in a piece of music. I had no problem in appreciating the word from the perspective of theory of music; after all, there must be a number of beats in a bar, that is, if the music is divided into bars. I certainly can count beats, it is rather easy and it hardly requires any creativity to ‘create’ these. However, what ‘beats’ mean in the ‘real’ world is very different. I wonder who started it. I thought maybe it meant the beating of the drum parts, in other words, the drum pattern. I was wrong. In this real world, if what you are hearing is not the vocal parts then it’s the ‘beat’. Simple! This is however not to be considered as absolute as where it concerns Timberland, some of the vocal parts still forms part of the beat! Nevertheless, one can safely substitute the word ‘accompaniment’ for beat, they mean the same thing in the real world and the moment I figured that out, my problems were solved. The academic understanding of the word “beat” is therefore different from the popular or industry understanding of it. The music academia exists inside but outside this world; I guess they are an example of what it means to be in this world but not of this world.
For the purpose of this article, however, we are concerned with beats as it is popularly understood and used in the music industry, the possible processes through which a beat may be made and the possible legal implications for the artiste and the beat maker/ music producer depending on the process or method employed.
Does the beat come before the song, or is it the other way round? Which should come before the other? Simple. Of course, the accompaniment should come only after what it is supposed to accompany! That makes sense but that’s wrong, wrong, and nothing but wrong! Easy assumption, wrong conclusion! I know it only makes sense that it should be that way but there are many things about the music of today, and the way it is made, that “doesn’t make sense". If fact, the more lyrical and musical sense one can manage to kick out of the music the more money one is likely to kick into one’s bank account. So eventually, the less sense the more sense. It is fast becoming the norm, especially in hip pop and R n’ b genres for the beat to have been fully cooked before the artistes write even a word or a melodic phrase, making the music – and song, dependent on the intellectual effort of the cook. I don’t have a problem with this either; it only shows that the earth is definitely spinning, not stationary. Change is the word, but whichever of the processes or methods employed will have it own necessary legal implications. These legal implications will be considered.
Is there a difference between the beat that comes before the song and the one that comes after the song in terms of legal status? Probably not much and probably with little significance in countries that are not our beloved Nigeria. The legal principles are however generally the same but the difference is one of such that the Nigerian beat cooks/music producers can take advantage of to improve their lot in the industry. It is not the norm for Nigerian music producers to receive any royalties from works produced by them; not that the artistes are much better-off themselves in respect of same. It is ridiculous, we all know, but there is simply no reliable and efficient method of collecting musical royalties in Nigeria! Then, the good old pirates (this is definitely one place where we should all sigh), often referred to as the Alaba boys- they go further by making it easier for legitimate music entrepreneurs to lie about record sales, they also make them sell at ridiculously low prices; the radio stations/DJs and presenters also, are rather more accustomed to ‘receiving royalties’ from artistes to play their music instead of … bla … bla… bla (I simply cant bother). This is Nigeria and all these factors conspire to keep the Nigerian music artiste and music producer in poverty. This is Nigeria but Nigeria won’t always be this; Nigeria hasn’t always been this – not that it has been that much better. Among others, steps are being taken to ensure that the telecom companies for one, pay royalties to artistes for use of their works, in many cases of which the works used could very well be the beats only or the beat signatures, this being the popular melodic theme or rhythm of the beat.
Generally, at law, the owner of a copyrighted work is the maker and for all purposes, there is nothing under the law to prevent a beat cook from asserting his rights over his beats as copyrighted works, provided all legal requirements are met, and thus open up new ways of benefiting from his beats. The example of the telecom companies above is just one way! But then, can beats which come after the song, and thus properly, accompaniments, claim such rights? It definitely won’t be as easy but arguments from the perspective of the impact on public, of composed themes as indivisible parts of the beats may be adequate, depending on the facts of each case as there is a difference between the development of accompaniment for a song and the composition of themes that embellish a song. It is worthy of note that however, both are activities in music production. This is an example of where the difference lies between beats that come before the song and the one that comes after.
Artistes in Nigeria have been reaping millions from and as a result of well cooked beats from shows, among others; but the producers who create this beats benefit much less, in fact, incomparably less from the same very beats! Are the artistes cheating the producers? Maybe it’s the system but the producers can as well take advantage of the law to protect their interests.
The questions are loud: what kinds of arrangements or transactions are common in the industry to put most producers at such disadvantage? What is the nature of transactions that can enable the producers to take the advantage? The best transaction type depends on the circumstances of each case, the peculiar wants and preferences of the producer and the eventual resting nest of negotiation flights. Each transaction type also has its shades, which can be best suited to each case.
It can be thus concluded that if beat cooks are being extorted it is not the law that is to blame; and the extortion can stop. In fact, that is what the law wants! (If I may speak for the Law)
Justin Ige is a Legal Practitioner. (mailjustinige@gmail.com, 08067341743)
This article contains general information only and is not intended to replace legal counsel.
