Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Do people copyright their music anymore?
This stems from a "friendly discussion" I had with my wife on the matter. At some point in the near future, I'm hoping to create a Soundcloud and/or YouTube page and start putting some of my music out there. She told me I'd better copyright the songs before I do so. I told her I can prove creation of any of the songs as the original tracks are recorded, saved, stored, and date stamped on either my iPad or desktop system. I'm not interested in paying the $35 fee, even if I copyright a collection of songs for the $35 rather than each song individually (I'm in the U.S.). Letter of the law, I know she's right. However, my belief is that if I'm ever sued for copyright infringement, first of all, the song must be successful enough to garner that attention (good problem to have, in a way), and second of all, I can prove that I created the song and when. Curious to hear some opinions from fellow musicians who would like their music to be heard.
Comments
I had a similar discussion with my wife once. ONCE.
Yes, I'm hoping to not have it again...
You should also be asking yourself if you want to protect your recordings as well. It's been years, so I forget what the code is called. It's like a finger print for your recording. You buy the code, then use that code when finalizing your song with whatever mastering software you use. You then provide that same code to your distributors when uploading your music. That's how your plays ,downloads, and streams get tracked. I still make anywhere from several pennies to a few dollars every year from an ep i did 5 years ago. Maybe even longer than that. Still not close to making my money back though. I think i invested $50 or 70 dollars.
According to my rusty knowledge of US copyright law, every piece of art is automatically covered by copyright. You can explicitly state your name as the initial creator, but that's not necessary for it to be protected under copyright law.
You technically don't need to pay any fee to copyright anything: you have all rights to your original art since the inception. In reality, this gets a little more complicated when someone dispute your claims by claiming your original art is, in fact, a copy of that person's original work. If she/he has material proof to back her/his claim, and you don't, you might get into trouble. Of course, any proof will work, not necesarily some sort of a "copyright registration".
Actually, put your music "out there" is smarter than sitting on your ideas until someone appears out of the blue and makes success with something similar: by keeping your original music top secret, not only you won't win a copyright lawsuit, but you might find yourself in the very uncomfortable position of being unable to release your original art as such, by the sheer inability to prove it's not copied from that similar and already published and known work.
About the recording protection mentioned by @Blipsford_Baubie, in fact isn't really a protection - in the fact that is not meant to solve authorship disputes - but a tracking code meant for enabling you to collect PPL payments for your phonograms (attention: this applies to the phonogram itself, not the musical idea/composition). There are two of them: ISRC (for each phonogram) and UPC (the bar code for your musical product, such an album or single, to be identified in the stores). Again, you don't have to use them, but this time is wiser to have them: a store (such iTunes) requires the UPC and the ISRC to sell your music. If you intend to sell them on your website, get at least an ISRC to be able to receive royalties if/when your music gets played in radios etc.
P.S.: to be able to get an ISRC for your tracks and/or the UPC for your album/single/etc, you'll have either to be a member of a "producer association" or syndicate - I don't know the name of such organizations in the US - or to hire the services of musical aggregators such as Record Union, CD Baby etc. in both cases, fees may apply.
Creative Commons?
Creative Commons is more a kind of licensing where the authors waive some of their rights under specific circumsmantes specified in the said license. It's useful to things like Wikipedia, which is source for articles etc., and image sharing media like Flickr.
And music aswell. Tons and tons of music are released under one of the many CC licenses. Me myself have/had a pretty big collection of netlabels catalogues completely released under CC license. So it's not just just for images and text. It is just another way and another paradigm for copywriting meant to share knowledge, culture and whatsoever but still giving credits to the "inventor" rather than a protective and lucrative perspective.
Out of interest why should it work for text and images and not for music?
If you read my post again, you'll (hopefully) find out that I just gave two examples of where it's useful, and said nothing, zip, nada, about where it should not work..
If the O.P. wants to go this way, he certainly can!
