Are shorts submitted to festivals considered as non-commercial products?

indietalk said:
That sentence does not say who owns the recording but I would assume the band does. That's why doing it right is good. No need to assume!

I am in a band. When I record we own the recordings. If we were signed, we may not. Even if we were not signed, sometimes the producer is part of the ownership. You never know!
Click to expand...

ok I will email them and clear this out. Thanks for the heads up.
 
For example, you may clear the rights to use the song Happy Birthday. But if I recorded that song and sang it, you would not have the rights to use MY recording. Get it? :D That's the master license.
 
indietalk said:
For example, you may clear the rights to use the song Happy Birthday. But if I recorded that song and sang it, you would not have the rights to use MY recording. Get it? :D That's the master license.
Click to expand...

These tracks don't have a singer. But about that recording ( master right ) I guess I have to ask them again.
 
Singing doesn't matter lol.

There's a songwriting (sync) license of who wrote it..
There's a master license of who owns the actual recording.
 
You can clear the rights to use Happy Birthday, but that does not mean you can use my rendition on the keyboard. You would have to record it yourself, or get a master licence. Get it? :)
 
Also that recording part gets sensitive when there are usually remixes or remakes of certain tracks which is not the case for these tracks. Did I realize the sensitivity of the recording subject right?:lol:
 
You need the rights to the song and the recording. These are the synchronization and master licenses respectively.

They likely own both.

Not sure how to explain it better. When you get the sync license it is for the song. That song may have been recorded by multiple artists, and remastered, etc. You needs the right for the actual recording that you are using.

Prince wrote Nothing Compares To You. It was made popular by Sinead O'Connor. You can secure the sync rights to use that song, but that does not permit you to choose whatever recording you like. You then need the master licence for that "version".
 
indietalk said:
You can secure the sync rights to use that song, but that does not permit you to choose whatever recording you like. You then need the master licence for that "version".
Click to expand...

Yes yes I got it. Forget my last post:lol:.

For me composing and recording was always the same thing( in my folly) . That's why I got confused. Now I get it. You can right a song and performers can play it. But the guy who records that performing has the recording right. I always thought composers do the recordings themselves. and also with these music composing apps there is no such thing as recording right? the guy who's composing the track in a music app is simultaneously recording the track. That is if recording means what I think it means ( Recording a live performance in a studio or something ).
 
Last edited:
The master license is for the right to use that actual recording.
The sync licence is to use that song synced with your picture.
 
pedramyz said:
Also you didn't answer me, isn't recording part of the "produced" right?
Click to expand...

The reason I ask this is because I know there isn't any remastered or remixes or reworks of these tracks. So it stands to reason that the recorders of these tracks are the writers/producers themselves.
 
I would assume yes. But I never assume with contracts!
 
indietalk said:
I would assume yes. But I never assume with contracts!
Click to expand...

And right you are. I emailed them again asking who owns the recording rights. They haven't answered yet. Thank you for pointing out the sensitivity of the recording/master rights man!

The whole reason I was so thick about it was the concept of "how does a composer using a music composing app in his pc record a track already being recorded on the app?"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top