Remastering/Licensing Question for Steve

[audiodrome]

When a recording owned by a record company or an individual gets remastered for CD, does that new remastered version automatically become the sole property of the record company? Do the remastering engineers/studios usually do a "work for hire" or do they get some kind of "points" or royalties for their work if they are more renowned. I guess what I'm getting at is - say some record label like "Collectables" wants to reissue the first 2 10cc albums and they get the licensing to do it, can they say, "I want the Steve Hoffmann tapes for our CD" or do you have a say in who can use your remasters? Also, how do the record companies decide which masters to give to these "less-anal" labels who don't plan on doing any remastering themselves - do they just provide them with the closest thing they can get their hands on or does it depend on the company. I noticed for example that Collectables reissued alot of the Capitol Collectors Series with the exact same "master" only with their new artwork added. And while I'm on it, why can't we get those original tapes from Lelan Rodgers for all that great International Artists stuff??? If I could just once hear the 13th Floor Elevators albums in stereo - even clean mono, instead of rechanneled... Just wondering about these things...

[indy mike]

Hello 'drome! I think Lelan Rogers sold International Artists to Charly in England - You're Gonna Miss Me has shown up on the High Fidelity soundtrack and the Nuggets box in mono (which is a big improvement over the rechanneled crappy version that had been popping up). Charly is listed as owner/licensee - now, don't pick up any of those cruddy Charly/Collectables reissues of the Elevators UNLESS you see a really recent copyright date (aim for really late 90's and on) - I'd imagine that the stereo tapes will see the light of day again...

[pjrashid]

Hey Dome,

I know a little bit about this subject. The record company (copyright owner) would grant a license to someone who would like to remaster and make copies of a copyrighted work. The person who takes out the license, for example, the mastering guru himself (Steve Hoffman), would pay a royalty to the record company. The royalty is negotiable and can be, for example, a percentage of the net sales price, or a fixed amount per unit sold.

I can't remember everything else you asked about.

[MagicAlex]

Originally posted by pjrashid
Hey Dome,

I know a little bit about this subject. The record company (copyright owner) would grant a license to someone who would like to remaster and make copies of a copyrighted work. The person who takes out the license, for example, the mastering guru himself (Steve Hoffman), would pay a royalty to the record company. The royalty is negotiable and can be, for example, a percentage of the net sales price, or a fixed amount per unit sold.


I'd like to add to this that the license usually has a contractual expiration date to it.

[audiodrome]

... so he (the engineer) would retain certain rights to the remaster, in terms of future use

... and the owner/record company couldn't use the new remaster without his permission

Is this typical? - just curious...

[pjrashid]

Originally posted by audiodrome
... so he (the engineer) would retain certain rights to the remaster, in terms of future use

... and the owner/record company couldn't use the new remaster without his permission

Is this typical? - just curious...

No...I believe that the remastering engineer, like SH, only has a license to manufacture the remastered work and probably sell or distribute the remastered work (from the original) for a limited period of time...as was pointed out earlier. The record company retains complete ownership in the original copyrighted work. What Steve does is create a remastered "copy" of the original work...and then sells those under the license agreement. An assignment of ownership is the only way that the record company can transfer away it's ownership rights.

I might also add that the license agreement is usually non-exclusive, meaning that the record company can also simultaneously license the copyrighted work to another manufacturer (or mastering guru).

You might be confused with a "work for hire" situtation in which the employer, like a record company, hires someone for pay to perform a specific task. In this situation, the record company will also end up with all the rights in the finished product, and the person doing the "work for hire" ends up with nothing, except their paycheck.


:D

[audiodrome]

But the record company couldn't use, say, SH's remastered "copy" as a future release on their own label or to license it to another label without his permission, could they? Wouldn't they have to "remaster" it again? I've heard of record companies releasing previously remastered versions without given credit to the engineer who did the work. Case in point - the Beach Boys Studio Sessions '61-'62 which is an identical copy of Steve's "Lost & Found" CD.

[pjrashid]

It depends on what is in the license agreement. Everything is negotiable.

[AudioGirl]

Originally posted by audiodrome
But the record company couldn't use, say, SH's remastered "copy" as a future release on their own label or to license it to another label without his permission, could they? Wouldn't they have to "remaster" it again? I've heard of record companies releasing previously remastered versions without given credit to the engineer who did the work. Case in point - the Beach Boys Studio Sessions '61-'62 which is an identical copy of Steve's "Lost & Found" CD.

Unfortunately, it does indeed happen that a remastered version is used by the original licensing label without giving credit to the engineer. Often, because it is important to maintain a good relationship with the label... engineers or labels wishing to license additional titles under control of the major will just "look the other way" not wanting to cause a stir.