This
@theconnactic
I wasn't trolling at all. I really wanted to know why if "it's useful to things like Wikipedia (...) and image sharing media(...)", which in any case creative efforts, it should not be useful on the same amount with music.
Edit: I know you"said nothing, zip, nada, about where it should not work", but still it sounds like you don't think CCs will fit music in any way.
The professor for the Music Business class that was part of a recording program I took here in Vegas talked about copyright quite a lot.
He was an older guy from New York who worked label A&R and later artist management in the '60's-'70's, and was all too happy to prove his credentials. Either way, ego aside the dude knew his shit.
He was always very blunt and said if you value your talent & creativity then protect your intellectual property especially if publishing it online...BUT, as @Sebastian said, the moment an artist creates a tangible work it is copywritten in the eyes of international law. Registration just makes it official and set in stone if someone were to get cute.
The other point my professor made that was interesting is that if you're signed to an artist deal with publishing options, (like you're the main songwriter already holding copyright registration can quell some of the manuevers a label or publisher might pull.
Because if an entity convinces a songwriter to sign their publishing management rights to them (managing and taking financial interest in a song with a cut of licensing, etc) it is possible that the copyright is technically "owned" by the songwriter yet the publisher/label, etc. is reaping bigtime rewards as the writers "partner" or "representative".
So if as songwriters we're proactive, getting copyright registration ourselves and (if even mildly successful) joining ASCAP or BMI, the artist can hold more stroke in dealing with the weakened record labels of today.
Then again if you don't have serious professional aspirations, you just create your music and share it with friends, etc., full on copyright registration may be overkill...just writing or inserting the © symbol on your website, etc will be more than sufficient.
I'd imagine some of the lesser lifeform 'producers' scan SoundCloud and the likes for ideas for the next hit they sourcing for pop starlets. On the whole though being an artist with just over 200 YouTube followers I doubt anybody will accidentally stumble upon my channel to nick material.
I used to send CDs to myself via recorded mail but that was before internet took over our lives. Now I think, as @theconnactic mentioned earlier the best way is to put your music out there as much as possible as that creates the proof of its egsistence.
That reminds me of when one of fans of my past bands told me that her sister heard one of our better songs on national Hungarian radio. It got me all excited until I found out it was just a sample we've used for the beginning of the song. Glad we didn't have to pay that royalty!
Yep, same for the UK, and includes other work such as artwork and photography.
@joel75 - read the small print in the terms and conditions of the sites you share content on though, sometimes you're agreeing to allow them to use your work in any way they choose. Might or might not be legal, but they've probably got more money for lawyers than the users of their sites.
No worries, mschenkel.it! now I see you were making a suggestion to the OP, not asking how CC works.
Read a recent few articles/videos on this - might have been Ari's Take and Recording Revolution, maybe not - but both stories stressed importance of having copyright protection vs. average artist's cash flow and recommended the old school ""XX_Songbook_2017" collection of songs for one $30-50 fee as still the most prudent and viable option - you get most of the protection at bare minimum cost.
We used to use cassette tapes to do this in the late 80s, but the US Copyright Office apparently will accept a zip file with several compositions up to a certain file size. I'll be investigating further for my own stuff soon
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll see how many compositions I can include in a collection but I'm leaning toward going through the registration process just for full protection in the event that my music gets known enough to either a) be stolen or b) claim WAS stolen. If I can include like 20 songs in a collection I'm sure I'd do it. I'd love for the discussion to continue if there are more thoughts on the matter.
Also something to consider from personal experience, as there might be a long term payoff in forking out the cash and copywriting yourself. I missed out on an opportunity. About 15 years ago I filled out the copyright papers for some tracks and mailed in the paperwork along with my CD. Not long afterwards, a supervisor from my day job that i was mentoring, went through the same process of copyrighting.
