Hi!
Srry! IDK if this topic can stand in this category or not. I couldn't find any other category but education, cuz after all, I'm seeking to get educated about this matter :D

I work as composer/audio engineer for an indie mobile game dev company. My boss asked me to name the tracks I wrote for each level in this game, because they'd want to put them on iTunes.
So I really don't know where I stand; Do I own the rights to these tracks? Fully or partially! Should I ask for royalty talks or not? How does this work?

Any information regarding this matter I believe can help; i.e. your own experience with how you get your royalties or how you see this situation playing out, anything.

TNX alot in advance

and if this topic needs to be posted in a more proper category plz inform me, cuz I just couldn't find

 

As far as I know, royalties are non existant in the gaming industry, they are for film and tv. But you could get a part of the soundtrack sale, all depends on your deal with your boss, or publisher. So called "work for hire" is a norm with games, in which you are selling your copyrights completely. But still conversation about soundtrack sales should be done, you are entitled for that for sure. The developer/publisher is interested in the margeting side of ost publishing anyway, not in revenue which probably won't be big.

 

Last edited: Jun 28, 2017

it all depends on the contract you signed with your boss in the first place of course, whether there is a clause in the contract about this and second, when your boss pays you monthly wages (you're on his payroll) to work on music for a game, then technically he is the owner of the material you are producing for the game. He pays graphic designers to come up with characters, sketch the world they live in, etc. and therefor owns the rights to these graphics too. If and when there is no work agreement, no contract that offers you a steady income, security, etc. then it would be different and from case to case negotiable...

 

your boss should be informing you (or ask him)once you identify which ones are yours my friend.

 

Yes, and it depends on legislation as well. In US and UK "works made for hire" are beloning to the employer by the law.

In Germany for instance, the artistic work belongs to the artist as the originator, even if he/she is employee. In this case the employee would grant the employer a license to use the work, the work itself remains under the ownership of the employee. Not everything can be ruled freely in a hiring contract, so a clause transferring all copyrights to the employer may be illegal.

So, if this matter isn't mentioned in the hiring contract, in US/UK your employer most likely holds the rights.

 

Last edited: Jun 28, 2017

I'd say it depends on your "deal"/work conditions,
anyway, you should consult a professional lawyer if you seek for facts and not rumours

 

Thanks everyone for the replies. It helps a lot to make things more organized and in order in my messy head about this matter

So I'm not a work for hire or a Freelance as it can be called also, I guess?
I'm a full time employee and getting paid hourly. 90% of my time is spent on recording voice actors, processing their voices a bit of sound design and etc (Audio engineer related works)...
and I gotta say the contract I signed was not your normally detailed and fully described contract, where a job description in detail is required &... It was what you can expect from a newly started indie company slowly shaping up and a year has passed and now my time is due for another contract.

 

Regarding royalties/work for hire agreements: In the recent past and for the last several decades there is a line in every composer agreement/contract that states that the composer is "allowed to collect the so-called writer's share..." of any performance royalties generated. This was sacrosanct and untouchable and not up for negotiation. In the past decade (possibly due to the influence of the video game production model) composers are under more and more pressure to sign over these rights to their employers. TOTAL BS. This is caused by a massive influx of desperate, ignorant, wannabe composers that are racing to the bottom of the compensation scale and in many cases willing to work for free. This has placed tremendous downward pressure on wages and rights.

In the 90s there was a massive scandal in LA involving a company called Saban Animation that produced many shows and employed many composers. Someone discovered that the executives were showing up on cue sheets as writers of the music along side the actual composers in varying percentages. They were publicly shamed and policies were corrected to prohibit this practice. Now no one would think twice about it. Straight up bloodsucking exploitation.

The other major factor here is the Monopolization of all music/film distribution and the erosion of artist's ability to control their material. Very shortly all media consumed in the modern world will flow exclusively through a handful of channels controlled by a very very small group of corporations. Apple, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Sony/Hulu and a few others. Those companies do not want to pay royalties to artists, musicians, writers, directors, actors. They virtually do not already. The very minuscule rates that youtube and other streaming services pay musicians are paralleled by the video movie streamers rates (like Netflix, hulu and amazon). Virtually nothing compared to radio/broadcast/cable rates. In the very near future unless something drastic is done the concept of royalties will vanish. Already a large entertainment company pressures the composers of it's streaming shows to relinquish all writer's royalties and sign them over to the parent corporation. Do it or you are banished. Pure greed. Forcing everyone into desperate race to the bottom willing to accept whatever pittance the paymasters feel like offering. Wages are in free fall, because they have a monopoly and there is no where else to go, no competition.

We have moved into the attention economy. Music/art/writing will only be bait placed in a trap to get clicks. Artists economic ability to create art will be solely based on their corporate sponsorship and their ability to sell advertising/clicks on their output. Any topics contained in your output that contradict or criticize corporate control, consumerism and conformity will be placed lower and lower in the search engine results or be unable to attract corporate advertising revenue. De facto censorship by our corporate monopolist overlords. Although as an artist you will starve before that becomes a real issue. Examine the recent changes Youtube made in it's adrev algorithms and the disastrous effect it had on independent news/entertainment channels. People that had spent years building up followings were wiped out overnight as youtube withheld ads to their channels. Monopoly. Google has total control of the platform and operate as a type of ad agency, an opaque barrier between content and advertisers. Even if companies desired to advertise on a particular channel there is no mechanism to do so, only google's control.