No really
even something simple as the time after dead copyright is different in a lot of countries.

Another Example:

vs.

USA:
Are copyrights transferable?
Yes. Like any other property, all or part of the rights in a work may be transferred by the owner to another. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section

Also :https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-assignment.html

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2022

According to the map, when I release music in Mexico I will have copyright protection up to 100 years after my death.
Interesting...
I've already started looking for that mariachi vibe with Serum

 

Which platform would you recommend ?

 

I bought my first tree house thanks to a jungle track I bought on ebay.

 

Actually it's more for DJs who want to build a fan base and don't want to spend years learning how to produce music or just don't have time to do it themselves cause they're doing gigs and promotional stuff. Ghost production is really common on electronic music, people would be surprised on how many top 100 DJ Mag DJs actually do produce their own tracks, and even the majority of the few who do probably have some sort of co-producer helping them somehow. The thing is so common in EDM that there are even famous ghost producers like Maarten Vorwerk or Kshmr.

Yeah, if you buy a "ghost track" you get the right to do wathever you feel like with it, you'll get the royalties from spotify and YT adsense. You can sell it trough the online platforms like Apple Music and Beatport. And even license it to TV shows or movies. Depending on the contract, you get all the royalties, and therefore all the income is yours. The thing is, if a non stablished artist release an amazing track, he'll probably not get so far cause he don't have a fan base or contacts to take the most advantage of his release, but if Tiesto buys this amazing track from that producer he'll made a lot of money from his purchase cause he have the resources to do it. Unfair? Totally, but unfortunatelly that's how the world is.

 

Last edited: May 10, 2022

From my experience with both platforms I would choose House of Tracks hand down. It's way more transparent and the payment is done automatically as soon as the buyer download the files. And they even have a follower system, so it's easier for the producer to have a recurring customer. But the downside is that House Of Tracks is kinda big on this business, that means more traffic but more competition as well.

 

Thank you !

 

When most people think about "ghost writers" though, do they not still think the person who commissioned the work had any input at all on it? I mean, I understand someone paying to have custom work done. But just outright buying something and sticking your name on it?
With 0 input on the direction of the track?

 

A ghost producer is no different to putting the word 'ghost' in front of anything else. I have done Ghost writing and Ghost sessions - all are for money.
It simply means you get paid and get no credit to the general public and often means you get paid more than the going rates (almost always). You often get presented with an NDA as well. The difference here is the author is assuming the role of a ghost producer rather than being hired to be one.

It might be just the wording that has people up in arms.

Basically, it means buy it and it is royalty free, you can collect the royalties if you sell a tune containing those samples. No point getting upset over something that is a wording technicality.
@No Avenger is correct though, selling copyright which is how it is worded, is not a good way to word it because it theoretically breaches the copyright act. It can be sold technically only - but if anyone looks at when Michael Jackson purchased the Lennon-McCartney tunes, it is a complicated and convoluted process, it is not just simply putting it up and saying "I am selling my copyright", which is different to releasing royalties. Jackson ended up owning a large percentage of the profits from the copyright, he did not suddenly have the tunes as "written by Lennon/McCartney/Jackson".

You would be buying the samples royalty free to use any way you wish with no claim on profits by the author.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2022

it says a lot about the situation for many "producers". they make the numbers and realize they will not make much money as artists so they literally become producers, they work at the assembly line. artistry?

extremely limited


i listened to the tracks and they are generic af, very little development and idea process in each one. you can really hear the rush to get to next track.

but, i wish them luck

 

What would you expect for 500$? If someone is not producing about 1 track every 20 hours of work; they'd make more money per hour doing data entry. You know they are pounding out files for it to make much sense.

 

Last edited: May 10, 2022

Actually there are lots of different approachs, as well as lots of types of contracts. Usually on these online platforms you just send the track finished, they publish it, and if someone buy it you get the money and basically forget you ever made that track. But on the extreme opposite Tiesto can hire you to produce something following a new trend, giving you some references and asking you to change some things till he's happy with the final result, and even dividing the copyright with you 50/50 so you'll would get 50% of any income he make with the track. The thing can get even more complex when there's even more artists and singers involved or get even less complicated as a contract where you produce 4 tracks for him for free and in the 5th track you can put your name on it as a collab.