A couple months later something comes in the mail from a record label showing interest in my work. I sat on it and soon after my coworker mentions she received the same exact thing in the mail. So I dismissed it as something spammy or not to my advantage. She chose to go through with it. Ultimately, two of her tracks were repurposed to make music for a Christmas album on said label. Now I don't the details of her monetary rewards, if any, but I do know she automatically became a member of BMI, without buying into anything, and received a membership card in the mail. That alone has value cause now she doesn't have to pay for ISRC codes. She said she's even eligible for health insurance through them! Seems hard to believe but she seems to be of good character.
So, I'm not so sure what my point is. Times have changed since then. I guess some cynicism is good to have in the industry, but too much may harm you as in my case. Research skills are a plus. Also, given the amount of money I've spent on gear or apps over the years, it seems foolish to not invest the amount of Auria Pro and one Fabfilter into marketing for an actual project that I compete every few years or more.
You own copyright automatically, but the last time I checked if you wanted to make a monetary claim against someone you need to have registered with the copyright office.
this is a serious issue that needs class action suite to bring it into light.
The US has split revenue for streaming, this means they the Gov have their hands on money not claimed or withdrawn by artists EACH QUARTER!., The Music Modernization Act (MMA) has artists money put into a bank and by law bank regulations oblige the banks to return money as long as the bank exists, some limit it to 50 years depending on the type of account, in other words you forgot $5 in a bank account where you had allowance money as a kid means you can withdrawal it but not in this case because our government officially signed exec orders to give bank hedge fund managers and banks impunity and the right to total privacy from the public, thanks to Obama the government is an official fraudster ring.
Lets break this down, lets say your music is on tunecore, but your streaming money is collected by Audiam., one day for some reason a video you post on YouTube shows that a specific song was claimed by Audiam (as a label) Sony, universal etc publishing.
You expect Audiam too chase them all down to correct it, Audiam will tell you that your audio is protected by them but the publishing is not their issue, even claim you never registered it with them in the publishing section of their site, yet you claimed all ownership like all of the uploads., Audiam will insist you contact YouTube (not sony, etc etc).
Lets say you contacted sony, YouTube etc etc all of them.....NOTHING will be done...Audiam will only tell you what the error was, which turns out to be a song you created linked to a similar title by another artists...that artists is a share holder of The Music Modernization Act (MMA), your not.
The Music Modernization Act (MMA) is protected by the Obama signed exec order, you cant see your revenue at this point and worse off its gone while the major artists assure making a living off the indie's backs and keeping them poor, this is capitalism at its worse., in a good capitalist society we thrive with innovation/competition., the best bring the rest onboard, originality, creativity unmatchable world wide, this is not positive capitalism, this is the work of corrupt greedy old hags and men leaching off young struggling artists, fraud!
Dont make the mistake, the exec orders which do not allow the public the right to investigate are not to be used to attack anyone who questions it with slurs like conspiracy theorists or misinformation spreading, both these slurs are used in the criminal's defence, its a fact that this violates both bank regulations and transparency laws, not to mention censorship because its backed by politicians who pocket your money..,This is a billion dollar industry and European countries do not split streaming from publishing.
{deleted as was just a duplication of what had already been said (no pun intended) }
You do not have to pay anything, the library of congress is offering legal rights to sue for damages, a choice between one payment or everything handed over and punitive damages., you cant go after anyone who infringes your rights like this with mechanical licenses, Emenem just sued the Harry Fox Agency for fraud., a licensing scandal and it turns out the MLC picked the same HARRY FOX agency who was responsible for their creation after been sued, wtf! you see how the collusion works now?
The Harry Fox agency has government share holders on its board, like Apple, etc etc Like Twitter did (Until Elon Musk only exposed part of the scandals they have going on) they scrambled to create a misinformation branch to protect their own misinformation but failed hide the transparency act as they refused to abide with making evidence to their claims PUBLIC, https://alec.org/model-policy/transparency-and-government-accountability-act/ the privileged of been in congress is you can conceal some things and the law now requires they make evidence public against anyone they accuse of conspiracy theories or spreading misinformation, so it was dropped for this reason..pretty hypocritical., but it tells you how much they will protect the HFA etc with all their resources, which is not fair for the tax payers who struggle.