Friday, January 29, 2010
MUCH ADO ABOUT TERRY G’S STEALING
An article, published in one of the media some weeks ago, had “Terry G rips off yet another artiste” as its title. This immediately suggests that one of the reigning Nigerian music artistes – Terry G, has taken to stealing - stealing from fellow artistes! The questions that immediately come to the mind of the readers are – Terry G, a thief? , why? Could this be the truth? Who are his victims? The article reported that an artiste, who is just one of Terry G’s victims, Ditty blaq, recently announced his disgust at Terry G for using a beat he sold to him for N150, 000:00. He expressed more disgust that Terry G showed no remorse, made no refunds and failed totally to correct the wrong.
That is the case against Terry G. Is he guilty? Of course, all we have before us are mere accusations, the substance of which has not been determined. It is however worthy of note that Terry G made a somewhat confession. The beat in question is that used for Terry G’s song, street madness. In the song, interestingly, Terry G admits guilt, as he says, “the person weh geti dis beat eh, dem dey for outside eh”. That’s a whole lot of confidence, one might say. We have no further responses from Terry G on these accusations and as such, we are inadequately armed with relevant facts to be able to take any conclusive stands on who is right and who is not. This being that it is not uncommon for artistes to make untrue statements in their songs; fancy statements delivered with swagger is what counts and not the truth of those statements. Also, Terry G may think and say he is guilty and be wrong about it – for lack of information. However, we are in a position to make some valid deductions and provide useful opinion. The information at our disposal and knowledge of the Nigerian music industry practices and customs will be placed against the provisions of the law to do this but in so doing, a basic assumption would have to be made, – that the accusations are true.
It is necessary to mention at this point that the aim of this article is not to determine the guilt of Terry G but rather to examine the issues that the accusations bring to the fore and to suggest methods which industry practitioners may take under the law to protect themselves. Issues the accusations bother on include the following:
1. Artiste and music producer transactions in Nigeria (customs)
2. Legal character of a beat
3. Beat ownership and transfer
4. Post-transfer rights, limitations and liabilities
5. Remedies
It is common practice among the younger Nigerian pop musicians, generally referred to as the Nigerian hip-hop artistes, the category an artiste like Terry G falls into, to simply walk up to a music producer or beat maker, the latter being a more accurate description for most instances, and buy a beat. Simply put in a dramatic form, artiste says, “Mr. Producer, I wan buy beat. Which ones dey ground?” This he says, absolutely unaware of the nature of the legal transaction he just proposed. Mr. Producer makes a couple of beats available for listening. The artiste and often times his friends too do some listening and the preferred beats are chosen and paid for. Mr. Producer then makes the beats available in stereo and multi-track formats. Then the artiste says to himself, “I have just bought some beats, I am on my way to becoming a star.”
The beat is treated as if it were a simple common commodity. A beat, the subject of this kind of transaction, where an artiste simply walks up to a beat maker or buyer, requests for a beat, listens to available ones, and buys, is not a common commodity. It is intellectual property and it is a copyrighted work. Such beat differs from common or simple commodities because the law provides how such may be transferred. It therefore follows that if that procedure is not followed as in the example above, the artiste has not legally bought any beats. It also follows that if Ditty blaq and other Terry G victims had similar transactions as in the above example and failed to follow the provisions of the law, then they did not legally buy the beats from Terry G. It is actually that simple. Section 1(2) of the Copyright Act, 1988 provides as follows:
“A literary, musical or artistic work shall not be eligible for copyright unless –
a. Sufficient effort has been expended on making the work to give it an original character.
b. The work has been fixed in a definite medium of expression now known or later to be developed, from which it can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of any machine or device.”
A beat is without doubt a musical work and it fulfills the above conditions provided by law as the producer did put a lot of effort, energy and creativity into bringing it to existence. The beat is also burnt on a compact disk (CD), which is a definite medium of expression from which the beat can be perceived, reproduced and communicated, hence the conclusion that the character of a beat is that of a copyrighted work and not a common commodity.
In order to legally “sell” or “buy” a beat, section 11(3) of the same Act provides:
“No assignment (that is, sale) of copyright and no exclusive license to do an act, the doing of which is controlled by copyright, shall have effect unless it is in writing”
The implication of this provision is that for a sale of beat transaction to be legally effective, it must be in writing. All possible legal implications and copyright control as it relates to the needs and intentions of both the producer and artiste need be considered in the preparation of such a document. The effect of failing to do this can be far reaching. It is also important to note that it is only the owner of a beat that can sell it. Kind of obvious, one would say; but then, who is the owner? Ownership vests in the author, the author being the beat maker. A legally valid purchaser of a beat may also sell or deal with a beat in several other ways as provided by the law.
After the transfer of a beat through sale or other alternatives provided by law, the rights, liabilities and limitations of the producer and artiste or as the case may be largely depends on their agreement as contained in the written document. In other words, the written document, being the instrument of transfer will determine what either party may or may not do with the beat after transfer is completed.
Should either party fail to keep within what he is authorized to do with the beat, there are options available to the aggrieved party to make good his loss. These options are however very dependent on the facts of each case and may include filing a case in court to prevent the use of the beat in an undesirable way, to enforce one’s legal right over the beat or to demand for one’s legal entitlements arising from the use of the beat.