 

Yes exactly. Like "Session Musicians", there just is no physical session in a studio. That is what I meant and am used to hearing about. The client says something like "128bpm, E Minor/F Major/C Minor, "progressive" tech house, I like strings and some Korg M1 house organ." . The track begins getting made, they check on the progress or add any ideas, its gets done and they pay whatever is agreed upon. But they actually have input on the work, and it is made for them specifically. Not just a random track off someone's hard drive.

 

Last edited: May 11, 2022

The rights of the author (German: Urheberrecht) and copyright is not the same.
Copyright is the right to make copies of a work - a right that can be sold for a profit. German Urheberrecht, on the other hand, protects authorship. You cannot sell authorship. Either you are the author or you are not.

 

Yes Ghost writing and Ghost producing are very common practices all over the world and have been for decades.

David Guetta is a more modern example as most of his stuff was Ghost written and produced, same with a lot of EDM hits over the last decade.

In the UK and a lot of mainland Europe and the USA and so on, it is illegal for anyone to take someone else's song, lyrics or production and claim it as your own UNLESS (and this is the important thing) you have a full iron clad legal contract with the Ghost writer / producer which states that all rights, including but not limited to, compositional copyright, master copyright (including all multi-tracks and/or master tapes), if they are not included in the sale then walk away), the right to reproduce the work, the right to create derivative works based upon the copyrighted work (and to permit others to do so), the right to freely license the copyrighted song in any form for use in advertisements, TV shows, movies, and video games, the right to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public in any form (digital or analog), the right to perform the song in public whether live or using playback on any medium (live performance, TV or Radio and so on).

Depending on the country that the song is to be released in that will be other country or region specific Rights that MUST be addressed in the contact and the protections should last for at least 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the last surviving writer dies, preferably 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation.

The issue I see here is that by publishing the songs on a website the Op has essentially established his/her own rights to the song which is why the big Ghost writers are (mostly) unknown and this type of work, although perfectly legal if all of the above is done under contract, is carried out behind closed doors.

Think again of David Guetta, some of his tracks were world wide million sellers so as an artist (such as he is) he would not want the original writer or producer to have any claim, no matter how small, on any track he released.

As I said, this IS a perfectly legal and acceptable practice that is common in the Recording Industry but I strongly advise that no one buys a track off a random website with out having a specialist music Solicitor/lawyer draw up a extremely comprehensive contact as i already described.

 

Yeah, I got you, that's why I got a bit skeptical when I decided to try those online "ghost production platforms". I really didn't thought people would actually buy my tracks, but seem a lot of people just don't have contacts with good producers to ask for tracks on demand.

For obvious reasons I can't say I think it's wrong, but it's crazy to think that nowadays we don't even know if that new upcoming producer starting out his/her career actually makes music to start with. It's, at least, an interesting reflection.

 

I'm not an expert in German law, but I'd agree. Copy-right is just that - the right to copy and can be transferred. Being the author of something is a fact. AFAIK in Germany (as in many other countries) intellectual property is enabled immediately and no registration is needed. That means the author is also the copyright holder by default. So No Avenger is right in that, if no legal agreement is in place, there would be infringement.

So is "ghostwriting" legal. Short - Yes, because of the contract law. But there is a lot more to this (as @dl65875 wrote)

I would invite @barroco87 to post a typical contract to boost their service credibility.

 

There is a legal offshoot to that which is in everyone's face in the forms of Spotify, Pandora and others. The Author and copyright ACT holder does not just include ownership as the writer, or intellectual copyright, or mechanical copyright. It also prohibits the extortion, illegal sale and plagiarism of the writers' work(s). As everyone has seen with Spotify, taking more than 99c in every dollar from something they never owned, is that knowing something is not right, is not the same thing as being able to do something about it. Lawyers and the courts know that an ACT overrides a T.O.S, EULA and an order. But nobody does anything about it. Theoretically, they have made extortion legal.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2022

If you're being pedantic, which is mostly a good thing when it comes to law , you're absolutely right. Sadly, creator's right (Urheberrecht) and the right to copy/replicate (Vervielfältigungsrecht) are most often translated with copyright.
In Germany the creator's right is NOT (hi @dl65875) transferable by law, means you can neither sell, buy or give it away for free, it can only be inherited. OTOH, the right to copy/replicate is commonly owned by labels and this can be transfered in any way you want.
But since OP was talking about selling every right of his work/creation, including the creator's right, I didn't want to go that deep into detail.