So in reality its not even fair we pay for copyrights when crooked attorneys snoop out good content by people they will assure can not even afford an attorney or get one to defend them...when the happens you need to contact the FBI, they told me they go after attorneys like this., usually its attorneys who conspire with companies to make fast cash.
I think being overly cautious is a better trait to have than not being cautious at all, but the reality is unless you are already selling your music and have an audience, absolutely no one cares what your protections are. Thieves tend to steal from the already successful, not from unknowns.
The one thing you will want to have on your music are legally correct attributions.
—For published lyrics, artwork and photography always include:
© (Your Name or Company Name). All rights reserved.
—For audio tracks and sound files, always include:
℗ (Your Name or Company Name). All rights reserved.
—When both lyrics and audio appear together (for example, for an album or video), you can use:
℗ & © (Your Name or Company Name). All rights reserved.
—Trademarks and trade names are a different matter. For band names and logos, always publish a ™ at the end of the name or near the logo design. If you’ve spent the money to have a nice professional looking identity developed and want to register it with the US Patents & Trademarks Office (USPTO), do it legally by going to https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics. It is not free and if you get into a legal dispute, you’ll have to pay for a lawyer to defend your trademark or you may lose it. Once you have actually registered with the USPTO, you may use an ® after the written version of the name, and that same symbol should appear next to graphic or printed versions of the graphic/icon/symbol.
You’ll want to continue to read and follow all of the latest law surrounding these things also, or become friends with a lawyer so you can get a little advice when you need it.
Correct application of legal attribution can make all the difference if you ever go to court to sue someone or assert legal ownership. Because even big artists generally make no money on songs, but instead on licensing and on live performances (ticket sales and merchandise), you just need to make sure you follow a consistent pattern of copyright protection up front.
Oh, and one more bit of legal advice: Always, always, always retain ownership over your master recordings. You’re better off learning audio engineering basics than having a label send you to a recording studio and then take the mysteriously large expenses out of your future earnings… because there usually aren’t any future earnings.
Finally, do your own research. Even my advice and any advice you read here cannot be considered legally binding and you’ll want to find out the truth of things for yourself.
That is correct but with or with out trademarks even of the fact your the original owner if your getting ripped off your getting ripped off, meaning who ever publishes your work needs to obtain a license within 30 days, to do so means they forged it.
Emenem is suing the Harry Fox Agency with all the trademarks etc etc and they simply ignored the Cease and Desists warnings from him and his publishing company, they will make it very costly for you assuming you cant afford it, hoping you give up or even compromise your rights in the end if you went as far as affording an attorney, its why you need to tell the FBI about these crooked attorneys, even if its politically linked like the Harry Fox agency and the MLC, the transparency act will hold them accountable especially if they find out this happened to more Artists., we should not and can not create with this negative stuff like worrying about out work been stolen.
Copyright applies to music, printed works, photos, videos, etc.
Trademarks apply to logos, trade names and band names.
These distinctions need to be better understood by artists and musicians in general because they matter if you intend to make yourself a career in this field. Every artist, musician and creator needs to learn because otherwise they become a target to be taken advantage of by people who can exploit another person’s ignorance.
This kind of stuff even happened to someone as successful as Taylor Swift (doesn’t really matter if you like her or her music, hers was a classic case of a musician not owning her master recordings).
Do people copyright their music anymore? Of course, I think it's harder not to copyright your works.
You guys all realize this is a thread from 2017 that only recently was resurrected by @GavrielProductions for a rant about something or other? Some of the posts you're responding to are more than 5 years old.
Oh, well. Turns out there were still things worth discussing since most people are not well informed on the subject.