Justin Ige is a Legal Practitioner. (mailjustinige@gmail.com)
This article contains general information only and is not intended to replace legal counsel.
That is the case against Terry G. Is he guilty? Of course, all we have before us are mere accusations, the substance of which has not been determined. It is however worthy of note that Terry G made a somewhat confession. The beat in question is that used for Terry G’s song, street madness. In the song, interestingly, Terry G admits guilt, as he says, “the person weh geti dis beat eh, dem dey for outside eh”. That’s a whole lot of confidence, one might say. We have no further responses from Terry G on these accusations and as such, we are inadequately armed with relevant facts to be able to take any conclusive stands on who is right and who is not. This being that it is not uncommon for artistes to make untrue statements in their songs; fancy statements delivered with swagger is what counts and not the truth of those statements. Also, Terry G may think and say he is guilty and be wrong about it – for lack of information. However, we are in a position to make some valid deductions and provide useful opinion. The information at our disposal and knowledge of the Nigerian music industry practices and customs will be placed against the provisions of the law to do this but in so doing, a basic assumption would have to be made, – that the accusations are true.
It is necessary to mention at this point that the aim of this article is not to determine the guilt of Terry G but rather to examine the issues that the accusations bring to the fore and to suggest methods which industry practitioners may take under the law to protect themselves. Issues the accusations bother on include the following:
1. Artiste and music producer transactions in Nigeria (customs)
2. Legal character of a beat
3. Beat ownership and transfer
4. Post-transfer rights, limitations and liabilities
5. Remedies
It is common practice among the younger Nigerian pop musicians, generally referred to as the Nigerian hip-hop artistes, the category an artiste like Terry G falls into, to simply walk up to a music producer or beat maker, the latter being a more accurate description for most instances, and buy a beat. Simply put in a dramatic form, artiste says, “Mr. Producer, I wan buy beat. Which ones dey ground?” This he says, absolutely unaware of the nature of the legal transaction he just proposed. Mr. Producer makes a couple of beats available for listening. The artiste and often times his friends too do some listening and the preferred beats are chosen and paid for. Mr. Producer then makes the beats available in stereo and multi-track formats. Then the artiste says to himself, “I have just bought some beats, I am on my way to becoming a star.”
The beat is treated as if it were a simple common commodity. A beat, the subject of this kind of transaction, where an artiste simply walks up to a beat maker or buyer, requests for a beat, listens to available ones, and buys, is not a common commodity. It is intellectual property and it is a copyrighted work. Such beat differs from common or simple commodities because the law provides how such may be transferred. It therefore follows that if that procedure is not followed as in the example above, the artiste has not legally bought any beats. It also follows that if Ditty blaq and other Terry G victims had similar transactions as in the above example and failed to follow the provisions of the law, then they did not legally buy the beats from Terry G. It is actually that simple. Section 1(2) of the Copyright Act, 1988 provides as follows:
“A literary, musical or artistic work shall not be eligible for copyright unless –
a. Sufficient effort has been expended on making the work to give it an original character.
b. The work has been fixed in a definite medium of expression now known or later to be developed, from which it can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated either directly or with the aid of any machine or device.”
A beat is without doubt a musical work and it fulfills the above conditions provided by law as the producer did put a lot of effort, energy and creativity into bringing it to existence. The beat is also burnt on a compact disk (CD), which is a definite medium of expression from which the beat can be perceived, reproduced and communicated, hence the conclusion that the character of a beat is that of a copyrighted work and not a common commodity.
In order to legally “sell” or “buy” a beat, section 11(3) of the same Act provides:
“No assignment (that is, sale) of copyright and no exclusive license to do an act, the doing of which is controlled by copyright, shall have effect unless it is in writing”
The implication of this provision is that for a sale of beat transaction to be legally effective, it must be in writing. All possible legal implications and copyright control as it relates to the needs and intentions of both the producer and artiste need be considered in the preparation of such a document. The effect of failing to do this can be far reaching. It is also important to note that it is only the owner of a beat that can sell it. Kind of obvious, one would say; but then, who is the owner? Ownership vests in the author, the author being the beat maker. A legally valid purchaser of a beat may also sell or deal with a beat in several other ways as provided by the law.
After the transfer of a beat through sale or other alternatives provided by law, the rights, liabilities and limitations of the producer and artiste or as the case may be largely depends on their agreement as contained in the written document. In other words, the written document, being the instrument of transfer will determine what either party may or may not do with the beat after transfer is completed.
Should either party fail to keep within what he is authorized to do with the beat, there are options available to the aggrieved party to make good his loss. These options are however very dependent on the facts of each case and may include filing a case in court to prevent the use of the beat in an undesirable way, to enforce one’s legal right over the beat or to demand for one’s legal entitlements arising from the use of the beat.
Justin Ige is a Legal Practitioner. (mailjustinige@gmail.com)
This article contains general information only and is not intended to replace legal counsel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)